Godfather question: Did anybody back home know that Michael got married while he was in Italy?*

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vinny123, Jun 7, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    May not have flowed, but I think Vito would have handled it different as I illustrated. The fault isn't the reprimand, the fault is how it was done. When you say "take sides against the family", that was a BS call.

    Fredo was questioning a decision as an older brother...stupidly, but not taking sides per say. Fredo went unchecked, and Michael in a typical sense brings a sledgehammer destroying walls and structure, when a fly swatter will do the trick.
     
  2. George Co-Stanza

    George Co-Stanza Forum Resident

    Location:
    America
    What is important to remember too is that Fredo was in the room during the Sollozzo sit down and saw Sonny open his mouth and Vito shut him down and make the "they talk when they should listen" comment about his kids. Fredo should have taken that advice and kept his mouth shut when Michael and Mo were going back and forth.
     
    Hardy Melville likes this.
  3. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    Two problems with this. #1 the whole older brother thing. #2 Michael didn't even have the courtesy to let him in on the plan.

    You see in Sonny's case, he at least knew the deal was set-up and knew about the intentions. Michael in typical fashion just sprang that crap on him while basically shunning him. Of all the people, wouldn't Fredo be the one that should know something about it?

    Fredo wasn't Michael's lap dog and should never have been treated that way.
     
  4. George Co-Stanza

    George Co-Stanza Forum Resident

    Location:
    America
    I haven't read the book, but did Sonny know about Vito's intentions before the Sollozzo sit down? The way his face reacts when Vito tells Sollozzo that his answer is no has always told me that he was a bit surprised that his pop wasn't taking the deal, especially since Vito did not commit either way in the prior scene with the three (Vito, Sonny and Tom). Sure, Sonny could have been told off screen and the scene was not shown, but I believe the sequence was shot that way to make it seem like Sonny was off guard by Vito's "no," which is why he reacted so strongly when Sollozzo told Vito that his investment would be guaranteed.
     
  5. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    To be clear, I separate movies from books because they are two separate entities no matter the background. That is just me. I only look at what is filmed, and that is how I interpret, wrong or not.

    So, I actually took Sonny as saying "yeah right". Not that he believed Solozzo was securing anything. Sonny was never hot for the deal in my view.

    When Vito asks Sonny what he thinks and Sonny says "there is a lot of money...." it is exactly what it is. Sonny is a sensible man and nothing more. The "hot for deal", was not ignoring his loyalties. Sonny was more willing to let business rot and make people pay for the hit on his dad, then worry about a near future. Wrong or not, that throws him being jumpy for anything at the cost of right and wrong, right off the table.

    That is my view.

    Now getting back to Fredo. Fredo was blindsided. There was no discussion at all. In Sonny's case, he was no doubt briefed by Tom, and it is clear from the way he doesn't even bat an eye. Just my take. Regardless, briefed before Vito or not, Vito at least appreciated Sonny's input or at least made him feel included. This is a far cry from how Fredo was treated. Though I know that Vito didn't think too highly of Fredo, it still wasn't as bad as Michael was. You can clearly see that Fredo just wanted any kind of attention. It was clear that he had the mind of almost a child, which is quite sad actually.
     
    Luke The Drifter likes this.
  6. GregM

    GregM The expanding man

    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    That's management 101. You make decisions and then you figure out how to make those decisions the right decision, and as the boss you're alone in this. I see stuff like this in office politics all the time, and often I'm on the Fredo end of it.

    It's normal now to get out of a marriage but it wasn't normal in Vito's day. There are a lot of dynamics at work here, and loyalty to Michael was only part of the issue. Social mores were changing. Women no longer need the man to be the provider--they can provide for themselves. Michael found himself in charge of an organization that was to some extent stuck in the dark ages and now had to face modern realities. This was all part of what's fascinating about GF2.

    If you can consolidate your power, overcome threats and provide for your people, you're a good boss.

    Michael considered that, but what makes you so sure Fredo would not have stepped out of line again? The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Fredo had repeatedly stepped out of line and not been honest or forthright about it, which was a tremendous liability that almost cost Michael his freedom and life. In questioning Fredo about this, there was the revelation that underneath it all was Fredo's core conviction that he was passed over and he therefore had tremendous hostility for Michael on a conscious or subconscious level. Sure, he was capable of behaving, when it was in his interests but for how long? I don't think there was getting around that.

    As Vito himself said, Sonny deserved to be punished and he wished he was harder on him but had a soft spot. Do you not see how Vito is acknowledging his own shortcoming as being an enabler of the type of weakness in his family that led to the hit on him? What he's really saying is that if he was a better Don, he would not tolerate any insubordination or disloyalty from his kids. Anyway, the argument has now gone afield of anything meaningful, as Michael's own approach to his kids was to keep them out of the family business. My point about Tessio is that he was the closest thing to a brother that Vito had, and yet he was killed for plotting against the family.

    Yeah, that's basically how it happened, but don't forget what I said above: that it is manifest in how Vito raised Sonny the wrong way, making Sonny a liability to Vito, which in turn is manifest in how the hit on Vito came about.

    Michael learned from his father--Michael saw the hit on Vito as the teachable moment that transformed Michael's life. Then when the hit targeted Michael, he wasn't going to play games about it. He knew what would need to be done.

    There are many points of reference here. Vito had no brothers. They were all killed in Sicily. As I said, Vito ok'ed the killing of Tessio, who was the closest thing to a brother for Vito. Then, as I've said, both men were a product of their time and their life trajectory. Vito was on a mission to establish a family and protect it. The dynamic with Michael was different. He was given the keys to the car and was not going to let himself crash it by making mistakes that would get himself killed or arrested.

    And as I said, that's exactly the purpose of recruiting people with roots in Silicily: so if they are disloyal, the punishment can be meted out to their blood relatives. Michael was merely reminding Frankie about this when the brother was flown in. This was centuries' old tradition in the mafia. It had nothing to do with Michael's character and it certainly doesn't make him a bad guy. He clearly wasn't enjoying any of this--he was stressed and unhappy--but he pursued it all in a methodical, business-like manner.

    The boss has to view his underlings that way. As soon as you start letting your emotions affect your business decisions, you're toast.

    Fredo had been neutralized at the moment, but he had tremendous latent hostility for Michael, and there would be no trusting Fredo any further than you could throw him. It was an impossible decision for Michael. If he kept Fredo alive he'd need to be looking over his shoulder the rest of his life.
     
  7. ohnothimagen

    ohnothimagen "Live music is better!"

    Location:
    Canada
    D'oh! I totally forgot Fredo was at the Sollozzo meeting. This discussion is making me want to watch the damn movies again, and maybe I should this weekend...
     
  8. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    As someone that has managed, while the final decision is your own, you still should take input.

    I do not disagree there, but "the dark ages" were not so dark to me. I know it is like me sticking my head in the sand, but that is the romance of the first movie to me and all its perfection.

    You see that is the issue. I don't think he provided for his people or his family in anything more than a financial mean. Providing is also nurturing and I have every reason to believe that his kids could grow up with psychological issues and every person around him hates him, and in my view, the real Godfather III would be him getting wacked by a bigger and badder foe because no one stays king forever.

    That is a big part of why I discuss. There are so many smart people here and anyone that challenges me and makes me think is already molding my point of view whether I like it or not.

    I truly love the movie so much, that I get something out of it every single time I watch it (or them).
     
    Phil147 and ohnothimagen like this.
  9. GregM

    GregM The expanding man

    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    I think the bottom line about why I take exception to the questions about Michael's character is that the films portray him as a responsible, level-headed, respectable guy even in the harshest of circumstances. He's not like a Joe Pesci type of mofioso who enjoyed killing anyone. As he himself said, he doesn't have to wipe everyone out--just his enemies. And sadly, those closest to him had made enemies of themselves. They had made their bad, and Michael needed to make them sleep in it. He was smart enough to figure out how to make that happen, and it made him cold and alone. But like the song Comfortably Numb (which not coincidentally The Sopranos used as a theme in its final season), that's basically the male condition in modern times.
     
    S. P. Honeybunch likes this.
  10. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    I think the male condition in modern times is seriously flawed. Lack of compassion and quality to satisfy a bottom line. In the long term, that bottom line will suffer.

    Fredo did his part, but it wasn't without help. It is failure in upbringing, circumstance, and continued deficiency that would have been difficult to fix...but not impossible.

    Michael didn't have to make anyone "sleep in it". Fredo was no threat to him after a point, and with Michael it was all about rubbing everyone's face it then actually use any kind of sense.

    His daughter dying in the third movie is perhaps a limp way of telling the story that I could already foresee. Only when truly in his back yard did he finally understand what evil meant. It isn't smart, if you are cold and alone in the end. Matter of fact, I call that a failure. Not only in leadership and marriage, and friendship and family, but most of all with yourself.
     
    ohnothimagen likes this.
  11. GregM

    GregM The expanding man

    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    You've said that before but how do you know Fredo would never be a threat to him again? I can make a stronger argument that, if left alive, Fredo would be a constant threat and have Michael looking over both shoulders for the rest of his life. His carelessness and need to prove something in dealing with others outside the family was only part of the issue: he had latent hostility for Michael, and rolled into that was a lot of jealousy that he could have solved by seeing Michael whacked.

    Michael didn't enjoy getting rid of Fredo, Frankie or even Roth. But he understood that leaving them alive was a liability, and he wasn't going to gamble his life or his children's lives on it.

    As for his daughter and GF3, that movie was a hot mess and Michael broke character as a happy go lucky type. One needs only regard the death as a case of playing with fire and getting burned. Yes, you could see it coming a mile off.
     
    Hardy Melville likes this.
  12. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    Because the key to Fredo is the fact that he had special circumstances that were part of a trust that lended itself to a vulnerability with Michael.

    There are no guarantees in life, but things like that are not likely repeated.

    Fredo as a brother is not in the same category as Hymen or Roth and should never be for obvious reasons.

    Kay killed his Michaels unborn son and also showed signs of disprespect in his warped mind (in regard to questioning any of his murderous ways). Hell Connie also showed disrespect by the visitation behind his back....where does the paranoid whirlwind end?

    Fredo did what he did out of money and title from leadership deficiency, when he was spared I think he was grateful but only after some compassion....which Michael would never give because he simply did not care.

    Psychopaths kill family. I see no way to give him a pass on that especially when there is no evidence that Fredo tried to have Michael killed.

    For an example, look at Tony with Uncle Jr. On Sopranos. I think he coulda been whacked...twice ....but sometimes love should prevail. Of course that is the issue with Michael and just about anybody.

    Now the Sopranos with Chris and the feds is another story....lol
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2018
  13. buzzzx

    buzzzx Forum Resident

    Location:
    Cal.
    I agree Fredo was still a threat and had to go. He was unstable and had already proved he could be disloyal. Whether he acted intentionally or it was just the result of his naivete, he could never be trusted. If you look at the killing of Fredo as revenge it seems way harsh, but I think it was done more for the safety of Michael and his kids in the future. At least in Michael's mind.
     
    ohnothimagen likes this.
  14. Paulette

    Paulette Forum Resident

    I think Fredo is the most complicated/complex character in the story. Michael too but he's organized. Fredo is disorganized. And Michael probably had no idea where he was coming from next. That makes a very unhappy Michael.
     
  15. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    Just curious if you have any idea what Fredo actually did?

    From the telephone conversation he was lied to and passed over and gave Michael all he knew. Don't see death as the answer but then again I am in a civilized mindset and not a criminal one.
     
  16. buzzzx

    buzzzx Forum Resident

    Location:
    Cal.
    In Michael's mind, Fredo was part of a plot to assassinate Michael. Whether Fredo knew or not is irrelevant, he betrayed Michael and was a threat to Michael's future safety. Michael is a ruthless Mafia kingpin, he does not have a civilized mindset.
     
  17. buzzzx

    buzzzx Forum Resident

    Location:
    Cal.
    Here's a pretty good Quora explanation of why Fredo had to be eliminated:

    As Tom Hagen explained to Kay in "The Godfather" novel :
    "After the Don died, Mike was set up to be killed. Do you know who set him up? Tessio. So Tessio had to be killed. Carlo had to be killed. Because treachery can’t be forgiven. Michael could have forgiven it, but people never forgive themselves and so they would always be dangerous. Michael really liked Tessio. He loves his sister. But he would be shirking his duty to you and his children, to his whole family, to me and my family, if he let Tessio and Carlo go free. They would have been a danger to us all, all our lives. "

    Similar reasoning is applicable for Fredo as well.
     
  18. Chazro

    Chazro Forum Resident

    Location:
    West Palm Bch, Fl.
    An angle that's not been explored is Michael's military background. If he saw combat, it had to have changed his views on killing. If a soldier kills it's an act of war, if a civilian kills it's murder. For Michael, killing his enemies was an act of war!
     
    ohnothimagen likes this.
  19. Muzyck

    Muzyck Pardon my scruffy hospitality

    Location:
    Long Island
    He must have been responsible for someone getting access to Michael's bedroom on the night they made the assassination attempt. Even Kay must have know there were certain things that had to be done and were the "norm "in his world to stay protected. She asked the question about why the curtains were open just before the hail of bullets started. I think at that point Michael knew someone close to him was responsible for that happening. He had a hunch it was Hyman Roth that made the attempt and it became clear that Fredo was lying to him about his interaction with Roth when he claimed in Cuba that he had never met Johnny Ola but a short while later was bragging about how old Johnny knew all of the hot spots in town.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2018
    Hardy Melville likes this.
  20. Phil147

    Phil147 Forum Resident

    Location:
    York UK
    This the thing, both you and I and hopefully everyone else on the forum are of a civilized mind - we don't think or act like these characters do. Nor do we live with the possibility of been betrayed with what could be fatal consequences everyday.
    I personally agree with you from my own mindset, his treatment of Fredo was harsh and I would have let Fredo live - but he would have noting to do with the business side of the family ever again. But Michael clearly was operating under a different mindset and code to what I do.

    Could not agree with you more on this, great to discuss these movies with so many people who clearly know their stuff and we can do it all amicably. No need to worry about a horse's head in the bed here. I hope anyway... :unhunh:
     
  21. ohnothimagen

    ohnothimagen "Live music is better!"

    Location:
    Canada
    Only worry if somebody tries to give you an orange!
     
    Phil147 likes this.
  22. The Hermit

    The Hermit Wavin' that magick glowstick since 1976

    He was banging cocktail waitresses two at a time, players couldn't get a drink... what's wrong with you?
     
  23. Jack Lord

    Jack Lord Forum Resident

    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Not to mention he did inform Fredo of the plan to "acquire" Moe's hotel. Granted it was about 10 seconds before Moe entered the room, but he did tell him. He even says "Offer he can't refuse."

    Now I realize Fredo will never displace Einstein, but he had to know what that phrase meant.
     
  24. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    10 seconds, changes everything. Great leadership...so much respect.

    Why not just put the bullet in Fredo right then and there. Stupid is also a liability to Michael's world.

    The only real difference with Michael and Tony Montana's paranoia is a mountain of coke being an excuse for the latter.
     
    ohnothimagen likes this.
  25. Jack Lord

    Jack Lord Forum Resident

    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Whacking Fredo right there would have upset Johnny Fontaine. ;)

    One thing about Fredo. His wife put all the other Corleone Brothers' spouses to shame.
     
    genesim likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine