Apologies if this has been polled before, but I didn't see it. (I searched, honest .) One of the "justifications" (or, as I like to call it, "excuses") I've come across for Michael killing Fredo is that there was a danger that Fredo -- whether because of his gullibility or his jealousy -- would betray Michael again, thus putting his life and his family's life in danger.

I wonder if the majority of us or the minority of us REALLY feel this way. So here's the question that will measure this quantitatively:

If Michael had let Fredo live, do you think that Fredo, either inadvertently or deliberately, would have betrayed him again or otherwise put his life in danger similar to the way he did the first time in GF2?

Had he lived, would Fredo have betrayed or endangered Michael again? single choice
	Yes. (He would either endanger him unintentionally or plot against him deliberately.);
	No. (He was truly sorry for what he had done. He had learned his lesson, so much so that he would be cautious and untrusting if approached again by Family enemies OR friends.);
	Don't know.
Votes accepted starting: 12/31/69 08:00 PM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

Would Fredo do it inadvertently or deliberately? single choice
	I answered "No" to question 1. He wouldn't do it at all.
	I answered "Don't Know" to question 1. I can't decide if he would betray or endanger Michael again.
	I believe he would endanger or betray Michael again, but I don't know or don't have an opinion as to how.
	I think he would do it inadvertently. His gullibility would lead him to believe that Michael would be harmed at most, but not killed.
	I think he would do it deliberately. He wants Michael out of the way, and would knowingly plot to kill him, or otherwise disable him enough so that he (Fredo); could be boss.
Votes accepted starting: 12/31/69 08:00 PM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

Fredo would have done it again, and he would have done it intentionally. The depth of resentment, envy, jealousy--the sheer venom--of his outburst in the boathouse makes me think that he'd never be satisfied until his brother was eliminated.
Your question implies that Fredo might have been grateful to Michael for having been spared. Perhaps. But as Puzo said in the novel (in the context of Bonasera getting that call from Hagen re. Sonny's body), gratitude is the shortest-lived of human emotions. That's why Michael never gave an enemy a pass--and he was right.

I dont think Fredo would betray Michael again, But we'll never know.

Well, I don't want to argue with you, but that's not what Pacino said. An extract from an interview:

Oh, I agree with TB. Fredo's little tantrum in the boathouse revealed the depth of his anger and resentment towards Vito for handing the reins to Michael. Because he was incapable of hating his father (not to get to Dr. Phil'ish here), that rage was refocused on his brother. He would always be angry, and that anger would always make him a danger.

No, I don't think Fredo would do it again. For sure, Fredo was rather stupid, but not so stupid that he would failed to realize the gravity of what he had done.

IMO Fredo seemed to being showing genuine remorse in his "you're nothing to me now, Fredo" chat with Michael, despite the anger he showed with his "that's not the way I wanted it" comment.

Sure, he was angry, but he had to realize that that wasn't "the way Pop wanted it" and that Michael's taking over as Don was not Michael's doing.

Or, perhaps, he was too stupid to realize even that.

Also, I think MP and FFC painted a deliberate picture of everyone living happily in Tahoe subsequent to mama's death, in order to reinforce the idea that Michael had, indeed, become a heartless bastard.

So no, i don't think Fredo would have intentionally done anything in the future to betray Michael.

However, stupid as he was, there was always the possibility, and hence the danger, that he would inadvertently done something.

BTW, although Fredo was obviously not killed in the novel, at the end of the book, in the scene where Tom goes to New Hampshire to bring Kay back, he tells her, in speaking about treachery, that

Michael could have forgiven it, but people never forgive themselves and so they (Tessio and Carlo) would always be dangerous.

If you agree with that statement, then Michael was justified in killing Fredo. I do not, however, agree with it.

If you want to argue for revenge as a legitimate justification for Michael killing him, I can't argue against that. If Michael felt he had to have his revenge, even against his own brother, so be it.

But if all he had to worry about was an inadvertant betrayal, I would say that he should have let Fredo live.

I definitely disagree, Plaw. Fredo's anger at the patriarchal (sp??) figure in his life is strong. He resented Vito, and then Michael, for running his life, although we are shown frequent examples of how incapable he is of running it himself (the Moe Greene meeting, Deanna, his slip-up in Cuba). Like many weak men, he is jealous of the power and strength of those he depends on, but doesn't want to put in the work to achieve it. His anger and resentment towards Michael would only grow. As a matter of fact, since he would literally be beholden to Michael for his life, it might even grow exponentially.

IMHO, Fredo showed NO remorse for his act. When Michael tried to explain how he became the Don because that's what Vito wanted, Fredo exploded. That's a very dangerous man for someone in Michael's position to have around.

Well, I don't want to argue with you, but that's not what Pacino said. An extract from an interview:
[/b]
Enzo, I'm interested to know what year that interview is from. Is it from the 70s just after GF2 (in which case you must have a collection of Playboys )? Or is it more recent?

Well, I have to say that Pacino's description of Fredo employs exactly the word I was thinking: harmless. Why? First, because I don't believe that Fredo knowingly conspired to kill Michael. Although Fredo harbours resentment against his brother, his feelings are more complex than total hate. Michael is the closest family that the lonely Fredo has, the only one with whom he can truly form a bond. The scene of their afternoon talk in Havana and their embrace at Mama's funeral show that Fredo needs and longs for that bond. Second, I believe that Fredo was misled by Roth, and that the ensuing devastation that this misplaced trust caused to Fredo's life will forever scar him, preventing him from being so trusting of others' motivations again. I think it will effectively preclude him from being even an inadvertent risk.

I don't believe that Fredo ever wanted Michael out of the way so he could take over as Don for power's sake. The meaning for him lay in being Don with Michael under him: the older brother taking care of the kid brother. Michael was a necessary part of the equation. But since Vito did not make Fredo the Don, at the least Fredo longed for some sort of equality and mutual respect. He experienced that when he and Michael had a heart-to-heart talk in Havana on the afternoon of New Year's Eve. In that scene, Michael treats Fredo as a confidant and partner, and Fredo is overwhelmed.

After Michael disowns Fredo, Fredo seems utterly in pain because of the rift. At Mama's funeral, when Fredo and Michael embrace, one can see the emotion in his face as he believes that Michael has forgiven him and welcomed him back into the fold. If Michael had let him live, Fredo wouldn't have dared disturb this reconciliation.

Although I agree with you, Enzo, that Fredo no longer posed a danger, I don't consider Pacino's opinion any more valid than anyone else's, unless during the filming, John Cazale was instructed by FFC, as part of his "motivation", to portray Fredo's anger as that of a man who still hated his brother and still wanted to get even, and that his later docility while living at the Tahoe estate was deliberate, and designed to throw Michael off the track while he (Fredo) still contemplated and/or planned his revenge, and Pacino was aware of this.

Short of that, this is nothing more than pure speculation on everyone's part.

The only opinions I'd possibly consider more valid than someone else's are those of the authors.

I believe actors like Pacino and DeNiro research a lot and try to get into the character as much as possible. I speculate that Pacino would have discussed the minutest of the details with FFC before the boathouse scene.

I agree that John Cazale and FFC probably had extensive conversations about Fredo's motivation, but Pacino would have had to be aware of what they talked about.

On the other hand, as part of his (Pacino's) motivation, and with the desire of FFC to portray Michael's cold bloodedness in mind, he (Pacino) might have been told that his brother was harmless.

Plaw and Cristina, I don't necesserly agree with Pacino, in fact I don't have an opinion at all about this.
I just wanted to tell you what Pacino tought. Not that his opinion is any more worthy than yours, but you know, it's always fun to hear what the actor himself thought about it.

I don't have a collection of playboys (never read one of these, honestly ), I found this interview on another boards. There wasn't a date mentioned.

Thank you for the info, Enzo; I find it interesting to know what the actors themselves thought of the characters, storyline, etc.

And I'm gratified to learn that Pacino and I think alike .

Now if only the interviewer had asked Pacino which woman he thought was Michael's true love, Apollonia or Kay...

You know what, maybe I can find the interview back. Wouldn't take so much time. It was not all about The GF, but you might find it interesting anyway
I'm not sure were to post it (here or in the general thread.) Well, I'll post it here, and then a mod can remove it if he thinks so.

Edit: Got it already.

Q1
PLAYBOY: You’re considered one of the best actors of your generation. And yet
some people might say——
PACINO: I know, I haven’t made a good film since Dog Day Afternoon. Somebody at a press conference once asked me, “Do you think you’ll ever be as good as you were in Dog Day?” And I
said flatly, “No.” That answered that.

Q2
PLAYBOY: That’s 30 years ago. Fans of Scarface may disagree.
PACINO: Well, that’s one in 30 years. How’s that for a batting average? [laughs]

Q3
PLAYBOY: Come on, we don’t have to remind you of what you’ve done. You even won an Oscar for 1992’s Scent of a Woman.
PACINO: I’m horsing around here. I don’t think I could compare my films. It’s a matter of evolving and changing, going one way, then sideways, then up, then down. It’s what we do. Everybody who has achieved a certain amount of success as an actor has certain seminal pictures.

Q4
PLAYBOY: So if you could select fi ve or six of your works to put in a time capsule, which would they be?
PACINO: To show who I was? I would have to go back and painstakingly look at every one of the fi lms I’ve made and discuss it with some people and come up with some conclusions. Just off the top I’d say Godfather I and II, Scarface, Serpico, Looking for Richard and Dick Tracy.

Q5
PLAYBOY: How do you account for the lasting impact your Scarface character seems to have had? Tony Montana is on T-shirts, sweatshirts, headbands, posters. Pop-iconsbaseball players such as David Ortiz have called it their favorite film.
PACINO: Scarface somehow captured people’s imagination. It has all the ingredients of the movies of old, the guy bucking the odds. It’s such a visceral picture— you either go with it or you don’t. I must say that I did fi nd I had galvanized my energy when I did that character. Everything
sort of came together for me. Scarface was vilifi ed, for the most part, when it came out. It wasmore of an underground movie. But here it is, almost 25 years later, and it’s still surviving with tremendous gusto. That’s why you have to stay with a thing if you feel it.

Q6
PLAYBOY: When you go to parties, are you ever asked to imitate Tony?
PACINO: It depends on the party. And since I haven’t been to a party in 47 years, I can say only that I’ve dreamed I’ve been to a party where people asked me.

Q7
PLAYBOY: The generation before yours produced three actors that others emulated: Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift and James Dean. Your generation’s three are you, Robert De Niro and Jack Nicholson. Who belongs in the generation that has followed yours?
PACINO: Sean Penn , Johnny Depp and Russell Crowe . They should be in The Brothers Karamazov together.

Q8
PLAYBOY: Were you surprised Penn wanted to get out of acting some years ago?
PACINO: Sometimes you go through these phases. He has a real gift for directing, too, and writing. Part of it is his need to be in control of things. When you’re an actor you have to be able to let go of that control. I think he’s come to terms with that. He’s a
great actor in movies. Look at Bobby De Niro—he waited a long time to direct, and
he made a wonderful movie with A Bronx Tale. Now he’s directing another one, a spy
movie with Matt Damon. The point is, he’s quite capable of directing.

Q9
PLAYBOY: Why aren’t you?
PACINO: I don’t know why. There’s a misconception about directors. They’re people who can bring you into a story in a certain way and tell the story directorially. Warren Beatty can do it. He’s a sensational actor, but he’s also a great director Robert Redford can do it. He speaks in a language only a director can speak. I don’t see the world that way. I wouldn’t know how to do it, nor would I care to. Only on occasion did I know I could direct— as with Looking for Richard, which
was an extension of my vision of something I wanted to say. Sometimes I’m very inarticulate unless I’m emotional. I can’t speak in a cold, clear, meticulous way. I’m not good at that. That’s not the case with acting, because I’ve been doing it my whole life. Acting comes more naturally
o me. Or it used to. I don’t know—now *beep* comes more naturally to me.

Q10
PLAYBOY: Yet you have a boxed set of three independent films coming out soon on DVD. You directed two of them—Chinese Coffee and Looking for Richard—and you were heavily involved with the third, The Local Stigmatic. Why did it take so long for you to release them?
PACINO: I’ll tell you the truth: I don’t know what the hell I was doing by not letting them out. Why didn’t I? Frankly, I don’t know why.

Q11
PLAYBOY: Are you concerned that since some of these works have never been shown in theaters they may be interpreted as failures?
PACINO: The truth is, they could have been released. Distributors wanted to release them. But Fox Searchlight Pictures and I came to the conclusion that it was better for the films to be released on DVD. It’s like putting out a paperback instead of a hardback. Our world has changed; DVDs have become more acceptable now. When we consider the film, we have to consider what we’ve got and not pretend it’s something else. We’re not pretending these movies are going to compete with other movies in theaters.

Q12
PLAYBOY: Would you say The Local Stigmatic, a violent, dense film about two
Cockney lowlifes, is a good date film?
PACINO: [Laughs] If you happen to be a resident of a mental institution and you get breaks periodically. It’s only 52 minutes long. Maybe if you take your nurse or psychiatrist.

Q13
PLAYBOY: And what about Chinese Coffee, a grim story about two older artists whose lives haven’t turned out as expected?
PACINO: Well, if you weren’t a resident of an institution, you’d be joining one shortly after seeing both of those films together. I just hope people get through them without falling asleep or turning them off. Basically these are pieces of material that I enjoyed, that I liked when I read them. There’s something about getting a reaction to a work that stimulates you. You want to share it withsomeone. That was the principle of it. Who am I to hold on to this stuff when a lot of work I’ve done is already out here, open for scrutiny, and these aren’t nearly in the same class as some of those things? So I thought, What the hell, I might as well release them. What can happen? If people like the set and it becomes a collector’s item—or if they don’t and it doesn’t—I made the effort.

Q14
PLAYBOY: When you read reviews, whether good or bad, do you ignore them?
PACINO: Positive ones can be as harmful as negative ones. When I was a young actor I hoped to go unnoticed. I hoped only that they would say I was adequate, which I thought was better than being told I was lousy. When I was in a play called Awake and Sing! at the Charles Playhouse in Boston, we were backstage while the play was going on. An actor was reading something and banging his fist, saying, “Wow! Fantastic!” I came around the corner and said, “What’s going on?”
And he said, “Oh, nothing.” He got a little nervous. He then said, “Just a great
notice.” I said, “Oh yeah?” And I started reading it, and it was a fantastic, glowing
notice—until the last paragraph, where it said, “With the one exception of Al Pacino. If you could tolerate him….” As I was reading it I heard my cue to go onstage. [laughs] And I started laughing. I thought it was funny. I was 25. I’d love
to be at that stage again, when I could laugh at the magnificent timing of it all.

Q15
PLAYBOY: Two for the Money, starring you and Matthew McConaughey, came out shortly before your DVD collection. How do you decide which to promote?
PACINO: I do try to help out a movie that cost a certain amount of money to make.
But Two for the Money has a different audience than the DVDs of my small films,
so how I promote each is different. The DVDs will have to find outlets—I could
see myself on Charlie Rose or perhaps Larry King talking about them. On Charlie Rose I
could just stare and let him do the talking. I’m not big on being on television.

Q16
PLAYBOY: Why don’t you like the talk show circuit?
PACINO: I don’t think I function very well on camera. Maybe I just haven’t done talk shows enough. I grew up when actors didn’t do that sort of thing, and today they do. I’m a little behind on adjusting to it. But here we are talking about my DVDs, and I’ve become a promoter. Next thing we’ll be promoting the heavyweight championship between me and Dustin Hoffman. Did you know that Alexander Cohen, the great impresario, had an idea many years ago to go to a boxing ring in Madison Square Garden and have me and Dustin put on the gloves? I wonder if he ever mentioned that to Dustin, because he mentioned it to me. All I said was, “Can we do it without
gloves?” People have these ideas. I swear to you, that was his idea.

Q17
PLAYBOY: Godfather I and II are at the top of most lists of great American films. What’s the problem with The Godfather Part III?
PACINO: You know what the problem with that film is? The real problem? Nobody
wants to see Michael have retribution and feel guilty. That’s not who he is. In the other scripts, in Michael’s mind he is avenging his family and saving them.
Michael never thinks of himself as a gangster— not as a child, not while he is one and not afterward. That is not the image he has
of himself. He’s not a part of the GoodFellas thing. Michael has this code; he lives by something that makes audiences respond. But once he goes away from that and starts crying over coffins, making confessions and feeling remorse, it isn’t right. I applaud Francis Coppola for trying to get to that, but Michael is so frozen in that image. There is in him a deep feeling of having betrayed his mother by killing his brother. That was a mistake. And we are ruled by
these mistakes in life as time goes on. He was wrong. Like in Scarface when Tony kills Manny—that is wrong, and he pays for it. And in his way, Michael pays for it.


Q18
PLAYBOY: In retrospect, what should Michael have done with his brother Fredo?
PACINO: Banned him, exiled him in some way. He was harmless. That part of Michael is off, just as when he denies the mother of his children. How could you do a thing like that? You hurt the
children. That’s what makes it powerful. But where do you go from there?

Q19
PLAYBOY:
The American Cinematheque recently honored you with a lifetime achievement award. Are you getting to a time in your life when such honors make you feel as though you belong in a museum?
PACINO: I love it. [laughs] Do I feel I belong in a museum? I feel like I am a museum.

Q20
PLAYBOY: You and De Niro were recently named the two greatest actors over 50. How does that affect your hat size?
PACINO: I’m just hoping that when we reach 102, he and I will be the best actors over 102.

Yes, Fredo did show genuine remorse in the boathouse scene. And even more so at mama's wake. However, that would not have prevented him from committing another betrayal against his brother...even if many years later.

You mean an 'inadvertant betrayal' like the one that nearly had him and his wife killed and the Corleone Family brought to its knees to be overrun by Hyman Roth? A betrayal like that which Fredo might not have realized was a planned hit?

Michael was definitely justified in having Fredo killed...and I don't believe it was for revenge. It was to have him punished for what he did, and mainly to prevent it from happening again. As I've said here before (and will say again whenever the need arises)...had they not been brothers and shared the same mother, Fredo the traitor would not have been allowed to live even as long as he was. And I doubt a soul on this BB would have a problem with Fredo's fate.

After all, their blood relation sure didn't prevent Fredo from conspiring behind Michael's back. So why should it prevent Michael from bestowing on Fredo the usual fate of a traitor?

Which of course, he didn't know was coming... !!

Apple

What is "punishment" if not a form of "revenge"?

It's also designed to teach someone a lesson. Well fine. But if the punishment is to kill someone, what good is it that the dead person learned his lesson?

Yes, you are correct; If Fredo wasn't Michael's brother he would not have been allowed to live as long as he did.

But if he wasn't Michael's brother, he wouldn't have been in the position of being used by Roth in the first place.

Oh, and when I used the term "inadvertant", I meant like a slip of the tongue, as in "Old Johnny knows these places like the back of his hand."

Fredo knew that helping Roth in the Tahoe plot was wrong. He was just too stupid to realize what Roth really had up his sleeve (altho Turnbull, to name one member, would argue that he knew it was gonna be a hit).

But, IMO, he had learned his lesson and would have been a lot more careful in the future.

Ahhhh my friend. This is one of those rare times that I must disagree with you. Yes, Fredo was mad at Mike for treating him like the kid brother. No doubt that there was resentment and jealousy on Fredo's part.

But with all that I do not believe that Fredo knew that Roth and Ola were using him as part of a plot to kill Michael.

And I still don't believe, for one moment that Fredo intentionally set up Mike for a hit or would have intentionally set him up for one in the future.

Fredo was easliy mislead, He was weak and stupid. He was killed because he was stupid enough to believe that he could help with the negotiations and that there was something in it for him. I will never believe that Fredo knowingly set his own brother up for the kill.

Unlike Michael, Fredo had a heart.

I don't know about it being just that Michael had his own brother, a simple minded one, killed for making a stupid mistake. Yes a terrible mistake that could have cost Michael his own life, his wife's life or the lives of his children. That's a hard one to swallow if you are in Michael's shoes.

But at the same time Michael knew better, Fredo didn't.

The only reason that Michael had Fredo killed was to assure himself and those around him that he was the almighty powerful Don who would not forgive or show any sign of weekness. It was to show the Roccos and the Neris that he was not one to ever be screwed with.

"Look what I did to my own brother. If I had my own brother killed for betraying me, then you guys are nothing to me, and I'll have you killed twice as fast if you ever try to screw me."

It was Michael's way of showing all those under him how ruthless he was. It was a message to them all.

He killed his own brother. A weak brother. A brother that he was obviously supposed to watch over and take care of. He killed his mother's son. He killed his father's son. What a cold hearted bastard!

Don Cardi

Sure did. Thank you Enzo; what a bonus!

And I got the answer about the date of the interview. It mentions that Dog Day Afternoon was 30 years ago, so this article must have appeared around 2005. Pacino is having a nice retrospective look at his career.

As for his notion of why GF3 didn't click, I can't say our minds mesh on that one . There was a whole lot more wrong with GF3 than Michael showing remorse and crying over coffins .

This has come up many times, of course, but it bears repeating here.

I have to agree with Don Cardi ( ). Fredo did not know that it was gonna be a hit.

The proof is in his late night phone call comment to Johnny Ola: "You guys lied to me"

What did they lie to him about if not that?

I've often wondered what would Michael done with Fredo if Mama lived for say another 10-20 more years?

I imagine it would have been a 10-20 year stay of execution.

Now that's what I call avoiding the death penalty on a technicality.

Yea but since Michael couldn't trust Fredo, would Michael have Fredo with him 24/7 or would he bannish him to some deserted island somewhere?

A very astute observation, Sicilian Babe. It's akin to a working class person's resentment of a rich person, or the jealousy that, say, the underachieving high school students feel for the bright and popular ones. What they REALLY despise about their antagonists is that they are not one of them.

I agree that the jealousy and resentment Fredo feels toward Michael will always be a part of him, deep inside (and I emphasize "deep" because, after the Roth fiasco blew up in Fredo's face, I expect that guilt and regret would be in the forefront of his psyche for quite a while to come. Nothing like the trauma of nearly losing a brother to smack that jealousy down a notch ).

But as to whether that resentment would grow, let's remember that Fredo's relationship with Michael is a love-hate one, and not a "hate only" one. After the devastation that his cooperation with Roth wreaked on Fredo's life, I don't think his original anger would spread like wild fire. I believe the results of the Roth affair and Michael's (perceived) forgiveness are in fact the very things that would keep it in check.

Actually, I think Michael is the offender here. Before Michael stated, "That's the way pop wanted it," Fredo poured out -- with justified anger and nearly uncontrollable emotion -- why Roth's offer was so attractive to him: he believed it was his chance to earn something on his own, something that wasn't given to him by Michael. He expressed the humiliation he felt at having to be provided for by his kid brother and at having to perform the most menial tasks.

And what does Michael do? He doesn't listen to a word Fredo says. He doesn't hear the hurt pride, the build up of indignities, the feelings of exclusion. Fredo's question, "Did you ever once think about that?" remains unanswered. All Michael sees is the betrayal. Michael's quiet, cold detachment is much more dangerous than Fredo's explosive and agitated state. When Michael embraces Fredo at Mama's funeral, poor Fredo thinks that Michael is acting out of compassion and understanding for why he did what he did. But, as we see shortly, that is not the case.

So I agree with the first part of your post Sicilian Babe, but I guess we'll again "agree to disagree" on the second part . I just don't think Fredo would betray Michael again, but that's just my opinion (and Don Cardi's, and plawrence's, and olivant's, and Cuneo's, etc. )

"Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"

He had him living there at the Tahoe estate. Fredo (who I maintain "didn't know") probably thought that Mike was being a nice guy and all was forgiven.

Little did he know that he was being kept there so Michael could keep an eye on him.

Exactly! This is another observation I like to point out when people say that Michael was justified for killing Fredo.

Michael would have ensured that Al Neri kept an eye on Fredo from the moment he disowned him to the moment of Mama's death, however long that period might be -- even if Mama lived to be 97. This careful watching/spying was to ensure that Fredo didn't intentionally or unintentionally fall in with the enemy and put Michael in danger again.

So if Michael is content to do this for as many years as it takes until Mama dies, why not just continue to do it for the rest of Fredo's natural life?

It wasn't necessary for Michael to kill Fredo. There were other ways to ensure that he wouldn't be a threat, as the above shows.

Amen! Now that's what I've been struggling to say with all my wordy paragraphs. Don Cardi gets right to the heart of the matter . (Gotta love that last paragraph.)

Even Michael himself said it: "Fredo -- he's got a good heart."

No, Fredo didn't intentionally set up the attempted hit, and yes, Roth may have had access to him because of his being the brother of Don Corleone.

But also, had Fredo not been Michael's brother and Vito's son...then he would not have had that cushy job in Vegas, planning parties and driving people to airports and banging waitresses two at a time. He was a bumbling idiot and was afforded a fairly comfortable life because of the family he was born into. He should have appreciated that much, but did not. He truly didn't realize how stupid and therefore dangerous to the family he was (as most truly stupid people don't) and for that reason he had to go, and Michael was completely justified.

As has also been discussed here before, the Roth incident was not the first time Fredo went against the Family. He had been warned by Michael before. Just because he was now living at Tahoe and apparently remorseful at what he had done...it doesn't mean he had learned his lesson. Somebody as smart as or smarter than Hyman Roth could have gotten to him eventually. He was no longer of any use to the family. He had to go.

Apple

Well, maybe.....

What you say may be true, but Cristina made a good point, I think.

Sit Fredo down and explain to him that he better be damn careful going forward because if he ever screws up again he's dead, keep a close watch on him at the estate, never let him go anywhere alone, and treat him, in general, like a twelve-year old, and I think all the bases would've been covered and Michael could've let him live.

And in and of itself, the fact that "he was no longer of any use to the family" is not justification for killing him.

First of all, he was still a loved brother and uncle.

And second, even if he did have some "use", by your logic that should not have been enough to save him.

Sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree. I think that Fredo's anger goes way beyond that. As for Michael being compassionate, there is no room for that. Fredo, intentionally or not, almost brought about the destruction of the family. Why? Because he was passed over?? Tough noogies. Having been brought up in the business, there is no way, consciously or not, he did not perceive that there was some evil inherent in the deal Roth offered him. And it would be impossible for Michael to forgive that.

While Cristina touched on the fact that Fredo was jealous of what he didn't have, there has to be the understanding that it was something he would NEVER have, something he was incapable of achieving. His resentment was not only for the fact that their father passed him over for Michael, but that he could never BE Michael. He wanted the power and respect that Michael had, but he was both unwilling and incapable of putting in the time, effort and hard work that it took to achieve it.