most of us know then when writing GFII, FFC wanted Fredo killed and Puzo didn't want it. Puzo finally gave in, but only once they agreed Mama Corleone would die first. 2 questions ...

1. Do you agree with Coppola or Puzo; should Fredo have been killed or not?

and

2. Why do you think Puzo insisted on having Carmella die first?

1.FFC was right of course,I cant imagine GF2 without the scene were Michael and Fredo hug and Michael gives Neri the silent order"its time to kill Fredo" which Neri understands by lowering his head.And then of course the hit itself which was very powerful,Hail Mary,one shot,we hear the birds and Michael lowering his head...one of the best scenes in the entire trilogy.It also shows what Michael could do to his own brother.Betrayal is not accepted,blood or not.

2.Like Michael said "I dont want anything to happen to him...not while mother is still alive"
he waited for her to die.Nothing could be more painful than to lose your child.Micahel couldnt do this to his mother.

They waited until mother died as FFC thought that the audince wouldn't have liked Michael's Character as much if Fredo was killed while Mother was still alive.

good points

this made me think, if it werent for Mike having Fredo killed, i would guess there would be no GFIII, considering how much that had to with redemption and whatnot. maybe sort of a curse in disguise

Excellent points!

I also must add that it was always Puzo's way of making you not dis-like the bad guys!

Don Vito : A murderer, thief, etc. But Puzo makes you like him because he writes that Vito would never cheat on his wife, he believed in loyalty to her, and Vito would not deal in drugs. Vito would not have those boys murdered because they did not murder Bonasera's daughter.

Don Michael : A murderer, thief, etc. But again Puzo make you like him because he shows that Mike would not dishonor his mother by having her son killed while she was alive!

Puzo and FFC had a way of showing you Honor amongst thieves! A clever way of writing! A good writer can twist his story to make the reader /
viewer root for the "bad" guy!

Don Cardi

I agree with you Don Cardi, these writers have done an excellent job in creating sympathy for the mobsters.By the end of the movies we begin to hate all the people who were against the family. I think they achieved this effect by showing a corrupt policeman , corrupt politician, betrayers inside the family... as though Michael was on a noble mission and all these people were trying to create road blocks

I can only speak for myself but even during "The Untouchables" even though I know how it ends, I was still BEGGING for Capone to do something.


It's a movie, for someone like me who is fascinated with all aspects of the mob of course I'm going to be looking at them as "the good guys" (for lack of a better term). But that doesn't mean if I see some kind of shootout in the streets between a criminal and the police that I'm going to be cheering the criminal on.

Fredo's murder was necessary to GF2 in order to show how far Michael had strayed from his original intention on how to run the family. I believe that Michael understood that his mother had already lost one child, and couldn't bear to lose another. I believe he felt her out about her feelings when he has that chat with her about losing your family. She doesn't understand him at all, and thinks he's referring to Kay's "miscarriage".

On another level, delaying Fredo's murder until his mother's death gives Michael a way to lure Fredo back into his trust. He allows himself to be "persuaded" by Connie's plea and reconciles with Fredo, only to kill him later.

Puzo was always right about people he created, but as much as I know FFC paid little attention to Puzo's opinions, and made sad mistakes because of it. One of them is Fredo's killing. Certainly it has a strong effect, and is greatly done. Yes, it's one of the strongest moments. But that could never be, it is forced on us - and on Michael. Coppola is a great director, great professional and deserves every respect as filmmaker, but he overrates himself, trying to be writer, philosopher and God for his films.
We must be objective. There is logic and sense; there must be consistency in the development of every human character. Once created by Puzo's talent and insight, it was a great piece of human nature, and, as every nature, it has its own laws. FFC never was considerate enough to the truth, to the reality. His main wish was to make a tragedy, and he was pushing his tragic view of life upon everything, even if it was not real, consistent and justified.
We know, we feel that Mike, the real Mike if he existed, as he was created by Puso, would not listen to such a bad consigliere as Coppola was for him! He would never kill his brother, and he could not change in any way to make it possible. The deed requires another man, the man Coppola imaged instead of the already existing character.
Every professional actor will tell you that they try to get into the skin of the character they are playing, understand everything about him, see the world with his eyes, think the way he thinks. And then they see (the best of them, of course) how such a man as he would even walk, speak and drink coffee, they feel what is natural for him. For the people are all different, all of them, and you’d be wrong if you thought what was natural for you, or seemed natural, is really natural for anyone else.
That’s the research FFC never did for Mike. His character was created by flash of genius in Puso, greatly developed and written in the book, and was completely integral. There was no bisection of character, he was never double-minded in his decisions and actions, and he was true to himself. When Coppola begun to write just what he liked for him, with no deference to his existing qualities, we begin to feel as if he had two sides of nature and was torn between them, which could never be, exactly because the integrity and inner self-authenticity of this great fictional character. It was so strong as to resist Coppola’s artificial additions, we feel him to be punished by the very character with that awkward feeling we have about later parts of GF! What did he expect? To write unnatural script for Mike and get away with it? He had to know that Mike is not the man to let anyone bend his will!
And, by the way, it is really significant that Pacino, who played Mike, and, consequently, knew more than anybody else about him, criticized Coppola for making him act unnaturally for the character.
Every professional writer will tell you that main characters are not created; they are sort of born within your mind. And then they begin to live their own life within your imagination, showing their qualities to you as they act. You can invent some turn of the plot, put circumstances on their way, but you can’t make them act against their inclinations, you just sit and wait, listening to that inner life, what they’ll pull next. And sometimes they surprise you exceedingly.
If you invent any stupidity you like without deference to human character and his own, though fictionary, life and personality, you are a bad writer, and so did Coppola.
There are no terrible tragedies everywhere in the real life, punishing guilty guys. No such pathos and yelling, no such snot is natural for the people of Michael’s kind. And I feel sometimes that the way FFC forces his perverse imaginations on the real nature of things, which is steadily refusing them, of course, suffers from lack of taste.
Oh, well, I’m finishing.

Just Me, can you please provide a link to this interview. I have searched many times for pacino's views on godfather series. But I hardly find anything. He seems to enjoy talking about scarface , serpico and shakespeare more than godfather

I wish I could! But it was a while ago, and I forgot where I read it. It was everywhere in the news then, because it was Pacino's birthday, and he was talking to reporters and quite trashed GF3. He said that its filming was greatest mistake, that it never should've been made at all. And said that all Coppola did with Michael was out of character. That FFC was trying to find a redemption for him, to make him seek it, and that was unnatural, because people like Michael Corleone never seek, or wish, or need anything like redemption. Maybe I don't recall the exact words, but the sense in general was that Coppola did a heap of crap about Mike that he would never feel, say and do, and Al regrets that it was done and he was an accessory to this stupidity.
There must be other people here who had read that interwiew, maybe they will remember more.

FFC and Puzo did a brilliant job of building Michael's character. Part of his character was that every enemy, every person who betrayed him, without exception, had to die--Fredo included. "I don't want to wipe out everyone, Tom," he says in the boathouse, "just my enemies." Vito may not have had the heart to kill Carlo in GF, but he knew Michael would do it.

As for waiting for Carmella to die: The key is in the scene when he returns from Havana and asks her if it's possible to lose his family. "You can never lose your family," she replies. "Times are changing," he says--predicting, exactly, his own loss of family. He waited for her to die so she would be spared the pain of losing Fredo--and of knowing, or guessing, that Michael did it.

And if Vito had no heart to punish the killer of his child, Michael was indeed a man to do it reardless of who that murderer was? Then his giving Kay a pass was a sentimentality he would never forgive himself!
And Fredo had difference from others- he didn't know what he was doing. He never meant to become Michael's enemy and kill him. Knowing about possible danger and controlling him, Muchael might leave him to live quietly at the compound fishing with Anthony. His murder was neither necessary nor satisfactory for Michael.
Yes, Puzo did a great work building Michael's character in the book, but then came Coppola and spoiled it to... to... sorry.

When I first saw this thread, I thought it was another one of those "Did Fredo Know?" kinda things

I pretty much agree with what everyone has said thusfar. Michael couldnt have his mother lose her two eldest sons, after all, family is everything. Hypocritical I know Fredo had to be killed, becuase it show how low Michael had sunk by Part 2. FFC had to show that becuase he complained that after the first one came out, people were complaining to him that nothing bad happened to Michael. They said he wasd glorifing crime and the Mafia.

Believe it or not, I agree with them BOTH. I've always understood Puzo's being completely against it, feeling such a thing could never take place within the family HE created.

On the other hand, Puzo deferred to FFC, agreeing that GFII was Coppola's baby...and by all rights it made one helluva plot twist and a chilling, masterful completion to an already great story.
That's why we're still discussing it today!

I think he felt it would put the already cold, almost monsteous Michael in a bit of a softer light to consider his mother in all of this. Though Fredo betrayed the family and must die...he would not want his mama to lose another son, especially by HIS own orders. The decision was in character and gave us just a small glimpse that a human side to Michael still remained.

If it was really Puzo who insisted upon this (which I hadn't heard until today)...it was a very wise decision.

Apple

SVSG! I didn't find it, but I saw a quote from it in IMDB news.
Here's the quote:

Pacino: Godfather III Was A "Major Mistake"
26 April 2002 (WENN)
Making a third Godfather movie was a big mistake, according to the film's star Al Pacino. The acclaimed Hollywood actor played Michael Corleone in each episode of the trilogy and starred in the third instalment, but he regrets the film now - because he fears it ruined the Godfather franchise. He says, "A major mistake was made in Godfather III, I think, which was they tried to redeem Michael Corleone. I don't think the audience wanted to see Michael Corleone as someone who is wanting or needing of redemption. It got a bit esoteric. It would have been better if it was done in a more subtle way."

And here's the link to it, it\'s at the bottom somewhere.

That's exactly what I guessed about the source of his script ideas!
But if you are doing a work of art and change principal things in it not because of any internal reason, logic or necessity, but only because some stupid critic told you what should happen to the characters, then it’s not a good work. Not as good as might be. You can’t please everyone. Art can’t please everyone. More than that, who ever said that art must please? Is Bosch pleasing? It must make us think. And at this age, if your work has pretensions on realism, it must contain some realism, at least, so I believe.
Michael would never act so unnaturally, fall so low, make such mistakes, and be unable to stop where necessary. It is out of his character and qualities, and kind noble purpose to punish him as dreadfully as possible does not justify such offence of nature. BTW, acting so cruelly towards Michael FFC is no better than Michael himself. What a cold-hearted bastard!
Oscar Wilde in “The importance of being earnest” portrayed a wonderfully pretentious governess, who had written a sickeningly sentimental novel in two volumes, and said with utmost pride that everything there ended well for good characters, and bad for bad ones, and that’s what must be called “Fiction”. Well, it reminds me of Coppola.
Puzo really was a very good writer, even if this novel is the result of his decision to write a hit instead of good literature – you can’t cease to be a good literature writer if you are one already. The novel is not equally good all the way, but most of the parts concerning the general plotline (Corleones) are frequently as close to masterpiece as could be. I always thought it to be easy to separate good literature from bad. Good literature has more conveyed than written in it. The more is said between the lines, the better it is. I also perceived that good literature, as the life itself, is never moralizing. We must not judge, as nobody ever is good or bad. We are, as Austen said, a mixture of evil and good in different proportions. The writer may only show the best possible imitation of reality, trying not to violate the nature of things. And if he finds a side of human nature worth showing – there it begins.
Puzo shows us his reality without preaching or being didactic in any way. He never glorifies crime or Mafia, those saying it simply didn’t read! He just shows the people he’s writing about, as fairly as possible, even if on the brink of cynicism, and as any good writer never allowing his own self appear more than necessary. His characters reveal themselves naturally in dialogue and deed; they create circumstances and suffer from them – without his comments. They just live in the world, feel pain and happiness, and, as God, he doesn’t meddle, whether to help or punish.
And nobody in his right senses would say that nothing happens to them. Nothing happens to the man who worked and murdered people all his life to see his children happy, when he sees his firstborn son laying riddled with bullets? Nothing happened to the man whose beloved wife and her unborn child are blown to pieces in front of him? To the man, whose lie to his wife ruins their long built happiness forever, even if she stays with him for God’s sake? Because their intercourse as Puzo shows it reveals that the most important thing, their mutual trust, is lost.
He shows tragedies without snot, more strengthening will and character, than destroying; pain borne manly, not yelling and tearing hair off. He shows us strong people, and they outlive those tragedies as strong people, accepting responsibility. They don’t talk about it, they don’t complain. They are not sentimental; emotions are unnecessary stuff for the men of deed. They are made from a different material than film directors and other honest citizens. Being clever, they did not expect that the life they chose would be full of flowers and butterflies. They stand against anything for the sake of what is dear for them, and when they cannot do anything more, they have strength to accept it, without snot and display of their emotions, and go along. Pain, howewer strong, is just a part of life. That’s why we feel respect for them. But it doesn’t mean that we aren’t told the price they pay for what they do.
It is not exaggerated, and it doesn’t squeeze tears from us. We don’t see much justice in the way of things, bad guys prosper and good guys suffer as often as the reverse. It is seldom that we see the real possessors of guilty power punished or suffering in this world. No, they live long, happy, successful life and die surrounded by loving children saying, “Life is so beautiful”…
Their mistakes are punished by the life itself, their sins are left to God’s mercy.
The amount of untold, left out of words in Puzo’s novel makes us feel much more terror and guess deeper feelings, thoughts and sufferings than any direct, snotty, primitive yelling and whine could express. The possibility of creating feeling or sense without dictating it is a quality of real art. Unfaithfulness to the nature of things for no better reason than someone’s stupid remarks – is not.

I think Hail Mary, Full Of Grace was a very powerful scene. It showed us how taking control of the Corleone family had changed Michael, but at the same time showed how caring he was at the same time. He didn't want his mother to be alive at the time of Fredo's death, so he waited. But what confused me was, he 'forgave' Fredo at the funeral, and had him shot later in the movie.

He didn't forgive Fredo,Michael wanted him to think he had been forgiven for the sake of his Mother.But then you know what happend next.

LOL.