Why do we think that whoever opened the drapes must have been involved in the attack?
With their machine guns, the assassins didn't need open drapes. It was enough for them to see that somebody entered the sleeping room. Michael was lucky that the drapes were open, so he could dive for cover when he saw the assassins or the muzzle flashes.

Who opened the drapes? Anthony or Kay.

I don't know the drapes were so thin that an assassin could see well enough with them closed. Where's the evidence of this?

D, that's preposterous. As DT points out, an assassin doesn't assume anything. Having fired a "machine gun" god knows how many times, I know very well that one needs to see one's target just as one does when firing a semi-automatic weapon to insure the rounds hit the target.

Shooting at shadows? Silhouettes? That's reliable.

No, those drapes needed to be open. The assassins needed to know it was Michael they were shooting. The drapes needed to be open to "tag" the room. And Fredo needed to be the one to do it.

Why would Michael ask Kay why the drapes were open if they weren't opened by someone else in order for the assassins to have a clear view of the room? That line served as an explanation to the viewer that someone else had opened the drapes.

Oli, the question is, what do we assume?
Why do we assume the drapes were not thin?
Isn't any assumption that Fredo, Tom, Pentangeli or whoever could just walk into Kay's bedroom much more far fetched? So the only adult person who could walk into the bedroom after Kay was Michael.
The light was on, so the assassins could have seen probably more than just a fuzzy shadow on the drapes.
Assassins don't assume anything? The assassins in GF2 assumed they'd definitely kill Michael (according to our mainstream theory with the drapes open) before he could dive for cover. And they probably assumed they'd get out of this affair alive.

Oh, and sorry for my English in my last posts. I'm a little sick in bed, which makes it hard for me to write in English. Having fired an Ak47 god knows how many times, I know the difference between an assault rifle and a machine gun.

its a safe bet that the bedroom is off limits to everyone, anybody except for mike, kaye and the kids. We know for sure Anthony was in there because of the drawing.

Exactly. I don't know why people go off on tangents and theories, making it more complicated then it is, when it's so simple and clearly presented in the film itself. It was obvious the drapes were kept closed, hence Kay's question. Somebody else had to have opened them, in order to give the hit men a clear line of sight. And that someone had to have access to Michael's home. And besides access, they had to have motive. The only one who fits is Fredo. Not Tom. Not Rocco. Not Neri. Not Connie. Not the ghost of Moe Green. Fredo. And that shows Fredo was lying when he swore to God he didn't know it would be a hit. That doesn't mean he didn't feel some sense of remorse anyway for the plot against his brother, in addition to fear of Michael and disappointment in his deal with Roth and Ola falling through. But he obviously knew Micheal being killed was a part of it. The end.

I think Fredo may have bought into the lie that it was going to be a kidnapping and not a hit. He probably used every ounce of his own denial to believe that. But ultimately, he knew in his heart what he was doing with the motive that he would then become the don.

Except when does the movie ever say or even hint that Michael would be kidnapped? What would the purpose of that even be? Fredo would know exactly what he was doing when opening the drapes.

Sorry, that tidbit is from an earlier draft of the script.

I often rely on that as the story they told Fredo- a story Fredo refers to on the phone when he tells Ola "you guys lied to me". From just the movie, we don't know really know what the lie was.

The reason for the kidnapping was pretty much the same as why Sollozzo kidnapped Tom Hagen in the first movie.
Michael was being tough on negotiations and kidnapping him and putting him under threat might speed up negotiations to Roth's favor. This is apparently the lie they told Fredo- which then would make sense to mark Michael's window. (even though it makes absolutely NO sense to kidnap Michael out of his Tahoe compound. Only Fredo would buy something like that.)

What we DO know is that a lie was told. Fredo did something in the compound to help Roth. Fredo wasn't told it was going to be a hit.

When does the movie ever hint that Fredo opened the drapes? Same kind of question... It's up to your own imagination.

It doesn't but it's the only explanation that holds any water, as Fredo was the only one that had both access and motive.

But that doesn't seem to be exciting enough for some so they start up with all kinds of wild and convoluted theories.

Which is what generates excellent debate. Without those theories this part of the forum would have been mute.

No matter what you guys think, I still consider Rocco a serious candidate for being part of the conspiracy. IMO, Michael's line "all our men are business men" would not apply to Fredo, but hints to one of his caporegimes. FFC would not want the viewer to know that Fredo was in on it so early on in the film. Remember that Rocco was in charge of security of the compound, so he could go to most parts of the compound without arousing suspicion. He would have been the perfect candidate for Roth, far more important than Fredo or the Rosato brothers, as he held real sway within the organization. Rocco knew that he would always be second choice to Michael, after Neri. But even though Michael favored Neri, Rocco seemed to be in command of the muscle-end in Nevada. So with Michael out of the way, Rocco would have been his natural successor. So the fact that Rocco could potentially form a threat to Michael along with being a possible suspect was more than enough reason for Michael to dispose of him. Afterall he could simply replace him with Neri.

I could never buy Fredo killing the assassins. Rocco was in a perfect position in the organization to orchestrate the intricacies of the hit- and there's enough going on to accuse him of it.
But without anything tagging a second traitor in the Family, I'm afraid I have to just settle on Rocco's treason being a pet theory.

It was in a draft of the script (second revision, I believe). When confronted, Fredo does his "I didn't know it was gonna be a hit!" routine but he says something that he was told by Ola that it was going to be a kidnapping; I guess the idea would be to grab Michael, force him to work out a deal, and release him (basically like what Sollozzo did to Tom in I).

FREDO: I didn't know it was gonna be a hit Mike -- I swear to god I didn't know it was going to be a hit. JOHNNY OLA bumped into me in Beverly Hills -- and he said that he wanted to talk -- he said that you and -- and -- ROTH were in on a -- a -- big deal together. And that there was something in it for me if I'd help 'em out. He said that -- he said that -- you were bein' tough on the negotiations. But if they could get a little help -- and close the deal fast -- it'd be good for the family.

My mistake, it's actually a quote from Hagen in the second draft of GFII:

HAGEN
My information is that Fredo thought it was a kidnapping. Roth assured him nothing would happen to you.

Something else people need to consider is well explained in the link below, i.e. there are no good answers and these were plot holes in an otherwise classic movie.

http://filmwad.com/three-nitpicky-and-ir...sor-5046-p.html

Wait, you're telling us this isn't a classic movie? Anyway, no need to spam this link in two different threads. This is nothing more than the opinion of some guy and it has bias written all over it.

Am I the only one who has no problem with the cop? It's not like the cop actually shot either of the Rosato brothers. He just shot his gun in their direction (and they toward him).

That Rosato was going to shoot the cop and the bartender told him not to gives me the impression that the whole thing was staged complete with a mock shootout outside- all for the sake of believability.

And in the "filmwad" article, it mentions shooting the assassins. In truth, their throats were slit which makes it even more unbelievable that it was Fredo. I'll agree that the killers of the assassins issue is not addressed and maybe should have been.

There's a lot of reasons I can cite that point to Rocco as a possibility but nothing concrete.

Michael says to Tom that same night: I give you complete power, Tom, over Fredo and his men, Rocco, Neri, everyone.

So it doesn't have had to be Fredo himself but rather some of his guys who killed those assassins. Obviously these men did not need to be implicated in the film as it centered on Fredo. Fredo's men are insignificant for the viewer.

First, when did I ever say it wasn't a classic movie? It certainly is. Second, the link applied to both conversations so it's not exactly spamming. Third, yes it's his opinion, but he makes some very good points. I'm not even sure what you mean by "bias."



It's easier for me to believe it was a simple plot hole then Rocco having anything to do with it. He had zero motive. And a good point was made before about Fredo's comment to Ola, saying "You guys lied to me." So if Fredo wasn't expecting Michael to be killed, there's really nobody left in my opinion. If Rocco or somebody else was the traitor, I think it would have been more well known in Godfather lore all these years later.

We DID talk about motive before in how Michael seemed to favor Neri over Rocco. Not a BIG selling point, but it IS there.

Roth could also have Fredo set up for the kidnapping and unbeknownst to Fredo, approach Rocco for the assassination (and subsequent killing of the assassins). After all, I really don't see enough time for Fredo to regroup his nerves and order his men to go kill the assassins (the whereabouts of whom he wouldn't really have a clue)

If anyone had the power, ability and knowledge to set up the hit and kill the assassins afterward, it would be Rocco.
But the motive IS pretty weak unless we could know what Roth had promised Rocco in exchange. The pot would have to be pretty sweet. And with Michael gone, it could have been.
After all, Rocco was a businessman.

His points are by no means more credible than those of any other Godfather fan. He basically presumes that Fredo would have done everything himself, including killing those assassins, and uses this as an argument to support his case. However, he somehow overlooks that Fredo had his own men, and that it is common practise that he would have used those men to do the "dirty work" for him. If he wanted to write an objective, and unbiased article he should have considered every possibility. The reason that he declines to do this shows that he was prejudiced from the start.



He did not have zero motive, like I've states before, he would have always been second choice as long as Michael was around.

I wonder if Fredo really had men of his own or if Fredo's men were really just Corleone men who would do reasonable Fredo biddings- and for anything other than reasonable biddings they'd consult Michael, Neri or Rocco. I'm not sure I could see Fredo's men being comfortable in assisting in the assassination of the don- on Fredo's order.

Difficult. Not impossible...

It's the only explanation in case Fredo would have been up his neck in the conspiracy. I won't deny that it seems a little flawed. But I can't imagine that FFC or Puzo wouldn't have noticed these supposed plot holes themselves. Maybe they didn't care, which I doubt, or maybe they deliberately left it open to the viewer's own imagination. You can compare this with Once Upon A Time in America, which ending also leaves the viewer with a lot of questions. Leone, the director, apparantly did this on purpose so the viewer could make his own interpretation. The same applies to 2001: A Space Odyssey.

So now you think Fredo had his guys do it? As if they would follow him in an attempt to take out the boss? And whatever happened to these co-conspirators?



You can't just pull a theory like that out of thin air. There's got to be something in the movie to give some basis for it. There is nothing to suggest Rocco wasn't loyal. He basically did a suicide mission, for crying out loud.

See how exaggerated and out there some of your guys' theories get? You guys come up with these insane scenarios and then have to do all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify them.

That's one of the most sensible statements made on this Board. I agree. Giving flight to one's imagination is certainly something a poster can do as just a polemic exercise. But, it is more meaningful to the Board community if extrapolations have some basis in what appears on screen (or in the novel).

That's why I preface my Rocco theory as it being just a theory with no foundations other than it cleans up the mess of the assassins nice and neat. In lieu of any other reasonable explanation, it's certainly no different than supposing that Fredo or Fredo's men killed the assassins which I find far less believable.

However, since there's only reference to ONE traitor, i have to just let my Rocco theory remain on the back burner.