Fredo was the traitor in the family Guilty

Absolutely guilty. He admitted as much in the poolhouse. Did he know the depths of his guilt? Possibly, although he might have WANTED to believe that it wouldn't be a hit, he had to know that it would. He had seen his father shot and had been involved in the family business for many more years than Michael had. On some level, he had to know what betrayal meant in that business.

I think that Michael would have let him live in isolation if Fredo hadn't had his little "I was passed over," temper tantrum. It was at that point that Michael knew that his brother resented him to the point that he could never truly trust him.

As for what I would ask FFC, why did he make Connie and Kay so bitter and self-destructive? In the book, Connie realizes that Michael did her a favor and marries a nice Sicilian boy. Kay accepts what Michael is, and goes to church to pray for him. Why did he change their characters? Did he think they were more interesting this way?

Perfectly said SB....perfectly said.

Agree--well said!
That outburst in the boathouse sealed Fredo's fate. So did his lame excuse: "I swear to God I didn't know it was gonna be a hit." What did he think was going to happen?

He trusted truly or not until mother died

Sure thing “I don't want anything to happen to him while my mother's alive”

Michael could have easily continued the same arrangements of keeping Fredo under watch or similar until Mama Corleone's natural death He had the money and the resources
Besides if Mama had lived longer....

Another question I’d ask is if in his research for the film he found any cases of people calling the Dons of the families by their last names rather than their first names. You never heard them say “Don Vito” or “Don Michael”, only “Don Corleone”. Maybe they’ll say their first and last name after they say “Don” every once in a while throughout the trilogy but not a lot.

Calling the Don by his first name, I believe, is a Sicilian custom--as in "Don Tomassino," or "Don Ciccio" Calling the Don by his last name is an American custom, probably because it seems more "businesslike."

I didn’t know that. So the American dons were referred to by their last name like you’re saying. Never heard that but it’s always great to learn.

e.g: 1. the Neri/Rocco rivalry - possible
e.g: 2. Michael blamed Tom for much of the Corleone's misfortunes - No blaming
e.g: 3. Roth's murder at the Airport was Rocco's suicide mission - No escape plan

Another question is how did the made men feel about Michael rising through the ranks and surpassing them due to nepotism? Michael proved he was more than qualified to be the new don but I would imagine that many of the made guys were just as mad as Tessio was about being stepped over for Michael who hadn’t really paid as much dues as them. And if this is the case, then at what point did Michael prove to them that he was the correct choice to be boss? His ability to order a hit without hesitation?

Vito had made it clear that Sonny would succeed him. Michael "made his bones" by whacking Sol and Mac. After Sonny died, Vito made it clear that Michael would succeed him--in fact, Michael had already succeeded him before he died. Sure, some of the made men might have resented Michael--human nature. But, I think Tessio never expected to succeed Vito. He betrayed Michael because he thought Michael was too weak to confront Barzini, who was encroaching on Tess's territories. But, perhaps Barzini promised Tess that he'd be the new Corleone Don after Michael was whacked.

That paints a better picture.

This question is one that Coppola might not even be able to answer. But who opened the drapes in the first place and what were Fredo’s intentions when he was giving information in the first place? I find it hard to believe that Fredo wanted Michael dead.

Good point Lana

No doubt Fredo couldn't be trusted but if Mama had lived longer....

Tessio probably never expected to succeed Vito as Don of the Corleone family same as Clemenza as long as there were Corleone heirs but Vito “once said that the day would come when Tessio and Clemenza could form their own Family” though

Vito always the 'nice' guy fobs off saying “Michael is now head of the Family and if he gives his permission, then you have my blessing” knowing fully well, Michael cannot give his permission

Michael was the only one who strategiced - Sollozzo killing Vito is the key, the Corleones can't wait - devised the brilliant plan and carried out successfully the murders of Sollozzo and the New York Police captain pretty much single handed

Michael did all that in spite of Tom's “nobody has ever gunned down a New York police captain Never!”

If that was not proof for Tessio that Michael was “more than qualified to be the new don” confront Barzini, stop Barzini encroaching into Corleone territories and win

Well, Don Tessio!

This raises an interesting point:Both the movie and the novel say that part of Vito's (and Michael's) strategy was to act weak--the better to make their enemies underestimate them, and, perhaps, to draw out traitors. The novel says both Tess and Clem gave Michael credit "for a bravura performance with the Turk and Solozzo," but they also concluded that Michael "lacked force." Well, acting weak put Tess and Clem to the loyalty test: Clem passed, Tess failed and paid the price, as did the other Dons who were fooled by weak-act.

But, couldn't we also conclude that, by acting strong, Michael could have deterred treason and kept the other Dons from encroaching on his territory? Didn't acting weak encourage betrayal and embolden the other Dons to take advantage?

What you conjecture could be accurate. However, it did not fit Vito's overall strategy. Remember, in the novel Michael tells Vito that his intended actions were not completely to avenge Sonny's and Apollonia's murders, but revenge was a big part of it. Although neither the novel or film tells us explicitly what Vito's motivations were, I think it's safe to surmise that he wanted revenge also. So, for both Michael and Vito, feigning weakness would draw the other family's into the trap. Because Vito had no intention of abiding by his pledge at the Dons' meeting, he (as Michael stated in the novel) planned alot of the revenge. The novel also states that he turned the family over to Michael because he didn't have the heart anymore to carry out the plans. But the plans were definitely his and his last act was going to be securing underworld hegemony for Michael and the Corleones.

He is always the 'nice' guy
He told Carlo Happy for you knowing he was going to be whacked no doubt keeping the enemies close but added fuel to the fire for the betrayal

My take, for what it is worth!

What was of utmost importance - the Corleones [Vito] needed to re-establish their glory, standing, reputation etc. that they are smart not weak and crumbling like everyone says That ain't the way they wanted it! that the Corleones were leaving New York on their own terms

The Corleones were being trampled by the other families and the Corleones strategy of acting weak, worked like a treat! took everyone by surprise

• Corleones enemies underestimated them
• Greene openly insulted the Corleones
• drew out the traitors
• fooling the other Dons
• Barzini had already started chiseling into Tessio's territories
• the smirking Carlo thinking he had got away with Sonny's murder set up

However
1. Why did Barzini target Tessio, chiseling into his territories not Clemenza's?
2. Did Barzini figure Tessio more likely would betray the Corleones than Clemenza?

Did Clemenza really pass the loyalty test? though or
Perhaps Clemenza was just lucky! by sitting tight and doing nothing because he was not losing his territories, got away with it? ie: Clemenza's loyalty was not tested?

Barzini attempted to murder Michael in Sicily and was going to kill Michael at Tessio brokered meeting, having already murdered Sonny So Barzini had been planning his dethroning / annihilating of the Corleones as well

Whilst “by acting strong, Michael could have deterred treason and kept the other Dons from encroaching on his territory?” It is small potatoes! compared to wiping out all the Dons, Greene and Carlo in one sweep

and by “acting weak encouraged betrayal and embolden the other Dons to take advantage?” the surprise element would have been lost otherwise

Also one less problem! Michael didn't have to deal with any infighting between Tessio and Clemenza over Corleone territories [other than Clemenza and Tessio's own existing territories]

In fairness,
1. Tessio was losing territories and it seemed to Tessio, he was getting no support whatsoever from the Corleones
2. Tessio obviously thought he was jumping the sinking Corleones' ship

However Michael did keep reassuring including ”Be patient There are things being negotiated now that are gonna solve all your problems and answer all your questions”

Tessio should have had more faith in his Don He “failed and paid the price

This is a question for everyone. How different would The Godfather 3 have been if Duvall had been in it? Would it have improved it to the point where it would be held in the same regard as the first two movies? We will never know but it’s fun to speculate about how different the plot would be.

I'm a big fan of continuity in sequels. That's why I like The Trilogy and Star Wars.

I am not as negative about III as some Board members are. However, Duvall's presence in it would have made me feel a little more comfortable with it. Some of the negative comments about III are not out of line and I can agree with them. Thus, Duvall's presence could have mitigated my attitude toward III which isn't that bad to begin with.

As far as the plot goes, maybe FFC would have altered it with Duvall in it and produced a better product.

I also think that people are a bit too negative towards GFIII. I felt it was a good movie, just not at the level of the other 2.

Were there things in it that didn't make sense or were poorly explained? Sure, but that's true of the first 2 movies as well (e.g. who opened the drapes). But, while people think those details add to the intrigue of GF and GFII, they use them to dismiss GFIII.

To me, the main area in which GFIII doesn't hold up to its predecessors is in the acting. Eli Wallach and, especially, Sofia Coppola were TERRIBLE.

Maybe the real question should be how different GFIII would have been had Winona Ryder not backed out.

I agree that III is a good movie, just not up to the first two. Also agree about Wallach and Sofia. One thing that continually puzzles me is why Michael was so obsessed about acquiring a European real estate company. Surely he was already tight with the Vatican through his bailout of the Vatican Bank and his grants to Sicily? Perhaps he was looking for an outlet to launder more money.

One of my erudite friends, seeing it with me for the first time, remarked: "There must be 200 hours of film on the cutting room floor."

Well, Gilday gets Michael to pony up an extra $100 million by saying:

This deal with Immobiliare can make you one of the richest men in the world. Your whole past history, and the history of your family, will be washed away.

I wonder which was more important to Michael, the money or the washing away of the family history?

On the surface, the washing away of his family’s history but deep down it was the money and power. He really did want to make his empire “legitimate” and he succeeded for the most part. I for one, am surprised more people around him did not go jail because we know the feds were watching their every move.

Good points Revis

All in one hit! washing away of his family’s history, money and power “legitimate” empire

Good points Lana

Clemenza would have been next

This raises an interesting point as Clemenza’s loyalty was previously never in doubt He got away with it by doing nothing Let off the hook

Did Vito ever make it clear throughout the movie who his underboss was? We know Genco was his consigliere but I never knew who the underboss was. It might say it in the book.

Vito never officially designated an underboss in the movie, though I think it's safe to say that Sonny was the de facto underboss. Early in the novel, Vito was worried about who would succeed him: Sonny was too impulsive, Fredo was weak, and Michael wasn't in the Family business. In a flashback scene in the novel (the one with the crooked boiler "repairmen"), Vito delegates Sonny to handle them because he was "thinking of making Sonny his underboss."