So I showed my girlfriend GFI today. She hadn't seen it, and I couldn't stand having a woman who hasn't seen at least GFI.

Anyway, now that I've seen it again, I have come up with new questions to some of you aficionados out there (I'm talking to you, Turnbull ). Anyway, here they are, they're simple, I'm just having problems understanding certain parts of the show. I may come up with some more in the future:

1) Michael refers to Tessio's betrayal of the Corleone family during the Don's funeral as, "a smart move". What makes it a smart move?

2) What made the Don knowledgable of the meeting with Barzini? Was it just in intellect? How did he know a traitor would talk to Michael about the meeting?

3) Why were the Dons of the five families rubbed out? Was it Michael's way of proving that the Corleone family was still strong?

4) Though Michael was aware that Carlo worked with the Barzini's in clipping Sonny (reference: "You fingered Sonny for the Barzini people"). Why does he ask him if it was Tattaglia? I know he had to hear Carlo say it was Barzini, but why Tattaglia as opposed to Stracci or Cuneo?

---

That's it.

As always I thank you, my paisani, for offering me guidance and knowledge.

Well...since you're talking to Turnbull I'll just step aside and let him answer all your questions.

Take it away, Turnbull!!

Apple

Thanks, Apple!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tony Love:
So I showed my girlfriend GFI today. She hadn't seen it, and I couldn't stand having a woman who hasn't seen at least GFI.

At my age, I can't afford to be that selective.


1) Michael refers to Tessio's betrayal of the Corleone family during the Don's funeral as, "a smart move". What makes it a smart move?

Vito always said that your enemies should overestimate your weaknesses. Michael deliberately made himself look weak just after he took over--the better to flush out traitors within the family and plots against him by other families. Sure enough, Tessio fell into the trap. What Michael meant was, "From Tessio's viewpoint, it's the smart move--he thinks I'm weak and I'm a loser, and Barzini's gonna win. So, if he sells me out to Barzini, he'll be rewarded. If he stays loyal to me, he'll go down with me."

2) What made the Don knowledgable of the meeting with Barzini? Was it just in intellect? How did he know a traitor would talk to Michael about the meeting?

After the Don's convention, he says to Hagen, "Until this day, I never realized that it was Barzini all along." From that point on, it was logical for him to assume that Barzini would make a decisive move on Michael to get rid of him.

3) Why were the Dons of the five families rubbed out? Was it Michael's way of proving that the Corleone family was still strong?

In the novel, only Barzini and Tattaglia were whacked--because they were the plotters against Vito, and later, Michael. The other Dons had cooperated with Barzini and Tattaglia during the Five Families War of 1946. But Michael didn't need to kill them because they weren't the prime movers, and because the example he set by killing Barzini and Tattaglia would have stood as a warning to them--and, as you said, proof that the Corleone family (and especially Michael) was still strong.
So why were all of them whacked in the film? As I'm sure Apple would agree, the main reason that all the Dons were rubbed out in the film was to provide more action, drama and gore to the ending of the film. But there's a logical tie to the plotline of the Trilogy, too. Yes, Michael's motivation in whacking all of them might well have been to prove to the rest of the American (and maybe overseas) Mafia that he was the Numero Uno Don. And, as we saw in the later two films, Michael was the world's greatest control freak--so, killing all the Dons was a big control move, whether or not it was necessary.

4) Though Michael was aware that Carlo worked with the Barzini's in clipping Sonny (reference: "You fingered Sonny for the Barzini people"). Why does he ask him if it was Tattaglia? I know he had to hear Carlo say it was Barzini, but why Tattaglia as opposed to Stracci or Cuneo?

Arguably, he shouldn't have cared who put Carlo up to fingering Sonny--Carlo had to answer for it, period. But Michael, control freak that he was, just had to hear it from Carlo's lips. Perhaps he really didn't know if it was Barzini or Tattaglia. Or (more likely, IMO), he did know it was Barzini, but some sense of "justice" made him demand that Carlo "confess." He didn't have to ask about Cuneo or Stracci because it was obvious that they weren't the prime movers in the war that brought about Sonny's demise--and to add their names to his question would have made him look really dumb.
In fact, in the novel, Clemenza and Hagen are "astonished" that Michael asked that question, since Carlo's guilt was patently self-evident. They even thought it was a sign of weakness on Michael's part that he seemed unsure.

Thank you very much, TB! You never let me down.

Apple it's okay if you wanted to answer

Of course all of what Turnbull explained to you is correct and true, but I would like to add my 2 cents here and add to what Turnbull has correctly pointed out in regards to your 4th question.

I've always felt that the reason Michael asked Carlo who it was is because Michael is not 100% sure IF Carlo actually set Sonny up. Of course Michael knew 100% that Barzini was behind the killing of Sonny, but IMO he was not 100% sure that Carlo was definitely the one who set up Sonny for Barzini. He may have been 99% sure, but he was about to make his sister a widow, and needed to know 100% that Carlo was the one. So that is why Michael asks Carlo and throws in the names of the other families. It was, for lack of a better phrase, a tricky way to put Carlo on the spot and make him think that he (Mike) knew for sure that Carlo was the one, but that his only doubt was which family did Carlo do it for. It kind of made Carlo think that Mike definitely knew it was him but that if he (Carlo) came clean about which family was behind it, he just may have a chance for survival because he told Michael the truth of who was behind it.

Bottom line, IMO Michael asked Carlo because Michael was never really 100% sure if it actually was Carlo or not.


Don Cardi

Ah, thank you for your addition, DC. It's kind of like in the Sopranos when Tony wanted Paulie and Silvio to make sure Pussy was wearing a wire by actually seeing it on him.

It also just makes sense to get all significant information from Carlo before he disappears. There may be different chains of disloyalty that have to rooted out, depending on Carlo's answer, and once he's dead there's no chance to ask again.