What signs did Vito and Michael signal to the other families to portray themselves as weak?

By purposely allowing Barzini to chisel in on their territories and telling both Clemenza and Tessio that they cannot retaliate.
By Vito allowing Barzini and Tattaglia to think that the Corleones would not avenge the murder of Santino and his giving in to Barzini by agreeing to share his political connections, he PURPOSELY showed himself as being weak.

He had to get Michael home safely. First and foremost it was his son. So for that reason alone he had to give in to the other families.

However Vito also knew that only Michael could save the family. And being the cunning man that he was he also knew that Barzini and Tattaglia would view him as being weak. So Vito use the whole situation as a means of buying time to mentor and groom Michael and put him into a position to secretly and quietly rebuild his troops (Al Neri and his secret regime) so that the Corleones would regain the throne and once again become the most powerful family in the business.

You said it so perfectly. Thanks!

I was just confused a little, in the deleted scene when Michael was talking with Vito...it didn't seem like Vito had the strength to revenge.

In addition: In the fishtank scene, when Clem and Tess are complaining about Barzini's incursions, Michael tells them to be patient, that "there are things being negotiated now that will solve all your problems." I believe Michael was testing the two caporegimes for loyalty--not ruling out that either or both would jump ship because they thought he was "weak." If either or both did jump ship, they'd communicate that "weakness" to Barzini.

Michael also allowed Moe Green to rant on and on about how the Corleones don't have much muscle any more, that they were being run out of New York, and that he could make a deal with Barzini and still keep his hotel without the Corleones.

Also he built the Rocco regime in secret so no one outside the few members of the family who knew about it fully comprehended their real strength.

Michael's words during the fish tank scene were intended to keep the capos from doing anything that would invite Barzini's retaliation. If the capos did something and Barzini retaliated, then Michael's hand would be forced before he was ready to play it and that would blow the whole plan.

Also, since Carlo was in the room, he could be expected to convey Michael's words to Barzini. However, there's a fly in the ointment.

If Carlo was a conduit to Barzini, then Barzini would wonder with whom was Michael negotiating. In addition, Carlo woul dhave heard Michael say that he didn't want to give Barzini an excuse to start fighting. Thus, Barzini was capable of figuring out the ruse.

Who do you think knew of Michale's secret regime?

Tom did (in the novel). Probably Vito.

And Manolo.

Oli...what did Manolo do with those shoes David frost gave to Nixon?

Very interesting perspectives. Just two questions:

1) Do we know that Carlo was actually in continual contact with Barzini during this time? As opposed to having set up Santino for Barzini just that one time?

2) Was Michael really certain at this time that Barzini was the one who approached Carlo? It seems to me that Michael still did not know the answer to this question for certain - until he took the opportunity to grill Carlo about it so very intensely, just prior to Carlo's assassination - rather than simply order Carlo to be killed at the earliest opportunity, and being done with the matter.

Well, Carlo wouldn't have to be in continual contact with Barzini; he certainly had access to him as needed either directly or indirectly.

No less an authority than Vito advised Michael that "it was Barzini all along".

Well, yes. That's more or less what I meant - whether Carlo hadn't necessarily severed his ties with Barzini after the hit on Santino. But what would Carlo's motive be? Especially since he'd already had his revenge against Santino - and had gotten away with it scot-free (or so he may have thought at the time). Is the supposition that Barzini likely had made promises to Carlo for a prominent role in the new regime that Barzini would create out of the ruins of the Corleone family? If so, what evidence is there of it?



Then what was Michael's purpose in grilling Carlo so intensively - just prior to putting the hit on him - if he already knew this? Some kind of "confession prior to execution" notion of justice that Michael might have held? What?

Carlo wanted power, respect, money, etc. That was his motivation. Maybe he could get it from Michael; maybe from Barzini. Only Carlo could decide which. Michael figured on the the latter. That's the reason he was included in the Capos meeting. Otherwise, there was no reason for Michael to reveal sensitive Corleone family in front of a known traitor.

Michael's interrogation of Carlo was simply a function of Michael's avarice. It was elective. He enjoyed playing the shark circling his prey.

With all due respect Oli, I must disagree. Carlo was the first "family member" he had killed. He was not as hardened in the original movie as he became in II when he had Fredo killed. this was his brother in law, and he foresaw Connie's reaction as well as Kate's and perhaps even Tom. He got the "confession" out of Carlo in the presence of Tom and others in the family. The reason was clear. Even though he denied killing Carlo to his sister and Kay, he simultaneously had the implicit support of people like Tom, who would not break omerta with , say Connie.

Bluntly, he had to let them know that killing Carlo was business, not personal.

I see. So in a sense, Michael's little cat & mouse game with Carlo, resulting in Carlo's confession, could be seen as a means by which Michael further cemented his credibility and authority within the family? As if anyone who had doubts about Michael's judgement in having Carlo murdered could clearly tell, from Carlo's own words, that Michael had gotten it right, and that Carlo had brought it upon himself?

Very interesting perspectives, all.

In the novel, the capos and Hagen are "astonished" that Michael even asked Carlo who it was. They thought he was "not yet the man his father was." From their viewpoint, Carlo was guilty, and since Tatt and Barz were going to die that day (or were already dead), what did it matter who approached Carlo.

This question has come up several times in the past. Some people feel Michael had to justify Carlo's murder to himself. Even if that were true, what difference would it make who approached Carlo? He was a traitor, he set up Sonny, he deserved to die.

I reiterate: it had nothing to do with anything except Michael's sharklike personality. It didn't have anything to do with impressing anyone in the family (as TB states, in the novel several family members are wondering why Michael's interrogating Carlo). He had Carlo trapped; he couldn't escape. Michael enjoyed what he was doing. I might add that by that time the other dons had been wiped out. At that point, if anyone in the family needed to be impressed, they weren't paying attention.

No doubt Michael was having his sadistic side satidfied by the Carlo interrogation, but I still think he wanted to know he had the tacit approval of his key people prior to having him killed. Obviously he had already given the order, because Celmenza was sitting in the back seat of the car that was supposed to take him to the airport, and more significant, it was not Fredo who was "taking him to the airport."

Well DT, I don't understand that reasoning. By the time he confronted Carlo, all of the Dons were dead and it was Michael who orchestrated their deaths. Thus, what possible approval from anyone in the family would Michael seek to kill Carlo? Conversely, if approval was necessary and either Tom or Neri or Rocco objected, how would that occur and what would be the result?

I think Michael was more concerned about the reactions of Connie, Kay and even his mother to the killing of an in-law, and by getting that confession in front of the others, Michael knew he had allies within the family who would be supportive of what happened. In the movie Michael goes so far as to lie to Kay about Carlo, and in the novel, Tom has to go to Kay to justify Michael's misdeeds. I sense he needed people to be willling to defend him openly within the family. this was not a matter of Michael needing power, it was more a way of weilding it.

Well, maybe DT.

Interesting takes. Oli says it was a manifestation of Michael's personality and I tend to agree. I think this is in part shaped by his military background. Although it seems Michael was a sniper, I would think he was instructed to get information from a dying enemy. Sometimes the information would prove useful, sometimes it would not, but it was always better to have information than not have it.

And that's what Carlo was - a dying enemy. He just didn't know it.

I think that the whole Carlo confession scene was an attempt for FFC to give the audience the satisfaction of seeing Carlo get what he had coming for setting up Sonny.

Presumably,when Mike came back from Sicily,Vito filled him in on Barzini's true role as the mastermind of the drug trade,so I have to figure that no matter who made the approach,Mike would recognize that it was Barzini pulling the strings,so why would he care who made the actual overture to Carlo?

If Carlo would have had a lick of sense,he would have realized that he was already a dead man. I mean Mike tells him that he just killed Tatt and Barz,and then asks which one approached him.
Any street guy would have wondered why Mike wanted to know who approached him? What was Mike going to do with the information,resurrect the guilty Don and kill him again?

The only way the scene makes any sense is if Mike figured that Carlo would buy the lie that his punishment was exile to Vegas,and therefore would walk to the car quietly,as opposed to bolting through the door and running for his life down the street.Even this seems unlikely,since Mike was certainly capable of vanishing Carlo with no suspicion ever coming back on him.

Mike didn't need a confession from Carlo,he didn't need to set up a scheme to kill him,and he didn't need anyone's OK.

FFC needed the "Carlo gets his" scene ,as well as the Connie/Kay confrontation scenes.

FWIW, I've long thought that the interdependency (and friction?) between "family" in the traditional sense, and "family" in the LCN sense, is at the heart of one of the most fascinating aspects of Mafia subculture, i.e. the extent to which they're able to protect their wives & children (or not) from the depravity and carnage going on all around them - physically, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually. It's certainly a central theme of The Godfather series. Here is just one manifestation of it.

And Kay trumped it in III: Michael says he tried "to protect my family from the horrors of this world." Kay replied: "You became my horror." Bravo, Kay!

Yes, she definitely punched him right in the stomach with that remark. And deservedly so!

However, whenever I watch that scene I always get the feeling that Michael was, in a twisted and sick way, being sincere in that he really came to believe that he did things to try and protect his family. Maybe over time he had convinced himself that he did.

Of course we know that he destroyed it, but I don't know that he saw it that way. I think that he became so hardened, egotistical and power hungry that he reached a point where he couldn't differentiate family from "FAMILY"

In other words he may have saved the Corleone "Family" but by doing so he destroyed his family.

Remember the scene in II when Michael asked his mother if he could lose his family and she told him that he can never lose his family. Maybe she could have stopped him had she answered otherwise.

A point made crystal clear on the steps of the opera house in Sicily.

Wow this is turning out to be a great thread!

I think we all need to keep in mind the evolution of Michael's character. He was definitely of the WWII mentality, and used a kind of 1950"s corporate mentality when he took over the family business...very different from Vito even at that point. By the end of II he was totally paranoid, and had lost all he thought he was preserving. Nixonian in a way. By three he was totally deluded thinking he could somehow reunite with his ex wife and family who had all moved on.