The Godfather

Fredo didn't set his father up, and how far he betrayed his brother is open to interpretation.

There is nothing in Fredo's characterization in either film that suggests he had the coldness to try and kill a member of his own family. As if the funeral scene isn't clear enough indication that he absolutely loved and needed Michael. It's a long way from jealousy to attempted murder and the message in both movies seems to be "Fredo is a goodhearted simpleton" which fits perfectly with his account of the events.

Thing with Fredo is it really is left up to interpretation how much he was "in" on Michael getting hit. That said, between him flat out lying to Michael and his dropping the ball with the assassination attempt on his father in the first end, he pretty much proved he was untrustworthy.

But yeah, Michael wacking him wasn't justifiable. It was another example of how much he was failing to live up to the standard that his father set.

Those two lines of logic don't follow. What happened with his dad is due entirely to incompetence, not malice or deception. Fredo is a bungler but a kind and gentle bungler.

i really don't see how anyone can watch the scene where he sobs while Michael holds him and think he could possibly have wanted Michael to be murdered.

Those tears could have just easily been out of regret.

He could have been lying. If he's completely on the level then he thought he was only going behind Michael's back to get a beneficial deal for everyone. It's more probable that he thought he was betraying Michael in a minor way, letting Roth gain an advantadge, for money and/or power which he could use to gain respect.

However there's the argument that he realised, perhaps even subconciously, what was going on. He's obviously extremely resentful towards his brother, no matter the other emotions he feels towards him. I certainly believe it's this anger that seals his fate, though I don't think Fredo wanted his brother dead.

I agree.

What's great about the above scene (beyond how damn good Cazale performs) is that it can support either interpretation. There's enough sad desperation in Fredo's voice where you can tell he just wants some regard/respect and nothing more, but also enough resentment towards his brother that part of him just might consider Michael's death just for what he's gone through.

John Cazale was just brilliant. Should have had a nomination for that, I'd rank him above Gazzo.

Like I said, I think Fredo is the best character in the movies. Or at least in the Top 3. Great writing, great performance, great everything.

Here's something though - did anyone else think that maybe Fredo suspected the hit? When his nephew was called away and he went out on the boat alone with his killer? I always kinda got the feeling he knew and it seems I'm not alone in this impression.

His performance is very muted, almost running contrary to the script. In the script it's perfectly clear. Fredo resented being passed over for Michael. He spent his life as the runt of the litter, and this was his last stab at being a 'man'. But when you watch it, Cazale is still doing his doing his usual schtick, the well-meaning goon. I'm not sure if it's ingenious acting or just crappy direction. Either/Or.

edited 4th Feb '14 8:59:34 AM by johnnyfog

Whichever, it works in the film's favor IMO because it sold the ending as Michael's true Moral Event Horizon.

Even though The Godfather probably isn't as realistic as The Goodfellas, I always saw the luxury, loyalty and honorable promises as a façade and not something you should take at face value. Granted, someone could make an argument that the mob wouldn't be such a bad thing if everyone was like Vito. In the book though, his wife always prays for his soul.

edited 5th Feb '14 10:21:23 AM by harkko

*his soul.

*his wife

That's the thing about The Godfather II and III that the very first one didn't have;both did a very decent job of portraying the Mafia as a horrible place to be absolute monsters. They did well with that.

Whereas the original was a little too sympathetic.

edited 5th Feb '14 11:56:04 AM by terlwyth

It was?

(remembers Sonny being gunned down and the horse's head)

edited 5th Feb '14 12:02:23 PM by Quag15

It was portrayed more sympathetically in I because Vito plays Affably Evil really well and obfuscates the criminality of his family really well.

This.

Honestly though no one speaks enough about Kay,it's a shame.

She is the audience surrogate, the outsider that's supposed to be acting as a guide for us into this horrible world of the American Cosa Nostra gang.

Since we grew up watching Cagney, Robinson and Bogart gangster films, she isn't really needed - we knew how that stuff already works, so she is rather redundant. She appeared in the book, so pretty much had to appear in the movie but her presence was not really necessary - a shame as Keaton is a brilliant actress.

In The Godfather Part One, the Mafia may seem to look sympathetic, but if you look under that veneer of sympathy, (such as looking at the Corleones objectively, as opposed to looking at them as protagonists,) you'll find that they are quite terrible, amoral people, even Don Vito, who is a man of pure contradiction. He cares about his family, but one of his most trusted, Luca Brasi, killed his partner and kid brutally. Vito wants Michael to be the White Sheep of the family, but wants also wants him to go into the dirty world of politics, which is barely better than the mob. Vito wants to help his fellowmen, but resists Michael joining the Marines to serve his country. Vito also gunned down the neighborhood thug just to prove himself among his peers. Part Two did a good job of removing that sympathetic veneer, to reveal the ugly, brutal world beneath.

I always thought that the biggest cheat in the Godfather films is that all of the Corleone's victims basically have it coming. Everyone they manipulate, cheat, and murder is an objectively bad person who deserves it, with the exception of that dead hooker in Part II. And not only that, pretty much every non-Italian victim other than Hyman Roth says something insulting about Italians.

It stacks the deck. The Sopranos—it isn't really proper to compare a series with a TV show I guess. But The Sopranos did a better job of showing the Mafia victimizing the innocent.

To be clear I do think the first two Godfather films are all-time classics of American cinema. But they do stack the deck.

I don't think Fredo had it coming, but other than that, your point is good.

No, Fredo is different, and that's important, because it shows Michael sacrificing what little was left of his soul.

But the rest, all the others, I always thought that was a cheat.

Saw all three movies, considered it a great trilogy showing the intertwining and separation of power and family. How would you rank it?

3. The Godfather: Part III. To be honest, I can see the critiques regarding this third installment. It is a bit off at times (e.g. Mary's romance), and I didn't understand the Pope segments, but I appreciated the bigger scale of the brief action sequences (e.g. Helicopter, Joey Zaza's fate) and the references to past movies. Even if the second act was slow, moments like the chat between Michael and Kay about their relationship kept me invested. And holy cow, did the third act wreck me emotionally. I couldn't speak after that sequence of events.

2. The Godfather: Part II. People may say this sequel outshines the first, but I felt that telling two stories at once felt a bit hard to take in. Vito's story was so satisfying, since it was from the novel. For Michael, though, the first interactions with the new characters like Johnny Ola and Hyman Roth were somewhat slow, but once Fredo comes in, it all clicked for me. Additionally, the cinematography was exceptional, and the ending was thought-provoking enough for me to theorize the next installment's plot beats, so there was that.

1. The Godfather. The one, the only and the best. It adapted the most from the original book, which I read, so I loved seeing every iconic moment being brought to the big screen. The brutality, the character development and the quieter scenes fueled by Nino Rota's music came together as a satisfying whole. What I liked was Michael's story, since the book had a huge space between his first murder and time in Sicily, something which was absent in this movie. It's considered perfect, but I would say it's close to that, since the third act felt a bit too compressed in time. Regardless, it's still an amazing set-up for what came next.