...You both base your opinions on the concept that treachery cannot be forgiven.
Sorry, but I never based my opinion on that, it was PB who offered the quote. In general I don't even like to weigh the film against the novel, although sometimes it does clarify things. In this case, nothing in the book has anything to do with Fredo's betrayal and death.
This had nothing to do with 'forgiveness'. It's quite possible Michael forgave Fredo once Connie spoke to him. But that would not change the what Fredo had done, and what it almost cost. Also...again, Fredo could have been quite docile in the aftermath of having been taken back in, but may have returned to his resentful, uneasy state in years to come. The chance could not be taken.
Even if you put THAT aside...what Fredo did was to betray not only his brother, but his FAMILY. He deserved no more and no less than Tessio, Paulie, or Carlo got. The ONLY thing that bought him any time was the fact that he and Michael shared the same mother.
...A few of us have put forth what I consider to be a strong case that Fredo was not perceived to be a continuing threat by Michael or, if he was, one that could have been neutralized by exile, rather than death.
No. First of all, Fredo would've bee utterly helpless 'in exile'. Second, even if her were 'neutralized', in 'exile', that would not last for long because he would eventually be located and approached by another of Michael's enemies, again ready to feed upon the stupidity and probably even deeper resentment than had been there for Roth to take advantage of.
Look...all of you who make those 'strong' cases for allowing Fredo to live are doing it for one reason, and one reason only...because he was Michael's brother. If he were not, no one at all would have a problem with what happened.
This was business, and you're all makin it personal.
So sorry for the "point-by-point rebuttals". Sometimes it's the only way.
Apple
