It’s time for my annual (or is it semi-annual?) seat-of-the-pants Top Ten Most-Frequently-Asked Questions on these boards. This isn’t scientific: your comments, corrections and additions are welcome:

1. Did Roth engineer the cop’s entry into the bar, thwarting Frankie Pentangeli’s assassination? (This thread gets the Lifetime Achievement Award.)
2. Who killed the Tahoe shooters?
3. Did Connie really think that Fredo drowned?
4. Who is the “ghost lady” at Vito’s burial?
5. Was Michael wrong to kill Fredo?
6. Would Sonny have made a better Don than Michael?
7. If Clemenza (rather than Pentangeli) had been in GFII, would he have betrayed Michael?
8. Why didn’t Robert Duvall appear in GFIII?
9. Who was a better Don: Vito or Michael?
10. Which Don was the old guy who sang at Connie’s wedding?

Many regulars here get annoyed by newbies who ask these and other familiar questions without doing searches. They’re not wrong, IMO. But I don’t mind repeat questions because, once in a while, someone comes up with a new and interesting angle that hadn’t been posted before.

Grazie, Turnbull. Here's a fan's stab at it:

1. No. He was going to leave him hanging all along but he didn't have anything to do with the police.

2. Fredo's men. He intended it to be a hit all along. He got "passed over" and he never forgave Mike for it.

3. Of course not. She was the Matriarch of the family at that point and she was soothing Mike with a well known, family accepted lie.

4. 1972 movie camera problem.

5. Yes. A true Don would never have killed his brother. He would have banished him.

6. No, simply because Sonny would have been killed anyway due to his behavior. Mike was more wise, Sonny more street smart.

7. Yes, it was in the original script, I believe.

8. Money.

9. Vito. He knew how to seperate himself from his emotions while Michael never did. It may have been generational.

10. I believe the old man was a relative of Carmella's and not a Don, per se. He seems harmless and fun. Maybe it's Maranzalla's successor?

I don't think Clemenza would have betrayed Mike, I dont think he would have had motive to... Whereas Pantangelli certainly did...

IMO The Rosato Brothers killed Clemenza.. and where trying to force Pantangelli out at well.. Pantangelli went to Mike for help, and Mike wouldnt help him. Frank was very loyal but got kicked around so much, even he had his limits.

I don't think he would betray the family either. Remember it was Tessio who did that. I think he did have a motive to because He wanted to form his own family but Michael wouldn't let him. this is my opinion.

Good list TB! I believe just about every question is one that can hold different theories and views, which is probably why they are asked/posted so often. But really, that's what this board is about, the discussion and viewpoints. Thank goodness there isn't only cut and dry answers, at least for our sakes hu??

Although, I don't know if it would be in the top ten, the question of who was a better wife for Michael has come up quite a few times since I've been here.

TIS

Yup, that's another frequent question, TIS--along with a parallel one: If Apollonia had lived, would she have protested, or gone along with Michael quietly?

Thought of a couple more. Don't know if TB means just GF or all three but:

Who's a better actor Pacino or DeNiro

And how many discussions on the whole "Vincent" character have we had??

"Every time we're out they pull us back in"


TIS

Should'nt the 5 or 6 families be somewhere in the top 10?

Absolutely, AN. Altho I don't know what the debate is about. Clearly, there are six

Could we add "Who is member #2?"

Ya gotta add:

"Who opened the drapes in Michael's bedroom?"

"How do you post a picture?"

As Turnbull put it in the thread's original post, I, too, don't mind these repeated questions. Every once in a while we get a different slant on things oft repeated, and we have to remember that we were all newbies at one time.

I don't remember if this was in the form of a question or not, but let's not forget the subject of Appollonia's breast! That's been a rerun around here many times, as only the "important" things are discussed.


TIS

Appolonia would have never protested any of Michael's decisions about the family business. Appolonia was from the old country, like Mama Coreleone knew her role and never interefered. She respected her husband and the family business. Kay was too "white bread" from New England, and very niave to the business, and thus not very tolerant.

KAY
Michael, is it true?

MICHAEL
Don't ask me about my business, Kay...

KAY
Is it true?

MICHAEL
Don't ask me about my business...

KAY
No.

MICHAEL (as he slams his hand on the desk)
Enough!
(then)
Alright. This one time [Michael points his finger] -- this one time I'll let you ask me about
my affairs...

KAY (whispering)
Is it true? -- Is it?

MICHAEL (quietly, shaking his head)
No.

..Do you think that Appollonia would have been medling like Kay... I think not.

Like Calo said..She (Applolonia) would have made a good American Wife...

Another frequent post: "Your feelings on GF III" -- or something to that extent.

Another frequent question is "Why did the appearance of Frank Pentangelis brother, cause him to change his testimony?"

Or one that I hate..."GF III sucks/ruined the trilogy/insert_deragatory_comment_here"

Good memory TIS.

We can't forget this topic of discussion.


I can agree with Meggie's post here. Appolonia would've never questioned any of Mike's business affairs.

Don't forget:

"What's Immobiliare about?"

If your talking about the old man who sings "Che La Luna" with Mamma C, I could swear I heard her call him up to the stage, with the first words of "Zi"- Uncle in Italian. Although in our culture, its common for us to call many of the older men, "Zi Pasquale" or "Don Pasquale" as a sign of respect

I guess I'm still a newbie because I don't remember very many of those questions being asked...... This is certainly the place to come if you have a question... I don't know where else you could go and ask. In my case, I thought I pretty much had it all figured out, then I come here and find out all these other possibilities and that I was wrong about certain things and didn't notice other things... I wish we could have REAL group sessions on this, you know in person. I think it would be a lot more interesting that way. But.....

I don't mind new questions at all, and can't see why the people who get annoyed do so. We were all a beginner once, with so many questions to ask, and not everybody has been on message boards before, hence not searching for an answer. It's hard to search for specific details anyway, as the search engine isn't like google; you to type the particular details.

And in addition, I think the more you explain things to other people, the more you figure things out for yourself and appreciate it more (for example, I was trying to explain the plot of Memento to my dad while we were watching it, and realised that before I had started explaining, I actually knew very little, but know a lot more now).

Saying that, I don't pop in here very often, so no need to get annoyed at newbies.

Mick

"What's Immobiliare about?" [/QB][/QUOTE]

immobiliare is a real estate share holding company in europe.

*what's your favorite gangsterfilm of all time
*which one do you like best gf1/2/3
*who was the best godfather brando pacino deniro

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Don Vanchenzo:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Turnbull:
[qb] It’s time for my annual (or is it semi-annual?) seat-of-the-pants Top Ten Most-Frequently-Asked Questions on these boards. This isn’t scientific: your comments, corrections and additions are welcome:

1. Did Roth engineer the cop’s entry into the bar, thwarting Frankie Pentangeli’s assassination? (This thread gets the Lifetime Achievement Award.)

He had to cause he needed Pentangeli alive. I do not believe the theory that
"Michael Corleone says hello" was for the benefit of the bartender.

2. Who killed the Tahoe shooters?

The real queestion is how many threads are devoted to this.
3. Did Connie really think that Fredo drowned?

No. She knew.
4. Who is the “ghost lady” at Vito’s burial?

Appolonia's ghost.
5. Was Michael wrong to kill Fredo?
No. He was weak, he was stupid, and he had been warned never to take sides against the family again --- ever. But it really did break Michael's heart.
6. Would Sonny have made a better Don than Michael?

Sonny was running the operation into the ground. No way. Even Vito said he was a bad don.

7. If Clemenza (rather than Pentangeli) had been in GFII, would he have betrayed Michael?

Never.

8. Why didn’t Robert Duvall appear in GFIII?

He wanted too much money.
9. Who was a better Don: Vito or Michael?
Vito.

10. Which Don was the old guy who sang at Connie’s wedding?

He was an uncle...dunno.

Turnbull!! Time to make a new list!

I know what question must be added to it in the first place! Quite an achievement!
"What is all this GF plot about?!"

I still believe that the old man was Nazorine The Baker's Father. Mama starts to sing the song and then calls "Nazorine" to come up and sing and the next thing we see is the old man picking up where Mama left off. Just my theory.


Don Cardi

It's about a King and his three sons....!


Don Cardi

But didn't we see Nazorine in the Don's office and that didn't look like him.

And their bastards...

Yes that is Nazorine The Baker in the Don's office. I believe that the old man singing is HIS father. When we see that old man singing, look behind him and Mama and Nazorine the baker are standing there.


Don Cardi

What do you mean by their bastards?


Don Cardi

Well - when in GF3 they were short of characters, they couldn't come up with something better that inventing a bastard. Wait, and you'll see: in GF4 we shall be fed with Fredo's, Connie's and Michael's bastards. Maybe also Tom's, Neri's, Rocco's and Barzini's bastards - who knows. And Anthony will be bisexual, I bet!!!

10. Which Don was the old guy who sang at Connie’s wedding?


I believe it was Anthony Stracci, if im wrong then it might have been cuneo, but i think its stracci

About the song that was sung by the old man at Connie's wedding:

I heard that song sung all the time in my family but I never knew what it meant. I still don't know what the song means, but the way those people laughed at Connie's wedding, I can imagine that old man put some nasty into it! Do any of you Italian-speakers know the words to that song? I sure would like to know!

Thanks!

~~ Lollie

Why? I could never imagine Barzini doing something like that. So if Cuneo and Stracchi were so good friends, why did they had to be killed? Just killing Barzini and Tattaglia, as a warning should have been enough to intimidate Cuneo and Stracchi. No?

When in doubt, go to Geoff's site. Here's the English translation:

LA LUNA MEZZO 'O MARE (ENGLISH)

AND THE MOON IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SEA:
OH MY MOTHER I MUST GET MARRIED --
OH MY DAUGHTER WHO WILL WE GET?
MY MOTHER I LEAVE IT UP TO YOU.

(I)
IF I GET YOU THE BUTCHER
HE WILL COME AND HE WILL GO,
BUT HE'LL ALWAYS HOLD THE SAUSAGE IN HIS HANDS...
IF HE GETS A BRIGHT IDEA
HE'LL SAUSAGE YOU OH MY DAUGHTER.

(II)
IF I GET YOU THE FISHERMAN
HE WILL COME AND HE WILL GO,
BUT HE'LL ALWAYS HOLD THE FISH IN HIS HANDS...
IF HE GETS A BRIGHT IDEA
HE'LL FISH YOU OH MY DAUGHTER.

(III)
IF I GET YOU THE SHOEMAKER
HE WILL COME AND HE WILL GO,
BUT HE'LL ALWAYS HOLD THE SHOE IN HIS HANDS...
IF HE GETS A BRIGHT IDEA
HE'LL SHOE YOU OH MY DAUGHTER.

(IV)
IF I GET YOU THE GARDEN MAN
HE WILL COME AND HE WILL GO,
BUT HE'LL ALWAYS HOLD THE CUCUMBER IN HIS HANDS...
IF HE GETS A BRIGHT IDEA
HE'LL CUCUMBER YOU OH MY DAUGHTER.

Obviously the song is filled with double-entendres.

The only other one that Turnbull didn't list that has come up frequently is "who opened the drapes in Michael's bedroom?" Although that can be tied into the identity of who killed the Tahoe assassins.

Maybe Woody Allen opened the drapes cause he was jealous that someone else was sleeping with Diane Keaton

Just bumping a useful thread up because it's in danger of being lost to a 10 year search. I don't know if there's a more recent version.

Glad you did, Pete.

In the years since, Roth engineering Pentangeli's survival has all but disappeared. Who killed the Tahoe shooters is still up there. Better Don--Michael or Vito--is popular. But, I think the new Number One is: Did Fredo deserve to die, and/or did Fredo know it was gonna be a hit.

However TB, the one question that receives the least attention, but the answer to which holds the key to the questions and mysteries of the entire Trilogy is: why were Manolo's scenes cut from the films?

Oli, as has been stated here many times: Manolo's scenes were cut because he was a member of the Gardeners and Landscapers Union, which had no reciprocity with Actors Equity.

Ahhh! The no reciprocity reason. I see.

While this thread is 12 years old, I think its important to remember that, hopefully, there will always be new people coming on board. Many times they will ask or bring up topics that have been previously covered. Quite possibly there are individuals that were very young when this board got started. Suppose a person was 10 when this thread started. Most likely they were big fans of the films. Now they are around 22, and could have discovered this films and really want to know more.

Of course there are people like me that drift in and out of the forum.

Yes, I often use the search function to see if my questions have been asked before and occasionally bring back an ancient thread.

Could this thread be made permanently sticky as so it doesn't get lost..

Great thread

Done!

Since it's pinned now:

1. Yes. I don't see how they could get Frankie from the bar to a hospital or precinct to the Feds without leaving some kind of footprint that Frankie was alive, unless it was engineered and the people all along the chain were expecting Frankie.

2. Most likely candidate is Rocco, as part of a betrayal plot for which he was eventually punished with the hit on Roth. Dark horse candidate is Bussetta.

3. No. Connie was on to Michael from the start ("Read the papers!").

4. Mama, though I wish it were Apollonia's ghost.

5. Yes. Michael could have put Fredo in a mental institution and no one would have questioned him.

6. Sonny. If he had avoided the tollbooth, counseled by Tom and Vito Sonny would have developed into a formidable don.

7. I think so. Castellano would have wanted a meaty part - what else is there but betrayal?

8. Money.

9. Vito, although the book Michael at least takes some notice of the personal touch that movie Michael does not.

10. I don't think he's a don. I think he's the same old guy singing a dirty song who turns up at every Italian wedding.

Always enjoyable to see these questions revisited, Pete. As for whether or not Roth engineered Pentangeli's survival:

Roth's plan was to lure Michael to Cuba, get the $2 million, and have him assassinated in the small hours of January 1, 1959. Why would he try to engineer an incredibly dangerous, split-second-timed rescue of Frankie? So that Frankie would hate Michael and testify against him at a Senate hearing weeks or months away, by which time, according to Roth's Havana timetable, Michael would be long dead?

And if Roth did intend for Frankie to survive, how would he engineer it? Call his man in the precinct and say, "Listen, Shultz, I want you to send a patrolman to Richie's Bar--but make sure he gets there at 3:43 and 22 seconds--not 3:43 and ll seconds, or 3:43 and 28 seconds--3:43 and 22 seconds!. Got it? Let's coordinate watches..."

Or, suppose Roth was lurking outside in a phone booth. He'd have to call the local police precinct and say, "Hello, 87th Precinct? There's a ruckus going on in Richie's Bar. You better send someone--but don't send him until 3:43 and 22 seconds..."

It was pretty obvious that the cop who happened on the scene wasn't clued in on it. And, as we saw, he got shot in the melee afterward.

I don't think it's a problem to have Plan A and Plan B. Michael might not show up in Havana. If Roth died before Havana, he could go to Hell happy in the knowledge that his perjury trap was in place.



I think you're right about this, so I'd like to reverse my answer specifically with respect to Roth engineering the entry of the cop.

Still, I think Roth's engineering of the overall incident has to stand, because otherwise too many random people would have to not notice or not blab that Frankie was in police custody and being moved around.

Wait. The whole reason for Frankie testifying against Michael was Frankie's belief that Michael was behind Frankie's near murder. It was only a near murder because the policeman showed up, right? So, Roth intended for Frankie to die right there and then. If I am missing something, let me know.

I think Roth engineered the event to the extent that he conspired with the Rosatos to have Frankie assassinated at their meeting. He and the Rosatos were allies. He supported them in their beef against Frankie over the three allegedly promised territories in the Bronx (per Michael's meeting with Frankie in the boathouse during Anthony's party). Roth probably told them that if they whacked Frankie, they could take over the Corleones' NYC operation, and that he'd "take care of Michael." He probably didn't tell the Rosatos that he was going to have Michael whacked in Havana; perhaps he said Michael would go along with it as a condition of Roth turning his Havana operations over to him. But, Roth didn't--could not have--engineered Frankie's survival. That was strictly happenstance.

You make a good point about too many people knowing about Frankie's survival. Here I have to give FFC some "directorial license":

NYPD was first on the scene and arrested Frankie (Tom: "The NYC detective squad said Frankie was half dead, scared, talking out loud about how you betrayed him"). Frankie was inside the bar, not out in the street where the shootout took place. Perhaps the detectives, seeing that Frankie was ready to rat out Mr. Big, thought it would be in everyone's best interest to keep Frankie's survival secret, the better to protect him against Michael trying to silence him, and to get more info out of him.

The "directorial license" part is how the Senate subcommittee managed to wheedle Frankie away from NYPD. A stretch-guess: The Senate subcommittee already had hearings scheduled on organized crime, and was planning to call Michael as a witness. Roth, through Questad, had the Senate subcommittee chair appeal to NYC's mayor to have NYPD give up Frankie to the subcommittee. The promise would have been that the subcommittee had a far better chance of connecting Michael, through Frankie's testimony, to a greater range of crimes (i.e., running all the gambling in America) than were covered by NYPD's jurisdiction.

One problem is that if everything isn't coordinated, then the Rosatos are going to be trying to figure out where Frankie is, which again would leave some sort of trail for the Corleones to follow.



The fact that Frankie was willing to talk would necessarily bring the feds in, right? I realize they didn't have a formal witness protection program, but they did stuff like that on an ad hoc basis and the the FBI and Justice Department would have to sign off on all of it to give Frankie meaningful immunity.

I don't find any challenge to the Justice Department taking Frankie into custody since his alleged criminal activities would have crossed state lines. Of course, he would have to respond to a Committee subpoena.

How about

Why the HELL did Vito send Luca, his most trusted and loyal adviser to pretend he's betrayed the family. I mean - ANYONE but him surely???

We had a nice discussion about that question here:

http://www.gangsterbb.net/threads/ubbthr...true#Post444618

Answer to number nine. Vito. Without a doubt. And, here is my rational.

Machiavelli was the most famous Consigliere of all time. He, first, worked for the Families that ran Florence then, after their defeat at the hands of the Medici armies, he wrote his most famous work "The Prince" in an attempt to keep his position under the new rulers. His gift, of a manual on how to take and maintain power, was accepted, and he was promptly exiled to the far north, where he lived out his life writing satirical theatrical works.

Now, I'm paraphrasing here but, as I recall, one of his most famous lines went something like this:

"There are two ways to rule a people. One is through love. The other is through fear. It is far better to be loved, because you can always become feared. However, once you are feared, you will never again be loved."

Vito was beloved. Remember when he asks Genco about Fanucci, and is indignant about how he preys on other Italians? And, later, when he kills him. Of course, he does it for his own gain but, it is also for the neighborhood. Nobody knows he did it, but word gets around, and everybody believes it. And, they love him for it.

Later, with the landlord, who has never heard of him, and with whom he tries to reason from moralistic-humanistic positions, to no avail. He tells him to ask around the neighborhood about him. Instilling fear. The landlord will never love him. But, the rest of the neighborhood will love him even more.

Michael? Only his direct family love him. His capos respect him and as, Tessio says "like" him, but love? Nope. And, most of his family dies, one after the other. Even his wife finally leaves him, feeling "no love" for him.

It was the dual trauma of Sonny's death, followed by that of Apollonia, that pushed him irrevocably to the dark side. Some might say it was the murder of Sollozzo and McCluskey, but I believe his love for Apollonia brought him back from the brink. She even made him laugh un-cynically (remember their driving lesson), but he never would again.

No more love. Only fear.

All that said, I have an eleventh question:

Where is the house that stood in for Don Ciccio's villa?

I read that Puzo based The Corleone Family on The Borgias. The similarities are very interesting...
http://mudmosh.com/the-borgias-the-original-crime-family-inspired-the-godfather/

1. https://youtu.be/Q_QVt_JCS54.
Coppola didn't know aiello was going to do the line.
8. https://youtu.be/4kFpSMLPl58.
Coppola just wanted to bail out his winery.

I'm glad he did. He's making some pretty good wine these days.

This board isn't as active as in the good old days, so I'm asking this question of any recent posters.

Any idea where the house used as Don Ciccio's villa in GF II is?

Apparently this is a question a lot of people have asked. And no one knows the answer for sure. Here's a link to one of many discussions:

http://wanderingtrader.com/travel-blog/fun-things-to-do-in-sicily-godfather-shooting-locations/

Yeah, been there too.

I leave for Sicily in two weeks. I'm starting to narrow it down to the point where I'm going to drive up and down a few streets looking for it. But, any clues I might follow would be appreciated.

I'm also looking for the olive oil mill/facility of Tommasino. From what I understand from Roos, it's actually a winery.

I'll be there for nearly three weeks, and will have regular internet access. So, if anybody comes up with anything...

I'll take pictures and post 'em.

One of the most often asked, but unanswered questions that has bedeviled we Board members is why didn't Vito have the mall gravel driveway paved? Certainly he could afford it.

Pavement is middle class. Gravel is upper class, requiring staff.

Paul Fussel wrote a wonderful, often tongue in cheek, book on the American class system. "Class"

Note Don Cicci's villa in Sicily. Gravel. The house of any self respecting English lord. Gravel. Versailles. Gravel.

If pavement is middle class and gravel is upper class, the sign of true royalty must be... dirt.

I know that there are posts about this subject in previous years, but after watching the Epic several times in the last few months (and re-reading the novel), I thought I'd bring it up again.

Did Vito have contempt for America or loathe America? We all know about the deleted scene when he sarcastically refers to Michael's military medals as miracles for strangers. We all know that he refers to Kay as Michael's American girlfriend. Of course, the novel has him stating that he has been good to them when referring to his button men enlisting in the Army as payback for America being good to them.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the novel or Epic which illustrates that to Vito America was nothing more than a
money-making opportunity.

Oli, there's nothing whatsoever to suggest that Vito was a "patriot" or "believed in America" as Bonasera stated right at the beginning. I think his attitude toward the US wasn't so much contempt as it was cynicism and skepticism about the hypocrisy that the politicians he bribed evinced through their sanctimony and "American values." I don't think he loathed Amerioca. I think that, to Vito, America was no different in operation than Sicily, just bigger and richer.

That's a long way of saying that I basically agree with you.

I think there was a sort of admiration there, in the book he says something like, "...nothing's impossible here in America." But, yeah, I think it's mostly an admiration for a country that provides ample scope for the ambition of enterprising fellows like himself.

I wonder though if Puzo's writing truly reflects how those Mafiosi of Vito's generation thought of America. While it's one thing to to take advantage of America's entrpreneurial opportunities, it's quite another to criticize a son for fighting for his country and to scathingly refer to a woman as an American.

How come when Tom was being held by Sollozzo he tells Tom to "talk to Sonny and the other two kids"? And also later Tom says to Sonny "Maybe we shouldn't get Mike mixed up in this too directly". I thought Michael wanted nothing to do with that life and also neither did his family members want that for him.

Although Michael wasn't at the drugs meeting, he was still Vito's son. Sol figured (correctly as it turned out) that Michael would have strong feelings to protect and avenge his father.

Correct TB. Also, Sollozzo would have no knowledge of Michael's estrangement from his father. For all he knew, Michael could be another Sonny ... and one with military experience.

Of course, Sollozzo could have said "the other[three] kids.

Thanks TB and Oli. But I believe the question still remains unanswered when it comes to Tom's line, as if they had in a way already planned for Mike to somehow be involved in the family business...or was it in that moment already that they realized that Michael had to be the one to negotiate/get rid of Sollozzo?

Yes, Tom said "maybe we shouldn't get Mike too involved." And Sonny said, "The old man would have my head..." if Michael got involved. And, when Michael said he was going to visit Vito in the hospital, Clemenza proposed that Michael go alone because "Solozzo knows he's a civilian." All reinforcing that Michael explicitly wasn't part of the family business to that point.

What changed? Two things:

First, when Michael saw that Vito was unprotected in the hospital because his bodyguards had been arrested, he said, "I'm with you now, Pop." Many people here believe that it was Michael's turning point--that he was now part of the family business, not simply that he was physically with Vito. Second, when McCluskey broke his jaw, Michael knew he was now personally involved. And finally: Michael was the only logical assassin for Solozzo: Fredo'd had a nervous breakdown and, as Tom said, "Solozzo wouldn't let you near him if he had ten police captains. Besides, as acting head of the family, you can't be risked."

To your point about if it was always planned for Michael to be part of the family: that's a good question. Was Michael always destined to be the Don? Was he destined for a life of crime? In the novel, Vito says, more than once, "a man has but one destiny." He didn't say it about Michael explicitly. In the novel, Clemenza, driving Kay home from Connie's wedding, says that Michael will take over the family business. In the flashback scene at the end of II, Tom tells Michael that "your father and I have made plans for you."

All good points, but I think we are mixing apples and oranges. We're talking about Vito's intentions and Michael's intentions; about destiny which I don't buy because it's 20/20 hindsight; about people's expectations (like Clemenza).

The novel and film portrayal (especially in the Epic) make it clear that Michael had no intention of joining the family business. I don't know how anyone can miss that. That estrangement from his father was mitigated by Vito's near assassination; from then on Michael was with his father as a son, not as a Mafioso. As the novel states, it was in Sicily when Michael began to change when he saw what could have been Vito's life if he had simply accepted his fate. That contributed to his evolution into a Mafioso as did Appolonia's murder. When he returns to the US and sees Kay, he rationalizes his father's world by telling Kay that Vito is no different from any powerful man.

Yes now I believe for certain the possibility of Michael not being by the Don's side until while being in Sicily because of you two now reminded me that before the assassination attempt Michael was being distanced from his father not only from the life style point of view but also as a son caused by their disagreements on the career path. So it wouldn't really make sense if he changed his life style path right there in the hospital room with him because logically you'd have to start out with being a son first which wasn't the case until then.

Regarding the flashback scene, I was always interpreting it as if Vito and Tom were planning a legitimate future for Michael, distanced from the family business and that he even didn't want that but wanted to simply do it all by himself without his family pulling any strings.

Thanks fellas.

As I and others have posted elsewhere, Vito's (and, thus, Tom's) definition of legitimate was different from the usual definition. Vito viewed politicians and police as a commodity: they could be bought and sold and, otherwise, used to advance the family's interests. That's how Vito viewed Michael's future: Governor Corleone; Senator Corleone, and how Michael in those positions could assist the Corleones.

...and it was the viewpoint that Michael adopted when he returned from Sicily to apprentice as Don. The key scene is when he went to New Hampshire to woo Kay. He tells her that "my father is no different than any other powerful man with responsibilities toward others." Kay says that Governors and Senators don't have people killed. "Now who's being naive, Kay," he replies.

Exactly TB. By stating that to Kay, Michael was normalizing his father's conduct (and that of other Mafiosi).

My take, for what it is worth!

Among others,

Did Roth engineer the cop’s entry into the bar, thwarting Frankie Pentangeli’s assassination? (This thread gets the Lifetime Achievement Award.
I believe the killing of Frankie was abandoned because of the unexpected entry of the cop

Then the ever astute Roth used Frankie's 'attempted' [Michael Corleone says Hello!] killing by Michael to his advantage as his Plan C the Senate inquiry ["The Senate lawyer Questadt belongs to Roth"] after Plan A Tahoe bedroom shooting and Plan B Michael's 'accidental' death in Cuba

Frankie should have had more faith in his Don irrespective of how it is deemed he got “kicked around” However Michael did hang Frankie out to dry What happened to the Capo's family being taken care of after the capo's death?

Who killed the Tahoe shooters?
I believe there was a third [!] assassin who took care of the first two assassins who were probably told to wait by Fredo's bedroom for assistance but were always going to be killed to leave no loose ends

There was a car at the gates trying to drive off or something just after the gun fire and Michael's guards were shouting Stop! Stop! then Halt! Also the sentry was slack leaving the gates open

Was Michael wrong to kill Fredo?
I believe so Michael having his brother Fredo killed was unforgivable and unnecessary, especially considering Michael was able to keep Fredo under watch or similar until Mama Corleone's natural death “It really did break Michael's heart”

Would Sonny have made a better Don than Michael?
As Vito himself said Sonny was a bad don As Virgil Sollozzo said Sonny was a hothead and can't talk business with him

If Clemenza (rather than Pentangeli) had been in GFII, would he have betrayed Michael?
I don't think so Besides it would have been so uncharacteristic considering the Clemenza we knew in The Godfather He was like a second father

Why didn’t Robert Duvall appear in GFIII?
Robert Duvall felt the pay gap between Al Pacino and him was unacceptable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kFpSMLPl58

Who was a better Don: Vito or Michael?
In my opinion apples and oranges

The Mafia business is kill or be killed The bonus for Vito was his wife Carmela

I believe both Vito and Michael were the best Dons they could be, under their respective circumstances Times were changing

The most significant difference is Vito's wife Carmela never questioned Vito about the business. Carmela's love, loyalty and support for Vito was unconditional
So Vito never had to worry about the blood family at all When they married Vito was a law abiding shop employee in a grocery store and only became Mafia after

Vito never had wife nor siblings problems including betrayal Vito never even envisaged the fury, resentment, hatred etc, that Fredo and Connie would harbour towards Michael and actually acted on

In fact Vito planned all the dirty work – killing of Carlo Rizzi and Moe Greene, the baptism murders – for Michael to carry out after Vito's death thus leaving a murderous legacy for Michael

If it is deemed that Michael didn't separate himself from his emotions like Vito knew “how to and did” in my view Vito did not either [Don Ciccio's murder] however because of Vito's family set up there were no consequences

Vito went back years later and killed, a senile, one leg in the grave, Don Ciccio who was living out his last days thousands of miles away absolutely no threat to the Corleones as revenge for killing his family because same as Michael the enemies have to be wiped out

If Michael's wife Kay was like Carmela, Michael would have had it all! When they married Kay knew Michael was Mafia

Who opened the drapes in Michael's bedroom?
Arguably, Fredo opened the window drapes thus 'identifying' Michael's bedroom

I think it's important that Vito do this. Part of Michael's tragedy is that when learns his lessons, he becomes trapped by them. If he learns to pursue enemies to the grave, then he'll do so without discretion.

Nice take, though!

Thanks! Pete

Why did the appearance of Frank Pentangelis brother, cause him to change his testimony?
Frankie's brother, Vincenzo's piercing icy stare was knifelike

I believe Frankie was jolted and reminded of omertà by his brother's presence Made him realise, what he was about to do – betray his Don – is a no-no in the business they have chosen and need to honour the omertà

May I please add a couple of questions
Sorry, if already discussed, I'd appreciate the link Thanks

Whilst having drinks in Havana, so that the brothers can spend some time together, especially when Michael didn't want Fredo to do anything, just go along with it

Why did Michael tell Fredo “Hyman Roth will never see the New Year"

Among others, Fredo had just told Michael that
1. Perhaps a bit of envy - not having married a woman like Michael's wife, Kay [oh, boy!] having kids etc.
2. He was mad at Michael [why?]
3. Why didn't [Fredo and Michael] spend time like this before [before what?]

As far as I can recall, except for the Sollozzo drugs meeting, Fredo had not been privy to the family business thus far

Fredo didn't even know that the Corleones were wanting to buy out Moe Greene's share of the hotel or that Vito was semi retired or what the $2M dollars was for

Was Michael trying to console Fredo that Fredo was no gypsy!

At that time Michael still had not found the traitor in his family

Michael seems to be giving pondering looks at Fredo but if he had the slightest suspicion Fredo was involved, he would never have revealed such an important hit, in Roth friendly country too – it could have jeopardised the whole operation. So risky
[well, Roth did survive but reckon not because of Fredo Then again Fredo did try to 'disappear' on the pretext of getting a real drink!!]

There was too much at stake for Michael to use the Roth hit as bait, to test Fredo

So uncharacteristic indeed and hard to fathom, why Michael was suddenly inclusive of Fredo

Why did Kay leave the children in the unholy and evil environment?

Kay's abortion makes no sense as no doctor would dare abort a Corleone child!

I believe Kay might have miscarried perhaps the trauma of the bedroom shooting

Michael had already said
“Kay, what do you want from me? Do you expect me to let you go? Do you expect me to let you take my children from me? Don't you know me? Don't you know that that's an impossibility that could never happen. That I would use all my power to keep something like that from happening Don't you know that”?

Then when Kay realised it was an 'impossibility' used the abortion, for Michael to allow her to leave him, during her "unholy and evil" speech at Hotel Washington

How can Kay as a mother leave their children [according to Kay] especially Anthony who is 'not' fine, in the unholy and evil Sicilian thing, with the father who is 'blind' to everything other than business and the children's friends are Michael's buttonmen?

I believe as a mother Kay should have at least taken up the second chance Michael offered and tried to salvage the situation for the sake of their children

Michael seemed stunned by Kay's outburst and would have been forced to make the changes he promised in the beginning of the conversation

Also, Kay says she knew “no way Michael could ever forgive her” makes me to wonder even more that it was a miscarriage because what mother would 'abort' their child to spite their father Now that is unholy and evil!

And Michael was sprung by Kay in front of Rocco! Fancy telling Michael that “children are outside, we are going” in front of a buttonman!

Also Kay didn't seem happy! that Michael was “too smart to let any of them beat him”

It seems Kay did not know Michael after all

I think she saw that she couldn't overcome the environment from the inside. She had to get away and arrange some plausible life away from the family for the children to come live in. She might not have considered the children to be less safe with Michael than with her - she had no ability to protect them and no way to know if someone would target them and their toys.

Why did Kay leave the children in the unholy and evil environment?

I think Kay felt she had to first get free of Michael before she could do anything to help her children, and she knew that in order to do that she had to make him not want her anymore...otherwise he'd never let her go.

Now this is just my opinion... but I personally think that Kay lied when she told Michael it was an abortion, I don't see how she could have managed to have an abortion while being constantly watched by Michaels guys, nor do I see how she could have secretly found a doctor willing to do it. I think Kay miscarried because of the stress of her situation and then she saw that as her opportunity to free herself from Michael.

Plus I find it almost fitting that Kay would take her revenge on Michael with a lie, right to his face..as he lied to her face at the end of the first film. In her mind Kay was giving him a taste of his own medicine, and you could tell Kay was reveling in her brief moment of power over Michael...I always felt like she was almost daring him to hit her just to prove that she had gotten to him.

Just my interpretation of course, one of the things I love is that its never confirmed for the audience whether Kay lied about the abortion or not, so you can interpret it either way depending on your preference.

Pete, for the life of me I don't understand the need for the question:

"KAY what do you want from me? Do you expect me to let you go? Do you expect me to let you take my children from me? Don't you know me? Don't you know that that's an impossibility -- that that could never happen. That I would use all my power to keep something like that from happening -- don't you know that?"

Who was a better Don: Vito or Michael?

to amplify! my post [from 28 January 2017]

Times were changing

And of utmost importance - Vito was the father the undisputed head of the family

Fredo would never have done what he did to Michael [kid brother] to Vito [father] or Sonny [older brother]

1. Carmela never questioned Vito about the business In fact she even got Vito to help her friend, Signora Colombo to stay on, in her flat, even kept the dog
2. It seems business and blood family were kept separate and both thrived Business taken care of by Vito Blood family taken care of by Carmela

It is deemed Vito kept the family together but Michael destroyed it How so?

If Michael's wife Kay was like Carmela, Michael too would have had it all!
When they married Kay knew Michael was Mafia unlike Carmela [Vito became Mafia after]

If my memory serves me right,
whatever Michael did were to other Mafia people [kill or be killed]

Whereas Vito
1. It seems the band leader took on Johnny Fontane, when he was probably an unknown and helped him build his career
As soon as Johnny became well known / famous, Vito got Johnny out of the contract as Johnny wanted and the band leader lost out on his share of Johnny's earnings as per the contract

2. Jack Woltz lost $600,000 prize horse, Khartoum [gruesome] and was forced to give Johnny the part in his movie [And not because of Woltz paedophile history but because Johnny was Vito's Godson]

This is not right! Why should 'civilians' be terrorised and subjected to such terror tactics and lose out what they have worked hard for? to pamper and indulge Vito's Godson?

At least Michael ended up remorseful for his sins

Vito “I don't apologize that's my life” left a murderous legacy for “I never wanted this for you” son Michael

Why did Kay leave the children in the unholy and evil environment

How was it that Kay was happy to enjoy the spoils of the unholy and evil Sicilian thing for five years, the time frame for legitimacy

Kay tells Michael he was 'blind' but seems Kay was 'blind' too

However Kay wanted to undermine Michael, whatever Kay's motive was – a mother leaving their children in the unholy and evil environment, with the unholy and evil father, with nothing absolutely nothing of her grievous concerns addressed / rectified, in my opinion is unholy and evil itself on Kay's part

It seems to me, Kay wanted out of her 'abortion' of a marriage at any cost even without her children, just abandoning them with the unholy and evil father – what a selfish hypocrite!

As a matter of interest wonder what effort Kay made regarding
1. the 'abortion' of Michael and her marriage
2. feeling no love for Michael
3. what's happened to Michael and her
4. what's happened to 'not fine' Anthony
5. Anthony's friends are Michael's buttonmen

On screen, we have the dead woman with Senator Geary and the woman who's machine-gunned with Cuneo.

It has to be taken as a given that nearly everything these families are doing are being done to civilians. That's where the money comes into the system, and one way or another it's coming in by violence or threat of violence. The occasional fighting among the families is just squabbling over who gets what piece of that pie.

Exactly Pete. Of course, in the novel an olive oil producer disappears as a result of Vito's efforts to control that business.

For the answer for Danny aiello's line
here it is right from the man himself

https://youtu.be/Q_QVt_JCS54

You are right!

There is “the dead woman with Senator Geary and the woman who's machine-gunned with Cuneo”

I was thinking
1. the Geary compromise was Tom's strategy – atoning for not digging deep enough about Geary's true intentions
2. the woman with Cuneo [innocent victim] happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time

Nevertheless you are absolutely right! No justification whatsoever

“It has to be taken as a given that nearly everything these families [including Michael] are doing are being done to civilians”

Then wonder why is it deemed
1. Vito was a better Don than Michael?
2. Vito kept the family together but Michael destroyed it. How so?

[Vito's bonus! an old fashioned traditional wife, Carmela]

Talking about Michael, Kay and their children, got me thinking about Vito, Carmela and their children and family man Vito's role as father!

Among others,
1. Vito knew Sonny was being unfaithful to his wife Sandra but didn't discipline Sonny to stop the infidelity just “a man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man” and when Sonny shooting off his mouth at Sollozzo's drugs meeting “Sonny's brain is going soft from all that comedy he was playing with that young girl”
2. Vito's perhaps lack of foresight and 'antagonising' the new son-in-law, Carlo by telling Tom “never to give Carlo something important, a living but never discuss the Family business with him”
3. Vito doing nothing, no father-in-law/son-in-law talk, about Carlo's abuse of his daughter Connie [old school not interfering? – not good enough!]
4. Vito's inaction regarding Connie's abuse resulted in Sonny's involvement, the hot headed Sonny's public beating of Carlo and Sonny's ultimate death
5. Vito's dismissal of Fredo “And Fredo....well, Fredo was....well” was somewhat disparaging [after Vito's return from the hospital, Fredo came back alone to Vito's bedroom but was completely ignored by Vito who was upset at Michael's involvement in killing McCluskey and Sollozzo]
6. Surely Vito was aware that Fredo was banging cocktail waitresses two at a time! that Fredo was being slapped and straightened out in public by Moe Greene and Fredo took Greene's side against the family in Las Vegas
7. If Fredo is weak and stupid to be Don perhaps giving Fredo at least a face saving role in the family to show that Fredo is valued in his own right
8. Vito left a murderous legacy for “I never wanted this for you” son Michael
9. Vito shut Carmela out of business too, starting with when he went into the bathroom and closed the door on her after receiving the bundle of guns from Clemenza

Ref: thread Did anyoneelse notice that Godfather II flashback scene - Vito's surprise birthday party
post by user The Last Woltz on 29 August 2016

Extract:

Spot on! Woltz
So true Vito was able to hold the “very disparate group of people together” I believe solely because and of utmost importance - everyone unequivocally accepted Vito as the undisputed head of the family, no matter what

Among others,
1. At Connie's wedding, everyone had gathered posing and the photographer was about to take the 'family' photo when Vito suddenly stops it because Michael wasn't there Everybody including Carmela not necessarily agreeing but unequivocally accepting what Vito had just done
2. Connie said to Michael [unwilling to believe that Vito could had anything to do with it] Michael waited until Vito died to murder Carlo even though “everyone blamed Carlo for Sonny's death”
3. Connie would never have treated Vito so insolently as she treated Michael at Anthony's party
4. Fredo would never have done, what he did to Michael [kid brother] 'betrayal' to Vito [father] or even Sonny [older brother]
5. Carmela would never have done, what Kay did to Michael 'abortion' to Vito

As long as Anthony is not trans-genered. Doneete Connie was enough for me in GFIII.