Suspect and blame Michael for the death of Carlo, but not suspect and blame Carlo for the death of Sonny?

I think Sonny's death directly after Connie's beating at the hands of Carlo is more obvious than Michael killing Carlo (well, they're both pretty obvious -- Connie probably heard about the deaths of the other heads of the five families and Carlo's disappearance would be very suspicious) but Connie never does suspect or blame Carlo for Sonny's death, correct? Does this happen at all in the book? Been a long time since I read it.

If she did, she wouldn't be so angry at Michael at the end of Part I.

This is an interesting question. Others can correct me, but I don't recall anything that directly tells us what's going on in Connie's mind about these matters.

Now, Connie's outburst to Michael is:



The book has very similar language. Note two things: (1) that she doesn't say that she doesn't blame Carlo for Sonny's death; and, (2) the bolded language - what specifically is she talking about there?

My suggestion is that Connie is hysterical because she doesn't know what she's going to do for sex. In the novel, it seems that she's a virgin when she marries, but she proves to be a very sexual character, at one point literally begging Carlo for sex. Her situation is finally resolved by "filling her bed" less than a year after Carlo is killed.

So I would argue that Connie might actually have thought that Carlo was involved in Sonny's murder, but that having grown up among gangsters that was somewhat normalized, so that she could still be happy in bed with him, and that loss is what she's mourning when she confronts Michael.

Interesting question--and interesting response.

My guess is that Connie was reacting to sudden, violent widowhood--no more husband, no more father to her children. She may have questioned Carlo about the proximity of his beating her, and Sonny's assassination. But, Carlo wouldn't have admitted it to her. And, she'd want to believe her husband. The alternative was to believe not only that her husband was a killer, but was directly involved in a plot to kill her brother--and that her call to Sonny after the beating triggered it.

As an aside: Connie asked Michael to stand godfather to her son. Carlo was whacked on the same day. Connie asked Michael to forgive Fredo. Fredo was whacked after Michael "forgave" him. Not hard to imagine a cause-and-effect train of thought in Connie's mind. Perhap that's why, in III, she said she believed Fredo drowned.

Unless I was missing context, TB, she said Fredo drowned, but it was pretty obvious she knew otherwise, just like she knew Michael had Carlo murdered.

Good responses though...no doubt Connie did have some doubt about Carlo re: Sonny's death, but he was her husband and father to her children. In a Sicilian/Italian household I guess that trumps pretty much everything else, even the beatings?

Perhaps what Connie meant was that Mike never asked her opinion on Carlo. Doubtful she'd want him killed or punished but that does seem to be a big part of her outburst, Mike never asking 'what she wanted'. Maybe she felt like she should have been able to pardon Carlo for any involvement in Sonny's death.

I agree. Connie had to know, or at least strongly suspect, that Michael, who had no compunctions about ordering Carlo to be killed because he set up Sonny's assassination, wouldn't hesitate to have Fredo killed because of his betrayal. I think that, by that point, she couldn't let herself be more embittered by thinking the worst--and possibly blaming herself for begging Michael (on her knees!) to forgive Fredo and to bring both of them back into his "good graces."

I think Turnbull's point about her role in her brother's death is huge. If she believed Carlo was responsible, then she was partly responsible for Sonny's death too. So her mind would have done anything to convince herself that Carlo (and by extension, she) was not responsible.

Her evidence would have been 1) Carlo had just been in an emotional situation with her and would have been in no mental shape to coordinate such a well-orchestrated hit; 2) Carlo did not have the clout to get others to follow him in putting together this type of event; and 3) Carlo lacked a motive. I seriously doubt he told her that Sonny beat him up and shamed him. As far as she knew, they were on decent terms, despite some bickering that she would not have considered unusual. Maybe they were not as tight as they were when Sonny introduced him to her, but they were okay for the most part in her mind. We know this is flawed logic at best, but she would have clung to it desperately.

In contrast, Michael had the clout, had the level-headedness, and had the motive.

And Turnbull is right again in another front. Sonny's death did not change her status. Carlo's death made her a young widow, i.e.; a tragic figure. That affected her mindset significantly.

Connie's tirade against Michael was intended to set up the "Is it true?" question from Kay.

Don't forget the following deleted scene where Kay goes to church and lights the candles to save Michael's soul (It's in the novel too). Connie's tirade was all to set up those following scenes.