DC I agree that Cicci was testifying to help them set Michael up for perjury charges. Cicci testifies that he was a button man, and that he killed people.

What he could not say was that Michael corleone ordered him to kill people. He could have testified that Pentangeli ordered him to do that, but Pentangeli had been given immunity. So where they leave Cicci is with the leading question Did the family have buffers? To which Willie gave his famous answer.

Turnbull,

There is something in your argument that I'm confused by. On the one hand, you argue that Roth did not want Pentangeli testifying to the Senate committee, because he was worried that Pentangeli would expose his, Roth's, criminal activities. You write: "Any exposure of Roth's criminal activities before a Senate hearing televised to millions would have poisoned Roth with any government that might have considered hiring him as a gaming "consultant" or granting him or his associates gaming licenses."

But then you argue that after the hit on Pentangeli fails -- which, you claim, is not what Roth wanted -- Roth then puts his "brilliant Plan B" in motion. And this is where I'm confused: you describe this as a brilliant plan, but it involves a high risk of Pentangeli exposing Roth before the Senate committee. You write: "Roth wanted Frankie dead, but when he survived, he brilliantly went to Plan B--use Questadt to lay the perjury trap for Michael." In other words, my problem is that laying the perjury trap for Michael means getting Pentangeli behind the microphone on Capitol hill; but how is this a "brilliant" plan B if it has a high risk of exposing Roth's criminal activities to an audience of millions?

Let me state my concern this way: your argument against my view that the Pentangeli hit was deliberately botched in order to get him to testify against Michael is this: the last thing in the world Roth wants is Pentangeli on the witness stand, since he would expose Roth's criminality. But then you describe Roth's laying the perjury trap--which means getting Pentangeli on the witness stand--as Roth's "brilliant plan B."

Forgive my repetativeness here, but I wish to make my objection as clear as possible.

and it was changed to

ROTH. He engineered it MICHAEL. Frankie went to make a deal with the Rosato Brothers -- and they TRIED TO KILL HIM.

Look, Roth could have ordered the hit and told the Rosato's it came from Michael (along with the fact that Frankie wanted Michael's blessing to recruit people to kill them). Roth could have told the Rosato's that it was Frankie who tried to kill Michael in Tahoe and Michael will give them the territories if they kill Pentangeli for him. The Rosato's wouldn't necessarily know everything that Roth knows, and I sincerely doubt that Roth would tell them he was going to kill Michael.

I don't think it was necessarily shot this way, but I also don't think the "Michael Corleone says hello!" coupled with the cops accidental entry is hopelessly flawed.

90caliber: I acknowledge where you see an apparent contradiction. I should have been clearer:
One of the reasons that Roth would not deliberately engineer Frankie's survival was that Frankie's testimony could involve him and expose his criminal activities. But after that fateful New Year's Eve, Roth was in desperate shape: he'd suffered a stroke, lost his Cuban gaming empire, and learned the hard way that Michael knew all along that he was behind the Tahoe shooting, and had found out Fredo's treachery. But Roth, crafty fellow, also saw that Frankie's survival provided him with an opportunity to trap Michael through his puppet, Questadt. Yes, if Frankie had testified against Michael, he might well have harmed Roth. But at that point, Roth had nothing left to use against Michael.
You might ask: Why would he still want to go after Michael when he'd lost everything, and using Frankie could expose him? As we saw constantly in the Trilogy: the desire for revenge is most often emotional, not rational. But Roth also may have believed that if Michael went to prison on perjury charges, he'd have a chance, down the road, to pick up some of the pieces of the Corleone empire. The guy was nothing if not resilient.

I’d like to go through the reasons why Roth didn’t engineer Frankie’s survival one more time:

First, it would have been nearly impossible for Roth to arrange the cop’s entry to save Frankie when literally a few seconds separated him from life and death. The cop was not part of the plan. He was surprised that Richie’s bar was open, and immediately suspicious and wary of Frankie’s legs sticking out of the doorway to the rear of the bar. The Rosatos weren’t expecting the cop. They panicked when he started toward Frankie’s body. Carmine Rosato almost blew his head off (until Richie cried, “Carmine, NO-O-O-O…”). They dashed out of the bar, knocking the cop over, and ran into a gunfight. The cop was wounded in the gunfight—you see his partner propping him up near their patrol car. No way was that cop part of the plan.
If he wasn’t, could he have been an unwitting patsy for Roth? If so, how? Did some higher-up in the police department who was on Roth’s payroll call the cop and tell him, “OK, Shultz, show up at Richie’s bar at exactly 3:42 and thirty six seconds on Tuesday afternoon—ya got that? Three forty two and thirty six seconds. Now let’s synchronize watches…” Did Roth or someone in his employ call the precinct and tell them, “Something fishy’s going on in Richie’s bar; I think you should send someone, but not until three forty two and thirty six seconds”; or hope that the cop would arrive at the exact moment to save Frankie? I don’t think so.

Second, Frankie had lured Michael to Havana for two purposes: to get the $2 million, and to have him whacked by his government pals. Why would he risk everything on an impossible, split-second-timed plan to save Frankie so that he could testify against Michael months down the road—when, according to Roth’s plan, Michael would already be long dead?
90caliber offers an interesting idea: Frankie’s survival was a backup for Roth in case the Havana assassination failed. Since the Tahoe assassination failed, Roth might have wanted a backup for Havana. But I don’t think so:
The Tahoe plan was far riskier than Havana. Roth needed to sneak two gunmen out of New York, and their machineguns, into Michael’s heavily guarded compound, then arrange for them to be killed. Very risky. But Roth already had a contingency: Frank Pentangeli. He knew that Frankie would be at the party, contentious over Michael’s support of Roth and the Rosatos. Therefore, Frankie would make the perfect fall guy. So, if the hit succeeded, Michael’s successors would come after Frankie. And, even if it failed, Frankie would still be regarded as the guilty party—and Michael would come after him. That’s exactly what Michael led him to believe when he visited Roth in Miami.
By contrast, the Havana assassination plan was a slam-dunk for Roth. He was the most powerful gringo in Havana, thanks to his long-term friendship and partnership with the Cuban President. He could have his pal Batista squash Michael like a bug. What was Michael’s bodyguard (formidable though he seemed) compared with all the military that Roth could bring to bear? We saw what happened when that elite-looking military group double-timed down the hospital corridor and riddled the bodyguard with bullets without breaking stride. Roth didn’t think he needed a backup because, as far as he was concerned, Michael was a dead man the moment he stepped off the plane in Havana. Too bad for Roth that he never counted on Michael figuring out that he was behind the Tahoe shooting; and Batista abdicating.

So, why did Tony Rosato say, “Michael Corleone says hello”? As others have pointed out, the script went through many iterations; and in an earlier iteration, the script called for Roth having engineered Frankie’s survival. Also, as others have noted, GFII, like all movies, was filmed in sequences that suited the production schedule, not that followed the actual running narrative. A simple explanation is that the “Michael Corleone says hello” scene was filmed while the Roth-engineering-Frankie’s-survival idea was part of the script. Later, FFC thought better of that idea (probably because it was too far-fetched) and dropped it, but retained the earlier filmed sequence—either because he liked the way it played, or because it was already in the can and some or all of the actors had been released, making it too hard (or costly) to reshoot, or because he was careless.
This happened elsewhere in GFII:
Last year, one of our sharp-eyed posters spotted Questadt in the businessmen’s meeting with Batista—sitting in a chair right behind Roth. There was absolutely no logical reason for Questadt to be in that scene—none whatsoever. What’s more, if Michael had noticed him there, he’d have known he “belonged to Roth”; and when Questadt turned up as the Senate lawyer, Michael would never, ever have perjured himself. So what happened? Sure enough, another poster turned up an earlier version of the script in which Tom and Michael refer to Questadt before the Havana meeting as someone who could help them with Geary and gaming matters in Nevada. Evidently the businessmen’s meeting scene was filmed while that script was still operative. Later, FFC reconsidered and dropped that idea, reserving Questadt solely as the Senate lawyer. But he retained the scene with Questadt sitting behind Roth—probably because he didn’t want to have to reshoot it, and figured that nobody’d notice Questadt in it. Of course, he hadn’t counted on the sharp-eyed people on these Boards!

I totally agree that Roth did NOT engineer Frankie's survival for the exact reasons that Turnbull has given above. And as someone who did some bit part extra work on several shows and in several movies, ( no wise cracks TB ) I can tell you that I myself have been cast as an extra in a scene, without knowing the plot. Then there were times that we were given a vague idea of the plot, right before the shoot, only to later on see that the plot was altered a bit but the original scene that was shot was kept as is because it was a good take and it was already in the can.

Why is it hard to believe that, in a plot where Roth wanted it to look like Michael set up Roth, Aiello would ad-lib the line? Even if Frankie had been killed, the "Michael Corleone says hello" line still works in several ways. It throws a curveball to the viewer, and it also serves the purpose in that even if Frankie had died, word would have gotten out, maybe by the bartender, that Micahel was the one who killed Frankie. In my opinion the line works one way or another, and I think that FFC felt the same way.


Don Cardi

Thanks for taking the time to lay out your argument with such clarity. Impressive stuff.

.

Wow - that really would be a masterful plan by Roth! I do believe, however, that things are rather simple.

Michael feigned his desire to have Pantangeli killed in front of Roth. Roth knew Pantangeli would be meeting with the Rosatos, and Roth tried to make sure the meeting wasn't a trick (remember the phone call to Fredo in the morning?). Roth believed Michael was actually sending Pantangeli to the slaughter. Roth then likely informed the Rosatos that hit was OK'd by Michael. The infamous "line" by Rosato, even if ad-libbed, represented the Rosatos actual perception of the chain of events, and judging by their sleazy nature, was probably a little extra insult to injury for their enemy Pantangeli. In any case, the line was not articulated as some design for some future, grandiose, and unforseeable scheme. Rather, the line was a logical articulation based on the current understanding of the parties at the time, and, regardless of how it came about (via 'ad-lib or design), it was accurate. The fact that it may have lowered Roth's burden of turning Frankie does not mean the line was a part of any pre-pondered design; Roth simply made the best of the circumstances as they unfolded against his enemy. He played them 'beautifully'.

Isn't that along the lines of what Alfred Hitchcock called a Maguffin?

That never occured to me. The Rosatos thought that Frankie's murder was okayed by Michael. Hmm. That works. It may be genius Roberto.

My question is this. If Aiello hadn't have said "Michael Corleone says hello", would Frankie think it was Michael who tried to have him killed?

It seems like FFC and Puzo left the line in there so that it would tie up the plot where Frankie testifies against Michael. I think they may not have thought ahead to see the problems it would create.

I like it, and it is one of the better explanations for the line, but later in the movie there is a scene between Michael and Hyman Roth when Michael asks in an accusing manner "Who ordered the hit on Frank Pentangeli? I know I didn't." Roth then goes into a rant about how he never asked any questions about who gave the order to kill Moe Green, because it was business, not personal. Why wouldn't Roth just say "I gave the Rosatos the go ahead after you came to my house and said "Frank Pentangeli is a dead man. What's wrong with you?" He didnt say this IMO because Both Roth and Michael knew by then that their "partnership" was a sham and that only one of them would come out of it alive.

Roth gave him that world-beating speech about Moe Green to divert Michael and make him think that Frankie's assassination was quid pro quo for Michael's whacking of Moe.

At that point, the Roth/Michael power struggle was in its last round, and time running out on both of them. Roth's plan was to whack Michael right after the New Year's celebration, and Michael knew it. Only hours remained for both of them: for Roth to get the $2 million, for Michael to find out who the traitor was, whack Roth, and get out of Cuba alive. Fredo delivered the money, but Michael hadn't handed it over. Why? Roth demands to know if "you're pulling out." If so, he's got to move up Michael's assassination. Michael's on the defensive: "I just wanna wait..." He knows this is a feeble response, and that his life could be on the line. So he shoots back, "Who had Frank Pentangeli killed? I know I didn't." IMO, it wasn't a real question--it was an attempt by him to put Roth on the defensive. Roth made an overpowering reply in that famous soliloquey--watch the look on Johnny Ola's face and you'll see that he thinks his boss showed up Michael for the wimp he was.

But the marvel--the genius--of that scene is that it shows us two powerful men digging in at the last minute for what they want: Michael for more time to find the traitor, Roth for his $2 million. It's also a terrific little throwback to a key scene in GF: When Roth tells Michael that Moe Green's murder "had nothing to do with business," do you believe him any more than when Michael told Sonny that his plan to whack Sollozzo and McCluskey was "business, not personal"? Crime titans that they are, Michael and Roth are still people with emotions.

As always, TB, great observation. The "it's business not personal" mantra is some kind of way these characters use to justify their murderous ways. In GF III Kay calls Michael out on this by telling him that his big thing is "reason" and then adds "backed up by murder." Still Sollozzo's attempt on Vito was definitely business, and Michael's hit on Green was also strictly business. As for Michael's sudden change of heart to get into the family business "I'm with you now, Pop" Sonny had it right...nice college kid gets slapped around and now he wants to gun down a New York Police Captain...it WAS personal for Mike, but then he does a brilliant job of convincing everyone in the room that Sonny's instinct is right ... no meetings no more Sollozzo tricks...by selling Tom on the non sequitur that this murder was strictly business because they had people on the payroll at newspapers who could print that McCloskey was a crooked cop who got mixed up with the rackets and got what was coming to him.

Don Tomasso
I think the line operates both as a plot device, to distract Roth, but I believe the content of the line is to introduce to the viewer the understanding that Michael actually was not behind the hit, since the "michael corleone says hello" line creates some doubt in the minds of most until this point. Roth's underhanded response IS an affirmative "It was me" response, only Roth justifies it with words he believes will still allow him to court Michael long enough to get the 2 million.

Seems to be. Fact is, anyone watching the movie for the first time would not remember that line well enough to know it is out of place anyway. I show the movie to TONS of ppl and they NEVER ask why that oddly placed line is there. I guess only freakos like us even realize it. Plus, FFC was not quite able to make the movie he wanted. In a Time Magazine interview from 1974 he said that if he had 3 more months he COULD have made a great movie.

That's why so many in here are inclined to spot the obvious flaws in the movie but take it for what it is. The Rosato's ad lib is a clear example of this shotty editing.

Some of those flaws are there because the Trilogy went through many script changes, and some of the scenes were filmed when scripts that were different from the final one were being followed.
As you know, people here often find those earlier scripts and post relevant pieces. One of those earlier scripts had Roth arranging Frankie's survival. FFC dropped that part of it from the final cut, probably because it was too far-fetched. But what if "Michael Corleone says hello" was filmed when the earlier script was being followed--and FFC left it in inadvertently? Or because Tony Rosato intended it as something Richie the bartender could tell the cops--"I dunno who done it, but they said, 'Michael Corleone says hello.' " That'd set the cops on Michael's trail, and further besmirch his "legitimate" reputation.
This isn't the only example of film snippets from earlier scripts that were left in the final cut, even when the earlier script was changed. Last year, one of our sharp-eyed colleagues spotted Questadt in Cuba--sitting right behind Roth at the businessmen's meeting with the President. There was absolutely no logical reason for Questadt to be in Cuba. And, if Michael had spotted him sitting right behind Roth (and he would have, since he was in the same room), Michael would know that he "belonged to Roth" and would never have perjured himself when Questadt turned up as the lawyer at the Senate hearing. Sure enough, another colleague here posted a section of an earlier script in which Michael and Tom talk about meeting Questadt way before Cuba. That script was changed, probably because FFC saw that there'd be vastly greater drama in the way it played out in the final cut. But he left the two seconds of Questadt in Cuba in the final cut, probably because he liked the way the scene played, didn't want to or couldn't reassemble the actors to re-shoot that scene, or simply didn't notice that Questadt was still in it. In any event, he certainly never envisioned the sharp-eyed people here!

I don't know if it's intentional but you posted that EXACT paragraph IN THIS THREAD on 12-8. BTW your cut and paste skills are marvelous these days.

But I'm glad we're still keeping you awake out there!

As John Keats said, "A thing of beauty is a joy forever."