Sorry for going off topic but, how did Mike know that Moe slapped fredo around?

We are not specifically told, but as DC mentions above, Michael and/or Vito obviously has someone on the hotel premises reporting to them on what was going on.

The book also makes reference somewhere to Tom figuring out that Fredo was in the Don's doghouse because of his carryings-on in Vegas.

Obviously The Corelones had their people in Las Vegas who were keeping an eye on Fredo and what was going on. Basically they had their people in Las Vegas keeping an eye on Moe's hotel because they wanted to take it over.


Don Cardi

How can anyone question the evil -- the needlessness -- of Fredo's removal? How can anyone question the harmlessness of Fredo at this time?

Fredo's relationship with Michael was a LOVE-HATE one, not a HATE-HATE one. He felt envy, resentment, anger AND love, bonding, friendship. We should all listen to Don Cardi more:
Fredo didn't want Michael's position. He wanted a position of his own that garnered Michael's respect. Geez, how many times do I have to tell you people : Michael HAD TO BE IN THE PICTURE for Fredo to realize his dream. He wanted Michael, and the rest of the family, to be proud of him, to acknowledge him, to include him. That's why he NEVER conspired to kill Michael, nor would he ever do so. All the power and position in the world is useless to him if Michael and the Family aren't there to SEE it.
"wah, wah, wah"

As witty as that is, Sicilian Babe, I have to say that I am starting to feel frightened for you. Why? Because you're turning into a MICHAEL CORLEONE!! We must have an intervention! Pray for her soul!

In the boat house, Fredo spilled out an emotional confession of all his pent up reasons for succumbing to Roth's plan. They were very human reasons, probably repressed for a long time. What was Michael's response? Much like yours (only not as witty ): He dismissed them.

Wasn't the whole theme of GF2 to show how Michael had lost his humanity, to show how far into evil this once upstanding young man who wanted nothing to do with the family business had sunk? He murdered a brother who had complex, psychological issues with himself and his dynamic in the family because he failed to see Fredo the human being and saw in his stead just another mafia co-hort.

PREACH ON SISTER CRISTINA

And that is why he is a cold-hearted bastard

AND THAT DOESN'T MATTER!!!

Gangster or not, Michael should not have killed Fredo. Fredo never intended for Michael to be killed AND Fredo would never be a danger again. The traumatic mistake of trusting Roth almost cost Fredo everything. So relieved to be forgiven at Mama's funeral, Fredo would from here on report back to Michael if an enemy (or friend) so much as said hello to him.

But that's only the half of it. Michael by this time viewed everyone as a businessman whose loyalties were based on business. Everyone he dealt with was a criminal. He saw things in black and white: You were either a traitor or not; you were either with him or against him. But there was more to a person than being a businessman or a criminal. Michael turned a blind eye to all shades of grey, all the complexities and dynamics in his and Fredo's relationship. He completely erased from his mind the human face of the issue.

And that was a mistake. He should have preserved a shred of humanity (mercy, sentiment, whatever you want to call it). He needed this to function as a person, even if he was in the mafia. He was still a father, a husband, an uncle, etc., after all. If there was ever a circumstance where it was right NOT to act like a gangster for a change, this was it.

We are dealing with Fredo here. This is not the head of a rival family like Barzini. This is not a big time player like Hyman Roth. This is not a professional conniver. This is not a paid assassin (he can't even hold a gun, let alone shoot one).

If we're debating whether Michael was justified in his own mind for killing Fredo, then we have a pretty empty debate. Michael can think whatever he wants in his own mind: Fredo could sneeze in his direction and he could deem that as valid grounds for killing him. But let's view this as objective people who are not impaired by Michael's paranoia, blindness, ego, and loss of integrity; and I hope some of us (most of us?) will conclude that Michael was not justified in killing Fredo. He should NOT have judged him by the confines of his mafia world, but by the standards of his familial world, which is a more normal and decent world ... And this was a world Michael really needed to keep one foot in, just as Vito had.

Oh I love that! MamaMig, Brother plawrence, Deacon Don Cardi, and I, Sister Cristina, must spread the word... and unite in prayer for Sicilian Babe before she loses her way .

Cristina, your my younger sister, but so is Sicilian Babe, so don't ever take sides against the family again!!


Don Cardi

Fredo was anything but harmless. He showed his true colors when he bitterly told Michael that he resented being passed over and relegated to run mickey mouse night clubs.

Perhaps if Fredo had acknowledged his mistake and sincerely apologized to Michael there could be a case made for clemency, but that didnt happen. In fact Michael had no choice but to take Fredo out. The jealousy was still there, and so was the resentment. It would only have been a matter of time before Fredo betreayed him again. For instance, had Fredo been alive in GF III, who knows what would have happened....perhaps security at the Opera House would be botched and Mary would have ended up dead.

Lucy was spying after him, under Tom's instructions.

According to the book, correct?


Don Cardi

You have to understand that it is impossible to separate the family from the Family. After all, Fredo was responsible for gunmen shooting up Michael's home. It doesn't matter if he knew it was going to be a hit or not. He set up Michael for some sort of harm, because he had to know that whatever dealings he had with Roth and Ola (and they had to be somewhat extensive if he knew who Roth's man was at the senate hearings), he had to realize they weren't coming to Michael's house to deliver oranges.

Fredo put the family and the Family in harm's way. When he revealed his bitterness and envy, he also revealed the fact that, if he wasn't eliminated, he could do so again.

As for my "turning into Michael Corleone", why Thank You, Cristina. Rarely has someone said a nicer thing about me.

Absolutely correct.

I thought the whole idea behind GFII was to show how ruthless and cold Michael had become; that he had "lost his soul." If he was perfectly justified in murdering his brother, doesn't that whole rationale kind of go out the window?

Amen, Dona! That's the single most persuasive reason that I think Michael was wholly unjustified in killing Fredo, and I really believe that FFC crafted Fredo's death and the closing scene to drive that impact home to the audience.

Why did the murder of Fredo haunt Michael for the rest of his life if Fredo was so dangerous that "he HAD to go"?

Michael was never troubled for a moment by the killing of long-time associate Tessio; the killing of his father's colleague, Roth; the killing of brother-in-law Carlo -- and understandably so, because these men were true traitors who meant to kill Michael or who had already killed someone in Michael's family. Why did Fredo's death feel so different, so tragic? The flashback scene alone made it undeniable to me that Michael regretted the act the moment it was committed, and the film ended on the sombre note that a terrible, irrevocable mistake had been made.
Excuse me? HYMAN ROTH was responsible for gunmen shooting up Michael's home. Do you think Hyman Roth would have given up on his assassination attempt on Michael if he couldn't get Fredo on board? Absolutely not. He would have found another time or place.

Fredo is not the enemy here, people. Weak, bumbling Fredo, who wanted to earn a bit of self-respect and who wanted some brotherly respect, lacked the savvy to be skeptical of all criminals bearing gifts. I'm convinced it would have been a lesson he would never have forgotten had he lived; and hence, he would never be a danger.

The danger is a career criminal like Hyman Roth who wouldn't bat an eye to murder a rival and that rival's wife and small children if they happened to be in the way. The danger is Michael himself for crossing powerful and unscrupulous gangsters like Roth and trying to edge in on their territory. But, of course, Michael rationalizes and is blind to his own mistakes; therefore, he blames Fredo. Don't fall into his trap! dontomasso, you've just proven my point! Gunmen weaved their way around the Opera House and Mary did end up dead even though Fredo had nothing to do with it. The stupid and dangerous one was Michael, who continued to alternately court, defy, and challenge ruthless mafia kingpins. Furthermore, he attends the opera after being warned that an assassin is pinpointing him and he surrounds himselft with his whole family, not even bothering to warn them.

Now tell me again that Fredo is the one he needs protection from. No, Michael does fine putting putting his and his family's lives in danger all by himself.

Uh oh. Does this mean you're planning a fishing trip for me?

It's the way pop wanted it.


Don Cardi

Sorry, Cristina, I don't buy the whole weak-and-dumb-Fredo thing. He was a detriment and he needed to be eliminated, or he could have caused harm again in the long run.

And, yes, it haunted Michael for his entire life. It was the one thing that he couldn't live with, but I don't think that he missed Fredo. I think it was because he was so haunted by the fact that, although he hoped to follow in his father's footsteps, he became a completely different man, lacking Vito's warmth. Somehow, he had grown in power without holding onto the love that Vito could inspire.

If you remember his confession in GF3, or his little speech at Don Tomassino's coffin, that was his regret - that he had disappointed his father, that the man that he had become would've broken his father's heart. In his confession, he doesn't say, "I murdered my poor weak and defenseless brother who I loved so much." He says, "I killed my father's son." To me, that is his true remorse, and IMHO, supports my theory that, even though he loved his brother, he realized the necessity of his elimination for the long-run protection of the family.

When he kneels at Don Tomassino's coffin, he doesn't ask how he could've killed his brother. Fredo never enters into it. He asks why he (Don Tommasino) was so loved while he (Michael) was so feared. I also believe that in the scene, he is actually speaking to Vito.

OK, the following should settle this whole debate. (Ha ha ha . I hope you enjoyed the joke.)

This is something I've written before in another discussion(s), so excuse me for boring you if you've already read it. I believe FFC's intention -- through the theme and tone of the final scenes -- was to show us that Michael was horribly wrong and culpable in killing Fredo. Fredo was not as a jealous plotter in the vein of Macbeth or Marc Antony, but an inconsequential man trying for once to achieve a taste of significance, and learning painfully that he should not have tampered with his destiny of ordinariness.

(1) The ending murders of GF2 have a common thread: all the victims were real or percieved enemies of Michael's who are now either so powerless, afraid, or changed in attitude toward him that it's unnecessary to kill them. Roth is terminally ill and will die in prison. Pentangeli, after seeing how Michael could reach his brother, is so terrified for his family that he'll leave the Corleones alone forever. I've always believed that if these two men had been left to live out their natural lives, they would have been no threat to Michael. I think the same thing has to apply to Fredo in order for his murder to fit thematically with the others.

(2) As Dona pointed out, when Michael has Fredo killed at the end, we are meant to see this as the climactic unspeakable act and the prime illustration that Michael has become the worst evildoer of them all. I think the singular crime of killing one's own blood -- of even considering it -- is meant to be Michael's alone, the crowning tragedy of his criminal life. If I believed Fredo were capable of doing the same thing -- whether he intended it earlier with Roth, or would do it in the future -- then this would dilute the dramatic focus on Michael's downfall.

(3) To those of you who believe that Fredo DID intend to kill Michael and therefore DID have to be eliminated because he would try it again, how did you feel when you first saw the ending of GF2? Didn't you feel sadness? Did you find it troubling or unsettling? In the flashback scene where you saw Fredo once bantering with his brothers, and now forever silenced, did you perhaps find that painful or haunting?

Maybe you did, but you still believe that Michael couldn't afford to be sentimental: it had to be done and Michael had no choice. But aren't those feelings of regret or sadness an indication in themselves that something was "off" about Fredo's death, that it really "didn't have to be done"?

But it ain't the way I want it! I can buy my own fish at the grocery store. I can handle that! I'm smaht!

Now here's a topic where we have over 100 posts, and only 11 persons voted. Come on, people! Get out and vote .

Also, one of you (who may or may not be reading this) made a mistake on your vote. If you answered "No" to Question 1, then you are supposed to answer "No" (the first choice) to Question 2.

You answered "No" to Question 1 (Fredo wouldn't betray Michael again, neither on purpose nor by accident). But when you got to Question 2, instead of picking the first response (I voted "No" to Question 1), you voted on your opinion as to How Fredo would betray Michael again. Doesn't make sense if you originally voted that he wouldn't betray Michael again at all.

So moderators, can you help me out here? If someone wants to change his/her vote, is it possible that you can take out that person's original vote, thus allowing him/her to vote again (only correctly this time)? Of course, I assume that the person would have to PM you first and let you know.

And I can't believe that half the people think Fredo would do it again! When the moderator posts back on how (or if) you can change your vote, I hope you all will take advantage of those instructions and vote the right way instead .

Cristina, Are you, by any chance, a nun?? That last post of yours seriously reminded me of my Catholic school education!

As to your other post, no, I don't believe that Michael's feelings of regret are because he truly didn't have to do it; I believe he regrets that he HAD to do it. He had a very different future planned. He wanted something else for his life. I believe that he was sorry for choosing a life where he would be forced to make a decision about his brother's life or death - not the decision itself. A fine line of distinction, but a definitive one.

As for Pentangeli, I don't believe that Michael brought his brother to court to frighten him. I think that Michael speaks the truth when he says that "it was between the brothers". Vincenzo Pentangeli's presence reminded his brother about the oath of silence that they had taken. And this is supported by Tom's statement (in Sicilian) to Vincenzo about the honor of the family being intact after Frankie refuses to testify. However, Frankie still needs to be punished for his transgression - even he realizes it. He is the one that proposes his suicide to Tom in exchange for his family being taken care of. And he doesn't seem terrified to me, only resigned.

And Roth? Sorry, Roth had to die. No two ways about it.

Personally, I think the discussion itself has become far more interesting than the simple vote. Which is why I never bothered to cast a vote in the first place.

However...I'd bet my Godfather paperback that half the people that voted DO think that Fredo would have eventually betrayed Michael again.



Apple

If you want to talk about changing votes and fixing them, then you need to pop on over to the GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD where there are lots of debates about fixing votes to win and voting for things before voting against them.


Not any of our Pisans. Give it to a Jew congressman in another district.


Don Cardi

Sure, bigshot! Placing a wager with soemnthing that is of no financial risk to YOU at all.


Don Cardi

Don't worry Don C....even if I lost, am almost finished with the book anyway (am just up to the part where Dr. Jules is discussing Nino's 'health' with Johnny Fontaine).

So no matter what, you've got your money's worth!!



Apple

I Did?


Don Cardi

Don Cardi, about the voting, I wasn't inquiring about fixing votes or changing other people's votes (with or without the help of moderators). Honest, that wasn't my intent!

What I was asking is this: Can a person change his/her OWN vote in a poll (not someone else's)? Suppose I voted in a poll and I later wanted to change my vote and vote differently. Unlike a post, which I can edit, clicking on a "vote" button gives the message "You've already voted" and doesn't allow editing.

I figured if a person DID want to change his/her OWN vote, he or she would have to PM a moderator and request that it be done. But is that allowed, or can it even be done?

You mentioned putting this in the General Discussion thread, but doesn't it go in the Feedback/Help thread, which is specifically about the board?

Now you people who believe that Fredo would always be a danger and therefore had to be killed, how do you argue against THAT?

Cristina, you take things too serious. My post about fixing votes and telling you to check out the GENERAL DISCUSSION Thread was a joke. We talk politics over there and the issue of fixing elections, swaying votes, etc. has been discussed. I wasn't being serious.


Don Cardi