You're still my brother

Hello all,

Apologies if this topic has been debated here - I read these forums every day in the early 2000s when I was high school and now have rekindled my Godfather obsession and am happy to be a part of this community.

One thing that has always perplexed me about Part II is Michael's pleading with Fredo to depart Cuba with him shortly after the rebels take power and oust Batista from the capital. I've always had difficulty reconciling this with his ultimate decision to murder his brother. At that particular moment, having just discovered the betrayal, was Michael still looking out for his brother's welfare? Was he preoccupied with getting as much information about Roth's conspiracy from Fredo? Would love to hear what people think

Welcome, CaLoyalty, hope to see many more thoughtful posts from you.

Good question. It's puzzling. Michael was frantic to get Fredo on that plane out of Cuba. I think he wanted to pump Fredo to find out who else was in the conspiracy--Rocco? Neri? even Tom? What did Roth promise him?

BUT:Probably less than 48 hours later, in Vegas for his meeting with Tom, Rocco and Neri, he asks Tom where Fredo is. Tom says NY. Michael merely tells Tom to get word to Fredo that he understands that Roth misled him--but the urgency is gone. He could have had Fredo snatched off the street and brought to him immediately. Instead, he waited until after his Senate testimony, when he learned that Pentangeli was alive.

Go figure...

I've always wondered why Mike tipped his hand to Fredo in the famous "you broke my heart" scene.
I can only chalk it up to an uncharacteristic lapse in judgement,perhaps because of the incredible emotional tsunami that Mike was experiencing.
The move would have been to act like everything was normal,wait until the time was right,and then confront Fredo, just like he did with Carlo Rizzi.
No way Fredo was getting in the car with Mike after he was given the "kiss of death".

Side note to CaLoyalty: welcome back.

I must take issue with the term "Godfather obsession".

What's obsessive about a bunch of people still discussing a movie that was released almost 50 years ago,changed the very nature of Crime Cinema,is widely considered to be one of,if not the best movie ever made,gave us timeless quotes like "sleeps with the fishes",'I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse",and of course the immortal "leave the gun.take the cannoli".?
obsessed?

I say to you "Sir,I resemble that remark !!!

My take, for what it is worth!

“Michael was frantic to get Fredo on that plane out of Cuba” because Fredo was still Michael's brother and wanted Fredo safely out of Havana “looking out for his brother's welfare”

“At that particular moment” Fredo's safety and welfare was the urgency not “pumping him for information”
Besides Michael didn't know then how deep Fredo's involvement with Roth was....

Michael was just relieved that Fredo was safe
So “Michael merely tells Tom to get word to Fredo that he understands that Roth misled him” to assure Fredo everything is all right

Fredo was back at Tahoe like no big deal!

When Michael “learned that Pentangeli was alive” Michael went to pump Fredo for information if any
Only then Fredo's true treacherous betrayal came to light at his boathouse outburst and sealed his fate Fredo's situation became untenable

Did they have to die?

Yeah, right...Michael had just learned that Fredo had betrayed him, nearly resulting in his and Kay's being killed...and he's looking out for his brother's welfare.

No wonder the Pope gave him a Knighthood.

Well said TB.

Michael still offered Fredo safe passage home even after having “just learned that Fredo had betrayed him, nearly resulting in his and Kay's being killed”
ie: didn't stop Michael still “looking out for his brother's welfare” because Fredo was still Michael's brother

No wonder the Pope gave him a Knighthood

There was no need to as Fredo was safely back home which is exactly what Michael was trying to do....Mission accomplished!

If you mean Fredo “brought” to the Desert Inn – Why?
At that stage Fredo's betrayal was not out in the 'open' If Tom suspected / knew anything, Tom wasn't letting on....

If Michael wanted to find out whether “Rocco? Neri? was in the conspiracy” Michael having Fredo “brought” over to the Desert Inn where Neri and Rocco were already there - is showing his hand?

That is, among others -
1. telling others what Michael is thinking
2. not having “Rocco? Neri? relaxed and confident

Besides I believe it would achieve little or nothing or worse! if Neri had conspired, Neri could kill Michael, Tom and Rocco or vice versa Then take over!

Mama was still alive, so Michael would feel some responsibility to her to keep Fredo alive. I also think Michael would prefer that Fredo die on Michael's order instead of in some random way, because the latter does nothing to deter Michael's future enemies.

I wanted to post this in an active thread, I feel this question is related enough: Godfather Legacy is on right now on the Reelz channel and I'm watching it snowed in.

Say Roth had succeeded and gunned down Michael in his home. Would have reason to fear reprisal from the Corleones? If history is any indication, that's about 300-500 made men spread throughout America. Would he fear reprisal from other families on a matter of principal? Maybe Roth was counted on misdirection. Nobody would expect the semi-retired Jewish gang boss of Michael's murder, and he could quietly take back his casino rackets.

I enjoy the theory, posted here once, that Ola was a renegade Corleone capo who forgot who his masters were.

I think Michael was experiencing a maelstrom of emotions. The revelation at the sex show had clearly shocked him to his core. The confrontation with Fredo was only a few hours later and Batista's abdication followed shortly after. So, was he showing brotherly concern? Or more cynically, did he want to pump Fredo for info? I think a little from column A and a little from column B.

I don't think Roth feared reprisals because he didn't think anyone would suspect him. As Michael said, "He acts like I'm his son - his successor."

So Roth sends Ola with a positive message to Michael while he's stirring up trouble for Pentangeli in NY hoping to cause a rift between Frankie and Michael.

Sure, there are a few loose ends if you look closely (who killed the assassins) but, overall, it was a brilliant plan which almost worked.

I agree. And, the purpose of Roth's birthday party was to establish an alibi: "What, me kill Michael? Why, I loved him like a son. Just ask those plug-uglies who witnessed me anointing him as my heir at my birthday party."

This theory is often floated but nothing I see supports it
No purpose to establish an alibi because nobody would suspect him Whom did Roth have to answer to?

Hmmm...let's see:

Michael and Roth are in a big deal involving Roth's holdings in Havana...Johnny Ola meets with Michael at Anthony's party...Rocco and Neri are in that meeting, implying that Michael has included them in the deal...Roth invites Michael to Havana, promises to turn over his Havana operation to him....Michael is mysteriously killed on h is way from the Presidential New Year's Eve party to his hotel, meaning that Roth doesn't have to turn over anything to a dead man...including whatever the dead man promised Rocco and Neri...
...and they don't suspect Roth...and they don't come after him for what was promised to Michael???

I will have to watch that scene again but as I remember, Ola's meeting was about moving Klingman out, not involving Roth's holdings in Havana and Rocco was not at that meeting He was feeding Ola's troops

It is Neri's job as Michael's bodyguard to be present by his side at all times, every meeting, every deal It does not imply that he is included in the deals or promised anything

If Michael had died everything dies with him and everyone none the wiser They came to know of Roth's tactics and Fredo's betrayal only because he survived

Sure thing Woltz Roth's Tahoe shooting “was a brilliant plan which almost worked”

Roth's mistake same as Sollozzo's, hiring assassins who couldn't shoot fish in a barrel!

It was a hopelessly complicated plot with far too many moving parts and scope for going belly up. Which is precisely what happened. He had already lulled Michael into a false sense of security. He should have simply waited and had Michael murdered by the "rebels" in Cuba. I agree with Evita; noone at that point knew about the grand Havana plan, so why would they suspect Roth?

The Tahoe plot did have a lot of moving parts, but it had the advantage (if Michael had been killed) of pointing the finger at Pentangeli. Michael's survival saved Pentangeli because Michael immediately figured out that Frankie really wasn't clever or ambitious enough to have attempted it. The Havana plot was much more straightforward, but it put Roth in play--because, if it had succeeded, it would have happened on his turf, with Michael's $2 million in his hands, and after Roth had promised big chunks of his Havana gaming empire to other operators.

Tahoe shooting “was a brilliant plan” with all the “moving parts” beautifully fell into place and the assassins right outside Michael's bedroom window with the drapes open, to machine gun spray such a confined space as a bedroom

The plan would have worked brilliantly if the assassins were professional contract killers! and could hit their target!!

I believe it was Turnbull who posted a credible theory that if Michael had died in the Tahoe shooting

• it would have caused the maximum chaos, destruction and pretty much totally annihilated the Corleones or similar
• All Roth would have to do would be to sit back and let them fight each other then pick up the Corleone casino holdings after all the bloodshed

Besides if Pentangeli was suspected even if just initially, the Corleones would have lost their muscle and been even easier pickings

If there was no Tahoe [unsuccessful!] attempt and if Michael had died, in Havana it would seem such a terribly unfortunate death, caught up in the midst of the rebel uprising in spite of being escorted in a military car

Roth would have still got rid of Michael but without all the fanfare, fireworks and for the same end result perhaps only taking a little longer

Havana hit would have been perfect and foolproof because Michael would have turned up in Havana totally in the dark, relaxed and confident in Roth-Michael, father-son alliance!

Fredo, you're still my brother. Yes, you were left on our doorstep by gypsies, and yes you nearly got Pop killed, and yes, you almost got me murdered, and yes, you were stepped over. But. you're still my brother. Come on. I'll tell you what. You come with me now and when we get back to Tahoe, I'll take you fishing.

Roth's ducks in a row Ola skimmed contract fee and hired Sollozzo's assassins who couldn't shoot fish in a barrel!

I tend to think that that night was a whirlwind of emotions for Michael.
I think Michael already was suspicious of Fredo, perhaps not consciously, when they got to Havana. The uncharacteristic show of emotion with the kiss of death is because it really did break his heart. It's lile being punched in the stomach: "My own brother....betrayed me." But then when everything was in an uproar and danger was all about, the tiny little bit of Michael's humanity peeked through - when he said, "You're still my brother!", he meant it. Just as the kiss of death was a very heat of the moment, emotional thing, so was him wanting to make sure Fredo was safe.

I don't think Michael had fully digested the betrayal mentally that night, and I think he was in a massive state of emotional turmoil. So I don't think he had any intent to pump Fredo for info then and there.

Fredo hiding away in NY, which made him look weak and guilty, and making it worse by lying the level of his about his involvement with Roth, then revealing his deep seated resentment of Mike and his sentiment that HE should've been named Boss, on top of not telling Michael that the Senate lawyer was in Roth's pocket (which says to Michael that Fredo betrayed him TWICE - by not coming forward with the fact that the Senate laywer was in Roth's pocket, he's helping Roth set Michael up AGAIN).

This period separation helped end any fraternal love he felt. It hardened his heart, and made him view Fredo not as a feebled minded, misled brother that messed up (as he might've still viewed in Havana) but as a conniving weak man and very real threat. He may have also in some subconscious way blamed Fredo for the downfall of his marriage with Kay, which one could argue really began its deep slide after the assassination attempt.

Interesting suggestion.

Michael would never blame himself for the woe he brought on himself (and others, like Kay). But, I doubt he blamed Fredo for the breakup of his marriage--he blamed Kay, using the abortion as an excuse. I used to think he suspected Fredo before Fredo made his fatal gaffe at the Superman show because of what seemed to be hard looks Michael gave Fredo twice in Havana (when Fredo asked who was in Havana, and when he "introduced" Fredo to Ola at the nightclub). But, looking again and again at the scene where he and Fredo go out for a drink changed my mind.

Michael would never blame himself for the woe he brought on himself (and others, like Kay). But, I doubt he blamed Fredo for the breakup of his marriage--he blamed Kay, using the abortion as an excuse. I used to think he suspected Fredo before Fredo made his fatal gaffe at the Superman show because of what seemed to be hard looks Michael gave Fredo twice in Havana (when Fredo asked who was in Havana, and when he "introduced" Fredo to Ola at the nightclub). But, looking again and again at the scene where he and Fredo go out for a drink changed my mind.