Do we ever see the other side?

I've always thought that one of the confusing aspects of GF2 is that what we're seeing is a chess match, but only one side of it. We don't see Roth and Ola talking over what they're going to do next.

It's occurred to me that that seems a pretty consistent practice through the novel and the first two movies. We don't see Sollozzo and Tataglia planning, or Barzini plotting with either, or with Moe, Carlo, or Tessio. The book has a little narrative about McCluskey, but all he's considering is how to get maximum value for some betting slips he's seized.

I think that about the only place we see that kind activity is in the Ola-Fredo "wrong number" call. That view, of course, requires that Fredo be considered an antagonist, rather than a dupe. I've long wondered if that scene wasn't inserted just to establish that Ola (and by extension Roth) is definitely an antagonist.

Am I forgetting other stuff, or is it very consistent that you never get a window into what the other side is thinking?

I think it's because the novel and films' protagonists are the Corleones and we want and are given a good bit of information about them. Of course, as you state, the novel does probe the backgrounds and maneuvering of some other characters, but at 3.5 hours, already, the films would be stretching viewer's attention spans to go much longer. It's the Corleones we want to know about.

What Oli said.
Plus: There's a good deal of violence in the Trilogy, but it's not overwhelming because it's spaced out among three long movies. Most of it comes as a surprise, making it more effective and dramatic. Those virtues would be diminished if, say, we saw Sol and Tatt plotting Vito's shooting, or Ola and Roth planning the Tahoe attack, etc...

My take, for what it is worth!

The “surprise” agony! and ecstasy!! indeed

Sure thing Turnbull The suspense, subtlety “making it more effective and dramatic”
Also it gets and keeps the audience engaged especially fanatics like us for 50 odd years! Otherwise what will we debate!

Pete, It seems to me there are times we don't “get a window into what the [Corleones] is thinking” either

Whilst we have our 'novice' theories, they are not quite conclusive until Checkmate! If my memory serves me right, among others -

Godfather

• why is Carlo being made Michael's right hand man just because Carlo grew up in Nevada?
• when Michael tells Tom “You're not a wartime Consiglieri Tom things may get rough with the move we're trying” what is the move they are trying?
• if the move is taking over the Hotel the Corleones bankrolled for Greene, Corleones giving up all their interests in the olive oil business and settling out in Nevada why may it get rough?
• when Michael told Vito in the Garden scene “I'll handle it. I told you I can handle it, I'll handle it” what was it Michael going to handle? until the Baptism, Greene and Carlo murders
• when Michael agreed to Tessio brokered meeting with Barzini at Vito's funeral - oh, no! Has Michael forgotten Vito's warning that “whoever comes to Michael with this Barzini meeting he's the traitor” until Cicci tells Tessio “Boss says he'll come in a separate car” screwing up all Tessio's arrangements!
• Carlo's involvement in Sonny's death until Michael's “You have to answer for Santino, Carlo”
• Did we think Carlo had gotten away with it because Michael won't make his sister a widow until seeing Clemenza sitting in the back seat

The suspense, subtlety “making it more effective and dramatic” and no doubt our debates

Carlo was smug he had gotten away with murder!
1. Smirking at being made Michael's right hand man
2. Thanking Papa for finally fast-tracked what he deserved, entitled
3. Believing he was just out of the family business even after seeing Clemenza sitting in the back seat

The answers to the Lana/Evita posts are found in II, in the scene when Michael visits Pentangeli. He tells Frankie, "My father taught me many things in this room [the home's office]...keep your friends close but your enemies closer." He also said he wanted Roth "relaxed...to think our deal is still good..." Those were Vito's teachings and they applied to Carlo. He was an enemy, but killing him right away would have let Vito's enemies, still at war with him, know that he discovered who was behind Carlo's treachery. Better to make them think he was weak, and focus on getting Michael back to the US safely--then Michael could deal with revenge at the right time ("Revenge is a dish best eaten cold," Vito said in the novel).

As for things getting "rough": Michael needed Tom as his legitimate front man in Nevada, not as a wartime consgliere (which Tom wasn't, anyway).

True but unknown in Godfather

The reasoning behind their strategy to deal with revenge at the right time, Vito's teachings and application until which our theories as they unfold are inconclusive
we're seeing a chess match, players' strategic moves, our theories until Checkmate!

Michael needed Tom as his legitimate front man in Nevada like who doesn't remember him from the old days!

Johnny Ola remembered Tom from the old days--but not the Nevada Gaming Commissioners, and not the local and state politicians whom Michael needed to help establish his "legitimate" front. A good part of Tom's value to Vito was that he was accepted by the largely Irish and Jewish judges and politicians in NYC because he was a) a lawyer, not a gangster; b) not Italian; and c) never associated with the muscle end of the family. Those same virtues would make Tom effective with the largely Mormon politicos who controlled Nevada.

mob lawyer

Fredo must die?
And the things Turnbull is teaching! and showing Coppola up!!

Pete your answer

If only! Then he would have done a better job with The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone