I'm sure this has been brought up before, but doesn't it seem awfully convenient how Carlo is guilty for setting up Santino for assassination?

I know this thread is for the film, but I'm going to morph both here for a moment. In the novel, after Carlo beats up Connie, Carlo lays down to take a nap. He doesn't call anybody to alert them that he just did the job on his wife, and that Sonny might be coming over.

In the film, it shows Carlo beating her up, and then it cuts to showing Connie calling home. No mention of Carlo alerting the Barzini people.

This was in Carlo's nature, to beat his wife. He took out all his Corleone frustrations on the one person he could take it out on - not the Godfather himself would interfere between a husband and wife's quarrels.

After Sonny died, Carlo laid off altogether - out of guilt, out of fear, essentially because Sonny got clipped coming over to see Connie after the beating. If Carlo hadn't beat up his wife, Sonny never would have been clipped.

But I never saw the connection as to how Carlo set up Sonny. Its never mentioned in neither the book nor the movie.

Wow, you could pull the wool over my eyes, but not a Corleone's eyes, that's for sure.

MICHAEL :"Now who approached you? Tattaglia or Barzini?"


CARLO: "It was Barzini"

And before that

SONNY: You touch my sister again and I'll kill ya.

Right, all true, but nobody knew when Carlo would "touch" his sister again. Carlo never alerted anybody - now unless the Barzini's had Carlo's wire tapped, then they knew because Connie called the Corleone compound.

But in neither the book nor the movie, guilt towards Carlo is never implied - not until the final scene.

The first time you saw The Godfather, you knew that was going to happen? I didn't. I thought it was just coincidence. Carlo was gonna beat her anyway - it was in his nature - and eventually Sonny would leave the compound; guess Barzini figured it would only be a matter of time?

I think Carlo would have been murdered anyway, whether he blurted out the admission or not. But Michael wanted to hear it for himself, because even he probably found it smelled a lot like coincidence.

(Bah - Godfather III should have had Victor of Michael Rizzi rise up in vengenance for their slain father. Woulda made a better picture, and this doesn't belong on this thread.)

I believe in the book there is something about Carlo knowing that he was blamed for Sonny's death. But anyway, in the movie, when Connie finds out that Carlo is dead and goes on her tirade against Michael, she screams "

Michael! You lousy bastard -- you killed my husband! You waited until Papa died so nobody could stop you, and then you killed him. You blamed him for Sonny -- you always did. Everybody did

That alone tells me that guilt WAS implied.

Right. But not until the very end of the film.

Now tell me something. What excitement would there have been if we actually saw Carlo make a deal with Barzini's people or call them up after beating his wife?

I believe that FFC's whole premise was to make the viewer feel the uncertainty about Carlo setting up Sonny just as Michael felt that uncertainty. While we know deep down as well as Michael knows deep down that Carlo set up Sonny, there was still a slight window of doubt because no one could coroborate that Carlo was guilty. That is why Michael had to make him confess. Watch Michael's face once Carlo admits that he set up his brother. A combination of disgust, sickness and an I knew it all along look comes over Michael. Up until that point we can see that Michael is still a bit unsure himself. Then the confession, and that cold classic Michael look appears.

Sure, Carlo beat Connie because he just was a scumbag. At least, that was the only reason in the beginning. He beat her, Sonny saw her, and then PUBLICLY lost his famous temper when he beat Carlo in the street. That was how Barzini knew that if Carlo did it again, Sonny would again fly into a rage and leave the compound and his bodyguards.

The day of Sonny's death, Barzini's people made SURE that Connie would start a fight with Carlo. They had the girl call his house, Carlo made her cook and then refused to eat, causing her to break all the dishes, etc. and start a fight with him. Then, after Carlo beat her, he made sure that she had the opportunity to contact the compound. That's how they knew.

Exactly. Then if it didn't work out, they could always try it again.

Yes- how can we ever forget that Michael Look..

The novel says that a "hanger-on" in the Tattaglia family witnessed Sonny beating up Carlo for beating Connie the first time. He reported it to his higher-ups, which set the entire betrayal in motion. The first time was Carlo being violent with his wife. The second time was Carlo in the pay of Tattaglia and Barzini.
It doesn't take much imagination to see what happened:

Carlo, unhappy in his marriage and in his position in the family. He beats Connie (a crime of "passion" ). Tattaglia guy, a bettor in Carlo's storefront, witnesses Sonny retaliating against Carlo. He reports it. Higher-ups correctly assume that a) Carlo has a grudge against Sonny for beating him up in public; b) Sonny, already famous for his uncontrollable temper, has already thrown caution to the wind in charging down on Carlo on a public street during the height of the Five Families War of 1946--and will likely do it again with similar provocation; c) therefore, contact Carlo and get him to beat up Connie again--this time when Tattaglia and Barzini have set up their guys to ambush Sonny on his way to "rescue" Connie or mete out "justice" to Carlo.

Michael needed to hear it himself. If you remember in the novel, in that very scene, it was implied that Michael could never be the man his father was, because Vito wouldn't have needed to hear an admission. What he knew in his heart would have been enough.

And yet Michael was only doing what his father couldn't bring himself to do - kill his daughter's husband and the father of his grandchildren. Although Vito wanted and needed to avenge Sonny's death, he didn't have it in his heart to actually murder Carlo (although he could apparently plan it) and hurt Connie. He left this unpleasant task to the far more ruthless Michael.

The novel also says that Carlo, after initially talking to Tom Hagen after Sonny's death, realized that he was an inch away from losing his life.

Well, maybe Vito couldn't kill the father of his grandchildren. Or maybe he had bigger fish to fry. Remember, he forswears vengeance for Sonny as part of his plan to:

1)End the war
2)Smoke out his true enemy
3)Arrange Michael's safe return

and, down the line,

4) Demonstrate the "weakness" of the Corleone family

Leaving Carlo alive made Vito seem both sincere and weak to the other dons, helping set in motion the series of events culminating in the assassinations of the heads of the Five Families.

Although allowing Carlo to live may have had a dual purpose, I believe that it was also something that Vito could never have brought himself to do.

I don't know if I agree with that SB. After all Carlo was not blood and he was responsible for the death of Vito's son.

If Vito was unable to bring himself to do that for the reason's that you've given, then he would never have approved or have been a part of Michael's plot for getting revenge.

Getting back to the novel for a moment, Michael even tells Hagen, after Vito's demise, something to the effect that he never realized how smart and calculating their father really was until they hatched the plan for revenge.

Vito was an integril part of the plan for vengence.

I am not so sure.

Vito was definitely in on Michael's ruse when he announced to the entire inner circle that Carlo was going to be his "right hand man in Vegas (No wonder Tessio's betrayal was the 'smart thing to do' if he believed such a lightweight would be Michael's right hand man he would rightly conclude that Michael would be a terrible Don)."

As Carlo leaves the room he hugs Vito and says "thank you papa" as if Vito had put him in this position of power.

This scene shows Michael and Vito working together to "keep their enemies closer" and it implies that Vito knew and approved of what Michael had in mind for Carlo.

In this vein does anyone know whether it is in the old Sicilian tradition to take vengence on someone who dishonors a daughter as much as Carlo did?

Oh, I agree that he wanted revenge, and I agree that he would probably wanted to wrap his hands around Carlo's neck himself. However, like any father, I don't think he could bring himself to hurt Connie that way. I think that Michael agreed to take that burden from his father's shoulders.

Maybe, maybe not.

But it goes farther than that. It is an old sicilian tradition to take vengance on someone who is responsible for the murder of your loved ones. Young Vito showed us that in GFII.

I totally disagree.

The only reason that Michael took the burden was because Vito swore that he would never be the one to break the peace. Avenging Sonny's death was most definitely a part of Vito's plan.

I don't think so either SB, because as a father of his age, and from his time and tradition, he would not be hurting Connie by killing Carlo, he would be protecting her from further harm, and in a way restoring her honor as an innocent widow. Obviously he would have make all kinds of arrangements to see that she had plenty of money for herself and her kids. He also would have seen to it that she would stay on the straight and narrow and not run around like she did with Vito dead, and Michael in charge.

It would have been easier for Michael to avenge Santino because Michael was away in Sicily all these years, and never really sat down to dinner with Carlo. It was always Vito, Mama, Santino, Tom, Connie, Carlo, and the kids at breakfast, lunch, and dinner. A real affection was there, you don't break bread with someone you have meals with every day for years and years and then cold-bloodedly kill them. That was Vito's problem.

I also noticed that Mama Corleone and Carlo had a very deep relationship. During the wedding sequence, when Johnny Fontaine starts to sing, you can see Carlo and Mama holding hands. Almost like they were the newlyweds. (It was real, and doubt it was intentional for the film - I think it was Morgana King and Giavani Russo holding hands, not Carlo Rizzi and Mama Corleone, but it was shot in the film regardless.)

Michael was always detatched from family functions, and then he was exiled to Sicily for many years, so killing Carlo probably wasn't that hard for him to do.

It wasn't hard for Michael to order the death of anyone, especially Carlo. Put yourself in his shoes - Carlo assists in the murder of your brother by throwing in with the people who tried to murder your father. I doubt he struggled with it at all. I know I wouldn't have.

The novel makes clear that Vito just could not bring himself to do what, ultimately, he knew he should do.

Yeah, Michael wouldnt care about breaking bread with people and then whacking them. Look at Tessio, Fredo and Roth.

Your boy Barzini is dead. (Carlo should have known that if Barzini was dead that he was a mere pebble that would be killed too) but he is upset and isnt thinking straight.... so....

Michael messes with his head... manipulates him with...

"Come on Carlo, I am godfather to your son"
"You think I would make my sister a widow"
"there is a car waiting to take you to the airport... "Tom, tickets"
"drink, drink"

Now who was it that approached you?

BRILLIANT!!

You remember that Connie received a phone call. That was set up in advance. Then Carlo would beat Connie, who would seek help from her brother. Then the car coming to Connie's was surely Sonny's car!
This is what I think.

The line "You think that could have fooled a Corleone" makes me curious. It obviously fooled Sonny, because he fell for it. Is Michael implying he thinks he's smarter then Sonny because he figured it out and he didn't.