Any Serious Godfather fans out there?

He also told Kay that he didn't have Carlo killed. Do you believe that too? He and Roth sat in the same room and agreed Pentangeli would die. It was as clear a statement as mob bosses will make. When Michael denies it later, Roth sidesteps the entire issue in the clip you posted by pointing out that sacrifices must be made in the business they have chosen.

 

That makes no sense.

Comparing to Kay/Carlo is not relevant. Kay wasn't involved and would never know the truth, and it's not as if he told he did earlier and then told her he didn't later. Michael tells lies in the films, sure, but if you think he's lying in that clip I posted above, we must have a completely different understanding of the character and his personality.

He and Roth agreed Pentangeli would die, but Michael said he would take care of it. Later, he asks Roth who gave the order to have Pentangeli killed, because he didn't. And there is no evidence that he did, only evidence that Roth did and did it in a way so that Pentangeli would turn against Michael. You are saying Michael is lying to Roth there? He only had a brief discussion with Roth about it earlier. He wasn't telling Roth to put it into motion in that earlier scene. And this is 100% clear, because there he is later in the film, accusing Roth of putting it into motion - Michael is saying he never gave the order. You are saying he is lying there? To what purpose? Lying to the guy he was originally speaking to? Why would Roth sidestep the issue, if he had nothing to do with it? Or if he had done it because he thought Michael wanted him to? Huh? Watch the scene again. Roth is sidestepping, lying poorly, and then getting angry and telling the Moe Greene story because what he is really saying with that story is, "you killing my friend Moe Greene was just business, just like my (near) killing of Pentangeli is just business, so accept it." The scene makes zero sense otherwise. You seem adamant that the film's story is clear and there is no other possible interpretation but yours, but the story you are telling doesn't make sense to me.

Later when Pentangeli is going to testify against Michael, Michael and Tom Hagen discuss in regards to this how Roth's strategy to destroy Michael is well planned. In your version, what was Roth's plan and how does it relate to Pentangeli turning against Michael?

 

As complex as the Pentangeli story is on so many levels, imagine if he had remained Clemenza! The added pathos and depth of familial betrayal would've been that much more intense. Is it possible that it might've improved the masterpiece!?

 

Well when was he lying, then? Before, he was sitting in Roth's house and clearly said Pentangeli is a dead man and Roth agreed, "he's small potatoes." That's all it takes for a hit. Michael and Roth sanctioned it right there and then. Michael bringing it up after the fact as an excuse to back out of the deal. He was sabotaging his partnership with Roth and fishing for reasons to back out because he couldn't now come out and say that he knew Roth was behind the hit all along.

Maybe I missed something but I never heard Michael saying he'd take care of it, and at that point it was a mere technicality anyway.

The conversation was about backing out of the deal. Michael couldn't come out and say he knew Roth ordered the hit (targeting Michael's bedroom) so he was grasping for other ways to let Roth know he wasn't trusted.

The Rosatos were itching to kill Pentangeli so all Roth had to do was say to them that Michael sanctioned it. The end. Of course Michael didn't personally tell the Rosatos it was ok but that's totally irrelevant.

Again, he told Roth earlier, "Pentangeli is a dead man" knowing Roth would pass it along to the Rosatos. So now, as a way of backing out of the deal he brings it back to tell Roth I don't trust you. To which Roth replies, using the explanation about Mo Green, that hey this the business we've chosen--either proceed with our deal or don't.

I'm saying they were both trying to play each other--they both had agreed Pentangeli was to be sacrificed earlier--and now Michael instead of being honest about why he's backing out of the deal is bringing up Pentangeli in a less than forthright way. Michael is sidestepping here, not Roth.

It wasn't about the plan, it was about how Roth played the cards dealt to him. Tom said, "Roth played this beautifully," meaning he got his senator buddies lined up and got an angry Pentangeli in the hands of the FBI. I never agreed with the assertions earlier in the thread about the cop being anything but a random beat cop in the place at the wrong time. You can't control stuff like that, and it's a messy business. The best mob bosses could turn lemons into lemonade by using their connections strategically.

It would be a totally different movie, for sure. But there is no doubt Pentangeli was a great old school New Yorker.

 

Michael lies to Roth at their first meeting, when he blames Pentangeli for the botched hit. He's testing Roth to see how he'll react.

That's not all it takes for a hit. Watch the scene here, specifically about four minutes in:



Michael says, "I'll visit him later", meaning Pentangeli. Meaning, Michael is going to take care of it himself. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, Michael asking Roth a favor i.e. to hit Pentangeli for him. Michael simply says "you do not object?" It's clearly, 100%, something Michael plans to take care of himself or with his men. Understanding that, it makes perfect sense why Michael demands to know who gave the go-ahead later. Because he never ended up doing anything about Pentangeli.

The idea that Michael suddenly pretends to have amnesia and starts asking who gave the go-ahead, as a way to back out of the deal, is absurd. Roth is caught right then, that's why he looks away and lies poorly.

That is right that he doesn't want to come out and say he knows Roth ordered the hit on the Corleone compound, but his way of backing out of the deal is to correctly accuse Roth of using the Rosato brothers to get at Pentangeli, when in the earlier scene, it's clear Michael plans to deal with it personally on his own. And anyway, I feel you are contradicting yourself. If Michael does know that Roth and not Pentangeli was beyond the botched hit on himself, then you know he is lying to Roth in their first scene together, and he is telling the truth to Pentangeli, about that first botched hit.

How is it irrelevant, when it's the pivotal scene between Michael and Roth later, when an angry Michael forces Roth to reveal that Roth went ahead and tried to hit Pentangeli himself, even though Michael did not tell him to; he told Roth earlier that *he* would visit Pentangeli later. You are saying that Michael was basically telling Roth to kill Pentangeli, even though he knows Roth ordered the hit on his house, and when he demands to know who (tried to) kill Pentangeli later on?

No, he brings up Moe Greene because Michael is pressing him on who gave the go-ahead on Pentangeli. Because Michael didn't. It was Michael's go-ahead to give, not to Roth in Florida, but to his own men. So Roth reveals in a backwards way that he has a vendetta against Michael for killing Moe Greene. But it was "business", just like Roth's hit on Pentangeli. He is saying it's tit-for-tat. It's not just about the business in a vague way.

 

Thats a fair point. You may be right,he wanted to confirm his guilt with a confession. Also,it just works as a great moment in the film.

 

No, he's making Roth think that the most important thing is to pursue their deal together. He's also buying time to confirm that Fredo betrayed him.

"Visit him later" does not imply Michael will whack Pentangeli; in fact Michael does visit Pentangeli later. And there's a game being played here with Pentangeli as the sacrificial pawn. Michael knows it. Roth knows it. Roth tells the Rosatos so they know it. And they tell Pentangeli when they are strangling him. The bottom line is that Michael does authorize it: Pentangeli is a dead man.

There is no secret about the Pentangeli hit. Michael knows what happened. He confronts Roth about it at a later time when the entire issue is whether Michael will still pursue the deal. Michael brings it up as a way of saying he no longer honors the partnership and that he holds Roth responsible for that pawn move. To which Roth absolves himself by pointing out that this is just how the game is played and that Michael needs to come clean about his new intentions regarding the deal. Roth gets heated because he feels he deserves a straight answer and resents the deflection.

He's not pretending he has amnesia, but he's deflecting and letting Roth know he doesn't trust him.

How is this a contradiction? Michael knew he was placing Pentangeli in mortal danger by agreeing with Roth that Pentangeli is a dead man. Roth's relationship with the Rosato brothers (who want Pentangeli dead) is not a secret. So what did you think would happen as a result of the initial meeting? Michael then goes to the Frankie and tells him to go to the Rosatos to "make peace" and is basically serving him up on a platter.

It's irrelevant because all of this was known and the issue at the time of the pivotal scene is whether Michael and Roth will pursue a partnership together. Roth didn't reveal anything. Michael knew exactly what the game was, and his role in getting Pentangeli killed (and by the way the fact that Pentangeli survives and Michael makes sure he kills himself proves my point that Michael sees him as nothing more than a sacrificial pawn the entire time. Can we at least agree that Michael is ultimately totally to blame for Pentangeli's death?) The "visit him later" to Pentangeli did in fact authorize the hit by serving Pentangeli up to the Rosatos. Michael knew there would be hit on Pentangeli, and he sent him into the lion's den.

I'm saying Michael decided to sacrifice Pentangeli early on, and the conversation later was more about the status of the partnership with Roth.

He brings up Moe Greene to let Michael know that the subject has little to do with the topic at hand, except to illustrate that they have chosen a messy business where not everyone who dies deserves to die, and he then rapidly pivots back to the core issue: whether Michael is still in the deal.

Michael gave the go-ahead to Roth, knowing what they said would be passed on to the Rosatos. He then served up Pentangeli to the Rosatos like a stuffed pig. Michael would not order his own men to kill Pentangeli because that's not how a pawn is sacrificed.

By the way, I think your final point about Roth still carrying a grudge over Greene (despite what Roth says to the contrary) is a valid one.

 

eh, I think this is one place where something that could've been good didnt work out, and they ended up making it better. I really like the character of Frankie Pentangelli, and the acting is fantastic. He's funny and memorable without being an oaf. "can of peas my ass, that's chopped liver and a ritz cracker!"

 

Totally agree, but of course it's canapés.

 

Well yeah, but it always sounded to me like he said the waiter offered him "can of peas", like the people who made this food have no idea what they're doing, including pronouncing it. Bring out the sausage and the peppers!

 

If Clemenza had remained in the movie, then his betrayal would have undercut the flashback storyline.

It seems like the original point of the flashback was to show that anyone could betray you. And if they had kept Clemenza in that role, then I suppose that the 2nd movie still would have worked -- but it would have been a vastly different movie. I just don't think it's as compelling to show mobsters continually betraying each other for the slightest reason. There's something special about the connection forged between Clemenza and Vito during the flashback scenes -- where Clemenza is the first person to offer friendship, trust, and loyalty to Vito, along with his willingness to accept a secondary role in Vito's organization. The movie does not show the same level of connection with Tessio, which allows the audience to accept Tessio's later betrayal.

Vito owes his success to Clemenza. I think the audience would have had a hard time accepting him as a bad guy.

 

Acting aside, I think the movie would have been at least 200% better if Al Pacino just had a decent haircut. You just can't possibly take a guy who looks like that seriously, no matter how good/bad/mediocre the acting is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I am an irreverent Godfather fan, but I've read the book, saw the first two films several times, and suffered through 3 only once.

 

The first movie's fantastic.
I wish I liked the second as much as I used to.
I finally saw the third...it shouldn't have been made.

 

I haven't watched II for years. I think I'd eventually like to view it as an edit where all the DeNiro scenes are deleted and the movie flowing as one story.

Anyone ever closely watch the Johnny Fontaine scene in Godfather 1....where Brandon mimics Johnny's whining and eventually walks him to the door in the office? Man, I can't make heads or tails of what Brandon says to him there ...especially just before he kisses him there with the door open.

I figure a bit of Brando's mumblings there were clueless to the entire crew, but left as they are....because over all...hey, the scene works.

I like Brando's sigh there just before cut.

 

Yeah, not easy to understand everything he says there.

 

Yes, Clemenza's relationship with Vito was special - so was Tessio's to a lesser extent - but it's Michael, not Vito, who has them killed.

The key to Clemenza is in Godfather 1, where we learn Clemenza clearly has plans to eventually break off from the Corleones and form his own family with Tessio - with the Don's full blessing. Clemenza was a long standing member of both Corleone families - but it's clear his ambitions are known and possibly traitorous nature suspected. At the Don's funeral, after Tessio approaches Michael to broker a sit down with Barzini, Hagen says "I always thought it would be Clemenza, not Tessio." In fairness to Clemenza and Tessio, the reasons for their actions aren't slight - they're worried about Michael's plans to relocate to Vegas and falling under Don Barzini's control once the Corleone family goes west. Tessio - "the smarter one" - betrays Michael out of his own self interest, which Michael respects because it's "the smart move"...and exactly what he's planning against Barzini and the other heads of the New York families.

So yes, anyone can betray you - that's why you keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Michael learns this the hard way in Godfather 2 where he's surrounded by betrayals large and small, especially from those closest to him - Fredo, Kay, and had he been in the film, Clemenza. His sad death in the tub would have been entirely more powerful knowing via the flashback sequences Clemenza's long, warm history with the Corleone Family. Michael, for his part, has his own relationship with Clemenza, who seems more like a kindly uncle to Michael than another caporegime. They speak a little more warmly and directly to one another and their history would have added a deeper subtext to the warnings about Roth and the Rosado Brothers...as well as bitching about there not being peppers and sausage or decent Italian music at the Corleone compound.

Clemenza was a bad guy - they're all bad guys - but his death in Godfather 2 was always intended as tragic. Clemenza/Pentageli betrayed the Corleone family because he thought singing to the Feds was the only move he had left. Hagen - out of respect for the long history Clemenza/Pentageli shared with the Corleones - offers a deal: protection and financial security for his surviving family in exchange for his life.

 

After "leave it all to me", things get garbled.

I also noticed that Sonny walks in in the background and THAT triggers Brando's "do you spend time" line....just after the glance at Sonny walking in....Brando actually aiming that indirectly at Sonny...knowing Sonny is in the affair with the girl....although not necessarily knowing that Sonny was just upstairs with her.

Lots of cool little things in that scene. Even the garbled lines.

 

How about Tom laughing after Vito slaps J Fontaine? Always cracks me up.

 

It's also interesting to consider all this in the context of how young Vito rose to power--underestimated by everyone and Clemenza and Tessio in particular. He uses their fear of Fanucci to catapult himself into the role of Don by replacing Fanucci's iron grip on the neighborhood with his fairer brand of leadership. Clearly Clemenza and Tessio had thought they could use Vito for their own purposes and were taken by surprise when they ended up working for him. In some respects, it had to be a bitter pill for them. This is why it's so important in GF 2 to stagger the Vito scenes with the Michael scenes.

 

Question re Part II:

Before all the mayhem commences, what exactly is the relationship of the Rosato Brothers and Roth to the Corleone Family? Are the Rosatos a crew within the Corleones who must be placated or are they with one of the 4 other Families?

I have always assumed that Roth, not being Sicilian, was a free agent of sorts. As long as he "makes money for his partners."

 

Rosato Brothers

That wiki page clarifies some of that, though some of the details are taken by a later non-Puzo book, The Godfather Returns, so take it with a grain of salt perhaps. It does make rough sense to me; the Rosatos originally under Clemenza, Clemenza dies under suspicious circumstances, Rosatos claiming his territories but Clemenza's successor Pentangeli refusing to hand them over, which threatens to start a war.

 

Is that photo for real? Cut scene?

 

I honestly don't know. It sure looks like it's from a cut scene, because I found the screenplay referenced here for such a scene:
The Rosato brothers

But I find no evidence they ever shot the scene other than that one image.

 

Interesting.