In II, Hyman Roth picks a fight with Michael that ends up destroying lives and friendships. I just watched II a few days ago, and here's what I see. Roth sends Johnny Ola to sanction Michael's takeover of a casino, seemingly to spark a good business relationship. But subsequently, as we later learn, Roth setup a hit on Michael. What I never understand, is why? The story focuses on Fredo's betrayal, not Roth's. There's my first question.

Second concerns Frank. Roth orders the Rosato brothers to garrote Frank, and blame the hit on Michael. The result is, Frank sings, and for some reason, so does Cicci. Again, I don't understand. Did Roth order the hit as a preemptive strike, since Frank was out for the Rosato's blood? And wasn't this how Michael figured out it was Roth who tried to have him killed?

Also, rhetorical question Michael sending Rocco to whack Roth. Sending Rocco on a suicide mission. Isn't that what are supposed to be for soldiers are for?

Michael had been encroaching on Roth's Nevada gaming empire since his return from Sicily. Roth could not take Michael on directly, so he jollied Michael along, pretending that Michael was his heir-apparent, until an opportunity arose to whack him--and get away with it. Anthony's party was an opportunity. Roth knew Pentangeli would be there, contentious over Michael's support of the Rosato brothers. So, Pentangeli would have an obvious motive to whack Michael--and would be the obvious patsy for the killing. When that failed, he lured Michael to Havana with the promise of setting him up as inheritor of Roth's Cuban gaming empire.


Michael knew Roth was behind the Tahoe murder attempt almost immediately. His trip to Miami was to make Roth relax and feel that their deal was still on. He also made it clear that he blamed Pentangeli for the attempted hit ("Frank Pentangeli is a dead man--you don't object?"). But, when Michael, instead of killing Pentangeli, dispatched him to settle his problems with the Rosatos, Roth figured that Michael didn't blame Pentangeli--meaning that he could suspect Roth. So, Roth ordered the Rosatos to whack Frankie for two reasons. First, Frankie was Michael's loyal subordinate, and had plenty of muscle in NYC that he could use against Roth and his allies if needed. Second, Roth planned to have Michael killed in Havana, so killing Frankie in NYC would set up his allies, the Rosato brothers, as the new commanders of the "olive oil business."


A subtheme of II is how Neri pushes past Rocco, and tries to push past Tom, to be Michael's second in command. Remember: Rocco was Clemenza's protege, Neri was Michael's. By the end of II, Rocco was, essentially, obsolete. So Michael, the master manipulator, set Rocco up in that boathouse scene. After humiliating Tom and stating that "history teaches us that anyone can be killed," he immediately turns to Rocco--not Neri. Now Rocco was on the spot. He answered, "Difficult, not impossible." I'm guessing that he saw his "volunteering" to whack Roth as a kind of hail-Mary pass--a last chance to get back into Michael's good graces, despite the overwhelming certainty that it was a suicide mission.

I should have proofread that first post..

Very insightful stuff. Rocco always intrigued me, I knew there was something more beneath the surface. But I'm still unclear on this. Rocco by now is obsolete, yes. But was it Michael's intentions to send him on a suicide mission? Or did he choose Rocco once he volunteered, since dead or alive, he wasn't worth much to Michael.

I don't agree with any of you on this Neri/Rocco thing. Neri was Michael's Luca, recruited specifically by Michael (with Vito's help) to serve as his bodyguard and do his bidding otherwise. He was a special who was salaried as opposed to given a source of income. Rocco was set up as a capo with a regime as soon as Michael's plan for revenge began to coalesce. From all evidence, Neri remained as Michael's confidant and Rocco as a capo. I don't interpret anything in the film as indicating a rivalry or contest for ascendency or Michael's attention.

I still find this a very strange decision, for two simple reasons.

1. Rocco is a caporegime. He's therefore an important member for the organization and it's structure. Other's in the organization may also be angered by that decision and might question Michael as their boss.

2. As he is a caporegime he is closely connected to Michael, who would very quickly be suspected by authorities which turns on heat.

Brings me back to what's been going through my head since I saw II. Sonny would have used Rocco to pick a soldier to carry out the hit. It's the chain of command, what insulates a boss from the authorities. Michael follows the chain of command with the New York faction, communicates though Pentangeli. But not with the murder of Hyman Roth. Given the circumstances, the hit will be the most highly publicized murder of his time. Bizarre, what a mess.

Best explanation I can think of, when the Feds land a shot on Rocco, it would have an emotional impact, whereas the death of a random soldier would not. Perhaps it reflects on Michael's self-isolation, yet another example of how he is harming those close to him. This is juxtaposed with Frank's suicide, which Michael orchestrated. Tom was moving away from him, Rocco and Frank are literally dead because of Michael, and by the finale, Michael has killed his OWN BROTHER. Best I can think of. Anyone else want a crack at it?

It's not clear to me that Rocco commanded a regime in Nevada. He may have been in charge of security for the compound (as we saw after the shooting), but that's not the same as a regime. Michael didn't need regimes in Nevada as Vito did in NY.

Michael sent Rocco on the mission so Roth would be dead. He was reasonably certain that Rocco would kill Roth because neither Roth nor the Feds were expecting an assassination. If Rocco survived, swell. If not, Michael didn't need him anymore.

TB, this may all be a matter of semantics. While regimes were not necessary in Nevada for combat since it was an open state, "Rocco and his men" certainly sounds like a regime. Sending Rocco to murder Roth may or may not be what a don would really do, but in the film it was probably for dramatic effect since we knew who Rocco was.

Surely some of this was explained in the novels?

It wasn't, and don't call me Shirley.

Somebody tell me why Rocco didn't wear a vest on the Roth hit? That never made sense to me...

You're right. That's yet another part of the mystery. Which no one can agree on. Yet

And what if they caught Rocco?
Or was there a hint from Tom to the FBI that an assassin might turn up who'd kill Roth and that the Corleones would agree to have the assassin killed?

The novel didn't include any of the Roth stuff--it ended with the move to Nevada. The novel said that Rocco stayed in NYC with Clemenza, and Neri went to Nevada to be in charge of security for all of Michael's properties.

Rocco probably thought his best chance for escape was to shoot, run like hell, and get lost in the crowd at the airport, so that the FBI guys wouldn't get a clean shot at him. A bulletproof vest of that pre-Kevlar era was very bulky and heavy, and would have slowed down Rocco's attempted escape.

Well, there's another example of sketchy writing (or directorial license, if you prefer):

Dead or captured, Rocco would have been indentified as a top Corleone aide. He was listed as a caporegime in the FBI chart shown at the Senate hearing. So, dead or captured, Rocco would be a finger pointing directly at Michael. Since his chances of getting away clean were slim to nil, you have to wonder why Michael would risk implicating himself directly in the Roth assassination so soon after the Senate hearing nearly blew his legitimate cover. And, while we're at it, wouldn't the Feds have put two and two together--Tom's visit to Frankie, and Frankie's suicide?

One possible explanation: it's another example (among many) of how greed and lust for revenge cloud judgment.
One

All in all, I think we can all agree this was the sloppiest scene in the whole film. So many plot holes (best term I can think of), draws so much confusion. According to the Godfather wiki, which I have learned to trust. Rocco was in the first drafts of III. Willy Cicci was also, but Joe Spinelli died young, before III. I've read he was replaced by Joey Zasa. I believe Rocco was written out in the final draft because as we all know, the films have always been about setting the mood, and putting you inside the minds of our primary characters. And in addition, In III there were so many new faces, probably no room to fit Rocco into the mix. It's sad though, he was always my favorite. I have an image of him right before he whacks Roth as one of my desktops.

It's almost painful to over analyze this scene. Personally, it's making me frustrated. I'm going to choose to remember it differently. Michael used Rocco or Neri to reach an associate with ties to Sicily, to hire a zip for the job. This seems to remedy the situation.

Here's my desktop:
I save this image because it's a high resolution pic of a pivotal Rocco scene, the actual still shot lasts for about 1/4 of a second.

I see u used my screenshot Barrett, I'm flatered.

Btw, the main reason why Rocco wasn't part of Part III was because the actor who played him (Tom Rosqui) died just before the shooting of the film.

Yes, that's an excellent desktop!

Barrett, as you're aware, there are multiple--and I mean multiple--versions of scripts for each film. Some of the changes are startling.

My favorite example was outed by a sharp-eyed poster several years ago. He spotted Questadt, the Senate lawyer, sitting behind Roth at the meeting in Batista's office when he's introducing his "distinguished North American guests." Obviously Questadt didn't belong there. In the final cut, Michael learns from Fredo that "the Senate lawyer, Questadt, he belongs to Roth." Had Michael seen him, sitting behind Roth at the Batista meeting, he'd have known that. And, when Questadt turned up at the Senate hearing as the lead interrogator trying to nail Michael's ass, he would never have perjured himself.

So, what was Questadt doing in that scene? Sure enough, someone here turned up an earlier script in which Michael was to meet with Questadt in Havana to work out something. But FFC decided to drop that plotline in favor of a much better (IMO) approach: have Questadt pressing Michael at the hearing, then having Fredo tell Michael that Questadt belongs to Roth. So, why did FFC leave Questadt in the Havana scene? My guess is that since the Havana sequences were filmed in the Dominican Republic (and were therefore more expensive than domestic shooting), FFC simply left him in rather than have to go back and reshoot the scene. He probably figured no one would notice. I guess he hadn't counted on all the sharpies here...

Turnbull, I've uploaded that particular screenshot. However, the guy sitting behind Roth isn't senator Questadt.



Here's another screenshot of the whole meeting.

Neither do I, never have. While it's nice to imagine this to add another dimension to the story (as if GFII needed one)...there is NOTHING in the film, either between Neri & Rocco or Neri & Michael or Rocco & Michael, or between anybody else...to suggest this 'subtheme'.

You can upload whatever you like, Sonny_Black. However, I do recall while viewing the ACTUAL MOVIE, that Questadt (or at least the actor who plays him)...is seen somewhere in that room during that meeting.

Great screenshot, nice job on that one. But wasn't the release date 1990? I think it was right after. Jeez, I suppose Part II sucked the life right out of its actors. Joe Spinelli, eventually Tom Rosqui. And most horrifying of all, John Cazale. Nearly the entire cast saw John as their superior, not an equal. Unfortunately, his early death makes him quite the enigma.

Does anyone agree the Roth-Rocco scene was just sloppy work by the creative team? I'm willing to dismiss it as that, as this thread has proven there is no logical reasoning. Oh, and where's the evidence that Michael was trying to muscle in on Roth's territory, or perhaps how Roth deduced he was going to.

Rosqui died on June 12, 1991. GF III was filmed in the spring of 1990. But according to his Wikipedia page, he had a "long struggle with cancer." So he was more than likely too sick to play the role.

Take it easy man, nobody is attacking you...

Apple is a woman, Sonny.

Hi. Remember what Ola said..

"The casino you're interested in - the registered owners are Jacob Lawrence, Allan Barclay, both Beverly Hills attorneys. The real owners are the old Lakeville Road group from Cleveland, and our friend in Miami. Meyer Klingman runs the store; he owns a piece of it too; he does all right. But I've been instructed to tell you that if you move Klingman out, our friend in Miami will go along"....

The Corleones hadn't been invited in; they were moving in. Michael was making Roth an offer Roth couldn't refuse. It was

"Hi. I'm your new partner now. We'll make more money that way. You don't, like, have a problem with that or anything, do you???"

Based on what had happened with Moe Greene when he had refused a similar request from the Corleones and Michael's interest in Cuban casinos , which evidently the Corleones hadn't previously had an interest in, Roth had every right to feel like he was under attack. He was. Sooner or later Michael would urge him/force him to retire permanently. That's why Roth was backing the Rosato brothers.

Why Rocco?
Only FFC or Puzo or a very few others could really speak with authority.

The obvious allusion is to the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. It may not be any deeper than that.

If it were any deeper than that my guess would be that Michael wasn't convinced that Rocco still wasn't somehow involved with Roth (after all he was in charge of security) and wanted to test/punish Rocco by making him handle the job personally.

It doesn't seem to make sense as most people know that Rocco was at the very least linked to Michael but maybe the viewer was supposed to think that at this point Michael's influence is so strong that he can get the media or authorities to ignore such things.

But this of course is ALL wild speculation.
I really don't think it goes much further than the homage to the LHO murder.

Who is the character played by the fearsome looking older man.....who attempts to smother Lansky with the pillow?


Scary looking MFer....

Buschetta - Mike's bodyguard.

thanks.....never understood why Neri didn't make the trip to Cuba...unless his absence was a ploy my Mike to throw people off about his true intentions.

Yeah, Buschetta had no direct ties to Corleone, as he was a zip. Even if he was dispatched by Tommasino, he was a no-name hitman. Michael insulated himself.

Lilo: You're right about the Lee Harvey Oswald shooting! Brilliant. At the time of release, it was probably immediately clear to the viewers, and probably built up the suspense within the bloody climactic scenes.

Here's a video. Not for the faint of heart. Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xU7Lhd7Wwo