I used to think Michael was irresponsible or worse for fleeing the compound to meet with Frankie Pentangeli and Roth after the Tahoe shooting, leaving his family in the clutches of the still-unknown traitor. Now I believe Michael was at his bravest-—and most cunning:
Michael knew that, although he was the target, his enemy had no scruples about killing Kay or anyone who got in the way at Tahoe. So, by removing himself from Tahoe, he removed the target. More important: by sucking up to Roth, he bought precious time to protect himself and his family. His guiding principle, as he told Hagen before he left, was: think as those around you think.
Michael saw that Roth was very careful to mask his role in the Tahoe attack. Roth waited for Anthony’s party because he knew that Pentangeli would be there, contentious over Michael’s support of the Rosato Brothers. Frankie therefore had perfect motivation to kill Michael, and would have made a perfect patsy. Since the attack failed, Michael figured that Roth would have to strike again quickly, before Michael figured out that Pentangeli wasn’t the guilty party. By visiting Roth in Miami, by affirming that their deal was still good, and most important, by agreeing to go to Havana, Michael was helping Roth to find a reason to keep him alive until then, and to leave his family alone. Michael alive in Havana would provide Roth with an airtight alibi: Roth would stage the father/son routine at the birthday party, and turn over his empire to Michael in front of many witnesses, so he’d look like he had no reason whatsoever to kill Michael. And as the most powerful gringo in Havana, Roth could easily arrange to have his pals in the Cuban government assassinate Michael and get rid of his body. If anyone asked after the missing Michael, Roth could speculate that he’d been caught in the crossfire between the government and the rebels. Or that rival gangsters whacked him because they were jealous that Roth planned to give him nearly all of the Havana empire. The only thing Roth overlooked was that Michael was onto his game and, with “Sicilian cunning,” outwitted him. It was dangerous, it took courage--but cunning carried the day.
Even Michael’s choice of bodyguard was designed to mislead Roth. He didn’t take Neri and/or Rocco with him because, at that point, he couldn’t be sure of their loyalty. But, by bringing Buscetta to Havana, Michael was making Roth believe that he still didn’t know who the traitor was-—but it obviously wasn’t Roth because Michael was there with Roth. He had accomplished what he told Frankie he’d do: Roth was relaxed, confident that their deal was still good—and off his guard. Bravo, Michael!

So this is the legend I've heard so much about in the few days of being a member?

I think you hit the nail on the head. Michael's goal in all three films is to protect his Family and his family. It should not come as a secret that he would leave the Lake Tahoe compound, hence protecting his civilian family from harm. I never questioned it.

What's more, he played Roth exactly the way he had to. By visiting him and telling him that he was unsure of who was behind the attack, he bought himself more time to figure out exaclty who in his Family had fingered him for Roth. Remember, Mike didn't want to kill everyone, only his enemies. One of these enemies was still hidden to him (Fredo, you broke my heart), so he had to buy time in order to get him. He could have killed Roth on his birthday right after he announced that Roth's estate would go to Michael, but he just had to find out who the rat was.

those booze and the "Superman" show helped Michael a lot to find out who the rat was. . .

GoodFella

Hi!

I came to associate the legendary "Sicilian cunning" with a kind of foresight the late Genco was supposed to possess - the one that was possible to foil only thanks to Emerald Island elan, and that only once.

From this point of view, whatever is done after a hit that failed due to bad luck of the assassins and Mike's battle experience (which literally pulled him down well before he was able to consciously recognize what was happening behind the window), does not really fit the bill, I'm afraid.

Best regards.

Alexander

It was the embodiment of "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer". That was Michael's creed and he played it out to the fullest.

Turnbull, you hit the bullseye, as usual! . I have to disagree with you on one point, though. I don't think that Michael ever truly believed that Pentangeli ordered the hit. Only a truly stupid man, and a non-Sicilian at that, would ever attempt a hit at that kind of event. Michael knew all along!

You and I aren't in disagreement, GA: I never said Michael believed Frankie ordered the hit--Roth wanted Michael to believe that Frankie ordered the hit. The fact that Michael figured out, right away, that Roth intended Frankie to be the patsy was another example of his "Sicilian cunning."

Don't you think that Michael's quiet, serious personality made it easier for him to be cunning? Say, more so than maybe Sonny?

I mean he never smiled and always looked in the eyes when he spoke to anyone, never was a loud mouth giving any information away, not to mention his previous "college boy" status, which I think was to his benefit as well. He could be extremely cunning and yet still be himself and no one would be the wiser. He was excellent at not letting others know what he was thinking and could tell a lie as seriously as he told the truth.

TIS

Turnball, et al:

I actually respectfully disagree with the premise that (in this scenario) Michael displayed "Sicilian cunning". To a previous poster's point: If Michael had not ducked he would have been killed and all that cunning (which did not previously tell him Roth was after him) would have been spilled over the bed and floor.

Michael did however (IMHO) display "Sicilian cunning" (as did his father) when he authored the murder plan for Sollozo (his father: Fanucci).

In Michael's response to the Tahoe hit - it is much of "these Italians can smell this a mile away" as Al Pacino reported in "Carlito's Way" after the lawyer killed a mob boss. It is the putting the pieces of the puzzle together quickly and correctly and responding accordingly that Michael displayed, i.e., "these Italians can smell this a mile away".

Just my opinion.

I don't think Michael was fleeing to Florida because of the hits. Michael had a scheduled set of meeting with Roth and the other investors in Cuba. The NYC meeting with Frankie was an irritating setback to him because it was interferring with his work into getting into the Cuba gaming. I do believe that Michael may have left several hours earlier than he planned. Perhaps, to prevent further hit attempts by off-tracking the potiential traitor from knowing his schedule.

I think that the hit attempt occurred after's Anthony's party was because it provided a better window of opportunity to get the hit men on the estate. With the caters, cooks, set-up crews, etc, the guards will be more lax allows someone onto the grounds. I also do not think Pentiangli's physical location (rather in Nevada or NYC) is important (impt)for Roth to make anyone believe that Frankie is responsible for the hit.

Actually, I don't think Roth really gives a damn who Michael believe ordered the hit. Roth took a shot in doing away with Michael without undergoing long, drownout sceduled meeting with him. Roth had no intentions in doing business or sharing the wealth of Cuba gaming with Micheal.

Roth has been in the rackets before Michael was born. He is a Jew in an Italian clad underworld and has outsmarted them all. He had no doubt that he could handle Michael.

When Michael has his heart-to-heart talk with Hagen after the shooting, he says, "If what I think has happened has happened, I leave tonight." That could mean either he's leaving to meet Roth ahead of schedule, or that he's having an unplanned, emergency meeting with Roth. But there's an interesting anomaly in the film(s) that supports both points. In the theatrical release version (the one included with the DVD set), the scene with Michael in Anthony's bedroom occurs after the shooting, indicating a sudden change of plans. But in the chronologically spliced "Saga" version shown on TV, the Anthony bedroom scene occurs before the shooting, which firmly supports a planned visit to Roth.

The bedroom scene does support both versions. However what solidified for me that Michael was carrying on scheduled, planned meeting with Roth is that after the Frankie/Micheal sitdown, Al Neri asked Michael if he wanted Frankie to leave. Michael informed Al to let him go back to NYC that he already had made his plans. Michael would not be in Nevada for further meeting with Frankie. I always thought it was interesting Michael was being secretive, almost Nixon-ish in not revealing his plans to highest ranking officers.

***correction***
it should read, Michael knew that he would be out of town because of his business plans with Roth.

Hi!

In my eyes, this phrase actually is a veiled inquiry whether Frankie is to be allowed to leave Tahoe alive.

Best regards.

Alexander

[/qb][/QUOTE]When Michael has his heart-to-heart talk with Hagen after the shooting, he says, "If what I think has happened has happened, I leave tonight." That could mean either he's leaving to meet Roth ahead of schedule, or that he's having an unplanned, emergency meeting with Roth. But there's an interesting anomaly in the film(s) that supports both points. In the theatrical release version (the one included with the DVD set), the scene with Michael in Anthony's bedroom occurs after the shooting, indicating a sudden change of plans. But in the chronologically spliced "Saga" version shown on TV, the Anthony bedroom scene occurs before the shooting, which firmly supports a planned visit to Roth.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Turnbull, IMHO this is an error by the editors of the Saga. In the scene Anthony says "Did you see my present for you?" and Michael says "Yes, it was on my pillow". I have always taken this to refer to the drawing Michael picks up when he enters the bedroom. However, if this happens before the hit then how has Michael seen Anthony's drawing????

Turnbull, IMHO this is an error by the editors of the Saga. In the scene Anthony says "Did you see my present for you?" and Michael says "Yes, it was on my pillow". I have always taken this to refer to the drawing Michael picks up when he enters the bedroom. However, if this happens before the hit then how has Michael seen Anthony's drawing????[/QUOTE]
Good catch, SM! It probably was an editing error. Logically, Michael's visit to Anthony should have occurred before the shooting. After the shooting, we see Anthony and Mary, along with Kay, Connie and another woman, huddled together in a room that doesn't seem to have windows. That'd be the logical place for them to be until it was absolutely certain that no gunmen were lurking anywhere--which could have taken hours or even days, given the apparent size of the estate. But, as you say, how would Michael have found the drawing on his pillow, unless he retrieved it from the floor of his bedroom after the shooting? A nice little puzzle for us!

"Sicilian Cunning" is an issue I often deal with, being Sicilian. Let me tell you one thing, there is such a thing. Everyone I know has it, My father, myself, my mother, and my grandparents. It is a quiet power. You have the handle on things and nobody even knows it. You observe everything and analyze it. It is ,in essence, a sixth sense. L'amo molto.

Hi!

Yes, indeed. It's usually called analytical ability. Although its incidence in some places of the globe might be higher than elsewhere for whatever reasons, I'm afraid that the ability itself is nothing particularly Sicilian. It's just human.

Best regards.

Alexander

Alexander,
Anyone has the right to interprete this phase as they wish. However, I see indication that this is associated with a hit. I never heard a whack being termed as "do you want him to leave now?"
Frankie got up from the sitdown (without being excused) and ended the meeting himself. Michael should be the one to end the meeting.

Al Neri asked Michael if Frankie to leave. As if does Micheal needs to meet needs to talk to Frankie for any further. [Frankie doesnot determine when meetings ends, Micheal does.] "...let him go back to New York" Michael says, "the old man drank too much wine." To make an excuse for his rudeness. Micheal, actually had no tolorance for the petty bickerings between Frankie and the Rosattos.

Hi!

Of course, everybody have the right to their own opinion. We're exchanging them freely here, and - who knows - perhaps, my opinion will influence yours, and yours will influence mine. That is, as the time passes, this will most certainly happen, if it hasn't already happened once or twice. That's the beauty of this place.

However, in this particular case I would dare to most politely disagree with you.

Mike was grossly offended in public, and his authority and handling of the situation put under a big question in private. Many a perpetrator would've left the estate in a parcel, feet first. Frankie, however, was an integral part of Mike's further plans, so he was left alive for now under the petty excuse of drunkeness and such.

Let me give another example. "I don't want anything happen to him as long as our mother is alive". It's another, albeit less veiled phrase indicating the eventual fate of the person in question. Is it a hit order? No. Is Fredo doomed? Yes.

A more questionable, but still my favourite from GFIII: "If anything happens to Mike, I want you to strike back". May be interpreted as a blank check given by Connie to Vincent: "Let him die, and you'll take over".

Generally speaking, the increasingly Bysantine complexity of the GF trilogy comes in part from the language used by the heroes. And, as far as I know, this sort of veiled indications and hints is indeed used very often, and not only by the specific community we're considering here.

Best regards.

Alexander

Alexander,
If this is supposely to be a potiental hit of a underboss, I don't believe that Al Neri would have sleepishly asked Micheal if he wants Frankie to leave now with his head down on the bar. I just think you are making waaay too much of the line. To kill someone because they insult you is childish. I don't think kill someone for leaving the room without permission. Hence, I don't think Al Neri to dare ask Michael if he wants his underboss killed because he ended the meeting and not Michael.
We can always agree to disagree, Alexander

sorry broke too soon.

I think Pat Geary insulted Michael more than anyone. Yet, I recall Al neri asking Micheal
"do you want him to leave now?"

Hi!

That's different. Killing a Senator is a much more demanding thing to do than elimination of a rebellious head of one of the Family's operational units.

As for the making way too much out of it - blame it on "my cunning".

Best regards.

Alexander

First off all, a great treat which I like and mostly (everything) agree with.

But something I was thinking about. Mike did everything very careful. Didn't make any mistakes, and he knew Roth was smart. Then why did he send Frank to meet the Rosatos. Because this was the point that Roth knew that Mike wasn't thinking that Frank was behind the Tahoe-attack. So: he's sending Frank to death. I think Mike could figure that out and save Franks live.

Your analysis is excellent, MM! I believe that Michael was almost certain that Roth, not Frankie, was behind the Tahoe attack. But, as a careful man, he wanted to know for sure. Even more important, Michael wanted to know who the traitor in his family was.
Michael took a calculated risk in sending Frankie to meet with Roth. When he told Frankie that he wanted him to "settle these problems with the Rosato brothers," he said it was to make Roth think that "his deal with me is still good. Then he'll be relaxed, confident...and I'll be able to find out who the traitor in my family is." In other words, he was using Frankie to flush out Roth's intentions and (hopefully) to expose the traitor.
But, Michael had told Roth, "Frank Pentangeli is a dead man." As you said, Michael was too smart and careful not to know that, by sending Frankie to settle with the Rosatos, he'd be signaling Roth that he really didn't suspect Frankie in the Tahoe attack after all. And that Roth would figure that maybe Michael suspected him. I believe Roth ordered the Rosatos to kill Frankie so that he could eliminate a Michael-ally before Frankie and Michael had more chance to cook up some mischief against Roth. In doing so, Roth confirmed to Michael that he, not Frankie, was behind the Tahoe attack. Too bad about Frankie. Michael may have "liked" Frankie, but after Frankie mouthed off at Tahoe, he was just another obstacle to Michael's total domination of the rackets. He was expendible.
Michael's next step was to order Fredo to Havana to deliver the $2 million. Michael could have had anyone bring the money. He chose Fredo, IMO, because he he had some suspicion of Fredo and wanted to test him by bringing him close to Roth and Ola. And that's how it worked out.
This sequence shows how manipulative Michael was--another aspect of "Sicilian cunning." Another, underrated example of manipulation is how Vincent and Michael used each other in GFIII.

Good observation Turnbull. U really got what it takes to be a master story teller. What did ya do? Go to MAFIA SCHOOL?!! LOL!

Remember. I don't think Franky would have dared attempt such a stroke like that because he is still a high Corleone Family member who runs the illegal activities in NYC and he answers to Mike. Frank is either an underboss or a Capo. Besides i don't think any of the Corleone Button Men would oblige to assassinate the supreme boss of the Corleone Family.

Now about the assassins in Tahoe: I believe they were either Johnny Ola's men or The Rosato's Men. One of the Button Men (Not Rocco) at Tahoe said,"Looks like they were our people from NY, but don't recognize them."

Now the timelines are kinda screwed up with Mike's talk with his son and and the Tahoe shooting whether one took place first or the other. Just like when the Top senator says Mike killed Sollozzo and the Captain in year 47 when in fact it was the end of year 45. And the killings of the heads of the 4 (NOT FIVE) Families being killed in year 50 when it was 55.

About Roth? I kinda thought that he exposed himself as the mastermind of the Tahoe shooting by saying,"People behaving like that with guns." It's kinda like how stupid Fredo exposed himself as the traitor by speaking of his hangout with Johnny Ola to the Senator.

That's different. Killing a Senator is a much more demanding thing to do than elimination of a rebellious head of one of the Family's operational units.

As for the making way too much out of it - blame it on "my cunning".

Best regards.

Cunning is not a word I would describe your analysis, Alexander. Al Neri was not asking Michael to kill Frankie. All Frankie did was end the meeting abruptly. Al wanted to know if he still need to talk to Frankie. What Frankie had done is not worth being killed over.

That's different. Killing a Senator is a much more demanding thing to do than elimination of a rebellious head of one of the Family's operational units.

As for the making way too much out of it - blame it on "my cunning".

Best regards.

Cunning is not a word I would describe your analysis, Alexander. Al Neri was not asking Michael to kill Frankie. All Frankie did was end the meeting abruptly. Al wanted to know if he still need to talk to Frankie. What Frankie had done is not worth being killed over.

That's different. Killing a Senator is a much more demanding thing to do than elimination of a rebellious head of one of the Family's operational units.

As for the making way too much out of it - blame it on "my cunning".

Best regards.

Cunning is not a word I would describe your analysis, Alexander. Al Neri was not asking Michael to kill Frankie. All Frankie did was end the meeting abruptly. Al wanted to know if he still need to talk to Frankie. What Frankie had done is not worth being killed over. Alexander, this is a red-herring