Agreed, Olivant.

And he didn't even exile Fredo fully - Fredo was still allowed at the compound.

While apologists on these boards abound, Michael himself clearly regretted killing Fredo later in life. In his confession to Lamberto, he explains the killing by saying "he injured me." Not, "he was a danger to me" or "he turned against the Family."

The fact that he does not seem similarly remoseful for anything else in his life - and was still an active participant in Mafia culture and participating in murderous acts - is further evidence that Michael himself did not believe Fredo deserved a death sentence, and that the killing was based on Michael's anger at Fredo's betrayal rather than any kind of clear-headed risk analysis.

While it was a well done scene and nice to refer to ... it's almost silly to factor anything in GFIII into this discussion.
Much GFIII was simply a wink and nod or to placate loyal fans of GF and GFII.

While of course Michael would regret it 'later in life'...he may have also regretted it a week later. He may have regretted it the moment he hung his head at the sound of the gunshot. His remorse isn't the point. The point is he handled Fredo's betrayal the way it had to be handled. By eliminating the traitor.

It's clear that Michael "regretted" it by the end of Part 2. The entire flashback is from Michael's point of view, and it's GUT WRENCHING.

But that has nothing to do with any of this. As a Mafia boss, Michael did what he had to do. As a brother or as a friend or as a human being, well, that remains to be seen. But Michael heading up a crime family supersedes all those other relationships. Fredo had to go because, in the words of Tom Hagen (the novel), "Treachery can not be forgiven."

Period.

PB and Apple:

It's clear we don't see eye-to-eye on this one. I realize that I'm in the minority, although I don't entirely see why. Rather than re-hashing our stances, or getting into point-by-point rebuttals, I'd like to shift the discussion a little.

You both base your opinions on the concept that treachery cannot be forgiven. I believe there are two reasons why it's in a Mafia Don's interest to follow that principle:

1. To eliminate threats
2. To discourage future traitors

But I'm not sure either one applies in this case.

A few of us have put forth what I consider to be a strong case that Fredo was not perceived to be a continuing threat by Michael or, if he was, one that could have been neutralized by exile, rather than death.

As for future traitors, Michael states that the loyalty of his men is based on business. I don't see how killing killing Fredo would make it a better business move for, say, Neri, to move against Michael. Michael did not need fear to keep his people in line. And, if he did, there was little doubt about his ruthlessness and determinated, regardless of how he dealt with Fredo.

So, in this one instance, I'm not sure the "treachery can't be forgiven" argument holds that much weight.

The English King Edward IV, forgave his brother George for one act of treason. George continued plotting though and the second time his brother was not so forgiving. He made George get off the planet.

Fredo put Michael in an impossible position.

I think that's part of it. That scene where Michael asks his mother about losing his family - maybe he was thinking about how he'd been covering for Fredo's lack of true talent for quite sometime. Obviously Michael had given his brother a regime or at least some men to oversee. Fredo was running a brothel, something that probably wouldn't have happened under Don Vito but might have been a concession to Fredo's limited talents. {"He's got a good heart, but he's stupid.") Maybe Michael realized that Fredo wasn't quite as stupid as he'd thought, and in fact knew just enough to present a greater danger than any outside force. It was an impossible position for someone like Michael who had to protect not just the business but his family.

Treachery can be forgiven. However, it need not be forgiven. One can simply choose not to act in response to treachery. Michael made a choice to act in response to it. He didn't have to respond other than he did by excluding Fredo from his crime family.

Sorry, but I never based my opinion on that, it was PB who offered the quote. In general I don't even like to weigh the film against the novel, although sometimes it does clarify things. In this case, nothing in the book has anything to do with Fredo's betrayal and death.

This had nothing to do with 'forgiveness'. It's quite possible Michael forgave Fredo once Connie spoke to him. But that would not change the what Fredo had done, and what it almost cost. Also...again, Fredo could have been quite docile in the aftermath of having been taken back in, but may have returned to his resentful, uneasy state in years to come. The chance could not be taken.

Even if you put THAT aside...what Fredo did was to betray not only his brother, but his FAMILY. He deserved no more and no less than Tessio, Paulie, or Carlo got. The ONLY thing that bought him any time was the fact that he and Michael shared the same mother.



No. First of all, Fredo would've bee utterly helpless 'in exile'. Second, even if her were 'neutralized', in 'exile', that would not last for long because he would eventually be located and approached by another of Michael's enemies, again ready to feed upon the stupidity and probably even deeper resentment than had been there for Roth to take advantage of.

Look...all of you who make those 'strong' cases for allowing Fredo to live are doing it for one reason, and one reason only...because he was Michael's brother. If he were not, no one at all would have a problem with what happened.

This was business, and you're all makin it personal.

So sorry for the "point-by-point rebuttals". Sometimes it's the only way.
Apple

Fredo's grudge against Michael made him fair game for Roth's treachery. Fredo's perceived weakness and helplessness were part of his attractiveness to Roth in his plot to kill Michael--who'd suspect Fredo?
Fredo in exile would be fair game for a smarter, more powerful gangster plotting against Michael.

What in the world is it that any of you believe Fredo could have done on behalf of Corleone enemies after he had been exiled from the Corleone crime family?

Hard to say...pretty much whatever they would set him up to do. Could anyone have imagined him assisting Roth the way he did?

Anyway, if you're Michael Corleone...why wait to find out?

Apple

This thing reminds me of a scene from the movie Casino, in which the bosses of the Midwest discuss the life and possible threat of one of their associates who has the potential of cooperating with the feds.

One of the bosses defends the guy by saying; "he's a marine and though as hell" etc. But then another boss says: "why take the risk?" ... And that's exactly how the mafia works. Brother or no brother, you don't get a second change.

But the real point is, what did Fredo do? How much was he involved?

If he did pull the curtains or whatever, he should be killed without remorse. Period.

But if he only did the thing we are suppose to believe, like giving some details to Johnny Ola and Roth... He should be killed nonetheless, because that stupidity can be fatal for anyone in the family. It makes him indirect responsible for bad things to happen. And as an underboss and brother to Michael he should have known more secrets about the organisation which could ruin everyone who's involved.

I think we're at an impasse, but I'm enjoying the debate so I'll give it one more try...



Yes, but earlier in the thread you wrote, "The point is he handled Fredo's betrayal the way it had to be handled. By eliminating the traitor." That seems to me to be roughly equivalent to my summation, albeit in different words.



But that's my point - that the chance was taken by Michael. He gave Fredo an indefinite lease on life. Mama could have lived for 20 more years. I see that as a clear repudiation of your assertion that Fredo was a continuing threat. You don't seem to factor that into your analysis.

And nobody has yet answered Olivant's question abuot what possible value Fredo in exile would have had to another Family.



True, I think it was all personal. And I agree that Fredo being Michael's brother should have made a difference, but only becuause he could be neutralized in other ways.

Fredo remained a threat to Michael so long as he could expose Michael's perjury. As an act of mercy toward his mother, Michael made sure nothing happened to Fredo while she was still alive. This doesn't mean Fredo was kept on a long leash. I am sure Michael had his phones tapped, and had him followed wherever he went as long as mamma was alive. When Michael "forgave" Fredo at Connie's request he had a perfect set up. Fredo was living on the compound and doing things like using Neri to drive his fishing boat. I am sure Al relished putting that bullet in Fredo's head once Fredo said his last "Hail Mary."

Not really. I was referring to eliminating a traitor. There was no reference to foregiveness.



You've got a good point there, I must admit. Michael did take the chance on his mother living many more years and therefore Fredo as well. Chalk it up to the writers, who apparently decided that mama would die within a few months, and therefore so would Fredo. Which brings us back to the topic that I still agree with Michael's decision on how to handle Fredo's betrayal.



Actually, Turnbull has and quite succinctly as usual. If you & olivant are looking for exact details as to what kind of a plan would have been set in place, then there is obviously no answer to that just use your imagination as to what might've been.



Being brothers didn't make a difference to Fredo, when he conspired against Michael in whatever way he assisted Roth. And...whether aware or unaware of it being 'a hit', that's exactly what he did, conspired against his own brother, for personal gain.

Michael probably knew his mother was already sick and her health was deteriorating rapidly, otherwise he wouldn't have made that decision.

Ok, forget about exile. What about the idea of permanent house arrest? Fredo is never allowed to leave the compound again. Period. He's stripped of all authority and responsibility and no one even talks to him. He has no access to the outside world. in short he becomes the mafioso in the Iron Mask. Would that have satisifed fears about possible future threats or is only death good enough?

So ... what's the point of 'house arrest'? Has organized crime ever even done such a thing...even in real life?

Why are you people trying so hard to save Fredo's skin when he very nearly got Michael killed?

Oh, yeah...because he's Michael's brother.

By the end of 2 , Michael has
-alienated and humiliated his adoptive brother
-slapped his wife and rejected her love
-ordered (or at least tolerated) the death and mutilation of an "innocent" hooker
-threatened the innocent brother of a recalcitrant lieutenant
-ordered the suicide of a broken old man
-and finally ordered and watched the death of his hapless and traitorous(?) older brother.

It's not just about arguing for Fredo's life; it's also about arguing for Michael's soul. All of those actions Michael took made sense taken by themselves but added up they condemn the character to hell , primarily via pride. His pride in his intelligence made him unable to relate emotionally to what was going on.

Giving an enemy a pass is of course unusual for any oc figure, real or fictional but IRL Magliocco got one despite plotting to murder Lucchese, Gambino and Maggadino.

And since I'm not 100% convinced that Fredo knew it was a hit I am somewhat open to him getting a pass because he is a brother. If I thought for sure that he knew it was a hit and was in on it then I'd say what happened was meant to be.

Yes, Apple. I'm wanting to know specifically how Fredo could have threatened Michael from exile because I don't see how he could have been. TB simply pointed out that Fredo was a threat. Okay, how was he a threat? As Woltz pointed up above, Mama Corleone could have lived for decades. Unless Michael figured she would die the next day, he was taking quite a chance leaving (so why di he do it?) Fredo alive since any information and relationships with Corleone enemies that Fredo had could have been put in play at any time. But that only works if Fredo had that kind of information which, from exile, he would not have had.

Perhaps as Lilo and PB have posted, Michael couldn't forgive treachery. It might be that simple.

[quote=Lilo]...It's not just about arguing for Fredo's life; it's also about arguing for Michael's soul. All of those actions Michael took made sense taken by themselves but added up they condemn the character to hell, primarily via pride.../quote]

Oh, I see - we're talking about hell now.

Well, sure...can you name for me an organized crime figure, past or present, dead or alive, fictional or non-fictional...who ever got to look forward to heaven? (And don't bother to mention Vito..he did plenty of killing in his younger days.)

As for Michael's soul, forget it. That was lost by the end of GF. In the context of what Fredo did, and the business they were raised in and in order to further protect his 'Family'...Michael did the right thing in having him killed.

Well it all depends on what a fictional person's (real-world) religious beliefs were and I don't want to go any further into that because it would likely needlessly offend real life religious members. My point in bringing up the impact of Michael's actions on his "soul" or psyche if you will is that they disturbed him, were not good for him or his personal family and were not things that set well with him or other people. In GF1 arguably Michael is acting in self-defense and defense of his father and brothers. In GF2 he is an aggressive power-mad expansionist. He's become exactly the sort of big-shot that his father started out resisting. His actions are much less defensible. As we know, FFC wrote it this way very much on purpose.

If IRL Maglicco could get a pass from people he wasn't related to despite having temporary control of an separate power structure (The Profaci Crime family) then fictionally Michael could have given a pass to his pathetic brother , who had no independent power structure and was very much under Michael's thumb. Did he deserve such a pass? If you think that he was directly and knowingly involved in trying to kill Michael and Kay, then obviously not. I think the film is deliberately ambiguous on that point thus the discussions over the years.

There is really no answer to that because it wasn't given a chance to happen. If I posessed the mind of a mafia kingpin out to eliminate my rivals, I might have some kind of plan for you.

But let me ask you this, since you want to get into 'specifics': Do YOU have a way to guarantee that even 'from exile' Fredo would definitely NOT one day posed a threat to Michael and/or the Family? Either on his own or via some rival plot?

Especially after that 'stepped-over' rant in the lakehouse?

Oh, and for what it's worth, what a riveting, bone-chilling conclusion that would've been to GFII. Fredo being put in a limo and driven out of town. Far more effective than a Hail Mary and gunshot.

That's probably true, no argument there.

It doesn't change the fact that Fredo had to go.

That was indeed harsh, everybody likes tom.



Also very harsh and unnecessary.



Lol. Who cares, she was just a .. oh I'm sorry. But we don't know if Michael was behind that, more likely Tom or Neri.



He had to to that, so that's quite understandable.



That broken old man should have known better and had it coming. Also understandable.



They gave Magliocco a pass because he was already very sick and everybody knew he would die sooner or later. But he was stripped from his position.

And that's what it's all about.

Apple,he was out of the loop. At that point he knew no more than Corleone rivals and the FBI about the Corleones. That is what substantively makes him not a threat. He had no specifics to convey that would make him a threat. if he had them, they would have been used.

So what if he was 'out of the loop'? So what if he had 'no specifics'?

Having information to share is not the only thing that makes someone like Fredo a potential threat. But what the heck, just for fun I'll play your silly game and suppose Fredo was banished to some suburb to bag groceries and posed no threat whatsoever, ever again...why on earth should be be spared after what he had done and the devastation his assistance to Roth nearly caused?

Oops...that's right, I forgot...he's Michael's brother.

olivant, I'm beginning to think you're just messing around to keep the thread going (not necessarily a bad idea), but if not you should really know better. Fredo had to go.


On another note:

"-slapped his wife and rejected her love"

He slapped his wife after she blurted to him in a very venemous way that she had aborted his child, and that she would not bring another one of his sones into the world. Doesn't make it right, but it's fair to say that she drew that out of him. Also, he did not 'reject' her love...he simply could not offer the same love in return. He did try but it wasn't in him.

"-ordered the suicide of a broken old man"

Unlike Fredo, Frankie knew the consequenses of what he'd done and the price he would have to pay.

God Apple, I never could fool you.

The closing of the door in Kay's face is to my mind the coldest scene in the movie-just as much as Fredo's murder. I think that Michael did deliberately reject any possibility of reconciliation or love there-again out of pride.