He said he didn't kill Carlo. Did she really buy it?

When he first told the lie, of course she 'bought it'. Did you see the look of relief on her face?

Over the years however, as she became increasingly disillusioned with her husband and his efforts to make the Family 'legitimate'...it's possible Kay may have realized that Michael was indeed responsible for Carlo's death.

Doesn't the novel have something about this at the end???

Apple

In the novel, Kay does spend a lot more time in church praying for Michael. If memory serves me, she suspects it, hence the prayers.

I don't think it takes her "years" to realize that her husband killed Carlo and all the others. I think she realizes it when she sees his men lined up to kiss his ring, and then the door slammed in her face. Hey, he warned her - Never ask me about my business.

She never bought it

Hey I even believed him. Did you see his face? That's how to act.

Damn right

Hey, I never thought about that.

Not that I necessarily agree with you, but it is a reasonable theory.

I always considered the door being closed as a signal to her that she had no role, that she was a virtual shut-out in that part of her husband's life. I don't really equate it with a revelation that yes, he did indeed order Carlo's death.

Apple

Well, I think it was more the sign of the men lining up, kissing his ring and calling him Don and Godfather. I think that was the revelation for her that he was the man that had ordered the murders of Carlo and the others.

Could be...but remember she already knew he was 'Don' and 'Godfather' the moment his father died. She knew the business he was in, that his family had always been in, and apparently married him based on the promise that business would one day be legitimate. Yet even Kay knew it couldn't happen overnight. They hadn't even moved to Vegas yet, but were packing. There's nothing to say (unless it's in the novel) she knew anything about 'the others', since prior to Connie's outburst Kay probably did follow respect Michael's wishes that she keep out of his business.

So I can't really go along with the theory that seeing a bunch of guys line up to kiss his ring would suddenly prove a revelation to Kay that her husband was indeed a murderer, and especially the murderer of his sister's husband.

Not that it isn't a reasonably interesting guess...

Apple

Kate was allways a sweet girl, but I think she was some kind of a bublehead... Anyway, she didnt need to be a genius to know the thruth about Carlo Rizzi´s dead! He was a real ¨Haza¨.
Love ya all!
Frank Pentangely

But Apple, remember that Connie mentions the others. She throws the newspaper at Kay, screaming, "That's your husband!". When Kay asks Michael, she accepts his answer, but when she's getting them a drink, she sees the men bowing and scraping, and knows the truth. That's why in the deleted scene, we see her lighting the candles in church, praying for her husband's soul.

Could be, however the 'bowing and scraping' of his men should come as no big surprise. She knows her husband is now Don Corleone. The 'surprise' is having the door shut in her face.

That deleted scene is shown at the END of the saga; thereby suggesting that Kay is lighting those candles after their marriage has ended...many years after Carlo's death and after she knows what her husband has become.

Still, your theory is somewhat compelling. Can't really go along with it, though.

Apple

In the novel, Kay leaves Michael and takes the children with here to New Hampshire because she realized that Michael lied to her about Carlo.

Interestingly, she was more pissed at Michael "because of that lie, not because of the deed."

Hagen goes up there to bring her back, and confirms her suspicions with a bunch of hypotheticals:

"What if Carlo fingered Sonny?.....What if Carlo beating up Connie was a deliberate plot?.....What if Carlo had been paid to help get Sonny killed?.....Then what?"

So in the novel, at least, Kay didn't buy it.

Kay wanted to believe Michael's denial that he ordered Carlo's death. But the ring-kissing showed her that he really did order Carlo's death. She accepted it, but then she wanted to believe that "the Corleone family will be legitimate in five years." But after the Tahoe shooting, she gave up wanting, hoping and believing. Check out the look she gives Michael after the Tahoe shooting, when she's clutching Anthony...

Thanks, Turnbull for clearing that up.
Makes sense now...you learn something new every day!

And yes, I've ALWAYS noted the look Kay gives Michael after the Tahoe shooting.

Apple

The novel goes into some detail about how Kay converts to Catholicism, takes comfort in it and attends Mass with mama Corleone all the time. I also think she develops a drinking problem.

I think that we should refuse to answer any questions by Apple regarding the novel.

It's about time that she goes out and buys it to read!!

A member of this board, who's so full of knowledge about The Godfather movies, who always brings up some very interesting points and always makes great conversation on here about the movie, NEVER READING THE NOVEL? That's an INFAMIA!

Don Cardi

DC...maybe we should take up a collection and get her a copy of the novel, then at the next GF reunion we could test her on it

DT - Kay drinks???!!

I agree with SB. I always thought that what she saw in the room with the men around Michael, and then the door closing in her face cemented in her mind that he did order Carlo's murder. It never occurred to me that it could have meant anything else, or that she believed otherwise after that. Because she wasn't completely stupid, either-- she knew the business he was in, she knew the way the revenge thing worked, so if he hadn't ordered that, who had?

I think she'd already believed what Connie said at the beginning, but when she asked Michael about it, she was desperately hoping for a different answer. Maybe when he said no, there was a moment of relief where she almost believed him, but then once she saw the way he was treated by those other men, I think she knew.

Fine with me, I really never liked intertwining the two even though the movie(s) are based upon and lack detail provided in the novel. I think the films stand separately on their own; if they didn't, then GF/GFIII wouldn't be the classics that they are all these years later.

Only reason I do sometimes ask if a certain aspect is covered in the book is that I know if it is, someone (like plawrence) is eventually going to bring it up anyway.

Ironically, I almost bought the book again, yesterday. Was walking past a Barnes & Noble and briefly considered looking for the paperback. Kept walking, though...I can pass alot of time in a bookstore and my daughter just doesn't have the patience.

Apple

Don't sweat it Apple, all you are really missing is a cheesy back story about how Sonny's girlfriend got her vagina tightened, and the sexual exploits of Johnny Fontaine in Vegas. Turnbull has probably told you everything important about the book other than that. Personally I liked the movies better anyway.

Not to mention Luca Brasi throwing infants into furnaces.

Way to go, dontomasso!!! You just proved I've heard all I need to know about the novel!

Except for when someone decides to insert some tidbit from it into the movie.

Apple