Turnbull and plawrence, I enjoy this debate with you. You raise so many good arguments, I can barely keep up. But I'm enjoying the challenge of trying.

And don't worry, I don't intend to make a habit of arguing against every little point you raise. The only thing is, if I read something you post and I have a quick reply in mind, I like to post it before I forget; it makes me feel "smaht." It's not often that I can think and express myself on the fly, so I like to enjoy it when the opportunity presents.

Now on to Turnbull:
Holy moley. Rocco, like Fredo, was "stepped over." Rocco must have been involved in the plot.

In the rest of your post you state that it's your opinion that Rocco volunteered for the Roth shooting to "ingratiate himself with Michael and get back on equal footing with Neri -- not because he had a role in the Tahoe shooting." Well, if my colleague was promoted over me, considered by my boss to be "clearly more valuable" while I was "dispensable," I'd have a serious case of sour grapes over my employment situation. In that setting, I can understand why Rocco, if approached by Roth or Ola, could be led to help them with their plot in exchange for a fat reward. Who's the smart one now, Neri?

I think it's possible that, by the end of GF II, Michael had his suspicions and sent Rocco on an assignment he couldn't refuse. It was either be killed by Michael for being disloyal, or be killed (or at least shot at) by the FBI.

You got me there. I see that we agree, though, that Michael couldn't afford to trust any of his right-hand men at that point.

While scanning older threads on this board, I came across a cogent observation: that one of the themes of GF II was to illustrate the treachery and double-crossing Michael could expect to contend with in his career, and how this inability to place trust affects his behaviour and decisions. (In fact, did you write that Turnbull?)

Sometimes, I'm rather surprised when people say things like "Rocco was absolutely loyal to Mike. He would never have been involved in his murder." Is there any such thing as true loyalty in that world? How do we know Rocco wouldn't behave like Tessio, like Paulie, or like Fabrizzio if pushed far enough or if given the right incentive? As Michael said, "All our people are businessmen. Their loyalty is based on that."

On the other hand, I also find quotes like the above understandable. Wouldn't it ring false if Tom Hagen were revealed as a traitor? It's because FFC and the actors brought full-fledged characters to life. We feel as if we know them and all their complexities. Some people cannot believe that Rocco had anything to do with the Tahoe shooting because they see no evidence of it in his personality as portrayed in the film.

Anyway, that's my two cents on that. I must get back to my thinking...