I watched GFII again on AMC last night, and thought about a lot of posts (mine included) around here lately which have been pretty harsh toward Michael for killing his brother. There are a couple of scenes that make me wonder if Mike's decision to kill Fredo was reached only after Fredo came back to Nevada.
In Cuba Michael calls out to Fredo and tells him to come with him because it's the only way out. He shouts, "You're still my brother!" The first thing he does when he gets to Vegas is he sends Rocco and Neri outside to ask Hagen about Fredo's whereabouts, and then tells Tom to get word to him that he can return to the compound, that he understands that he had been misled, etc.
After Michael and Tom figure out that Pentangeli is alive and that Michael has been set up in a perjury trap, Michael asks Tom what Fredo knows, and Tom says Fredo says he doesn't know anything. Michael calmly tells Tom he wants to meet privately with Fredo when the great "I'm smaht" scene takes place. During the scene Michael asks Fredo whether there is anything he knows that can be of help, and Fredo says he knows Pentangeli is alive, and then he adds that Questadt belongs to Roth. Seems to me that had Fredo told this to Tom and Michael before the hearings they would have devised some different approach to things, perhaps even outing or taking out Questadt. It also shows that Fredo's treachery against Michael was ongoing because he did not come clean when Michael gave him what apparently was another chance.

Fredo's statement enrages Michael and it is at that point IMHO that Michael decides that Fredo is an ongoing danger to his hold on The Family and that he neds to be eliminated. This also would cast Michael in a somewhat better light than many of us have been putting him.

Yes, for Fredo to have known even those minor details (Quesdadt being owned by Roth and Pentangeli being alive,) he had to have had an ongoing role in what was going on.

Several others on here have said the same thing as you have about believing that it was the boathouse conversation that made up Michael's mind that Fredo had to go. And there have been, along with yours, some very good points made supporting that idea.

But I am not one who believes that the boathouse confrontation made Michael decide that Fredo had to go.

I believe that Michael made the decision in his mind that once he found out who the traitor was in the family, they would have to die.

And that is exactly why in the Cuban nightclub, when Fredo slips and let's on that he knew Ola and Roth, Michael gets that sickining look on his face. A look of disbelief that his own brother was the traitor, that his suspicions were correct, and that he would now have to have his brother killed. All those different emotions show on Michael's face within a split second. At that moment Michael came to the relization that the person he had to have killed was his own brother, and that's why he goes over to him and gives him the kiss of death.

Michael knew, at that moment, that he was now going to have to give the order to have Fredo killed.

He only kept Fredo around for two reasons : the first being that he would see if he could extract as much information that he could from Fredo about Roth; and the second being for the sake of his mother.

I believe it was cut and dry for Michael.

The boathouse confrontation did nothing to seal Fredo's fate. It was already decided. As soon as Michael found out that Fredo was the traitor (in Havana,) he was a walking dead man. Nothing, with the exception of Vito coming back from the dead or Jesus coming off the cross, was going to stop Michael.

Maybe not even then.

Despite the danger that Fredo had posed to the family, the issue of morality has to be considered. Michael arranged the murder of his brother despite the fact that he had shunned him after the boathouse conversation. From that point on, what danger did Fredo pose to the family?

Should one murder anyone? Should one murder one's brother? If so, under what circumstance? In this case, to assuage Michael's need for revenge, to punish.

I think Michael was going to have Fredo whacked,regardless of the boat house conversation.

DT, you have,as usual,brought up an interesting thread.
It has made me rethink my previous views on the subject.
Michael is an evil bastard regardless,but,Fredo deserved what he got,especially for not letting Michael know the whole truth after having a "second chance"(which never would have really happened anyway)but still,he had been asked twice.

I'm always amazed (and a little disgusted) when people defend Michael's murder of Fredo.

Olivant, you are absolutely right. Fredo posed no continuing threat. The only reasons to kill him were vengeance and punishment.

The murder of Fredo was FFC's way of showing us the complete reduction of Michael from young hero to inhuman monster. And yet people defend this?!

Michael had killed all his enemies, he could have kept Fredo on the mall. I still believe there was no need to kill him.

But for Michael, this was the only option. In his mind, he could not afford any more mishaps by his weak, stupid brother.

I've also tried to argue that the boathouse conversation was the moment at which Michael knew he had to kill Fredo.

One reason why I think this has to do with Michael's comment to Neri immediately after that conversation. Michael's remark that he doesn't want anything to happen to Fredo while momma is still alive seems to makes sense only if we assume that there was no prior order or implicit understanding between Neri and Michael, that Fredo had to be killed.

As for the business about whether Michael should have had Fredo killed, I say yes, absolutely. In the boathouse conversation Fredo reveals his personal ambition ("there was something in it for me, on my own"), his envy of Michael's power, and the resentment that comes with the opinion that that power should have been his, not his kid brother's. All of these sentiments are a potential danger to Michael. Fredo may have been duped about it being a hit, but he was consciously acting treacherously and for the reasons that traitors are traitors: personal gain, etc. In this light the difference between Tessio and Fredo is only a matter of degree -- same genus, different species.

Good point DC. It is hard not to interpret the kiss as anything but the "kiss of death" but in that sene Michael is an emotioinal wreck. His worst suspicions have been confirmed "I knew it was you," and he has been betrayed by his own blood.
"You broke my heart. You broke my heart." This isn't Michael the manipulator working, it is Michael coming face to face with the the truth which he tries so hard to deny -- namely that the family he thinks he is trying to save has fallen apart.

Among all the chaos of the Castro takeover why would Michael risk his own safety to plead with Fredo to come with him?

But, of course, such rationalizations as yours completely ignore the moral implications of murder and view it simply as the culmination of a decision-making process. Michael chose to be in the business that he was in which was typically characterized by murder and mayhem.

It's interesting that when he had his conversation with his mother, he didn't ask her about the morality of what he had done, was doing, or would do, but rather about HIS losing his family, the potential injury to himself. Thus, his depravity is manifestly illustrated.

Olivant, lets not get too hung up on morals here...after all this IS the mob we're talking about here.

Well, without a discussion of morals, we are left to discuss whether Michael's actions were simply pursuant to efficient and effective management of an organized crime enterprise. In that context, his "firing, do not rehire" of Fredo was a good business decision.

This was my only point (and it's no rationalization, in the usual sense of the term, i.e. trying to duck the real hard issues). And is this not the meaning of the phrase, "It's not personal, it's strictly business"? No one who cannot bracket off moral concerns from the affairs of this type of business is fit to be at the helm. And let's not kid ourselves, the same is true in the corporate world, which is why there are all kinds of books out there that explicitly try to "translate" Machiavelli's precepts in The Prince into precepts for use in the "legitimate" business world. And speaking of Machiavelli, this foundational precept of bracketing morality out of the decision process -- foundational not only for success but also for mere survival -- is also at the core of "legitimate" politics, especially international politics. I'm reminded of Michael's remark in GFIII (speaking to B.J. about Lamberto), that it's dangerous to be a good man (if you're in a position of influence). This is right out of Machiavelli (chapter 15 of the Prince), and nothing, in my opinion, is more true.

I've always believed that:
--Michael never gave an enemy a pass, and that would include Fredo;
--If he had been wavering about giving his brother a pass, the wavering stopped after Fredo's outburst in the boathouse. With such deep-seated resentment of Michael shown in such fury, it'd be hard for Michael not to conclude that Fredo might have found another opportunity to do Michael in.
--Fredo might have bought himself a pass if he'd told Michael that he knew Questadt belonged to Roth, and/or that Pentangeli was alive. Why didn't Fredo tell him? Two possibilities: He was too dumb to see the opportunity; or, he was afraid that doing so would reveal that he was in deeper with Roth then he wanted to admit (hence that BS story about "I swear to God I didn't know it was gonna be a hit...Johnny Ola bumped into me in Beverly Hills..."). If you accept that he was in deeper, you might be more willing to accept that he deserved to die.

An anomaly: After Havana, Michael asked Tom where Fredo was. Tom said he must be in New York. Michael told Tom to "get word to him..." After the Senate perjury trap (probaby months later), Michael told Tom, "I wanna talk to Fredo." So, Fredo's whereabouts were known all along. If Michael was so desperate to pump Fredo to for more info, why didn't he arrange to snatch Fredo from New York? Why did he wait? And why did Fredo agree to come in for that boathouse meeting if he was so scared? Makes for a splendid plot line but it's not logical.

I wonder why Tom was so equivocal about Fredo getting out of Cuba and probably being in NY. Didn't Tom know? I also wonder why he started answering Mike's question about Fredo by tellinghim about Roth. Was he trying to shield Fredo. If so, what did Tom know about Fredo's betrayal?

Fredo was simply too stupid and dangerous to live. Michael wanted him out of Cuba to keep track of him so when he did decide to whack him, he'd know where he was. Fredo must just not have ever believed his brother would do him in.

Is this really anomolous or illogical?

Fredo would have been in touch with Mama, at least, during the ensuing months. Probably Connie, too.

Michael's warning in the boathouse that Fredo must give advance notice before visiting Mama indicates that Fredo had free reign to come and go up to that point, although he and Michael surely steered clear of each other.

As for Michael being desperate for Fredo's info...I don't think he was until the perjury trap was sprung. Michael underestimated the danger he was in and didn't recognize Roth's fingerprints on the hearings until it was too late. Until Michael realized that Roth was engineering the hearings, there was no reason for him to pump Fredo for information about them.

Turnbull and Woltz both make some really good points for both sides of this discussion.


What bothers me is that Michael didn't even bother trying to talk to Fredo even before the senate hearings began. Surely, as pointed out above, Fredo had been back to Tahoe for some time. Yet Michael did not bother to try and get any information out of Fredo, at least not until his back was against the wall with the sensate hearings.

If I found out that my brother was the one who betrayed me to my enemies, I would at least want to know what went down, who approached who, and what kind of offer was made. And I definitley would have tried to find out from him who opened the drapes!

It was both an anomaly (Michael, desperate to get Fredo out of Havana so he can find out more of what he knows, makes no effort to snatch him in America); and illogical as I said at the end of my post: Fredo, apparently deathly afraid of his brother, shows up on Michael's command, as if he were on 24-hour call).
I don't think that the "advance notice" warning meant that Fredo had been living at the compound at the time of the boathouse confrontation, and chased out only after that confrontation. I think Fredo had been living elsewhere out of fear until that point, which is why I don't understand why he suddenly showed up when summoned.

It was probably Tom who contacted Fredo on Mike's behalf and told him to come on home and that things would be okay. Tom couldn't read Mike's mind or know his real intentions. In any case, the invitation probably went out before Mike found out his butt was in a sling.

In the very begining of GFII we see Fredo and Deanna pull up in a car and into the Corleone Tahoe compound. Arriving at the party.

Yet when the hit hit attempt is made on Mike, Deanna comes running out of the house, on the compound, screaming and yelling that "they were right outside my window."

Did Fredo actually live on the compound, or was he just a guest that evening?

I always inferred that Fredo lived on the compound, part of what Michael may have meant when he said, "I've always taken care of you, Fredo," plus Deanna's line that you quoted. I got the feeling that the compound was truly vast, and Fredo and Deanna may have needed to drive from their part of the compound to where the party was being held. Of course, the (deleted) scene showed them getting out of a car because a) the car was a Mercedes 300SL Gullwing (one of the most expensive sports cars of that era and a treat for any eyes in any generation); and to set up Deanna as a bitch and Fredo as a wimp.

I understand that TB. I too always inferred that Fredo lived on the compound for the same reasons that you have pointed out.
I initially thought that perhaps the compound was so big that Fredo and Deanna needed to drive over to Michael's house on the compound from their own house on the compound. But if the compound was that big, then how could the hitmen shoot at Michael and then be outside Fredo's window?

I figured that they were just there for the communion and that they stayed the night.

They could have also have just returned to the compound after picking up a last minute gift or from going into town. Deanna could have seen them get shot or stabbed by unknown persons on the compund.

I think Michael was going to kill Fredo.

The meeting only served to justify it even more, as well as get information. If Fredo didn't have anything to tell Michael it would have been harder to do for Mike.

Yeah i also think that. It would have been a bad mob decision if mike let him live.

I think Michael blamed Fredo for a few things, including being a stuff up when it came to the shooting of his father.
Also Michael never wanted part of the family business, but because Fredo was supposed to be next in line, but was too "stupid" to take over as Don, the responsibilty was thrust upon Michael, which I think, he resented him for. Then when he found out that Fredo betrayed him, it just blew everything out of the water.

I think more than an inference can be drawn. When Deanna is shrieking after the attempted hit she says something about them bieng "right outside MY window."

Maybe they drove up to the place because they went to a casino after the communion service so Deanna could have a couple of cocktails and Fredo a couple of cocktail waitreses.