If Clemenza hadn't suffered a "heartattack", appeared in GFII, do you think he would have followed the same story line as Frankie Pentangeli, or would the part be different. I seem to lean toward toward Clemenza remaining loyal. Of course there would have to be another rat, to justify the Senate committee hearing.

I believe this subject was the topic of another thread. To reiterate though, I don't think that GF audiences would have tolerated Clemenza as anything except the penultimate loyalist. Clemenza in the traitor role would have been, at least, disturbing, if not an outright insult. The story line could have remained the same with someone else in the traitor role.

I sort of thought this was discussed before. Was there any mention of who would have been the traitor? My best guess would be Willie Cicci.

I don't recall. However, I think that most of the discussion was about another direction that the plot would have taken.

From the storyline of GF2 which placed a strong emphasis on young Clemenza and from the correspondence between Castellano and FFC, I think it's very clear that one of the great shockers of GF2 would have been that Clemenza turned traitor after having been nearly killed by the Rosatos.
The party scenes with Pentangeli were obviously written for Clemenza. We remember him very well dancing the Tarantella in GF1. Thus - the ridiculous contrast in GF2 when the play "Pop Goes the Weasel". All those party scenes - the drinking scenes, the deleted "I show you a trick" scene, champaign cocktails, "He never trusted Roth" (Roth had been introduced by Clemenza) - were meant to show the alienation and frustration of Clemenza.

The Clemenza story in GF2 would have been: How can become the most loyal friend a traitor? It still works OK with Pentangeli, but there's no meaty background story about apart from some hints that he "worked with Michael's father".

Clemenza turning traitor would have been horrible and not very plausible. He was a real oldtimer who believed in the old ways. I would never see Clemenza turn.

And another thing which I consider somewhat sloppy writing is that clemenza promised the Rosato brothers three territories "after he died".

Clemenza died of a heart attack, no? How could he have known that he would die anytime soon and therefore promise the Rosatos territories after his death? It was not like he was suffering from any terminal decease...

I agree. Audiences would never have bought Clemenza in those Frankie scenes.

It turned out for the best that Castellano's demand for money was denied by FFC and the Pentangeli character was created, if for no other reason because of the outstanding performance.

Those close to Michael were hand picked by him, namely Rocco and Neri. Tom was a brother (sort of) which explains his being held over, even though he was effectively demoted by Michael, which left Frankie as the only one who was Vito's man.

It had to be a non- Michael person to be the traitor, such as
Frankie was...don't forget he thought michael tried to kill him, he thought Michael was giving his loyalty to Roth and not his "own blood," plus he was looking at a life in prison if he didn't turn state's evidence. When he did he thought he had nothing to lose.

Obviously, Clemenza had a very different personality than Pentangeli,so you couldn't have plunked him down into what GFII became and had it work.

But Clemenza turning on Michael wouldn't have been unbelievable in and of itself. And it would have added a poignancy that Pentangeli's betrayal lacked.

Clemenza was the ultimate loyalist, and a beloved "uncle" to Michael, so him turning would have again showed how Michael lost his family while building his Family.

And it would have foreshadowed Fredo's fate.

Yes, after Castellano's departure, a new plot direction and a new character with whom the audience was completely unfamiliar was necessary. I for one would have been quite uncomfortable with Clemenza as a traitor. That's why I state that FFC would never have built a script around him in such a role. But Frankie was unfamiliar to us and a candidate for the traitor role.

The trilogy came up with lots of surprises. Before the death of Vito nobody would have thought that Tessio would turn traitor. He was an oldtimer just like Clemenza.
And from what we saw in GF, it would have been "implausible" that Michael would have his own brother killed. "Audiences would never have bought that".
The whole film GF2 is to show how Michael isolates himself more and more from the people who meant something to him: His brother, his wife, and the last friend of his father.

I want to first point out that Clemenza was my favorite character from the trilogy and the thought of him turning on and betraying the Corleone Family is repulsive to me. I don't want to think it could ever happen BUT I do think it would have happened if Castellano appeared in Part II.

Part II was about change; how times had changed loyalties whether we liked it or not.

One other point, as I see it.... FFC left Clemenza's death vague on purpose. It was FFC's way of getting back on Castellano for not coming to his terms on appearing in Part II, just as FFC didn't include the photographs of Brando and Castellano on the crime charts in Part II's Senate hearing scene. FFC is a vengeful fuck.

I always thought they weren't included on the chart due to legal issues..

True, if their imagies were used then they would have to be paided. Thus the birthday scene without Brando....

Well if Vito and Clemenza were dead, why would the government include them in their charts, or care 2 cents worth about them?

For movie purposes only as they were "known characters" to the viewer. If they weren't included people would then have asked why they weren't included.

My interpreration of the chart is that it was Michael's faction/Rocco's regime in Nevada. The Corleone family could never have only 30 made men. But to include like 250 members (which is what the most powerful family in the country would have) was ofcourse too much work for the makers of the film.

They were included on the chart, as were Sonny and Tessio.

The difference is that there were no photos of Clemenza or Vito. This was clearly due to the need to pay the actors if their images were used.

As both Clemenza'a and Tessio's loyalties were mainly with Vito I find it strange that people cannot envisage Clemenza also turning traitor.

It would have been years after Vito's death that Clemenza betrayal would have occured, so for me is even more believable than Tessio betraying the family on the day of Vito's funeral.

Also, Tom certainly thought that Clemenza had it in him to turn traitor - ' I always thought it would have been Clemenza'.

Well, ya'll are forgetting that Frankie betrayed Mike because he thought Mike tried to murder him. In the same situation, Clemenza might have betrayed him also. But between them, it was only Clemenza that we know had sworn fealty to Michael(final scene of I). So, without his attempted murder by Michael, I find no basis for Clemenza's betrayal.

Also, I would think that it is typical of movie contracts that representations of players can be used in sequels. Afterall, Clemenza is referenced in at least two scenes. So, I don't find arguments about using his and Vito's pictures convincing.

You make good points in your first paragraph.

Regarding your second paragraph: I think there may be some distinction between referencing a characters name, ie Clemenza, and using a characters/actors photo. I may be wrong though but I'll see if I can find the relevant legal documentation to confirm this, must be somewhere on the net...

There are certainly situations below attempted murder that could have caused Clemenza to turn. Perhaps something as simple as non-support while his territories were chiseled away, combined with a deaf ear to his complaints.

As to the contracts, I don't know what a standard SAG contract looks like but I frequently am involved in contract negotiaions with other types of performers and I have some knowledge of contracts involving SAG's partner union AFTRA. Based on that, I find it highly unlikely that a standard actor's contract would include a clause as you describe. Since sequels were far less prevalent in the 1970s, I find it even less likely that it would have beeen standard then.

Don't agree at all. There is nothing to support Frankie's betrayal until he thought that Mike tried to murder him (in fact, Frankie complied with Mike's instruction to meet with the Rosatos). There was no other percentage in Frankie's betrayal. Who was he betraying Michael to? Another family? No. The feds. In exchange for what? A lighter sentence? Frankie? The old-timer immersed in omerta. I don't think so.

Frankly, I would never see Clemenza in that situation being garroted by the Rosato brothers. Clemenza would never agree to meet them like that in the first place. He was smarter than Frankie and must have had too much respect as he was one of the highest ranking members in the Corleone family for over 30 years. Frankie was seen as "small potatoes".

It's like the Gallo brothers trying to garrot Carlo Gambino. It would never happen. If it would have happened like that in Part II, the movie would probably have failed.

Yea its hard to disagree with this. The betrayal showwn by Frankie was completely different to Tessio's betrayal. The main player in Frankie treachery was Roth, who lets not forget 'engineered it'.

The loyalty of the Pentangeli/Clemenza character had been challenged by Michael before the murder attempt: No help with the Rosato brothers problem, a non-Italian life-style, deals with Roth.
So, the murder attempt was the final drop.

Clemenza had nog quarrels with the Rosato brothers; he even offered them three territories in the Bronx.

Again, while the Pentangeli storyline would not fit Clemenza, I don't see why people think he would never have turned on Michael.

The overriding theme of Michael's donship was his driving away of those closest to him, whether well-versed in Omerta or not. Tessio, Altobello, Kay, etc. Why would Clemenza be immune to this?

While I, too, like Clemenza and would have been ripped apart to see him betray Michael, that would have been an even more compelling storyline than a previously unknown character do so.

Because Tessio was always smarter.

When Castellano finally said no, Coppolla wrote in his letter:
"I wrote the part for you but now I'm forced to change his name to Willie Cicci. ... and just anoter actor play it. He will arrive in the first scene, be introduced as an old time affiliateof Don Corleone's in Brooklyn... and the role will wiork exactly as it did for Clemenza. Out of respect for you, I will not call him Clemenza. (...)"
This tells me, that the basic storyline hasn't changed so much, especially the betrayal. However, they changed Cicci, and called the guy Pentangeli.

Cicci was in the first movie, so I don't know what Coppola was talking about.