In GF1, when Michael met with Sollozo and McCluskey for their last meal, the Corleones insisted that Michael have a "negotiator" from the Bocchicchio family to act as a "hostage" so if Michael was killed during the meeting, the Corleones would kill the Bocchicchio hostage and the Bocchicchios would take their revenge on Sollozo for breaking the deal on a peaceful meeting.

However, why didn't Sollozo get his own hostage/negotiator to protect himself in case he was hit? That seems like a terrible oversight. I understand that they knew Michael as a "civilian", but still, Sollozo was careless not to plan for this. After all, he did frisk Michael personally, even after McCluskey frisked him, so Sollozo was obviously worried. I'm also surprised that Sollozo didn't have some of his own men hanging around at the bar, just in case.

This seems terribly naive of Sollozo, and he paid for it with his life.

The book goes into more detail on the Bocchicchio family and how they served as meeting hostages; in the movie, there is a passing reference by Clemenza about a "negotiator" playing cards, but if you hadn't read the book you wouldn't understand the reference.

The reason is that with McClusky at his side, Sollozzo felt he had all the protection he needed. As Tom had stated earlier, the presence of a NYC cop made Sollozzo 'practically invulnerable'. In his wildest dreams he would not have imagined Michael of all people planning to carry out a hit. Only because of Michael's brilliant plan was this able to be carried out at all.

And the reason he began to frisk Michael even though McClusky had already done so...he appeared quite taken aback by Michael's request to 'go to the bathroom' in the middle of such an intense business discussion. Can't really blame him, it is a kind've wierd thing to do.

Apple

A good question, DC.

I always look to the book to provide explanations when possible, but in this case what Puzo writes only confuses the issue further.

While discussing the upcoming meeting with Sollozzo, Sonny says to Tom

"He (Sollozzo) wants us to send Mike to meet him to hear his proposition. The negotiator guarantees Mike's safety. Sollozzo doesn't ask us to guarantee his safety, He knows he can't ask for that. No point.(italics mine)

Why couldn't he? Why was there "no point" in him asking?

Probably because they already made an attempt on Vito's life and trying to kill Michael, who was a civilian and not connected to the family business, would have been unthinkable.

Sollozzo didn't even need to guarantee Michael's safety because it would have been an insult.

I think you misunderstand the question.

The Bocchicchio hostage held by the Corleone Family was to guarantee Michael's safety, as pointed out by Don Cannoli in his original post.

The question is, why didn't the Sollozzo people also hold a hostage to guarantee his safety.

As Apple said, Sollozzo felt that nobody, but nobody, would take on a NYC police captain. He felt that he was safe as long as McCluskey was at his side. Even Tom and Sonny tell Michael that it is impossible to kill Sollozzo and McCluskey. It was unthinkable.

Also, Michael was a civilian. He had never been involved in the family business. In the novel, a point is made that the other families perceive Michael as a bit "light in his loafers" and incapable of acting like the other Corleones. I'm sure that Sollozzo had no fear of Michael at that point.

And let's remember (according to the film)...Sollozzo had taken the additional precaution of not revealing the meeting place ahead of time. They picked up Michael at an agreed to street corner.

The ONLY reason they knew where to plant the gun ahead of time was the info provided by one of the Corleone's people in the police precinct. It was McClusky who identified Louis' in the Bronx as where he'd be available 'on call'.

Combine this with McClusky's presence AND that quick turn on the bridge just in case they were being tailed...and Sollozzo was probably quite confident of his safety in the meeting with Michael Corleone.

Apple

Plaw,
My take on it is that Sollozzo knew that he had no bargaining power left after trying to kill Vito at the hospital. Sollozzo knows that since the attempt at the hospital failed, along with the original hit on Vito, then he is no position to be making demands for his safety. I know that I'm mixing the novel with the movie with my explanation, but remember back to when Sonny says: "Imagine the nerve on this son of a bitch. He craps out last night and wants a meeting today."

I also agree with the other point that Sollozzo never really felt unsafe with McCluskie as his bodyguard, making it a moot point for the need to have a hostage to guarantee Sollozzo's safety.

I completely agree with you, goombah. Sollozzo didn't ask for any guarentees of his safety because he had no bargaining power. He made his move and, unfortunatly for him, it didn't work.

If I'm Sollozzo, I ask anyway. Why wouldn't I?

I have nothing to lose by asking, and if the Corleones say "No", then I know that they're probably planning a move against me.

I don't think we've really answered the question yet.

"What guarantees could I give you, Mike? I am the hunted one! I missed my chance. You think too much of me, kid, I'm not that clever. All I want, is a truce."
Damn I had a good point that went along w/that quote.If I remember it,I'll edit this. Until then....
If this guy tried to kill my father,not once, but twice.....there is absolutely no way in hell I will guarentee that he will come back alive.Besides Sollozzo had his own guarentee(or so he thought)McKlusky.

Here is my take.

In all these meetings, it seems that either:

1) one party provides security for the entire meeting, .i.e. Sollazzo/McCluskey meeting or Tessio's feeble attempt at securing a Corleone/Barzini meeting. Or,

B) each party provides its own security. i.e. the big Five Families meeting. Here everyone gets a negotiator because no one is in control.


If only one party is providing security, then that party must additionally insure that it won't double cross the other vulnerable meeting participants. Hence, Sollazzo must provide a negotiator for Michael, who is perceived to be at risk, not Sollazzo, who is in control. Tessio probably had to arrange a negotiator for Barzini (ha ha). But Tessio didn't need a negotiator because he was arranging security. The security arranger presumably doesn't need a negotiator. This is all understood. Sollazzo understands this protocol and doesn't ask for a negotiator. Sollozzo would ask for a negotiator if HE were the one to go, unarmed, into a Corleone car.

Given that Tessio and Sollazzo both ended up dead, this policy obviously doesn't work with the Corleones.

I believe it comes down to two factors:
1. As others have said, Sollozzo believed that having a police captain at his side was the best security money could buy.
2. He underestimated Michael. He believed Michael was a "civilian," and a "punk kid" to boot: he had let McCluskey break his jaw withouT filing charges or fighting back. He allowed himself to be humiliatingly searched by McCluskey in the car, acted humble, asked permission to go to the bathroom, allowed Sollozzo to feel his crotch for weapons.
To be fair to Sollozzo, he was cautious enough to have his driver pull that fast turnaround on the Washington Bridge to lose any potential tails. And in the novel, Sollozzo had a man in the restaurant, at another table, to whom he looked when Michael asked permission to go to the bathroom (the guy indicated with a look that no one was in the bathroom). But the last thing he expected was that Michael would pull out a gun and shoot both of them. Sollozzo made only one mistake--that one--and it was fatal.

Sollazo even admitted to Michael that he thought to much of him and he wasn;t that clever

This might be a little off topic, but has anyone else ever wondered what happened to the driver that took them to the meeting? You would think he'd be waiting outside, keeping the car warm or something. Why wasn't he there when the shooting started?

I assumed Tessio probably whacked the driver while waiting to pick up Michael. I can't remember whether this question was answered in the novel.

Lou the driver is conveniently not around when Michael departs the restaurant - in both the novel and film. In the Corleone plan, a disarmed Michael exiting the restaurant was vulnerable to a potentially armed driver. The novel also has other Sollazzo goons sitting around, pretending to be innocent bystanders. These guys also froze in their moment of need. Tessio, who couldn't whack a fly, wasn't there to defend Michael. I find these point unsatifying with regard to reality of the plan.

Well that sucks. Haha

I look at this question differently:
If Sollozo did have a hostage, then Michael would
not have killed him, and the entire chain of events that followed would not have followed. The chain of events that followed makes up an integral part of the film. (Michale having to leave the country, the war between the families,
etc, etc) It was a plot device, and not an oversight by Puzo.

Sollozo wasn't in a Family. He was allied with the Tatagglias. Where would he find an honest negotiator? He was tyring to settle his personal fued with the Corleone family, and a negotiator wouldn't really make sense.

As everyone touched on Solozzo thought he couldnt' be touched and Michael being a civilian and McCluskey being a cop would almost guarantee a safe return.

As for the Bocchicchios Don Corleone had the connections to employ them in returning michael to America, on the other hand however Solozzo was set up by the Tattaglias (but really by Barzini) as the point man and the guy to take the fall first if everything went wrong. Solozzo was also an associate of the Tattaglias who weren't as well connected with the Bocchicchios as DC was and they wouldnt' extend this type of protection in any case if the Tataglias were connected like this with the Bocchicchios. That is because this would probibly cause a war between the families.

Solozzo felt that he "was invulnerable" and "noone would shoot down a police captain, never". Michael was regarded as a civilian and not up to the murdering end of the family.

The entire idea of the meeting is to buy time for Solozzo so he could hit "the old man" again. He needed to give a deal which would satisfy the Corleones, until he could do the deed.

In the book, Solozzo's meeting is one of assurance that he would not kill Don Corleone, but needed to do some business so that he could be making dollars. McClusky was really needed to keep that part going (what better way to make sure drug dealers pay, and limit the amount of arrests, and confiscate any evidence of illegal activity?)

This proves that Solozzo did not have the money to pay a "negotiator" (remember, he had to hire one for Michael) and you know that Sonny was not going to pay one for Solozzo.