Turnbull's a good man.

As usual, TB hit it right on the head. Fredo posed an inherent danger to the family and to the Family. Michael had NO CHOICE but to eliminate him.

While we may find Michael loathsome and cold, he did what he HAD to do.

As the end of the novel, Tom meets with Kay, and she asks him why Carlo couldn't be forgiven. Although Tom explains why, he also says, "In this world, he could have been forgiven." (I'm paraphrasing, btw). That also explains why Michael could never forgive Fredo's treachery, especially after seeing the depth of his envy.

Envy is a very dangerous emotion, and Michael recognized that.

But a good person.

Remember: The two rarely, if ever, go hand in hand.

Thank you PB.

SB, would you order the death of your own brother, especially if he was a bit on the simple side?

Nope.

Mike knew it, too, when Part III came around.

That's an impossible question to answer (now, if you had said my brother-in-law, that would be a different story ). As I said in my earlier post, Tom recognizes that the real world and the mafia world are two very different ones. In Michael's world, that kind of treachery can never be forgiven. In ours, you might end up with some uncomfortable Thanksgivings, but you wouldn't have him killed!

[quote=Turnbull]
1. Fredo actively conspired with Roth and Ola against his brother's interests, for his own personal gain. ("Johnny Ola bumped into me in Beverly Hills...he said you were being tough on negotiations...but if they could get some help, there'd be something in it for me."[emphasis added.]


But Fredo also said that he thought it would be good for the family.

I think the best explanation for Fredo's role is that they told him they needed the drapes open for some relatively innocuous reason, like that they had to know where Michael was so that they could search his office or some such.

You think that Vito would have ordered the death of his own brother? Would Sonny have ordered the death of his own brother?

Sonny would just beat the shit out of his brother.

Vito didn't have the heart, and Sonny definitely didn't. He couldn't even kill his brother-in-law, who he hated. However, Michael could and did, and Vito sanctioned it. He knew he was leaving it in Michael's hands. So, while Vito couldn't bring himself to do it, he knew it was going to happen, and he probably was relieved to be passing that particular chore to Michael.

So, no, they couldn't. However, Vito also had the type of personality that encouraged loyalty. He would never have been the focus of such resentment because he had far superior people skills than Michael.

So Michael did NOT have to kill his own brother because he was a Mafia Don. He really didn't have to have Fredo killed. There were other alternatives.

The bottom line is that Michael had grown into this egotistical, paranoid, self serving cold hearted son of a bitch and that is why he could not see it clear to punish his brother some other way other than ordering his death.

He didn't have to and shouldn't have ordered the death of his own brother.

Yeah he coulda kept him locked in the basement

The idea here is the possibility of future damage to Michael or the family from Fredo. His resentment wouldn't just disappear.

I think all the things Fredo said was because Ola and Roth had manipulated him, he was a dumb guy. Mike should have known how weak fredo was and how easy Roth could have taken advantage of him. Mike should have kept him close.

I felt sorry for fredo and mike shouldnt have killed him, exile would have been the best method (but also keeping track of what he was doing when he was away).

The dialog went as follows:
Fredo: "He said it would be good for the Family.
Michael: And you believed that?
Fredo: He said there'd be something in it for me." [emphasis in original.]
What was important to Fredo was "me," not the Family.

Toward what end? That's a huge stretch.

Correct TB. In that dialogue what Johnny told Fredo that the quick conclusion of the negotiations Mike was being tough on would be good for the family....the "something in it for me" was an added bonus.

I still maintain that Fredo did not have to die.

Not only is his exact role in the hit unclear to us, it is also unclear to Michael. There's no indication that Michael ever learned what Fredo said or did to help Roth and Ola, only that he was somehow involved with them prior to the hit.

Also, the idea that Fredo was a continuing threat to Michael is belied by Michael's own actions. Fredo is hanging around the compound when Michael decides to talk to him. Even after that conversation - at which point Michael has clearly decided to kill him - Michael still allows him to come visit Mama. If Michael viewed Fredo as a continuing threat, there's no way he would have allowed Fredo to visit the compound.

Michael's lack of knowledge of the extent of Fredo's treachery, combined with his willingness to grant Fredo access to the compound, make it clear to me that Fredo's murder was simply vengeance, not self-preservation.

You might believe that vengeance is an appropriate motive for the murder of your child-like brother. I do not.

DC, If you analyze the difference in the men, you would see what I meant.

Vito was a different man than Michael. He inspired love and loyalty. Michael, on the other hand, inspired fear and resentment. Vito never would have been in Michael's position because he never would have made a member of his family feel the way that Fredo did. His dealings with others was smarter. The death of Khartoum and his dealings with the bandleader show that he could be every bit as ruthless as Michael. He knew enough to only use that force when there were no alternatives. Michael got to the point where he didn't bother making that choice.

Sonny, on the other hand, was loud and angry. He was also a generous man who allowed his emotions to get the better of him at times. He could never have killed his brother. But again, I can't imagine him causing the resentment that Michael did.

And even if Vito had caused the resentment that Michael did or Sonny caused the resentment that Michael did and their brother did something dangerous because of the resentment that they may have caused, stupid, but dangerous, I still do not believe that either of them would have ordered the death of their own brother.

And truth be told, it actually was Vito, more than Michael, who caused a resentment to build up in Fredo. He chose Michael to be his successor. It's the way POP wanted it. In fact Michael probably gave more freedom and responsibility to Fredo thatn both Sonny and Vito combined ever did!

Of course Fredo was envious of the power that Michael was given over the family. But Michael should have shown a bit more compassion and understanding. This was his blood brother, his mother and father's son. Not some enemy from another family.

It was Michael's paranoia, his having to show the others around him that he was the all powerful DON who would tolerate nothing, that played an integral part in his making the decision to do away with his brother.

It was a horrible decision. And that decision played a huge part in Michael's inner decline.

Don't forget that he at least died of natural causes and apparently a ripe old age.

To where?

Sonny would have done it himself.

Never. No way. As hot headed as Sonny was, he would have never planned out and ordered the death of his own brother. He had a heart. Somewhere along the line Michael lost his.





Exiled to a life in prison of sorts. Alone and guilt ridden. Left to suffer all those years with the thought of how he destroyed his family. Left to ponder until dying of natural causes at a ripe old age the thought of how his thirst for power, his quest for legitimacy and his hubris cost him his daughter, how his actions indirectly took away her young life. How the path that he chose ripped apart his family.

Yep, he lived to a ripe old age alright.

I'd rather die the way that Fredo did than to live that long with all the guilt and loneliness that Michael suffered with.

I think we have touched on this before, but I think it was the way Michael treated Fredo that upset him, not the fact that Michael passed him over as the head of the family business. There's a really touching scene where Fredo tells his half dead father that "I'm gonna learn the casino business." Fredo is actually proud of himself even though the truth is Sonnny is just getting him out of the way.

If Michael had handled Fredo with more kindness, Fredo would not have betrayed him. Look how remorseful Fredo is in Havana when he says to Michael "Why didn't we spend time like this before?"
If they had, Michael would have had Fredo as a loyal ally and not as a resentful younger brother who felt rejected.

Well, this may be a minority opinion, but I think Michael believed he was trying to be fair to Fredo:
--It was Vito's decision, not Michael's, that Michael be head of the family. A no-brainer anyway, since Fredo was a no-brainer.
--Fredo had embarrassed the family in Vegas by acting in a "degenerate" (2-at-a-time) way that upset Vito, and by permitting Moe Green to slap him around in public. He made the family look weak.
--He compounded the Vegas mistakes by taking Moe's side in the dispute over buying Moe out. If Sonny's remarks at the Sollozzo meeting exposed a ch**nk in the family's armor, so Fredo's remarks in Vegas made it look like Michael really wasn't in charge. A case could be made that Fredo's suggestion that Michael wasn't the last word in that dispute might have led Moe to hold out, resulting in his murder. Fredo certainly made Michael look bad.
--Fredo married a trampy slut--a drunk, a flirt, and a bigot to boot ("Never marry a wop...") who, among other things, made an embarrassing scene in front of myriad important guests at Anthony's party--an important event in Michael's "legitimization."

Despite all of this, Michael supported Fredo and let him live on the compound. Yes, he gave him "Mickey Mouse" jobs, but probably they were the only kinds of jobs a dimwit like Fredo could handle. Probably those "Mickey Mouse" jobs kept Fredo from getting into serious trouble on his own.

And how did he reward his brother's perseverence? By betraying him to Roth and Ola.

Fredo resented Michael because he was "passed over" for the Donship--an expectation that was totally ridiculous in his case. It wasn't Michael's fault that Fredo wasn't qualified to run a two-car funeral, much less a the country's top Mafia family. His death was a consequence of an act of betrayal of his brother that he chose to commit.

Michael was, definitely, a cold-hearted bastard. And killing his own brother was a reprehensible, revolting, immoral act. Michael was a product of the environment he chose. His behavior, and the disasters that befell him, were consequences of the choices he made. Rough justice.

I think your right TB. Also,most peole are not so daft that they cannot figure out that they are just not as bright as other peole, not as popular as other peole, and don't make as many good decisions as other peole. I am sure that Fredo kicked himself in the butt a few times over his insufficiencies. Of course, like many people in the same situation, he would tend to blame others for his insufficiencies - self-pity. So, he sought comfort in the arms of faux respect. It just as well could have been the bottle, or drugs, or mindless abandon.

TB you make an excellent point, however Vito didn't kill Sonny because he made intemperate remarks and screewed around with too many women.

In thinking about it, Vito had to know in his heart of hearts that the only son he had who had the qualities to succeed him was Michael. Maybe thats why he kept after him to "have a talk" about his future. Vito also had to realize that Sonny would not be a prudent Don and that if and when Sonny took over he would run the family into the ground. Still he did nothing to remedy this. So maybe he was going soft, and maybe, as reprehensible as Michael's act was, it wass justified in the cirminal mind set which they all had.

...but Sonny didn't actively choose to betray Vito--as Fredo chose to betray Michael.
But I don't disagree with anyone here that Vito would never have had Fredo killed. He had a heart in him. Michael didn't.

I think if there's one overarching message in the Trilogy it's this: Crime doesn't pay. Michael's whole life story was a continuing series of winning battles--and losing wars. It was no one's fault but his.

Turnbull, before even reading the rest of your post the exact same thought came to my mind.

I never felt that Michael thought that he was treating Fredo unfairly or intentionally treated him unfairly. I think that Michael built a wall around himself with everyone. Distanced himself from everyone and would not let himself get intimate with anyone. However I think that Michael sincerely thought that by letting Fredo run some Mickey Mouse Nightclub, some Brothel, and giving him his own people, that he was doing the right thing by him. He was taking care of his brother. But Fredo was too dumb, too simple to see this.

Where I blame Michael is in his coldness. Again he was cold with everyone. But Fredo was his brother and not a smhat one at that. Michael should have spent more intimate time with Fredo, did things with him. Even let him sit in on the unimportant meetings.
If he had done that, had spent "more time together" with his brother, I don't believe that Fredo would have been so bitter.

Bingo, DC!! That's what I was trying to say about the difference between Michael and Vito. Vito knew how to treat people. He always treated them with warmth and respect. Look at how he was with Luca at the wedding!

That was the big difference. Vito never would have done anything to cause his brother to resent him. He would have known better how to manage him, to make him feel loved and included, part of the Family and the family.

Never. No way. As hot headed as Sonny was, he would have never planned out and ordered the death of his own brother. He had a heart. Somewhere along the line Michael lost his.


I disagree. Remember how he went after Fredo at the surprise party when Fredo sided with Mike!



[quote=johnny ola][quote=SC]