Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by MBERGHAU, May 14, 2008.
Tom also enjoyed Woltz’s pictures very much.
What say you? "Well my kraut, mick friend...." LOL
"I ain't no bandleader."
Yeah, I heard that story...
Which is what they based it on I believe. To show however 'impossible' a hit might seem there is always a way to do it if somebody is prepared to take the risks.
I assume Rocco did this out of a sense of duty knowing his family would be well looked after, he may or may not survive but as long as he took out Roth his work was done.
I don't believe Rocco ever went against the family, if Michael, in anyway, thought he was implicated in the attempt on his life he would have had Rocco whacked straight away. We know he is ruthless so makes no sense whatsoever he would let Rocco live.
As for Fredo's involvement I think this was a simple case of he told Johnny Ola that Michael would be home that evening. Maybe Ola told him he wanted to talk to Michael, I believe Fredo when he says he didn't know it would be a hit. As for who opened the curtains, possibly somebody low down on the family payroll was turned, could even have been a housekeeper or something, 'make sure the curtains are left open tonight as Michael is expecting a visitor'.
Of course some of this is left purpsosely vague so we as an audience (on first watching) are left trying to work out what is going on, is it Tom who has turned for instance? Most of us will have forgotten that first time of watching and now on multiple viewings we start to see some of the 'plot holes' and points which don't get addressed whereas on first viewing it just all adds to the story and the suspense.
My view here was either the cop was tipped off, 'something is going down on the corner of east 7th and avenue B' or they knew that the cop was due on his beat walk around that time. What they maybe didn't bargain for is that the cop would start shooting.
Ultimately though Coppola wanted to have the 'Kefauver Hearings' type committee in the film and needed a way for somebody high up in the Corleone family to turn. So it needed something to happen to make Frankie turn and break the ultimate Mafia oath, which could only be thinking he was a dead man on the orders of his own Don.
For me it would have made more sense, but not as dramtic, if he was somehow implicated in serious drug traffic or some other violations which would result in a huge prison sentence and he is then given the option of turning to reduce the sentence (as did Joe Valachi).
I guess originally this would have been Clemenza who turned if Castellena had agreed to the movie, seems harder to imagine that character following this arc...
I think he said it to his wife as an aside whilst watching TV. Lansky also allegedly called Lee Strasberg to congratulate him on his performance but said 'you could have made me more sympathetic'...
Kay loved Michael, indeed I think in part III she says she still loves him. He was the love of her life and she believed him initially when he said he was going to turn the family away from crime.
Michael needed a wife, children and Kay was the easy choice for him in the US.
On the bold, that is certainly what we would expect. But Michael, as smart and ruthless as he is, never sees any of this coming until the machine guns are blasting his bedroom. He then tries to turn it to his advantage and ends up paying a horrific price for his pyrrhic victory. I think it safe to say, Michael should have listened to Frankie. If not the first time, then certainly the second.
While confiding with Tom, he throws out the possibility that it is Rocco or Al. I eliminate Neri as a suspect because he is in part III.
Ultimately you are correct though. It is purposely left vague.
Yeah, I agree Kay still loved him when he comes back and afterwards. But she seems somewhat traumatized by his extended disappearance (and likely, the alleged reason for it.) When they meet up again, she seems broken, and immediately under his sway, submissive to him, getting in his car without another word ever spoken about what has happened, or why he didn't get in touch with her despite being in town for over a year. Kay's decision doesn't puzzle me from a storytelling point of view, maybe I'm just wishing fictionally that she had made a better decision for herself and walked away right then.
If Fredo didn't open the curtains, then he would have told Michael that someone else in his organization had done it. He poured his heart out to get Mike to believe that he didn't know it was a hit, so it would have made sense for him to offer up any tidbit of info that would have helped his case.
I don't think the cop was due to stop by, because the bartender is clearly startled. Also, the cop asks if the bar is opened or closed.
I think the cop happened to be walking by and noticed people going into a bar that is normally closed at that time of the day, so he decided to investigate.
Agreed. I’ve always thought this.
I agree with the notion that the cop just muddies the water. The scene would have been better off without him - Frankie left near death (purposefully), so the viewer would have a clearer understanding of Roth's plot.
Not that this alternate version makes any sense, either.
I'd never heard of this before! But it so encapsulates Lansky's/Hyman Roth personality perfectly! I totally believe Lansky would make the call and say exactly that.
And then Strasberg repeating it, so that it then becomes known. This just shows how this almost off-hand creation of Puzo's and FFC's is really more than just a a movie or just a mob movie.
But more how The Godfather films somehow touched some type cultural nerve.
It gets Frankie to turn on Michael, which is what needs to happen to drive the last part of the movie. Why does that not make sense? Why is that not a "beautiful" play by Roth?
The idea of intentionally botching a hit is ludicrous and would never "play" to the audience.
We'll just continue to disagree. Leaving Frankie half-dead (but definitely not dead) is the smartest thing Roth could do. If the audience didn't understand that in the moment, they'd clearly understand it by the time Tom shares the news about Frankie with Michael.
Since they went with strangulation in a fairly public location, it would not have been hard for them to rough him up and somewhat strangle him, and then say to one another, "I hear somebody, let's go!"
That is my guess to Roth's actual plan.
I agree they should have left the cop out of it and this would be easier to understand. But of course, it is more interesting to unravel as is.
But Roth never realizes that Frankie has a brother and Michael will move to exploit that.
I've seen the film a bunch of times with an audience (they used to play 1 and 2 every year on the campus film circuit when I was in college in the 80s). It was always fun to see the reactions of first-time viewers as the significance of Frankie's brother's appearance dawns on audience members. You can't help but say "Wow, that's really smart".
I assume it was as simple as Frankie being afraid that Michael would off his brother.
The first time I saw it, I actually thought Frankie was afraid of his brother.
Yea the glances the brothers exchange and then Michael's glare are classic.
I think they bring his brother in to remind Frankie what family really means rather than saying if you talk we will kill your brother. His brother is there to remind him of the old country and what Omertà really means. You talk and not only are you out of the Corleone family forever and a marked man, you also cut all your ties with your own family forever and that would mean not just Frankie but his immediate family in the US as well.
Also if Michael was to order the death of Frankie's brother I think that would only create problems for him with the families in Sicily. Let's face it if the worst came to happen and Frankie continued to spill the beans Michael might have to return again to Sicily and seek protection there.
Separate names with a comma.