The Godfather: Should Michael have ordered the hit on Fredo? *

Michael could have sent him to Wyoming.

 

In this case, absolutely. Her reasons are beyond valid.

 

True, Vito even passed on having Carlo killed when he knew he set Sonny up for murder. But the times were a changing, and Vito was, as the Turk said, "slipping". Mike had to kill Fredo or get out of the family business.

 

I think you glamorize Vito quite a bit here. Vito set the stage for the family crime business -he set up all his kids for failure and destruction. He didn't have too kill Fanucci -he did so because he wanted more power and prosperity. Michael was the inevitable result of Vito's "loving" parenting. And I never bought the "I never wanted this for you" crap either. He was proud and happy Mike followed him down the path.

 

That would have demonstrated weakness to his Capos....he needs their respect, trust and loyalty above all else.

 

He didn't have to do it. He could've banished him from the family-to Fredo, that would've been worse than getting whacked.

I said this in the other Godfather post that's on here; I'm always amazed at what a SOB Michael becomes by the end of Godfather II. While it's true that it's difficult to compare an older Vito with a younger Michael (would Vito have ordered the hit on his brother?), I think that this really shows the differences between the two. Vito did everything for his family, while still showing them affection. Michael did everything for his family (and appears to be an emotionally estranged person through the majority of the movie), and doesn't understand why he's alone at the end. Yes, Roth and Ola are toast, Fredo's with the fishes, and Frankie killed himself. Michael wins as usual, except it's at the cost of his family. Hell, Tom was the one guy was always on Michael's side, and at the end, Michael is even a jerk to him by threatening to tell Tom's wife about his (Tom's) mistress.

 

Yes, had to after that big kiss of death

 

Very warped logic there... she was right to murder an innocent (as yet unborn) child who hadn't done anything to anyone? Was the kid going to be born with a Tommy gun in hand and kill her and Michael straight out of the womb?

Kaye did it for entirely selfish and spiteful reasons, she has as much blood on her hands as her husband... he at least had reasons, Kaye absolutely did not.

Was Michael right to kill Fredo though? From the Sicilian point of view, probably... Fredo had betrayed the family, put everyone's life in dire jeopardy, and simply couldn't be trusted any longer... but out of respect for Mama Corleone, Michael waited, and once she was a goner, so was the aforementioned Fredo.

 

I can agree to a point, but I don't think Vito was at the point of building a crime family at the time he killed Fanucci. He sat at the table with his friends that were petty criminals shaking in their boots due to fear that they couldn't come up with enough protection money and he agreed to take care of the problem. Fanucci was a threat. This was also after he lost his job to Fanucci's nephew while he was trying to raise a family. Michael went on to destroy the family. I don't think it was an accident that Godfather I ended with the murder of his brother in-law and Godfather II ended with the death of his own brother. I think Michael took it a lot farther than his father would have. It probably should have just ended there but since there was a decision to revive the franchise, they had to end it with the murder of his own daughter at the hands of another. Full circle.

 

Incredible that this movie can still generate solid dialog, it's truly a classic! Reading the comments about Michael vs. Vito got me thinking about how Coppola has said he purposely wanted to make people dislike Michael AND the rest of the family. He was surprised by how the general public LOVED the Corleones after GF I and wanted to change that. Here's the thing, I think that 'love' is what, to this day, still makes Michael so despicable. If the public didn't care, it might have been just another gangsta flick. But it's not.

 

Well, the trouble was that Fredo was the older brother and did not respect Michael. He never would have gone against the family when his father was Don. In a sense Michael's hand was forced (and he was understandably paranoid), but it should never have come to that.

 

In the interest of not getting this thread shut down, let's just drop it.

 

NO...not a chance.

 

likewise...

 

No, he should not have. No matter how incompetent he was. He was family. However, his doing it demonstrated the complete transition to what Michael had become.

If the answer is yes, then there is no moral dilemma. Killing others in their "business" is bad, but here he killed (had killed) his own brother. That's not normal.

 

The only reason Michael told Al Neri "Nothing is to happen to him while my mother is alive," was for Mama Corleone's sake, probably. She'd already lost one son- Michael probably didn't want her to go through that, especially if she found out how and why Fredo was to die.

Vito killed Fanucci for both business and personal reasons. Vito had to know that if he eliminated Fanucci, whom everybody both feared and detested, he'd ultimately end up being the one taking his place in the neighbourhood.

Indeed. In all his attempts to "save" the Corleone family, he destroyed it. "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." It was the seventies, after all.

Hey, somebody had to. Even Vito knew Fredo wasn't gonna be the one to do it...

It's almost too much. I remember when my wife and I watched the Godfather trilogy together for the first time a few years back, that was the first time I'd seen Part II in ages. I'd forgotten just how much of a bastid Michael is by the end of it. It sort of spoiled the film for me, to be honest. Up to that point Part II had been my favourite of the three movies, but I think now I'd almost be inclined to say I actually prefer Part III over II now in spite of III's myriad flaws.

I wouldn't say that. I think Fredo respected Michael just fine, but sure as hell he was jealous of him. And it clouded his judgement, and got him killed.

 

No.

Michael should have found a different line of work. Maybe he and Fredo could have become bank robbers.

 

No. Probably been noted, but in Godfather III he seems to truly regretted the decision. Ultimately no harm no foul (no one died). There could have been a better way to deal with him.

I forget. Was there any indication Fredo regretted his decision?

 

I saw the scene last night where Vito cried when they told him Michael offed the Turk.
I think he blamed Santino for letting it happen, but couldn't criticize him (hell, Sonny died while he was recuperating).
But as someone above said, who was gonna lead things? Fredo? Um, no..........

I know someone who feels that killing of Carlo was Michael's idea, the rest was Vito. I don't agree

 

lol. All you guys that say Fredo should have been killed are heartless Bast**ds. BUT, to answer the question the correct way, NO, killing Fredo was wrong on many levels. One, it ruined Michael and his family for life. Godfather III showed that. The guilt over killing his brother, the loss of his wife, hatred of his son who suspected what Michael did. All added up to a ruined life. Fredo, clearly, had mental health issues. The family knew this. He should never have been allowed to be off on his own so far from home. This was the fault of the family. He should have been home where he could have been watched and given simple jobs, not off in Cuba or Vegas like he was. Fredo did not act with malice. He clearly was set up and Michael should have understood this. The whole family paid the price for him killing Fredo.

 

Why would you say Fredo was a "pathetic, little nothing." He was the only one who congratulated Michael on joining the army. He had a love for everyone. He was FRUSTRATED by his mental capacity. His knew he was slow, like most people who suffer from some sort of mental illness. If anything, one should feel compassion for Fredo being born into such a brutal and aggressive family that treasures appearances over love.

And by the way, Sonny, had he lived, and for all his violent temper, would NEVER have killed Fredo. Never! At least "family" meant something to him. He might have smacked him around a little, and then would have figured out that the real people to go after were the ones who manipulated Fredo based on his slowness.

 

I dunno, you bring up a good point. But Sonny was the original hot-head. Knee jerk reactions all the time. He agreed to let Michael go in just cause it was expedient and he had no alternative sat the time. 'At the time' was always important to Sonny. Could he have restrained himself and taken the proverbial deep breath? Maybe.

 

Given Fredo's mental capacity, short of locking him in the compound for the rest of his life, how could the family have prevented someone else from taking advantage of him? He would have always been a danger to the family because he was so easily manipulated. And as he made clear with the "I'm smart" speech, I don't think he would have been willing to be essentially held prisoner. I think that speech told Michael that Fredo was both vaguely aware he wasn't that bright but that he was also unwilling to accept it and would therefore continue to be a potentially deadly problem for Michael and his immediate family.

 

Hey man, I have heart! Fredo just broke it, that's all.

 

Good point. I think maybe not. Had it been Sonny in Cuba, he probably would have shot Fredo the second he figured out he'd betrayed the family. And then regretted it afterwards.