Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It's also important to give the impression that there's a buffer between them so that none of Luca's actions could be tied to Vito by the courts.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** As mentioned, Luca Brazi is an absolutely terrifying person. I think he wouldn't be expected to be invited to something like his don's daughter's wedding because he's not family or a friend of the family. He's an attack dog.
Added DiffLines:
** It isn't.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Also, perhaps it's done as a remaining trace of the old Corleone (relative) magnanimity towards Carlo and specially his sister Connie, whom Michael still loves.
Added DiffLines:
* Is it ever explained why was Michael decorated during his service in WWII? I mean the specific action that earned him his Navy Cross...
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why is killing Fredo supposed to be strictly business? If it's supposed to set an example, after killing all the other rivals of the family, who was left alive that knew that Fredo had misbehaved?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 91 (click to see context) from:
** No, there was no implication Tessio had turned on the Corleone Family at that time. It was as stated by Michael and Captain McClusky-- Tessio's men were guarding Vito at the hospital and McClusky made them leave to give an assassin an easier target in the bedridden Don. Tessio didn't turn until Michael took over the Family and looked weak (intentionally, on Michael's part) at it. He was loyal up to then. Remember how AFTER the failed hospital hit, Tessio helped orchestrate Michael's killing of Sollozzo and McClusky? If he'd been in league with Barzini at that point that hit would never have happened.
to:
** No, there was no implication Tessio had turned on the Corleone Family at that time. It was as stated by Michael and Captain McClusky-- [=McClusky=]-- Tessio's men were guarding Vito at the hospital and McClusky [=McClusky=] made them leave (under the pretense they were interfering with Vito's care) to give an assassin an easier target in the bedridden Don. Tessio didn't turn until Michael took over the Family and looked weak (intentionally, on Michael's part) at it. He was loyal up to then. Remember how AFTER the failed hospital hit, Tessio helped orchestrate Michael's killing of Sollozzo and McClusky? [=McClusky=]? If he'd been in league with Barzini at that point that hit would never have happened.happened. It wasn't a coincidence Tessio's men were meant to be there that night-- it's a part of their duties to protect the Don.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** No, there was no implication Tessio had turned on the Corleone Family at that time. It was as stated by Michael and Captain McClusky-- Tessio's men were guarding Vito at the hospital and McClusky made them leave to give an assassin an easier target in the bedridden Don. Tessio didn't turn until Michael took over the Family and looked weak (intentionally, on Michael's part) at it. He was loyal up to then. Remember how AFTER the failed hospital hit, Tessio helped orchestrate Michael's killing of Sollozzo and McClusky? If he'd been in league with Barzini at that point that hit would never have happened.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Luca Brazi is Don Corelone's hand of vengeance, an important man in his family. So why was he surprised to be invited to his daughter's wedding?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why was the conversation between Michael and Solozzo not subtitled when all the other Italian dialogue was?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 91 (click to see context) from:
* In Part II, michael visits both Roth and Pentangelli, telling each that the other was responsible for the attempted hit on his Tahoe compound. Was that to feel out their reactions to see who would crack?
to:
* In Part II, michael Michael visits both Roth and Pentangelli, telling each that the other was responsible for the attempted hit on his Tahoe compound. Was that to feel out their reactions to see who would crack?
Added DiffLines:
** Sollozzo or his men probably would have recognized them and called the meeting off. He probably had his own button men in the restaurant already just in case.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why was Michael the one to kill Sollozzo and [=McCluskey=]? Couldn't the Corleones have placed some button men in or near the restaurant and had them kill the two while Michael was in the bathroom?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Yes, but my question is when he actually turned. Was "Tessio's men" meant to suggest he had turned all the way back then, or was it just a coincidence that his crew was on guard that night?
* In Part II, michael visits both Roth and Pentangelli, telling each that the other was responsible for the attempted hit on his Tahoe compound. Was that to feel out their reactions to see who would crack?
* In Part II, michael visits both Roth and Pentangelli, telling each that the other was responsible for the attempted hit on his Tahoe compound. Was that to feel out their reactions to see who would crack?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 89 (click to see context) from:
** McClusky had thrown Tessio's men out.
to:
** McClusky [=McClusky=] had thrown Tessio's men out.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Headscratchers pages are Spoilers Off
Changed line(s) 72,73 (click to see context) from:
* I know Tessio betrayed the Corelones by [[spoiler: aligning with Barzini]], but my question is how did he betray them?
** Before Vito died, he explained to Michael that one of the capregimes, after Vito's death, will offer to set up a "Peace Conference" with Don Barzini to smooth out any lingering issues. This meeting will be a trap, meant to set Michael up for assassination. The traitor would be whomever approached Michael to set up the meeting. While Tom explains he would have expected the turncoat to be [[spoiler: Peter Clemenza]], Michael was not surprised the turncoat was actually [[spoiler: Sal Tessio]]. The betrayal was setting Michael up to be assassinated under the guise of a peace meeting.
** Before Vito died, he explained to Michael that one of the capregimes, after Vito's death, will offer to set up a "Peace Conference" with Don Barzini to smooth out any lingering issues. This meeting will be a trap, meant to set Michael up for assassination. The traitor would be whomever approached Michael to set up the meeting. While Tom explains he would have expected the turncoat to be [[spoiler: Peter Clemenza]], Michael was not surprised the turncoat was actually [[spoiler: Sal Tessio]]. The betrayal was setting Michael up to be assassinated under the guise of a peace meeting.
to:
* I know Tessio betrayed the Corelones by [[spoiler: aligning with Barzini]], Barzini, but my question is how did he betray them?
** Before Vito died, he explained to Michael that one of the capregimes, after Vito's death, will offer to set up a "Peace Conference" with Don Barzini to smooth out any lingering issues. This meeting will be a trap, meant to set Michael up for assassination. The traitor would be whomever approached Michael to set up the meeting. While Tom explains he would have expected the turncoat to be[[spoiler: Peter Clemenza]], Clemenza, Michael was not surprised the turncoat was actually [[spoiler: Sal Tessio]].Tessio. The betrayal was setting Michael up to be assassinated under the guise of a peace meeting.
** Before Vito died, he explained to Michael that one of the capregimes, after Vito's death, will offer to set up a "Peace Conference" with Don Barzini to smooth out any lingering issues. This meeting will be a trap, meant to set Michael up for assassination. The traitor would be whomever approached Michael to set up the meeting. While Tom explains he would have expected the turncoat to be
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 32 (click to see context) from:
*** Paulie and Rocco are underlings.
to:
*** Paulie Paulie, Rocco, and Rocco Cicci are underlings.underlings.
*** Pentangeli was fairly low ranking at the time.
*** Pentangeli was fairly low ranking at the time.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** McClusky had thrown Tessio's men out.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 74 (click to see context) :
* On a related note, when Michael's on the phone before the hospital ambush, he mentions that none of Tessio's men were there. Were we supposed to assume that Tessio was in league with them all the way back then, or was it just a coincidence?
Added DiffLines:
* On a note related to the Tessio item above, when Michael's on the phone before the hospital ambush, he mentions that none of Tessio's men were there. Were we supposed to assume that Tessio was in league with them all the way back then, or was it just a coincidence that he was the capo who turned?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
*** The book also only has Barzini and Tattaglia among the Five Families heads killed; Stracci and Cuneo, presumably smaller families, just went with the flow.
Changed line(s) 21 (click to see context) from:
*** While the stuff about honor is crap, except for a time in the 80's where you had to be pure Italian on your fathers side(to let John Gotti's son John jr who is part Russian join), you have to be full blooded Italian in order to join. Even highly respected Jewish Gangsters like Meyer Lanskey were never admitted. He was respected for his intelligence and his money-making skills, but he never ordered anyone in the Mob, not without the okay from Lucianno or other high-ranking officials. The blood oaths by all accounts are real.
to:
*** While the stuff about honor is crap, except for a time in the 80's where you had to be pure Italian on your fathers side(to side (to let John Gotti's son John jr Jr who is part Russian join), you have to be full blooded Italian in order to join. Even highly respected Jewish Gangsters gangsters like Meyer Lanskey were never admitted. He was respected for his intelligence and his money-making skills, but he never ordered anyone in the Mob, not without the okay from Lucianno or other high-ranking officials. The blood oaths by all accounts are real.
Changed line(s) 29 (click to see context) from:
*** Clemenza and Tessio were probably better as street Capo's. Plus as we see later they want to form their own families so taking a lofty position like that would stifle their ambitions.
to:
*** Clemenza and Tessio were probably better as street Capo's.Capos. Plus as we see later they want to form their own families so taking a lofty position like that would stifle their ambitions.
Changed line(s) 70 (click to see context) from:
* I know Tessio betrayed the Corelones by [[spoiler: aligning with Barzini]], but my question is how did he betrayed them?
to:
* I know Tessio betrayed the Corelones by [[spoiler: aligning with Barzini]], but my question is how did he betrayed betray them?
Added DiffLines:
* On a related note, when Michael's on the phone before the hospital ambush, he mentions that none of Tessio's men were there. Were we supposed to assume that Tessio was in league with them all the way back then, or was it just a coincidence?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** I doubt she knew then, but IIRC she knew by the time of the second film.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** He never intended for Michael to get involved.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Also, Connie's become a widow, she's clearly very distraught, and Kay isn't completely heartless. She's just trying to comfort a woman in pain.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10,11 (click to see context) from:
** I think that this is a good point - McCluskey was always willing to deal for a price so probably would have been content to have left the place just before the shooting occurred. Unfortunately for him, the thirty seconds it would take to make that deal are too many for Michael to waste in exiting the restaurant.
to:
** I think that this is a good point - McCluskey [=McCluskey=] was always willing to deal for a price so probably would have been content to have left the place just before the shooting occurred. Unfortunately for him, the thirty seconds it would take to make that deal are too many for Michael to waste in exiting the restaurant.
Changed line(s) 80,81 (click to see context) from:
* I the third film, when Michael is speaking at the Immobliare shareholders meeting, he mentions something about "Eastern methods of manufacture" in order to turn Immobliare into a European conglomerate, however Immobliare (which is a real company) is a real estate company, it doesn't manufacture stuff, this is even stated in the film, when Michael's lawyer states that it holds a huge amount of real estate. Is this ever explained?
to:
*
** The entire subplot is explained very poorly in the film (one of its many problems). The real Immobiliare had been sold by the Vatican to Gulf & Western years before the events of this movie, so a certain amount of artistic license is expected.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Asking question about the Immobliare deal in the Godfather part III
Added DiffLines:
* In the third film, when Michael is offering to help the Vatican Bank pay its massive debt, in return for shares in Immobliare, it turns out that the deal is a fraud, but what's the fraud?
*I the third film, when Michael is speaking at the Immobliare shareholders meeting, he mentions something about "Eastern methods of manufacture" in order to turn Immobliare into a European conglomerate, however Immobliare (which is a real company) is a real estate company, it doesn't manufacture stuff, this is even stated in the film, when Michael's lawyer states that it holds a huge amount of real estate. Is this ever explained?
*I the third film, when Michael is speaking at the Immobliare shareholders meeting, he mentions something about "Eastern methods of manufacture" in order to turn Immobliare into a European conglomerate, however Immobliare (which is a real company) is a real estate company, it doesn't manufacture stuff, this is even stated in the film, when Michael's lawyer states that it holds a huge amount of real estate. Is this ever explained?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
***The novel has a little ambiguity to it, but in the movie it's pretty clear that there's only intended to be five families including the Corleones, and that "Five Families" is used as a collective term.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 50 (click to see context) from:
*** In the portion of the book about Vito's rise to power, it describes how he forged agreements that kept the peace among the different families. I think that in the book, Cuneo and Stracci join the war on the specific issue of the shooting of the police officer. I think the Corleones accept that as a legitimate grievance.
to:
*** In the portion of the book about Vito's rise to power, it describes how he forged agreements that kept the peace among the different families. I think that in the book, Cuneo and Stracci join the war on the specific issue of the shooting of the police officer. I think the Corleones accept that as a legitimate grievance.grievance under those agreements.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
***In the portion of the book about Vito's rise to power, it describes how he forged agreements that kept the peace among the different families. I think that in the book, Cuneo and Stracci join the war on the specific issue of the shooting of the police officer. I think the Corleones accept that as a legitimate grievance.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:
to:
**I think that this is a good point - McCluskey was always willing to deal for a price so probably would have been content to have left the place just before the shooting occurred. Unfortunately for him, the thirty seconds it would take to make that deal are too many for Michael to waste in exiting the restaurant.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
***It's explained better in the book: Michael had been deliberately hiding the strength of the Corleone family armies from everyone except his recently-deceased father (although Tom had kind of figured it out on his own). By all appearances, Michael was going to lose badly to the Barzini-Tattaglia alliance, and the smart move for either Clemenza, Tessio or Carlo would be to cut a deal with Barzini in which Michael is killed and the betrayer becomes the head of Corleones (albeit now firmly under Barzini's thumb).
Added DiffLines:
** Michael considered Roth the real threat to his power. Michael was excluding Tom from any Roth-related business so Roth and/or Ola would have no reason to even try to recruit Tom. As Michael explains later, this means he can trust Tom as having been uncorrupted. On the other hand, Michael didn't fear Pentangeli and felt he would never betray the Corleones (correctly, as it turns out: Pentangeli only turned State's Evidence after he thought Michael had tried to have him killed). So having Tom in that meeting was no big deal, and even would be beneficial if Pentangeli liked him.
Added DiffLines:
** They'd been living in the same compound for years and Connie's husband had become a trusted advisor to Kay's husband. It's natural they would become friends.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Throughout most of the first movie, Connie and Kay have nothing to do with each other. So why, near the end, when Connie angrily confronts Michael about his having had Carlo killed, does Kay try to comfort her as if they were friends?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 60 (click to see context) from:
** He hates Carlo, but Connie's still his sister. It's a family thing. Besides which, it gives him a perfect alibi while his surgical strikes against the other Families are going down; no officer, I had nothing to do with it, I was at the church, acting as godfather to my newborn nephew, and hundreds of people saw me there. And also diminishes his motive against Carlo; detective, if I hated my brother-in-law enough to have him murdered, would I have agreed to be godfather to his child?
to:
** He hates Carlo, but Connie's still his sister. It's a family thing. Besides which, it gives him a perfect alibi while his surgical strikes against the other Families are going down; no "No officer, I had nothing to do with it, I was at the church, acting as godfather to my newborn nephew, and hundreds of people saw me there. there." And also diminishes his motive against Carlo; detective, "Detective, if I hated my brother-in-law enough to have him murdered, would I have agreed to be godfather to his child? "
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Clemenza has a line: "...it's a lot of bad blood. Sollozzo, Philip Tattaglia, Bruno Tattaglia; Carbone,..." Who the heck is Carbone?
** Seems to be a one time [[TheGhost ghost]]. He's only mentioned once in the final script and not at all in the novel. Knowing that Richard Castellano loved to add his own stuff, a ThrowItIn can't be discarded.
* After being turned down by Don Corleone for support in their narcotics enterprise, why did the Tattaglias and Sollozzo go after the Corleones? If Tom's assessment of them is to be believed, they could have been perfectly successful even without the protection the Corleones could offer, though maybe not as easily. There was no conflict of interest, as the Don pointed out. The Tattaglias could have gone on with their narcotics deal, the Corleones sticking with their own rackets, and in a few years down the line, they'd have been in a better position of strength. Going to war unnecessarily wasn't good for business.
** To them, neutrality is not good enough, because it doesn't stop prosecution. It's implied that proactive help from the Corleones' network of corruption is needed in order to make it worthy. At least the other families think they are not profiting enough from it without the network. Tataglia and Barzini are visibly annoyed, Vito's "selfish and unfriendly" gesture means they are taking too much risk and not gaining enough money. In addition, Tataglia is a pimp, greedy and easily manipulated (he's not invited to the wedding, he's a longtime foe), and Sollozzo is an upcoming player who is eager to climb-up and has contempt for the old Don, who "was slipping", so overthrowing the old order comes only natural to him, a generational thing, a literal Young Turk vs a Moustache Pete.
** In addition, they know that Sonny thought the deal was really good (he said so at the meeting), and they correctly suspect that Hagen and Vito's other advisors think that narcotics is the coming thing. In the book Sollozzo explains that without Vito, Sonny and the Corleone family will need the extra money from drug trafficking to offset the loss of Vito's personal influence. He thinks that the Corleone family will basically have to take the deal if Vito dies, and although he does realize that Sonny will always hate him personally he figures he can avoid situations where Sonny will be able to kill him.
** One more note that could have triggered the violence: Tataglia and Sollozzo may have been perfectly fine being neutral, but Don Vito sends in Luca Brasi, the Family's most feared Enforcer, as a spy (under the guise of defecting). It's possible they saw through this rather obvious attempt to spy and dig and reconsidered their neutral stance.
* Why did Michael have to shoot [=McCluskey=] as well as Sollozzo? After shooting Sollozzo he could have disarmed [=McCluskey=] at gunpoint and made his escape. Instead of being the prime suspect in the murder of a police captain he would have been implicated only in the shooting of an ex-con drug dealer, and this wouldn't have required over a year's risky exile in Sicily.
** If Michael does this, he has basically committed premeditated murder in front of a virtually unimpeachable eyewitness who (according to Sonny) has let his precinct know on a sign-out sheet that he will be in that exact restaurant at that exact time. Once Michael leaves [=McCluskey=] could just finger him and he'd face the electric chair. This is why Sollozzo employs [=McCluskey=] as a bodyguard to begin with. The double murder has the same effect in getting the police involved, but as the film shows, does allow the press to dig up [=McCluskey=]'s past.
* So Michael has his goons wipe out the Dons of the other families. Why didn't they retaliate?
** Remember how the Turk thought that the Corleones would eventually capitulate with Vito dead to prevent a war? Same principle, but Michael was better at the setup and execution.
** Much like what Sollozzo wanted to accomplish by killing Vito, killing the heads of the other families lessens their power because the old Dons had connections that their successors aren't going to be as cozy with. In GF II, at the Senate hearings, they explain this as Michael "consolidating power". In fact, killing the other family heads was Vito's plan, as he knew the Corleone family would be weakened by his death and the only way to keep the Corleone family powerful was by a strong action like that.
** It's also that Michael killed them all at roughly the same time, which would impress upon the successors just how dangerous an opponent Michael would be. The book elaborates a bit more, explaining that a lot of rival businesses were raided, but mainly it's about shocking the other Families into collapse.
** They may also face internal weaknesses, power struggles, etc. Michael takes over the Corleone family pretty much because he's the only viable candidate at that point (Fredo clearly isn't up to it and no one would take him seriously enough to join his side in a power struggle), whereas there's no guarantee with the other Families that the line of succession is as clear or that someone isn't going to make a power grab. Essentially, they might be too distracted getting their own houses in order to be in a position to retaliate.
*** This grand move was also done to solidify Michael's legitimacy to power. The Winegardner sequels play this up: Unlike Sonny (who was widely viewed to be the Don's successor before his own untimely death) Michael had never even been a mafia soldier, much less run a crew or been a captain, and his becoming the Don's chosen successor raised more than a few eyebrows. Puzo mentions that Clemenza or Tessio would have been prime candidates to take over the family. It's noted in the novel that at the first meeting after the Don's death, Clemenza calls him "Mike" instead of "Michael," to say nothing of "Don" or "Godfather." After the grand move, Clemenza kisses his hand and specifically addresses him as "Don Corleone," Michael now being seen as a legitimate successor to his father.
* How in the name Christ did Tom Hagen, a non-Sicilian, in 1945, ever rank as high in the family as consigliere? HOW?
** That's what Don Corleone wanted. Who's going to tell him otherwise? In the "real" Mafia, all that stuff about blood oaths and the old country is a bunch of crap foisted off onto the junior members to make them feel like they're part of an exclusive honor society. The upper echelons see power and money as their own rewards. Look at Lucky Luciano; he handed off the "official" Mafia titles when he was locked up, then told his Italian successors that he expected them to follow his Jewish "associate"'s orders to the letter.
*** While the stuff about honor is crap, except for a time in the 80's where you had to be pure Italian on your fathers side(to let John Gotti's son John jr who is part Russian join), you have to be full blooded Italian in order to join. Even highly respected Jewish Gangsters like Meyer Lanskey were never admitted. He was respected for his intelligence and his money-making skills, but he never ordered anyone in the Mob, not without the okay from Lucianno or other high-ranking officials. The blood oaths by all accounts are real.
*** But weren't Mustache Petes like Salvatore Maranzano and Joe Masseria practically the racist ones, whereas Luciano wasn't?
*** Most likely it's just a minor fudge from the reality in order to enable an outsider's perspective on events if desired and to introduce a bit of drama and conflict in places. It's still a work of fiction, after all, not a 100%-accurate history of ''la Cosa nostra statunitense'', so we can probably forgive a few detours from the strict reality. If we're looking for a HandWave, we can simply suggest that Vito Corleone was simply a bit more open-minded than some of the other Moustache Petes when it came to matters of family and blood. Furthermore, it's only one guy he's taken a fatherly liking to, not an alliance with a whole other non-Sicilian family, Tom's clearly capable, well-liked and respected by the people around him, and ultimately, Vito's reached a position of respect, power and influence that means he can pretty much do whatever he wants. If the people underneath him don't like it, what are they going to do?
** Tom Hagen was a lawyer who grew up with Sonny and eventually entered the family business. Consigliere is the position he'd be best at. And yeah, Don Vito wanted it that way.
*** And the novel makes it very clear that Hagen's appointment was indeed a major and unique exception:
--> Hagen had filled the Consigliere’s post for the past year, ever since the cancer had imprisoned Genco Abbandando in his hospital bed. Now he waited to hear Don Corleone say the post was his permanently. The odds were against it. So high a position was traditionally given only to a man descended from two Italian parents. There had already been trouble about his temporary performance of the duties. Also, he was only thirty-five, not old enough, supposedly, to have acquired the necessary experience and cunning for a successful Consigliere... The Don had broken a long-standing tradition. The Consigliere was always a full-blooded Sicilian, and the fact that Hagen had been brought up as a member of the Don’s family made no difference to that tradition. It was a question of blood. Only a Sicilian born to the ways of ormerta, the law of silence, could be trusted in the key post of Consigliere.
** Also it's not like the Don had many great options for the role:
*** Putting aside the fact that his temper would be a hindrance for a position that calls for the person to act as a family diplomat, Sonny would rightfully view it as a demotion. Possibly undercutting his effectiveness because it would always be weighing on his mind about why he went from being underboss to Consigliere.
*** Clemenza and Tessio were probably better as street Capo's. Plus as we see later they want to form their own families so taking a lofty position like that would stifle their ambitions.
*** Luca Brasi is nothing but a brute, he maybe very street smart, but he would lack the smarts to be effective.
*** Paulie and Rocco are underlings.
*** And do I really need to explain why appointing Fredo would be a disaster?
* Ever since Puzo died back in 1999, who is (or are) the literary executor(s) for Puzo's canon? Because are the Mark Winegardner books and Family Corleone canon?
** Family Corleone could probably be considered canon, as it's based off a script written by Puzo, detailing the life of the Corleone family some ten or so years prior to the films. The first Winegardner book is allegedly recognized, but the second book resulted in Paramount suing the Puzo estate -- not only because they stepped over the bounds of their agreement on authorised literature, but also because ''The Godfather's Revenge'' sold badly, and "tarnished" the reputation of the franchise. [[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/22/idUS100797172720120222 There's a Reuters article about it]].
* How is it Fredo is considered stupid? Before betraying Michael, did he actually ever do a stupid thing on-screen?
** Telling Michael he never knew Johnny Ola and then later at the "Superman" show saying aloud that Ola told him about this place, within earshot of Michael was pretty stupid!
*** No, like, did he actually fuck up business or what? Like, if you're talking about brains doesn't Sonny lack one too?
*** How about when he was supposed to be protecting his father and not only let him get shot, but couldn't shoot back, and instead of going for help, sat on the pavement and cried? And apparently pissing off his Vegas cohorts enough that he got hit, despite the fact that he's a made man and the don's brother?
*** Sonny's hot-headed and as even Vito admits probably wouldn't make a great Don, but he's tough and confident. He might not be an intellectual powerhouse or a great tactician, but he commands respect (even if mainly through fear of his temper), he's decisive, and he's not completely useless. He might not be the best to do the job, but he can do it if necessary (perhaps not as well as Vito, but he could do it). Fredo, on the other hand, comes off throughout the movies as awkward, weak-willed and inept. He mumbles and fumbles, he gives into his vices, he lets other people dominate and sway him (including, crucially, people from outside the family, like Moe Greene), he doesn't carry himself with confidence, he screws up a lot, and he's clearly just not cut out for the life of a high-level mobster. He doesn't command respect, and the way he doesn't command respect makes it easy for him to come off (or, at least, for other people to refer to him) as stupid.
* How exactly did Fredo betray Michael? It's never explained. We know that he talked to Johnny Ola but that's it. The best guess is that he told Roth's people where exactly Michael and Kay's bedroom was on the Corleone compound.When Fredo gets a phone call from Ola and Fredo says "You lied to me." then later tells Michael "I didn't know it was going to be a hit." he could mean he thought they were just going to steal something from his room instead of shooting at it.
** An early script explains that Fredo was told by the co-conspirators of the failed hit on the Corleone compound that they wanted to kidnap Michael to put some pressure on the Corleone Family in negotiations. It doesn't explain exactly what information Fredo gave them. Perhaps he gave them information about the compound that could have been used to catch Michael off-guard for what he thought would be a kidnapping?
** Ultimately, to Michael it doesn't matter what Fredo thought was going to happen. Remember back in the first movie, Michael tells Fredo "Don't ever take sides against the family again." In conspiring with Ola, even if Fredo didn't think they were planning to actually assassinate Michael, he took sides against the family. There's the betrayal.
* Vito's mom claimed he wasn't very smart to Don Ciccio, but Vito proved to be a very intelligent guy throughout his life. Was this her way of trying to get Ciccio to spare him by pretending he was a little daft? He does seem oddly quiet as a kid as if there was something off about him, but by the time he reaches adulthood, again, he tends to be the smartest guy in the room. Does the novel clear any of this up?
** The novel states that Vito was a very quiet child, simply because he didn't have much to say: he was an observer, not a talker. This is mentioned later when an adult Vito and Clemenza become friends as "Clemenza was a storyteller, and Vito was a listener to storytellers." In addition, the novel mentions almost in passing that young Vito was already known around the town of Corleone as an expert marksman, and that was what Don Ciccio was really afraid of: someone good with a gun who would have a grudge against him.
** So yes, it was Vito's mom trying to get Ciccio to leave her son alone.
* Why did Michael have Cuneo and Stracci killed? It made sense with Barzini and Tattaglia since they were conspiring against him, but why the other two dons?
** After Solozzo and [=McClusky=] are killed, ''all'' the families go to war against the Corleones, so those two have to go too, since they were part of a unified enemy. Also Michael is not seeking mere victory, but total supremacy.
*** In the book however, Michael spared them. What caused him to do differently in the movie?
*** Watsonian, I presume a combination of paranoia and making a sweeping gesture. Doylist, I suppose Francis Ford Coppola thought the scenario of a mob boss wiping out all his rivals at one fell swoop would be a more striking conclusion than a mob boss wiping out two of his rivals and leaving the other two alone.
** In the book, Michael threw nearly all the forces of the Corleones against his enemies. He doesn't just kill the heads of the Barzini and Tattaglia families; he completely breaks their power base and takes over what's left. The show of force is supposed to cow the remaining families into submission, but it could also be that he just didn't have any guns left to take on the other two Dons. In the movie, the idea was probably to show a more strategic takedown: cutting off five heads rather than destroying two bodies.
* Who's the fifth family? In the book and the movie, we've got Stracci, Cuneo, Barzini, Tattaliga. Who's the fifth?
** The Corleones?
** There is a lot of confusion around the terminology. Take these lines: Tom: "Now if we don't get into it, somebody else will. Maybe one of the Five Families, maybe all of them." Tom: "It would be disastrous. All the Five Families would come after you, Sonny. The Corleone Family would be outcasts!" Vito: "I want you to arrange a meeting, with the heads of the Five Families." Michael: "And then I'll meet with Don Barzini -- and Tattaglia -- all of the heads of the Five Families..." All of these lines imply that the Corleones are not one of the Five Families, since at no point does anyone word it "the other Five Families" or something similar. Make of this what you will, because there's no other obvious candidate for a fifth family.
** The Bocchicchio Family. They're not mentioned in the movie, but the novel talks about them a lot.
*** Aha! Makes one wonder why they're not called "the Six Families."
* Does Connie know it was Carlo, who conspired with Barzini to kill her brother Sonny?
** Near the ending of the first movie, She yells at Michael: "You blamed him for Sonny, you always did."
* How does Sollozzo's plan make any sense? He wants the Corleones to join his narcotics business so as to gain the political protection that the Corleones can offer. All well and good. But after he has Vito shot, it becomes clear that the political connections are not the assets of the Corleone family as an organization, but are rather the personal assets of Vito Corleone. Tom makes this clear when he tells Santino that if Vito dies, they lose all his political protection. So if Sollozzo succeeds in killing Vito, he destroys the very prize he's hoping to win. The only way to explain it would be that Sollozzo does not know that the political connections are Vito's alone, but surely he would have found that out in the course of researching the Corleones prior to offering them his deal. For that matter, surely Barzini would have known that.
** Keep in mind that Sollozzo only has Vito shot after Vito tries to send Luca Brasi into his organisation undercover. He probably interpreted that as an overt threat and responded in kind, at which point the priorities changed. And Barzini's overarching goal was to weaken the overall power of the Corleones, with Sollozzo's business being more of a secondary priority.
* What was the point of Michael finally deciding to be godfather to Connie and Carlo's baby if he was gonna whack the latter, for his role in Sonny's death years earlier?
** He hates Carlo, but Connie's still his sister. It's a family thing. Besides which, it gives him a perfect alibi while his surgical strikes against the other Families are going down; no officer, I had nothing to do with it, I was at the church, acting as godfather to my newborn nephew, and hundreds of people saw me there. And also diminishes his motive against Carlo; detective, if I hated my brother-in-law enough to have him murdered, would I have agreed to be godfather to his child?
** Keeping your friends close but your enemies closer is a lesson Michael took to heart. Notice how up until the time he told Carlo he knew the part he'd played in Sonny's death that Michael appeared to be grooming Carlo to be his right hand man in Las Vegas? He'd suspected Carlo's role in Sonny's murder but had to keep Carlo close by, basically bringing Carlo into the inner circle the way Carlo had longed to ever since he married Connie. Standing godfather to Carlo and Connie's son was perfect, and better still, Michael was asked to do so and it wasn't even his idea! It required Michael to have ice in his veins, but it was definitely the right move.
** Favoring Carlo and showing his close ties in public also contributes to the image of the helpless, clueless Don that Michael wants to project. An image that makes his enemies underestimate him and uncovers traitors like Tessio.
* Why sent Rocco Lampone to kill Hyman Roth at the airport, where's it's crawling with guards and knowing he has a shitty leg due to his service in WWII? I mean, you see after he did it, he tried to escape on said shitty leg but the guards got to him and killed him anyway.
** Someone has to do it, that someone's going to be in a lot of danger either way, and it's implied that, since he was head of security at Michael's compound, Rocco has some atoning to do for not being able to prevent the assassination attempt on Michael.
* I know Tessio betrayed the Corelones by [[spoiler: aligning with Barzini]], but my question is how did he betrayed them?
** Before Vito died, he explained to Michael that one of the capregimes, after Vito's death, will offer to set up a "Peace Conference" with Don Barzini to smooth out any lingering issues. This meeting will be a trap, meant to set Michael up for assassination. The traitor would be whomever approached Michael to set up the meeting. While Tom explains he would have expected the turncoat to be [[spoiler: Peter Clemenza]], Michael was not surprised the turncoat was actually [[spoiler: Sal Tessio]]. The betrayal was setting Michael up to be assassinated under the guise of a peace meeting.
* Okay so in the second film when Michael meets with Johnny Ola, Tom doesn't sit in the meeting. Makes sense since at this point he's out of the "family business" and is just the lawyer. But then why does he sit in during Michael's meeting with Pentangeli?
* Along a similar line, wouldn't Pentangeli identifying Tom as Consigliere(as seen in the "family tree" during the hearings) disqualify him as Michael's attorney?
** Michael's public persona is that of a legitimate businessman. Tom Hagen's public persona is that of Michael Corleone's lawyer and adopted brother. If Michael is accused of being a mafia chieftain, it wouldn't make sense for him to trust any lawyer more than he would Tom. Doesn't seem like much of a conflict of interest here unless you know for a fact what their real relationship is. And in-universe, that hadn't been proven to the committee.
* So... how did the thugs get that horse head into Woltz’s bed without him noticing?
** Could be that he's a heavy sleeper and / or absolutely zonked out by any number of drugs in his system, sleeping pills or otherwise; guy is a scumbag Hollywood child-predator sleazeball, after all. Plus, it's a pretty big bed.
-----
** Seems to be a one time [[TheGhost ghost]]. He's only mentioned once in the final script and not at all in the novel. Knowing that Richard Castellano loved to add his own stuff, a ThrowItIn can't be discarded.
* After being turned down by Don Corleone for support in their narcotics enterprise, why did the Tattaglias and Sollozzo go after the Corleones? If Tom's assessment of them is to be believed, they could have been perfectly successful even without the protection the Corleones could offer, though maybe not as easily. There was no conflict of interest, as the Don pointed out. The Tattaglias could have gone on with their narcotics deal, the Corleones sticking with their own rackets, and in a few years down the line, they'd have been in a better position of strength. Going to war unnecessarily wasn't good for business.
** To them, neutrality is not good enough, because it doesn't stop prosecution. It's implied that proactive help from the Corleones' network of corruption is needed in order to make it worthy. At least the other families think they are not profiting enough from it without the network. Tataglia and Barzini are visibly annoyed, Vito's "selfish and unfriendly" gesture means they are taking too much risk and not gaining enough money. In addition, Tataglia is a pimp, greedy and easily manipulated (he's not invited to the wedding, he's a longtime foe), and Sollozzo is an upcoming player who is eager to climb-up and has contempt for the old Don, who "was slipping", so overthrowing the old order comes only natural to him, a generational thing, a literal Young Turk vs a Moustache Pete.
** In addition, they know that Sonny thought the deal was really good (he said so at the meeting), and they correctly suspect that Hagen and Vito's other advisors think that narcotics is the coming thing. In the book Sollozzo explains that without Vito, Sonny and the Corleone family will need the extra money from drug trafficking to offset the loss of Vito's personal influence. He thinks that the Corleone family will basically have to take the deal if Vito dies, and although he does realize that Sonny will always hate him personally he figures he can avoid situations where Sonny will be able to kill him.
** One more note that could have triggered the violence: Tataglia and Sollozzo may have been perfectly fine being neutral, but Don Vito sends in Luca Brasi, the Family's most feared Enforcer, as a spy (under the guise of defecting). It's possible they saw through this rather obvious attempt to spy and dig and reconsidered their neutral stance.
* Why did Michael have to shoot [=McCluskey=] as well as Sollozzo? After shooting Sollozzo he could have disarmed [=McCluskey=] at gunpoint and made his escape. Instead of being the prime suspect in the murder of a police captain he would have been implicated only in the shooting of an ex-con drug dealer, and this wouldn't have required over a year's risky exile in Sicily.
** If Michael does this, he has basically committed premeditated murder in front of a virtually unimpeachable eyewitness who (according to Sonny) has let his precinct know on a sign-out sheet that he will be in that exact restaurant at that exact time. Once Michael leaves [=McCluskey=] could just finger him and he'd face the electric chair. This is why Sollozzo employs [=McCluskey=] as a bodyguard to begin with. The double murder has the same effect in getting the police involved, but as the film shows, does allow the press to dig up [=McCluskey=]'s past.
* So Michael has his goons wipe out the Dons of the other families. Why didn't they retaliate?
** Remember how the Turk thought that the Corleones would eventually capitulate with Vito dead to prevent a war? Same principle, but Michael was better at the setup and execution.
** Much like what Sollozzo wanted to accomplish by killing Vito, killing the heads of the other families lessens their power because the old Dons had connections that their successors aren't going to be as cozy with. In GF II, at the Senate hearings, they explain this as Michael "consolidating power". In fact, killing the other family heads was Vito's plan, as he knew the Corleone family would be weakened by his death and the only way to keep the Corleone family powerful was by a strong action like that.
** It's also that Michael killed them all at roughly the same time, which would impress upon the successors just how dangerous an opponent Michael would be. The book elaborates a bit more, explaining that a lot of rival businesses were raided, but mainly it's about shocking the other Families into collapse.
** They may also face internal weaknesses, power struggles, etc. Michael takes over the Corleone family pretty much because he's the only viable candidate at that point (Fredo clearly isn't up to it and no one would take him seriously enough to join his side in a power struggle), whereas there's no guarantee with the other Families that the line of succession is as clear or that someone isn't going to make a power grab. Essentially, they might be too distracted getting their own houses in order to be in a position to retaliate.
*** This grand move was also done to solidify Michael's legitimacy to power. The Winegardner sequels play this up: Unlike Sonny (who was widely viewed to be the Don's successor before his own untimely death) Michael had never even been a mafia soldier, much less run a crew or been a captain, and his becoming the Don's chosen successor raised more than a few eyebrows. Puzo mentions that Clemenza or Tessio would have been prime candidates to take over the family. It's noted in the novel that at the first meeting after the Don's death, Clemenza calls him "Mike" instead of "Michael," to say nothing of "Don" or "Godfather." After the grand move, Clemenza kisses his hand and specifically addresses him as "Don Corleone," Michael now being seen as a legitimate successor to his father.
* How in the name Christ did Tom Hagen, a non-Sicilian, in 1945, ever rank as high in the family as consigliere? HOW?
** That's what Don Corleone wanted. Who's going to tell him otherwise? In the "real" Mafia, all that stuff about blood oaths and the old country is a bunch of crap foisted off onto the junior members to make them feel like they're part of an exclusive honor society. The upper echelons see power and money as their own rewards. Look at Lucky Luciano; he handed off the "official" Mafia titles when he was locked up, then told his Italian successors that he expected them to follow his Jewish "associate"'s orders to the letter.
*** While the stuff about honor is crap, except for a time in the 80's where you had to be pure Italian on your fathers side(to let John Gotti's son John jr who is part Russian join), you have to be full blooded Italian in order to join. Even highly respected Jewish Gangsters like Meyer Lanskey were never admitted. He was respected for his intelligence and his money-making skills, but he never ordered anyone in the Mob, not without the okay from Lucianno or other high-ranking officials. The blood oaths by all accounts are real.
*** But weren't Mustache Petes like Salvatore Maranzano and Joe Masseria practically the racist ones, whereas Luciano wasn't?
*** Most likely it's just a minor fudge from the reality in order to enable an outsider's perspective on events if desired and to introduce a bit of drama and conflict in places. It's still a work of fiction, after all, not a 100%-accurate history of ''la Cosa nostra statunitense'', so we can probably forgive a few detours from the strict reality. If we're looking for a HandWave, we can simply suggest that Vito Corleone was simply a bit more open-minded than some of the other Moustache Petes when it came to matters of family and blood. Furthermore, it's only one guy he's taken a fatherly liking to, not an alliance with a whole other non-Sicilian family, Tom's clearly capable, well-liked and respected by the people around him, and ultimately, Vito's reached a position of respect, power and influence that means he can pretty much do whatever he wants. If the people underneath him don't like it, what are they going to do?
** Tom Hagen was a lawyer who grew up with Sonny and eventually entered the family business. Consigliere is the position he'd be best at. And yeah, Don Vito wanted it that way.
*** And the novel makes it very clear that Hagen's appointment was indeed a major and unique exception:
--> Hagen had filled the Consigliere’s post for the past year, ever since the cancer had imprisoned Genco Abbandando in his hospital bed. Now he waited to hear Don Corleone say the post was his permanently. The odds were against it. So high a position was traditionally given only to a man descended from two Italian parents. There had already been trouble about his temporary performance of the duties. Also, he was only thirty-five, not old enough, supposedly, to have acquired the necessary experience and cunning for a successful Consigliere... The Don had broken a long-standing tradition. The Consigliere was always a full-blooded Sicilian, and the fact that Hagen had been brought up as a member of the Don’s family made no difference to that tradition. It was a question of blood. Only a Sicilian born to the ways of ormerta, the law of silence, could be trusted in the key post of Consigliere.
** Also it's not like the Don had many great options for the role:
*** Putting aside the fact that his temper would be a hindrance for a position that calls for the person to act as a family diplomat, Sonny would rightfully view it as a demotion. Possibly undercutting his effectiveness because it would always be weighing on his mind about why he went from being underboss to Consigliere.
*** Clemenza and Tessio were probably better as street Capo's. Plus as we see later they want to form their own families so taking a lofty position like that would stifle their ambitions.
*** Luca Brasi is nothing but a brute, he maybe very street smart, but he would lack the smarts to be effective.
*** Paulie and Rocco are underlings.
*** And do I really need to explain why appointing Fredo would be a disaster?
* Ever since Puzo died back in 1999, who is (or are) the literary executor(s) for Puzo's canon? Because are the Mark Winegardner books and Family Corleone canon?
** Family Corleone could probably be considered canon, as it's based off a script written by Puzo, detailing the life of the Corleone family some ten or so years prior to the films. The first Winegardner book is allegedly recognized, but the second book resulted in Paramount suing the Puzo estate -- not only because they stepped over the bounds of their agreement on authorised literature, but also because ''The Godfather's Revenge'' sold badly, and "tarnished" the reputation of the franchise. [[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/22/idUS100797172720120222 There's a Reuters article about it]].
* How is it Fredo is considered stupid? Before betraying Michael, did he actually ever do a stupid thing on-screen?
** Telling Michael he never knew Johnny Ola and then later at the "Superman" show saying aloud that Ola told him about this place, within earshot of Michael was pretty stupid!
*** No, like, did he actually fuck up business or what? Like, if you're talking about brains doesn't Sonny lack one too?
*** How about when he was supposed to be protecting his father and not only let him get shot, but couldn't shoot back, and instead of going for help, sat on the pavement and cried? And apparently pissing off his Vegas cohorts enough that he got hit, despite the fact that he's a made man and the don's brother?
*** Sonny's hot-headed and as even Vito admits probably wouldn't make a great Don, but he's tough and confident. He might not be an intellectual powerhouse or a great tactician, but he commands respect (even if mainly through fear of his temper), he's decisive, and he's not completely useless. He might not be the best to do the job, but he can do it if necessary (perhaps not as well as Vito, but he could do it). Fredo, on the other hand, comes off throughout the movies as awkward, weak-willed and inept. He mumbles and fumbles, he gives into his vices, he lets other people dominate and sway him (including, crucially, people from outside the family, like Moe Greene), he doesn't carry himself with confidence, he screws up a lot, and he's clearly just not cut out for the life of a high-level mobster. He doesn't command respect, and the way he doesn't command respect makes it easy for him to come off (or, at least, for other people to refer to him) as stupid.
* How exactly did Fredo betray Michael? It's never explained. We know that he talked to Johnny Ola but that's it. The best guess is that he told Roth's people where exactly Michael and Kay's bedroom was on the Corleone compound.When Fredo gets a phone call from Ola and Fredo says "You lied to me." then later tells Michael "I didn't know it was going to be a hit." he could mean he thought they were just going to steal something from his room instead of shooting at it.
** An early script explains that Fredo was told by the co-conspirators of the failed hit on the Corleone compound that they wanted to kidnap Michael to put some pressure on the Corleone Family in negotiations. It doesn't explain exactly what information Fredo gave them. Perhaps he gave them information about the compound that could have been used to catch Michael off-guard for what he thought would be a kidnapping?
** Ultimately, to Michael it doesn't matter what Fredo thought was going to happen. Remember back in the first movie, Michael tells Fredo "Don't ever take sides against the family again." In conspiring with Ola, even if Fredo didn't think they were planning to actually assassinate Michael, he took sides against the family. There's the betrayal.
* Vito's mom claimed he wasn't very smart to Don Ciccio, but Vito proved to be a very intelligent guy throughout his life. Was this her way of trying to get Ciccio to spare him by pretending he was a little daft? He does seem oddly quiet as a kid as if there was something off about him, but by the time he reaches adulthood, again, he tends to be the smartest guy in the room. Does the novel clear any of this up?
** The novel states that Vito was a very quiet child, simply because he didn't have much to say: he was an observer, not a talker. This is mentioned later when an adult Vito and Clemenza become friends as "Clemenza was a storyteller, and Vito was a listener to storytellers." In addition, the novel mentions almost in passing that young Vito was already known around the town of Corleone as an expert marksman, and that was what Don Ciccio was really afraid of: someone good with a gun who would have a grudge against him.
** So yes, it was Vito's mom trying to get Ciccio to leave her son alone.
* Why did Michael have Cuneo and Stracci killed? It made sense with Barzini and Tattaglia since they were conspiring against him, but why the other two dons?
** After Solozzo and [=McClusky=] are killed, ''all'' the families go to war against the Corleones, so those two have to go too, since they were part of a unified enemy. Also Michael is not seeking mere victory, but total supremacy.
*** In the book however, Michael spared them. What caused him to do differently in the movie?
*** Watsonian, I presume a combination of paranoia and making a sweeping gesture. Doylist, I suppose Francis Ford Coppola thought the scenario of a mob boss wiping out all his rivals at one fell swoop would be a more striking conclusion than a mob boss wiping out two of his rivals and leaving the other two alone.
** In the book, Michael threw nearly all the forces of the Corleones against his enemies. He doesn't just kill the heads of the Barzini and Tattaglia families; he completely breaks their power base and takes over what's left. The show of force is supposed to cow the remaining families into submission, but it could also be that he just didn't have any guns left to take on the other two Dons. In the movie, the idea was probably to show a more strategic takedown: cutting off five heads rather than destroying two bodies.
* Who's the fifth family? In the book and the movie, we've got Stracci, Cuneo, Barzini, Tattaliga. Who's the fifth?
** The Corleones?
** There is a lot of confusion around the terminology. Take these lines: Tom: "Now if we don't get into it, somebody else will. Maybe one of the Five Families, maybe all of them." Tom: "It would be disastrous. All the Five Families would come after you, Sonny. The Corleone Family would be outcasts!" Vito: "I want you to arrange a meeting, with the heads of the Five Families." Michael: "And then I'll meet with Don Barzini -- and Tattaglia -- all of the heads of the Five Families..." All of these lines imply that the Corleones are not one of the Five Families, since at no point does anyone word it "the other Five Families" or something similar. Make of this what you will, because there's no other obvious candidate for a fifth family.
** The Bocchicchio Family. They're not mentioned in the movie, but the novel talks about them a lot.
*** Aha! Makes one wonder why they're not called "the Six Families."
* Does Connie know it was Carlo, who conspired with Barzini to kill her brother Sonny?
** Near the ending of the first movie, She yells at Michael: "You blamed him for Sonny, you always did."
* How does Sollozzo's plan make any sense? He wants the Corleones to join his narcotics business so as to gain the political protection that the Corleones can offer. All well and good. But after he has Vito shot, it becomes clear that the political connections are not the assets of the Corleone family as an organization, but are rather the personal assets of Vito Corleone. Tom makes this clear when he tells Santino that if Vito dies, they lose all his political protection. So if Sollozzo succeeds in killing Vito, he destroys the very prize he's hoping to win. The only way to explain it would be that Sollozzo does not know that the political connections are Vito's alone, but surely he would have found that out in the course of researching the Corleones prior to offering them his deal. For that matter, surely Barzini would have known that.
** Keep in mind that Sollozzo only has Vito shot after Vito tries to send Luca Brasi into his organisation undercover. He probably interpreted that as an overt threat and responded in kind, at which point the priorities changed. And Barzini's overarching goal was to weaken the overall power of the Corleones, with Sollozzo's business being more of a secondary priority.
* What was the point of Michael finally deciding to be godfather to Connie and Carlo's baby if he was gonna whack the latter, for his role in Sonny's death years earlier?
** He hates Carlo, but Connie's still his sister. It's a family thing. Besides which, it gives him a perfect alibi while his surgical strikes against the other Families are going down; no officer, I had nothing to do with it, I was at the church, acting as godfather to my newborn nephew, and hundreds of people saw me there. And also diminishes his motive against Carlo; detective, if I hated my brother-in-law enough to have him murdered, would I have agreed to be godfather to his child?
** Keeping your friends close but your enemies closer is a lesson Michael took to heart. Notice how up until the time he told Carlo he knew the part he'd played in Sonny's death that Michael appeared to be grooming Carlo to be his right hand man in Las Vegas? He'd suspected Carlo's role in Sonny's murder but had to keep Carlo close by, basically bringing Carlo into the inner circle the way Carlo had longed to ever since he married Connie. Standing godfather to Carlo and Connie's son was perfect, and better still, Michael was asked to do so and it wasn't even his idea! It required Michael to have ice in his veins, but it was definitely the right move.
** Favoring Carlo and showing his close ties in public also contributes to the image of the helpless, clueless Don that Michael wants to project. An image that makes his enemies underestimate him and uncovers traitors like Tessio.
* Why sent Rocco Lampone to kill Hyman Roth at the airport, where's it's crawling with guards and knowing he has a shitty leg due to his service in WWII? I mean, you see after he did it, he tried to escape on said shitty leg but the guards got to him and killed him anyway.
** Someone has to do it, that someone's going to be in a lot of danger either way, and it's implied that, since he was head of security at Michael's compound, Rocco has some atoning to do for not being able to prevent the assassination attempt on Michael.
* I know Tessio betrayed the Corelones by [[spoiler: aligning with Barzini]], but my question is how did he betrayed them?
** Before Vito died, he explained to Michael that one of the capregimes, after Vito's death, will offer to set up a "Peace Conference" with Don Barzini to smooth out any lingering issues. This meeting will be a trap, meant to set Michael up for assassination. The traitor would be whomever approached Michael to set up the meeting. While Tom explains he would have expected the turncoat to be [[spoiler: Peter Clemenza]], Michael was not surprised the turncoat was actually [[spoiler: Sal Tessio]]. The betrayal was setting Michael up to be assassinated under the guise of a peace meeting.
* Okay so in the second film when Michael meets with Johnny Ola, Tom doesn't sit in the meeting. Makes sense since at this point he's out of the "family business" and is just the lawyer. But then why does he sit in during Michael's meeting with Pentangeli?
* Along a similar line, wouldn't Pentangeli identifying Tom as Consigliere(as seen in the "family tree" during the hearings) disqualify him as Michael's attorney?
** Michael's public persona is that of a legitimate businessman. Tom Hagen's public persona is that of Michael Corleone's lawyer and adopted brother. If Michael is accused of being a mafia chieftain, it wouldn't make sense for him to trust any lawyer more than he would Tom. Doesn't seem like much of a conflict of interest here unless you know for a fact what their real relationship is. And in-universe, that hadn't been proven to the committee.
* So... how did the thugs get that horse head into Woltz’s bed without him noticing?
** Could be that he's a heavy sleeper and / or absolutely zonked out by any number of drugs in his system, sleeping pills or otherwise; guy is a scumbag Hollywood child-predator sleazeball, after all. Plus, it's a pretty big bed.
-----
