We’ve posted many times that Michael never gave an enemy a pass. Was he being overly ruthless? Seeking revenge and taking everything personal? Firing shots across the bows of other potential enemies? Or, was making wise, practical business decisions in having all his enemies killed?

This question is put into sharp perspective in the penultimate boathouse scene in II. After Michael tells Tom, Rocco and Neri that he wants Pentangeli and Roth dead, Tom replies:

Alright -- just consider this Mike -- that's all, just consider it. Now ROTH and the Rosato's are on the run -- are they worth it? And are they strong -- is it worth it -- I mean you've won -- do you have to wipe everyone out?

MICHAEL: I don't fell I have to wipe everyone out -- just my enemies -- that's all.

As usual, Tom is taking the reasonable, logical, lawyerly approach. Michael has beaten his foes, and the law will take care of the aftermath. Pentangeli, his credibility as a witness against Michael permanently destroyed by his recantation of his statement at the Senate hearing, will forever be in FBI custody. Roth will be arrested and charged by the IRS and FBI. The Rosatos are fugitives following a shootout with the police at which at least one cop was wounded—now the cops seemingly have more motivation to get the Rosatos than Michael does. So, why does Michael need to wipe them out?

But Michael, not Tom, is the Don; and Michael, not Tom, best knows the risks he faces from his defeated enemies. The government wasn’t going to give Pentangeli a lifetime pass to Club Fed without exacting something in return. They’d continue to pump him for information on Michael’s criminal activities that they could use against Michael even if Pentangeli wasn’t the witness against him—they’d use Frankie to find others; and even if they never got a conviction against Michael, every charge would damage his reputation as a “legitimate businessman.” As long as the Rosatos were at large, they’d be a threat to whomever Michael put in charge of his New York operation following Pentangeli’s demise. And Roth had shown himself to be incredibly resilient—and determined—to destroy Michael despite every setback. As long as he breathed, Roth was a mortal threat to Michael. On the run or not, all of them were enemies—and Michael had to protect himself.

IMO, no scene in the Trilogy so perfectly tees up the differences between Tom’s and Michael’s outlook on enemies and danger to the family. And, IMO, it’s more proof that Tom wasn’t a wartime consigliere.

Your views?

Just speculation here, but I wonder if this exchange between Michael & Tom was FFC's way of bringing to the big screen a poignant scene from the novel that was left out of the first film. I am referring to the scene in the novel in which Kay ran away and Tom was dispatched to bring her back. For those who did not read the novel, the two had an extremely frank conversation. In summary, Tom tried to explain Michael's justifications for having Carlo and Tessio killed. Hagen pointed out that
it was Carlo who played a role in Sonny's death and that Tessio aligned himself with Corleone enemies who planned to kill Michael. He was trying to make Kay see that all of Michael's actions were "justified." Hagen explained the betrayals of Carlo and Tession and how they would have always endangered Michael had they not been killed. At one point, Tom even said that Kay must be quiet about their discussion - Tom's life would be on the line if Michael ever found out.

In every instance of the films, the people Michael killed or ordered to be killed caused a threat to either the Family or to Michael personally. Again, referring back to the novel, Michael asks Hagen "do you agree that it's dangerous for Vito if Sollozzo lives?" to which Hagen agrees. Fredo could never be trusted again - not so much what happended at the botched Tahoe assassination attempt, but the ease in which Fredo could be manipulated by the Corleone Family's enemies.

Roth was the most dangerous enemy that the Corleone's faced in the trilogy. As Turnbull alluded, Roth was a master of cutting his losses, a master of masking his true intentions (much like his mentor Vito Corleone), and manipulating those around him.

One quick aside regarding Roth: was he apprehended by the FBI or did he turn himself in? Was he doing that to reduce the risk of being killed by Michael or did he figure himself to be a dead man after Pentangelli recanted his testimony against Michael?

Roth didn't turn himself in voluntarily. As was discussed in the boathouse, the Israeli High Court denied his application to become a citizen, and, rather than return to face charges in the US, Roth tried to enter other countries, none of which accepted him. That's exactly what happened to Meyer Lansky (Roth's model) in real life: after the Israeli High Court turned him down, Lansky cooked up a scheme to enter Paraguay as an "agricultural worker." The Paraguayan Government, tipped off by the FBI, refused to let him enter. After 36 hours of flying around the world, Lansky finally ended up at Miami International Airport, where he was immediately arrested by the FBI.

Good post.

I think it has been mentioned on the board before that there is a subtext between Michael and Tom in this conversation. So this is not an original point but it could well be that Tom is speaking as much about or even primarily about Fredo in this exchange.

Neither would ever mention it to the other but after this conversation between the two "brothers", Tom had to know what decision had been made on Fredo.

As far as the others Michael was being true to his nature which was to be completely unforgiving. Thus he gained the world but lost his soul. Was it good business? Not sure.

Throwing away Rocco and taking out Roth in such a public manner would have come back on Michael. In no short time there would have been news stories linking Rocco to Michael or one of Michael's front companies. More bad publicity and underworld gossip wouldn't have been good for someone who was trying to portray himself as a simple casino owner. There were other ways to get rid of Roth without embarassing federal law enforcement/IRS in the process.

And sending Tom to carry out the hit by proxy on Pentangeli was just as much about humiliating Tom as it was about getting rid of Pentangeli. Not only would Tom have to get his hands dirty but again, afterwards Tom would be permanently compromised as any sort of lawyer. He would be bound to Michael for life. Surely Tom would be subject to all sorts of investigation and harassment after Pentangeli's suicide.

Was Pentangeli a potential danger? Yes. But it was neutralized IMO by Michael's implied threat against Frankie's family.

Tom's no wartime counselor. But he also knows when to let up. Michael didn't.

OK, right. When I posted before, the Israeli High Court and other countries aspect escaped me. So are you saying that Roth was essentially arrested outside of the U.S. and when we see him on film, he was actually in custody?

Also, what was the basis of Roth's arrests? Was it because of the info Pentangelli and Cicci had given the Feds, or was Michael able to use some of his political influence to strike back and prove Roth's illegal activities? I ask because it appeared, at least on the surface, that Roth had insulated himself from his activities much like a Don.

No. Following Lansky's experience: When the Israeli High Court turned down his citizenship application, the visa he was granted to visit Israel expired, and he had to leave the country. Logically he'd return to the US, but he knew the FBI and IRS would arrest him the moment he stepped off the plane in Miami. So he tried to enter and live in other countries. The FBI, although they couldn't arrest him outside of US soil, bird-dogged his progress. As soon as they saw him board a plane for another destination, they reached out to that country's law enforcement and described him as a fugitive from US justice, which caused them to deny him entry.


Though we never heard the charges against Roth, presumably one of them was tax evasion if the IRS was involved. And yes, Michael could easily have used his political influence to tip law enforcement to Roth's activities.

In real life, the Justice Dept. had a big hardon for Lansky. After his arrest at Miami International, they lodged four ridiculous charges against him. First was "possession of narcotics." The "narcotic" turned out to be an ulcer medication for which he couldn't produce a prescription. Charge was dismissed. Then he was tried for failing to answer a subpoena to appear before a US Grand Jury while he was in Israel--Lansky declined due to "ill health," and furnished an Israeli doctor's note. He was convicted, but his lawyer convinced an appellate court that the US Attorney's deadline--appear 48 hours after the subpoena was served on him in Israel--was too little time for even a healthy person to comply with, given the travel logistics. Dismissed.

The next charge was "money laundering." Fat Vinnie Teresa, former New England Mafioso turned rat, was singing for his supper for the Feds. He testified that he picked up a skim payment from a casino in England part-owned by longtime Lansky associate Vincent (Jimmy Blue Eyes) Alo, and delivered it to Lansky at his home in Hallandale, FL. Lansky's lawyer produced proof that his client was in Boston on that date, recovering from a hernia operation. How could Lansky have been in Florida receiving Fat Vinnie's payment and be in Boston at the same time, the lawyer asked. "I dunno--maybe it was magic," FV replied. Not guilty.

The US Attorney, really desperate now, next charged Lansky with having "hidden interests" in Vegas casinos. Lansky had received a $200,000 finder's fee for helping broker the sale of two Vegas casinos owned by a couple of mobsters. He declared the $200 grand as income, and had it paid to him in four annual installments of $50k to reduce his annual tax burden--a perfectly legitimate move that many, many people use to reduce single-year taxes on a windfall profit. The US Attorney said that the four payments were "salary" and proved that he had an undelcared ownership interest in the casinos. By that time Lansky was too ill to stand trial, and a government-appointed doctor agreed. A federal judge asked the US Attorney to drop the charges, but he kept at it for three more years--never getting Lansky before a jury--before the exasperated judge ordered the charges dismissed, Lansky had the last laugh on the Feds, but the campaign left him nearly broke.

Among other things, Michael reminds Tom in the boathouse that Roth has been dying of the same heart attack for --- years. Although he had 'won' the latest round, history indicated that weak as he seemed (both physically and otherwise) Roth would not give up as long as he had a breath in his body. Even if he had nothing more to gain and was to spend the rest of his days in prison, he might seek out a way to have Michael and/or the Corleone Family destroyed.

Like Fredo (although for different reasons), Roth remained a threat as long as he was alive. Had their positions been reversed, (and considering another thread where it's agreed he took Moe Green 'personally'), Roth would probably have had the same intentions toward Michael.

So to borrow from Turnbull's topic opener, Michael "was making wise, practical business decisions in having all his enemies killed".

And no, Tom was definitely NOT a wartime consigliere.

Apple

I agree that Micheal was wis ein having his enemies killed. This is/was the mafia were talking about and ruthlessness was definitely needed. This is why I've always wished that the scenes Vito getting revenge and Michela getting revenge on Fabrizio wre included in GF2, however this might have painted Micheal as a person only driven by revenge. I also would have liked to find out what happened to the Rosatos as well as Willie Cicci.

There are some deleted scenes that relate the Fabrizio subplot on the Bonus Material DVD in later releases of the GF Trilogy.

Infact, there's a bunch of awesome scenes from all three films that didn't make it into the final cut. In particlular though, there's a flashback scene of Sonny, Fredo, Mike & Tom all sitting down to a meal circa. GF1, where they are waiting at the dinnertable for their father. Even though Brando does not appear in it (which would have been so friggin' awesome), its by far my favourite deleted scene, & i really wish they had put it in the films.

Sometimes i'll sit down & watch all the deleted scenes in chronological order, when if watched the Trilogy for the zillionth time & still haven't got my GF fix
(ive, er, built up a tolerance over the years. I need it more & more often these days )

That scene was not deleted. It climaxes GFII.

i think he means the deleted scene when Michael goes to kill him personally?

No he doesn't

"Infact, there's a bunch of awesome scenes from all three films that didn't make it into the final cut. In particlular though, there's a flashback scene of Sonny, Fredo, Mike & Tom all sitting down to a meal circa. GF1, where they are waiting at the dinnertable for their father."

"... its by far my favourite deleted scene,"

.

got ya