He'd banish him to Italy for life, but that wouldn't mean much since Michael would likely let Fredo come back and the cycle would repeat itself. Better question is, how would *Sonny* handle Fredo's betrayal? Or even Tom for that matter.
@@maylabrown4584 We never really get to see Sonnys character grow like we do with Fredo. He certainly would never have used Fredo in the way Michael did because I don't think the respect was there. Long story short I think Fredo would never have been given the opportunity to betray anyone. Not that Sonnys judgement was impeccable. He brings Carlo home and ultimately sows the seeds of his own destruction so I suppose I could be entirely wrong.
@@vespasian606 Well the Book goes into Sonny's Character more, but in this scenario Fredo has already betrayed the Family regardless of how improbable it'd be for him to be in the same situation just like how Sonny or Vito is alive in this hypothetical too. Personally I think Sonny would absolutely beat Fredo down, making the Corleones look weak and likely putting Fredo in the hospital, he'd disown Fredo causing him to become a later traitor if he is let to live.
Michael forgave Fredo in the personal sense, as his brother. However, as Godfather, Michael must operate within the world as it is. Michael's role as Godfather, and all that entails, required that Fredo be liquidated. Michael is a follower of Machiavelli's teaching. The prince must rule in the world as it is, not as he'd like it to be. Fredo's survival would be a symbol of Michael's weakness. His enemies would take succor from knowing Fredo the traitor lived and benefitted from his treachery. His enemies would have found a way to use Fredo (again) as a weapon to destroy the Corleones.
@jpssteveshanahan you also don't have to defend yourself from a multitude of criminal elements that could put your whole family and everyone you love at risk
Frank never betrayed him, the only reason he was willing to testify against him was because he was told that Michael double crossed him and wanted him dead, Michael would of done the same thing in his place.
If that was the case, that would have been the assumption by his enemies anyway because he didn’t kill Fredo until his mother passed. Surely his enemies wouldn’t have assumed that he was waiting for his mum to die to kill his brother. On the contrary, I think Michael did it to set an example and show Roth and the rest how ruthless he can be and he’ll kill his own family because of betrayal. That act from outside the family looking in sends a clear message he can’t be taken lightly as michael could probably envisage a takeover the way he was being infiltrated and played by Roth and Roth knowing Micheal killed his friend moe green and Michael knowing Roth knew. He never felt comfortable with what he did to fredo and this showed in the 3rd movie but he knew he had to show how heartless and callous he could be, it chess and had to sacrifice an important piece for a power play and and show they were playing the same game and it’s about winning. I don’t think there was bad intentions with what fredo did, he just got played into thinking it will help Michael and the family and he can show Michael he can do good. Michael could have kept him banished away and kept busy with cocktail waitresses, 2 at a time 😂
Michael could have made Fredo totally powerless without killing him. He and His Father did all that for Family in the First place. How can You kill what You are trying to provide for, You become a selfish Monster. And if he looked at only from how others would see him, how would His own Family see him wasn't considered then. In part 3 Michael always says I killed my Father's Son, it shows His emotional detachment from Fredo but the continuous guilt of betraying His own Father cos the Don could die for either one of His kids. Michael was very selfish with that decision
Imagine for a moment if Fredo were not his brother. When he served as Vito’s bodyguard, Vito was shot multiple times and nearly died while Fredo fumbled with his gun. This bodyguard was sent out west to heal from the trauma of that event. While out west, he made a fool of himself until the man who was babysitting him had to slap sense into him. He took that man’s side against the Corleone’s interests. He moaned and complained to the Corleone’s enemies about how much they mistreated him by not letting him do anything important. (Sort of like Luca Brazi did but not as a spy, and on orders from Vito. He did it as a natural expression of his discontent.) He conspired with these men to attack Michael Corleone’s home, specifically his bedroom where not only Michael would be, but also where his wife and child could be. He lied to Michael about his connection to the assassins and then turned around and casually let slip his involvement to someone else in Michael’s very presence. He was straight up an enemy of the Corleones. The only thing saving him is the blood running in his veins. He’s a dangerous figure in Michael’s life and really he’s a danger to the entire family. The sad part is that he’s only weak and not cunning. His actions nearly wiped out Michael’s family (and they were also Fredo's family, by the way. Brother, sister-in-law, nephew) He’s a clueless dangerous person who has no code to live by. He’s unpredictable and fickle. He can’t possibly make up for the hit on Michael's home. He literally has nothing to offer, and Michael has zero sympathy. In his eyes, Fredo cannot be redeemed. But his weakness makes him a very sympathetic character. We feel sorry for him like Connie does. She says he's sad and lost. She acts as if Fredo is a homeless puppy they should take in, but this puppy has rabies. Michael believes both of his siblings are weak, but Connie has devoted herself to him, and is not a threat. Fredo always will be. Of course, it was absolutely morally wrong to kill Fredo. It is very sad and goes against all that is decent. We all can agree. However, this is Michael Corleone we’re talking about, and killing Fredo was well within his moral code.
Fantastic analysis. I have never looked at it as deeply. I think even Al Neery although uncomfortable with it, he understood that Fredo was not to be trusted.
Part of the Mafioso code is the Mafia family first, then your own family. It’s bad enough to keep your eyes on your enemies but so much more dangerous when you have to look at treachery from ‘loved ones’.
Great analysis on Fredo. I feel that Connie grew an extremely thick skin by the third movie. She's imo the most badass character in that movie. Her taking out Don Altobello and giving Vincent the OK with Neri to take out Zasa, made her in my eyes a more of a Godfather than Michael was in the 3rd movie. Too bad some of the other casting choices were... Questionable. We can all agree that Sofia Coppola can't act. Just a bad choice overall. Robert Duvall not being in the movie was a bad choice. It would've been awesome to see Tom Hagen in the 3rd movie. Yes, i like the 3rd movie. It just has a bad rep of being the worst Godfather movie, but can you really blame it? It had to follow 2 of the most iconic crime drama movies of all time.
i have a question to your last statement if it is Wrong for Michael to Kill Fredo ..was Fredo in the right to have Michael killed? Michael knew that if Fredo was willing to Allow hitmen to kill him just to get "respect" how long til he just straight up went to Michaels family his realatives and just shoot them point blank? Fredo is no Sympathatic Villian nor is he to be pity he knew his actions and thought he could "play" on peoples sympathy to gain some form of forgiveness and most likely when his Ego popped up to say hello again would Attempt another hit on Michael
One thing that was not mentioned was that Vito, in his conversation with Michael before his death about the Barzini meeting (which exposed Tessio as one of the family traitors; Carlo being the other), that women and children were allowed to be careless, but not men. Despite Fredo having child-like tendencies, in the end, he was a grown man and grown men were not allowed to make mistakes, especially those that could have killed Michael and his family.
If Michael wasn’t gonna deal with that betrayal then what would that mean for the Corleones? Folks would be lining up to betray Michael, so Fredo made a dumb choice by going agaisnt the Corleone
@@Aven-Sharma1991 so you kill a family member just to teach others a lesson? Michael was ruthless, he never even played with his kids, never an affectionate moment with Kay from the very start. You can see it in his eyes that he was a narcissist, cold killer. Sonny would have never killed his brother, maybe beat some sense into him but not kill him.
He couldn't just banish him and send him somewhere on the island or to another country and gave me some money and tell him not to contact or come around here again
The mistrust of Tom is pure paranoia at this point. After the assassination attempt he trusts tom enough as his brother to make him don in his absence (and presumably if anything happens to him) but the betrayal s by fredo frank and Kay push him to the point that he trusts no one. From the look on al neri' face he doesn't even want to kill fredo , but he knows if he doesn't he's next..
He didn't have to have him killed. Michael could have simply exiled Fredo to some very remote location. Well, I suppose the bottom of Lake Tahoe is remote enough.
You have a point, but what if Fredo was found out in Italy? I mean, Michael was (hence Apollonia’s death). Having Fredo walking around anywhere is just too risky, and clearly his feelings of jealousy & resentment were going no where, the confrontation scene was proof of that.
@@natashadenique idk we have had ex employees tell our secrets to rival production companies. our workflow, mision and important information with suppliers is changing all the time. by that company doing things exactly like that exemployee told them to. we were already doing it differently, better and in different venues. the family could have taken the time to remake their security and plans so that if he got caught by rival families he would have only old and useless intel. yes It would have taken so much work and money but Fredo was family.
Fredo is an example of how to convert members of another group into a spy, saboteur, or assassin. He is someone who has been passed over for a position of power that should've been his by birth rite therefore he's going to be disgruntled, jealous, and angry. And when you have someone who's been practically shunned; then you have your spy, saboteur, and assassin.
Yet, n da ancient Summerian, da god, ( Enki ) responsible 4 creating & protecting humanity, could not truely do so, bcause his brother ( Enlil ) dtested us. Enki had been passed over, simply bcause his mom, wuz not a sister. So tho older, & nfinitely mo brilliant, he had 2 bow down 2 lil brother Enlil. We lose, rather da stoOOopid rulez r followed, or rather common sense, n passing over a weakling, iz applied. So sorry 4 Fredo, BUTT datz whut he gitz, 4 thinkin he wuz smaht!
The moment Fredo betrayed Michael was the moment he was out. As in Michael stopped seeing him as a brother because he has been betrayed by everyone but never by his own blood. But where I stand is that Fredo was making poor decisions that were negatively affecting the business. Even when Vito was alive the family was at risk because some weren’t taking them seriously. Fredo was never thinking for the family. He was selfish and immature which would have opened the same doors again. But killing him was for the business but destroyed the family. Where as Vito could balance both.
Trying to "balance both" produced this pair of assholes. Along with Sonny. Vito did not balance anything, he just punted the problems down a generation.
@@1987AnimeBoy A better question is, would Vito have been in Michael's situation in the first place? Vito actually was pretty shrewd about not letting unreliable people get close. He kept Fredo in Las Vegas for a while, and he kept Carlo Rossi at arm's length. He was even suspicious of Paulie Gatto, the traitor who set up his own assassination attempt, when he was absent the day of the hit. He recognized the weakness of Fredo's character from his behavior in Vegas. People think that it was simply the Don's sense of propriety that was offended by Fredo's womanizing, but if you pay attention, there are other clues to the source of the attitude. Tom is contemptuous of Jack Woltz letting his attraction to the girl Johnny Fontane seduced govern his business decisions. The Sicilian idiom that is translated as "Ladies' Man" has a connotation of immaturity and dependency, suggesting a child who is breastfeeding. Vito disapproved not of Fredo getting laid (Michael knew that he would not care about Michael's extramarital sexual relationship with Kay), but of Fredo's emotional weakness that drove him to excess. A comparison would be that he does not care if his sons drink, but Fredo's a lush, so he can't trust him. He also almost reflexively shuts down any suggestion that Carlo be "made", letting him earn with the Family, but not be brought inside. Michael got sloppy, or overconfident, or perhaps optimistic about the transition to legitimate business. He retained Tom as Consigliere despite his initial instinct that Tom was not competent at the security and violence end of the business. He kept Fredo in his inner circle, despite the ample proof of his weakness, such as in his choice of a wife, and her behavior. But at the same time, knowing of this weakness, he didn't show him respect and delegated menial tasks to him. Fredo would never be in a position to betray the homestead's security arrangements if he had been acting the way he did at the party under Vito. Michael either got careless, not wanting to push away Fredo, or take the risk of cultivating his trust by giving him serious duties. He might have though that since they were going legitimate, security and betrayal were no longer things he had to worry about. Vito's final conversation to Michael was an admonition that men in their position can't be careless. mollify
Fredo's core motivation for betraying Michael could not be undone. The fraternal jealousy would always burn in his heart. It would always pose a lethal threat to Michael and the entire family. It is only a wonder that Michael waited so long. ..
Great video,super hard question. Being a huge fan of the Godfather movies,I've always wondered, could Michael had let Fredo live? Was killing him a mistake? I don't think so,it was the price Michael had to pay. When Michael became Godfather,and Fredo was passed over,it was just a matter of time. Fredo, always thought he was smarter,than he was and he could run the family. Him giving Michael a hard time over Moe Green in Vegas,shows he has no respect for Michael's authority. Fredo,was weak, jealous and easily fooled. No matter what restrictions Michael put on him, unfortunately Fredo would always be a threat. Even if indirectly, example, people try to kill Michael again and replace him with Fredo,who would be just someone's puppet. Not to mention, Fredo put Kay and the kids in danger,that was game over! Michael,could kill his brother or possibly be murdered himself; Maybe his wife or kids would be murdered. He really had no choice,in my opinion and Fredo put him in that position.
I don't think it was fredo's intention to hurt michael but wanted to do some sort of deal that would've made him look worthy to the family and not stupid, He also swore it wasn't his intention to hurt michael as he swore and hes religious so it wasn't some sort of white lie. but really really only case I could see where fredo lives(That's even a maybe not a 100%) is if he was scretley taken to the town of corleone(or any country outside the americas), so the other dons don't view michael as weak. because in the long run michael was affected hugely after ordering the hit on fredo. he'd even scream fredo when he had panick attacks, Michael regretted it big time and it shows in the third movie, especially how close they were with eachother. even when michael even enlisted in the military fredo was the only one that was truly happy for him.
@Paul Odenfield No man, you can't correct someone out of jealousy/revenge etc... Michael didn't have to correct / teach Tom Hagen even though Tom was older than both Micheal and Fredo. Tom used to see Micheal as a little brother BUT started seeing (and respecting) Micheal as the Don, later. Fredo only saw Micheal as little brother AND was still pissed over being stepped over. There's nothing Micheal could teach
Fredo’s heart sank? What about Michael’s when he was in Cuba and found out that Fredo lied about knowing Roth and ola and was the one who was a constituent in trying to have his family killed
I don't think Fredo saw it coming. First off he's highly naive. Second of all he was completely turned facing away from Al while fishing although it was certainly bad form to not let Fredo finish saying the Hail Mary before pulling the trigger
I think Michael killing his own brother was that line, that difference between his father and him. But if something ever happened to him Fredo may have got the job as boss and that couldn't happen.
I have thought about this for a long time. I actually have never much pitied Fredo, and let me show you why. The former king passed over his weak and craven older son when the crown prince was assassinated. The crown prince pays a call on a significant noble and discovers the prince revealing royal secrets that could compromise the families place on the throne and the kingdom at large, especially as this noble is revealed to be in league with an opposing monarch. Later this prince betrays his king repeatedly attempting to usurp the throne. Finally the king gives the order for the treacherous sibling to be executed for his treason. This is the same story, but in a setting nearly 400 years prior, and none of us would have questioned the necessity or morality of this decision. To say that Michael was more than merciful would be an understatement. I believe that if Fredo had stepped into the car with Michael and confessed all to him, at least all that he could remember then, and kept coming to Michael with information relevant to that dictation of others, he might have repaired the damage done, though he would have still been reduced to favorite uncle of his nephew. This might have also been true even as late as the boat house, had he knelt, as Connie either had or soon would, and swore loyalty to the Don and the Family and confessed all. However, he was indolent, borderline insolent, and non-compliant. This sealed his fate, because, in his hubris, he would never have knelt. In many ways, he reminds me of Joab in I Kings 2:28-34 in that by the time he sought for mercy, the time for mercy had already past, and thus he commences saying a last rosary in search of a pardon in the hereafter for his crimes in the present.
If anyone has watched Part 3, you will see that Michael regrets it, but only on a family level, he still knows he had to kill Fredo. It was justified in the mob sense, but killing Fredo took something from Michael on a personal level. There is no loyalty in the underworld, only obedience and fear.
The character was painted into a corner… there was no other way for him to react…of course it’s wrong to kill off your siblings but the story is the story.
he was right to kill his brother because fredo was a trator to the family and also Micheal had to protect himself as he almost got killed with his brother having somthing to do with it. and that could of happened again if he didn't kill him. no doubt fredo would have continued to plot against Micheal.
I don't know if its been mentioned by others but Fredo resembles Vito the most but a weaker version of him. Killing Fredo was Michael killing the image of his father in a way as well.
Dont know which movie you watch but frodo is the opposite of his father. Smart vs dump Calm vs unbalanced Wise vs foolish Professional vs careless Familyman vs betraying the family 40 years of marriage vs banging Cocktail waitresses 5 children vs no children Head of the family vs Clown of the family Charisma vs no charisma Many friends vs no friends Physically strong vs fumbling the gun and crying The only thing they have in common is the italian mustache.
@@mr.xtothez I think you're misunderstanding my point. Resemblance in the face (physically) as the casting portrayed. Of course his "character" is opposite of Vito... Its just the family resemblance between those two is more than the other children and Michael killing Fredo, although justified seems ironic given its Fredo appearance was like a weaker manifestation of the great father Michael reverved.
I must admit I've always believed that Michael's decision to have his brother killed was wrong...given this psychological profile of Michael's position in detail. You make a compelling argument.
I thought it was wrong but he killed off his brother but he'll always have to watch his back 24/7 just in case his brother decides to turn on him again
It's not just that, you have to be ruthless and cold with organized crime. Everyone who does business with Michael would know about what happened to Fredo, Hymen Roth, and Frankie. It wasn't reckless either, it was necessary.
@@Sjcstro84 Fredo was a grown man who was seemingly “made” well before Michael stepped up, so he should’ve been able to handle himself. Plus it isn’t like Michael didn’t give Fredo a chance/ responsibility and power. Fredo fucked up repeatedly a world where one mistake adjacent is enough to get someone killed.
Very good analysis on both sides. I believe Michael could not find it in himself to consider his brother’s betrayal as business. Not for a minute much less a lifetime. It was personal. He could no longer stand the sight of him. He had to put him down.
I’ll push back on the flashback scene at the table. They’re among family, so why would Fredo have to check himself and not give his honest opinion of Michael joining the military? If it were completely outside company, then yes, he would be speaking out of turn if he disagreed after Sonny voiced his displeasure with the news. Also, I doubt Vito would have said anything either, for the very same reason.
For that moment, yes. Fredo was the enemy within. He would have gotten Michael or his family killed one day one way or another. Yes, there's sibling rivalry, maybe he really was that stupid. But his jealousy outweighed his love for his brother and that's dangerous.
Hyman Roth would have killed him if he won over Michael. Think about it: Why keep a guy around who betrays his own brother & blood over some petty "but i wanted to be at the cool kids table!". Id be thinking "if he will turn on his brother, he will turn on me when he perceives I didnt give him a seat at the cool kids table in MY organization. Its horribe but Fredo has been BEGGING for a bullet.
I think this is the wrong question. The question should be: “How do you banish Fredo without killing him, and prevent Fredo from doing more damage in the future?” 1. Make sure he is banished physically from the family and therefore has no access to any information about them. 2. Never be allowed to see any relatives again. 3. Earn his own living without access to family money. 4. Michael would notify him that even though they are “brothers” Michael would not tolerate any breach in his or their no-contact rules. 5. If the rules are followed scrupulously no harm would come to Fredo. If not, Fredo would never be able to predict the date of his death. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
send Fredo back to Sicily,instead. his safety there, as a corleone/andolini would not be assured either. that's how i might have taken care of the treachery.
I never thought about that before. Michael forgiving Fredo at the funeral, even though it wasn't genuine. Could have been Michael not wanting Fredo to suffer mentally and worrying what was going to happen to him. He went out into the boat and knew nothing, was just shot in the back of the head.
I wish I could disagree; Fredo should've known the moment Connie whisked Anthony away so he could 'go to Reno.' Was she in on it? But, I think it's more likely Fredo realized it only when they got out to the lake
fredo is alot like christopher from the sopranos in my opinion, he should have never been allowed into the crime family, let alone be allowed to rise as high they did, because frankly neither were cut out for the life
I think he did. Fredo was completely beaten, and he was FAMILY. You don't kill family unless it's truly for your own survival. And even then you would grieve, of course. They were brothers, and Michael would have had memories of his big brother Fredo playing with him when they were kids, etc. In this case, it was not necessary for Michael's survival. Michael lost a part of his soul that Vita kept until his dying day.
as my dad always said years later looking back at a decisions/actions he made years ago when he knows more now than he did then ' i am sure if i knew then what i knew now i would have done things differently '
Great analysis, Fredo betrayed Michael and there was a level of selfishness. It's possible he was duped entirely, but the film leads us other places. I'd say possible he was duped from Greed, Duped from stupidity or duped from a mix of the two. If he was just duped, he becomes a tragic figure.
I think they intentionally tried to leave it open ended as to wheater or not he knew or not. But i think he did. 1) The hitmen who tried to kill Michael where killed even when they where ordered to be taken alive? Fredo had them killed... so that they couldn't talk? 2) Who opened the blinds? Fredo...? 3) And Fredo obviously was clever enough to understand that the hit was Ola and Roth since he answered the phone and said they lied to him, which means he obviously knew something was going to happen that night. What was supposed to happen that night in Fredo's mind if not a hit? NOW: Fredo obviously DID regret it. He didn't do it out of hatred or true malice, just mostly out of the feeling that he got "passed over" and he was ambitious. But he did try to come clean to Michael when the two sort of just sat down and talked and acted like brothers. But Michael didn't pick up on it and started talking about buisness instead.
@Iconoplast For the survival of any herd, family, flock etc. the lesser members, which are not able to keep up with the rest ,will only slow down/endanger the many if the weak are "tended".
Michael was backed into a corner. Fredo was his brother, but he betrayed him. He has also warned him once of not taking sides against the family, yet, he did nonetheless. Fredo put Michael, the business, his family and all their legacy, everything their father built in danger because of his insecurities and selfishness. You can even see Michael wanted to give Fredo a chance when he wanted Fredo to get in the car with him but instead Fredo run away therefore he doesn't really trust Michael no more. Also during their talk in the lake house and he asked Fredo "You believe that?" maybe if Fredo said "Yes" Michael would've at least punished him but not at the extent of having him killed but instead Fredo answered "There was something in it for ME" Fredo outright admitted he did all that for himself, not for the benefit of their family but all for himself which is the epitome of selfishness. Let's say he didn't have him killed, Fredo was a very huge liability and easily breaks through pressure and FBI loves people like that, snitches. My man wasn't just made for all this shit their family is in. Morally it's wrong but in a business and personal decision then it was probably right. Ahh, the beauty of Godfather we still discuss this movie no matter how many decades have passed.
Vito also warned Sonny never to let people out of the family know what he was thinking, people make mistakes not always willingly, so was Vito suppose to kill Sonny because he was interested in the drug deal? NO! But Michael probably would have.
Fredo's demise was neither "Cold" nor "Heartless". Simply a matter of business. It's not like Fredo 'didn't know' what manner of business the family was in, or how things worked.
Fredo was always going to be liability. He might not have been able to betray the family to another rival again, but the Feds might have pressured him into turning. He was weak and would be easy to intimidate. He may have also been targeted for kidnapping and held for ransom, or a concession. Michael would have been obligated to get him back, but that would also show him as being vulnerable. That’s another reason why sending him to another part of the country would have been risky. He was too big of a problem to be managed forever. Michael had to eliminate that problem. It’s hard to say how much of that decision was personal or business. It could be explained or defended from either perspective.
Fredo's execution was the extreme version of a corporation firing someone who had screwed up, more like an army shooting a traitor who had become a mole for the enemy during battle. To Michael, ever the competent CEO and general, it was a business or military decision mixed in with the personal hurt of brotherly betrayal. The phrase "too stupid to live," is literally applied to Fredo. After Fredo's betrayal, Michael closed himself off to everyone and morphed into an ice-cold monster. That makes mob life literally like the Hunger Games.
Michael had a tragic flaw that his father did not have. Vito was loving to his family, and as you said, he had a sentimental spot for them. But Michael was much more self-centered. Even his decision to go into the service reflected that need to go off on his own rather than be part of the family. As he developed in power and control, his disconnect from love becomes more profound. He says he loves his brother, for instance, but what did that really mean when he is able to have him murdered? It was not a true feeling at that point. Your analysis that everyone around Michael betrayed him is spot on, and of course, this just enhanced his self-centeredness and inability not only to trust, but to love, because love requires opening oneself and being vulnerable. For Michael, those in his sphere are his possessions, even family.
The best comment 👌 👏 everyone saying Fredonia should die are cold hearted and don't understand how important family is and how if don vito was alive, michaels actions would have never been forgiven never that was a purely selfish move and shows he is not a family man
Good presentation and good comments below. Just a few points that I can add: 1- I don't think even a young / hard Vito would've killed a family-traitor; for Vito blood-family was prior to business. 2- precisely that, was Michael's tragedy, that he, for all he wanted to maintain his family, unwittingly he put business before family. 3- on the other hand, what is the mafia code for traitors within the family? Vincenzo on Godfather II came all the way from Sicily prepared to do the see the ultimate punishment to his brother Pentangeli; but fortunately, Pentangeli learned to follow the code and committed suicide. 4- it is the ancient / legendary Roman tradition that the ultimate tragedy is fratricide - Romulus vs Remus.
You missed one - connie betrayed him as well, letting Kay see the children without him knowing - this was the final betrayal before he ordered the killing….
@@tradewins fair enough - I always interpreted it this way - it was connie that begged him to forgive fredo, so when she “betrayed” him, he finally took him out
@@lukedady4073 What? I know Connie wanted Michael to forgive Fredo. Are you saying she knew that Michael was going to kill Fredo as evidenced by her taking Anthony off the boat? I think that's a bit of a stretch.
Given how resentful Fredo was for being passed over, Fredo was always going to be a threat to Michael and would eventually try to kill Michael again. So therefore, yes, he was justified.
I've always been very conflicted about this whole thing. I'm usually more forgiving than a lotta people seem to be about things like this cause what might seem obviously horrific to someone on the outside looking in might look like the best of bad options for someone in the middle of it and the rational approach someone uninvolved has isn't necessarily the same one someone deeply entrenched may have. I get that people do things in the heat of the moment and/or blinded by a number of factors that I never even considered. But that murder just seemed to be too much for not enough of a good reason. Fredo may always be something of a liability but he was clearly also a lot more and Michael was already so powerful and already won to such a degree that it just feels cruel. He coulda just kept him on the compound as a nanny never allowed to be involved in business again and been fine.
Michael never forgave Fredo. He wanted to keep fredo alive as long as their mother was still alive. After their mother passed away Michael hugged Fredo. While hugging Fredo he gave Al Nero a look. With that look he gave the order to kill Fredo.
Killing your own brother? An extremely crazy move..that decision had very negative effects. He could have easily shelved Fredo, but… in that “life” this is a part of that business. So in some ways it gave Michael even more of a reputation of being ruthless.
IMHO Michael was a conflicted person from the beginning. He was a war hero with metals for bravery. The Mafia believes soldiers are fools because they kill people they do not know for generals and politicians that do not know or care about them personally. They believe a man should kill to protect his families, both his crime family and his personal family. (What are all these Christmas ribbons for? Bravery. What miracles do you perform for others?) So Michael was conflicted from the start. His belief system was totally upended when he went to the hospital and found Vito alone, set up for another assassination attempt. That was his “Come to Jesus” moment when he instantaneously abandoned his lofty ideals and became a mafiosi. In front of the hospital with Enzo his hand never shook like Enzo’s. He was cold and calculating from the get go. Michael’s second flaw arose at that time too, he lacked the good heart of Vito, Sonny and even Fredo. He was cold hearted to the core. In GF2 Tom asks him “Do you feel you have to kill everyone? I mean you’ve won. Ross is defeated.” Michael answers “I don’t feel I have to kill everyone, just my enemies.” Michael’s cold heartedness means he kept his own counsel and didn’t value Tom’s advice, or anyone else’s except Vito’s and Vito was dead. So when it came to killing Fredo, his lack of empathy for anyone, including his own family of Tom, Fredo and even Kay, meant anyone who betrayed him was to be done away with. No he wouldn’t kill Kay, supposedly the Mafia doesn’t kill women (but in reality they do). Tom, as you pointed out in that scene, had his loyalty tested again. So in this cold hearted mindset and ruthless boss image Michael had of himself his flaws compounded to where he asks Mama if by being strong (as he imagined himself) for the family could someone lose their family. Mama Corleone doesn’t understand and says you can never lose your family and Mike replies times change. More accurately he should have realized it wasn’t time but he himself that had changed. So to answer your question, Michael thought he was justified in killing Fredo. In his mind, which allowed no other’s counsel, he was justified. But as GF3 poorly showed, as he aged and self reflected, he realized he was wrong. “What betrayed me, my heart or my head?” No, Michael should never have killed Fredo. After 1. Fredo failed to protect Vito when Vito was shot and 2. after the Moe Green and Las Vegas incident, Mike should never have made Fredo underboss. The mistake was Michael’s and Michael’s alone. Fredo had already made two grievous errors. He should have been left as Entertainment Director of the hotels or kept at arms length as a capo or a soldier under a capo, with buffers in between (“Yeah, buffers, Senator. The Family had a lot of buffers”). Like Bruno Tattaglia who only ran the club and nothing else. Bruno wasn’t in the prostitution side of the family (per the book). As a related side note: The movie GF1 left out a very important interaction between Sonny and Michael when Michael says he would kill Sollotzo and McClusky both. ONLY Sonny laughs and says his “get their brains all over your nice Ivy League suit”. In the book Michael gets mad at Sonny for laughing and stands up with a look that radiated danger and told Sonny “You better quit laughing.” Everyone else turns and looks at Mike in surprise. So Sonny says “I wasn’t laughing at you. I was laughing at the way things turn out. They’ve got you figured for a yellow Guinea but you’re a Corleone after all and I’m the only one who knew it. I’ve been sitting here for 3 days waiting for you to break out of that college boy, war hero bullshit character you’ve been wearing and become my right arm and help me kill these f()cks that are trying to destroy our father and our family!” Sonny had recognized the transformation in Michael immediately.
Sadly, Michael (Neri) killing Fredo eliminated a great uncle for his own son, Anthony. Uncle Fredo spent time with his nephew, telling the story of the one time he bested his brothers.
@mphrdlin And it follow's Micheal's surviving son would be Fredo's next target. Sorry , but this is a high stakes game , and playing tiddlywinks doesn't cut it
Oddly, I think of Stabler's mother on L&O:Organized Crime. Despite that family's best efforts, she blew past every guardrail they had set up, and she seems to be getting worse. While they're not going to kill her, and Fredo is not an old cantankerous woman, the similarities are surely there. If Michael kept Fredo under house arrest, then there would surely come a day when the next Roth or Greene whispered in his ear how sad his being passed over was, and Michael would be yelling "You know he's not supposed to be.." whatever it was. Fredo was not cut out for life in the family business, yet there is where he kept trying to be a part of. If not by his brother's decree, then it would have been one of these big plans.
On Michael ironically destroying his family with the actions he takes to protect his family, it makes me picture Kay Adams saying to Michael in The Godfather part part 3-- _"If I have to hear one more time how you did it for the family"_ before Michael interjects with-- _"I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it. And I was really, I was alive!"_ IMO, Michael destroyed his family because his ego and perhaps greed led him to stay in the life far after he was supposed to have gone legit. He never needed to make the entire Corleone criminal family legitimate-- by the beginning of Part Two, if not earlier, he was wealthy enough to leave the life and still provide quite well for his family. Michael retiring from the life would also have the added benefit of making his family actually much safer, as he, and by extension, his family, would no longer be targets for rival gangsters. So his killing Fredo and driving away Kay (and in the process, lose a son either by a stress induced miscarriage, or by Kay intentionally terminating the pregnancy, as the film makes it ambiguous, IMO, as to whether or not Kay said the latter just to get under Michael's skin and break his icy, emotionless facade, snd didn't really get an abortion) would not be solidly "justified" by it being necessary due to his position as boss of the Family, or because showing favoritism by sparing Fredo. could potentially _“create a little dysentery in the ranks.”_ Stuff like that, IMO, is all just BS; and that Michael uses such excuses to hides behind and try justify actions taken, again IMO, because of ego and pride-- and perhaps some greed, but I think he did what he did way more due to the former two, than the latter --thus is actions were inexcusable even in the context of Michael being the Boss of the most powerful of the Mafia's Five Families of New York City. But, to stress it one more time, and as Dennis Miller used to say-- _"That's just MY opinion..._ _I could be wrong."_ 🤔🙂
You nailed it..I never understood why Michael couldn't run his Las Vegas casinos and let NYC go. He liked the power of being a Don. Of course, maybe Hyman Roth would always be scheming against him, so he had to stay the Don of the Corleone family.
Godfather 3 is a ridiculous unrealistic movie with an agenda. No wonder, considering the time and mental climate it was made in. Of course it has to appease the libturds. It shouldn't be taken seriously. It's not a sequel, it's an excuse.
You make a good point by highlighting all of the betrayal Michael underwent in the saga. By mob rule, Fredo had to go, no question. When you choose that life, you face the consequences, brother or not. Michael made the right decision. If he hadn't eliminated Fredo, the other capos certainly may have planned to take Michael out for his lack of leadership and responsiblity to the family. Even Neri knew Fredo had to go.
Watched Taxi Driver on Netflix last night for the first time in at least 20 years, possibly De Niro's best work, and certainly the best film ever about a single character. Have you ever reviewed it?
@@maylabrown4584 a mind blowing performance for me, literally in the top three of all time, he's so cringe in places and awkward, then disturbed and dangerous, then other scenes you can't help but think he's a good guy, just flipped out down the wrong path. Supporting cast is good, but they're literally almost out of focus compared to Travis.
I would have endeavored to find out exactly what Fredo did to help Roth on the night of the attempted assassination. Open the drapes, what? Then I'd ask myself whether or not Fredo's claim that he "didn't know it was going to be hit" was credible. If he didn't think it was going to be a hit, what DID he think it was going to be?
One could also argue that a year later Al Pacino's character had John Cazale's character killed again in Dog Day Afternoon. This was all for Al Pacino's character robbing a bank for his lover's sex change operation and dragged the John Cazale character along. At the end, in the getaway van, the driver who took them to the airport was a cop and immediately shot John's character in a split second when really he posed no threat except having a gun in his position.
He didn't have to kill fredo, cutting him off was just as effective as killing him because he would have cut him off from any information that would have endangered him.
Good video man. You make a lot of good commentary for both sides. It makes me wonder what would Vito done if he hadn’t of died. Would Fredo still put a hit on his dad? And if he still did and Vito found out? Would Vito put a hit out to kill his son?
The only time we truly see Michael completely vulnerable, trusting, and compassionate is during the few scenes with only his father and himself on screen. His trust, loyalty, and respect for his father are shown to be unquestionable during those interactions. Fredo's inaction and cowardice during his father's most vulnerable time in his life, the assassination attempt, would have had a lasting effect on Michael. Being the youngest he would have had to expect the same devotion to their father from his older brother, Fredo, that he unquestionably had. Sonny had shown loyalty on a reckless scale that ultimately cost his life. Why had Fredo not? Should Michael have been the brother to deal with Sollozzo and McCluskey? Should it have not been Fredo? Sonny ultimately ok's this because he knows Michael is his only option. Sonny knows the effect this will have on his "kid" brother, there will be no turning back. We see the tension on Michaels's face as the scene builds up to the point where he finally murders Sollozzo and McCluskey. We see the disgust in Micahels reaction to what he's done when he drops the weapon as he walks out of the restaurant. This is a man who's been to war. Most likely killed already, but not in this way. He knows he's killed unarmed men who had no chance to defend themselves and he will be changed forever as a result. He's compromised his core morals. Morals that his father has told him would make him a senator someday and separate him from all of this. But still...Michael, despite his better judgment, owed his father's son one last chance at redemption sending him away to hopefully atone and become a man. He subsequently fails which, once again, places the one thing Michael cares about most (his son) in absolute peril. If Vito valued the well-being of his son above all else then how could Michael not do the same? In the end, Michael did what had to be done to protect his family and suffered the ultimate price for it. In 3 when Michael is sitting alone, with only his thoughts, just before his own demise, I'm sure his father's acceptance and uncharacteristic, indecisive, possibly ignorance with his older brother was something he was still struggling to understand. "Would my father, who placed his family above all else, had sacrificed himself and everything he stood for, as I have had to do?" Michael will never know.
Fredo deserved to be wacked. He did express murderous resentments towards Michael in the boat house. He did receive that phone call when they attempt to kill his brother. Ferdo knew exactly who he was working for and what they planned for his little brother. Michael did the right thing.
Great video!! Fredo should not have been involved in the family business. He should have been sent with his family elsewhere to run a legit business and Michael should have paid for his house and expenses. Fredo's family could have been a safe place for Michael's family, at times. The murder of his brother, I believe, goes back to Cain and Abel - and that murder of your brother "marks" you and makes everyone else look at you as though you are a monster. Sending Fredo to Vegas knowing that Fredo is not smart and could be used and pushed around was stupid move. Fredo got a taste of power and wanted it back when he was moved aside as Michael moved into Vegas. Sometimes you can't see the tree from the forest.
Do you remember Tessio's final words "Tell Michael, it was only business not personal. I always liked the kid". Michael even admits as such in GFIII when he tells the confesses to the Cardinal "he (Fredo) wounded me". Michael's decision to kill Fredo was personal, not business. There was no business reason to kill Fredo. He presented no threat, was generously remorseful about his role in setting Michael up. Fredo was weak, stupid, and jealous. His failings were used to and manipulated by Ola and Hyman Roth to their own ends. It's not like he was actively scheming against Michael the way Carlo betrayed Sonny. To be fair, Michael wasn't all that nice to Fredo either, treating him as a low-level employee and not a brother. It was bound to create resentment. When you mix personal feelings into a business decision it's always going to end badly. Same with Hyman Roth who tried to get revenge for Moe Green.
It’s all Don Ciccios fault he doomed Vito to a life of revenge and Vito doomed his children to a life of pain and betrayal that pretty much sums it all up
I can understand Michael's decision. I have a brother I've thought of putting a hit on from time to time. But so far banishment seems to be working so I'll stick with that for now 😎👍.
Yes. If Fredo was willing to be part of a plot he thought was to kidnap Michael’s son when Roth tricked him since the plot was really to kill Michael. Fredo was willing to put his family at risk to get something for himself….he had to go. Michael could never trust Fredo and Michael warned Fredo to never take sides against the family….NEVER.
As you say, if Michael had killed him earlier it wouldn't have felt so cruel. But doing it when Fredo was already a whipped dog felt like a pointless move. Great point about old Vito tho. We already know the older Vito got the more he was 'slipping' as others put it. So it's very reasonable to assume 'What Would Vito Do?' may not be the best mafia mantra at that point.
It's pretty simple. When Fredo conspired to have Michael killed he became an enemy, not family, not a brother, just an enemy. Michael had every right to get rid of him after he found out. It didn't matter that Fredo asked for forgiveness or what his motives were, Fredo crossed a line and there was no going back. He only lived as long as he did out of Michael's concern for his mother.
He was right to dis-own him but you do not kill your mother and father's children! It had more to do with Michael's ego. And with regard to Kay, Michael betrayed her by lying through his teeth when he went back to her later; "In five years the family business will be..yada,yada..etc."
Betrayal of the mafia code of honour is one thing but to have a family member (albeit non-blood) do it is beyond the pale, I think that fact that Fredo wasn't Michael's actual blood brother made Fredo's demise even more inevitable after Michael's mother passed.
My opinion even if he did screw up a lot no I don't think it's worth getting him killed he would have been banned from all family business and moved away from the family
I think many people overestimate Fredo here. My own impression after watching the movie was clear - guy just wanted to prove himself, wanted a piece for himself - we see that not only in the scene where he vomits it all to Micheal, and making him disown him, but also while he got that call during the night, while in bed with his wife. Fred is a fuck up. Liability. Sure. Although here lies the issue - was what he did more of a malicious treachery, or a honest, Fredy-style fuck up? People are poiting out message Micheal would give by sparing Fredo. Well think about this: if most of Micheal men knew what kind of reputation Fredo had, and let's be honest - most of them knew, like, right during the party Michael had to ask someone to get Fredo's wife under control - then what kind of message did Michael actually sent? "Betray and you die"? Nah, in my oppinion that was more of a "make a fuck up and die". Add to that the Frank Pentaangelli suicide after he publicly did not accuse Micheal and took back his own confession and you start to give a rather mixed message to everyone under you. At least that's my oppinion, though I would not die on that hill. I mean, most of Mike's men knew or thought they were smarter than Fredo, so they would never make a fuck up of the magnitude poor, slow Fredo managed to pull off. Then again this sort of situation would sure end up creating underlying tension in cases when someone did mess up, which could escalate. Who knows, who knows.
Once you profess your forgiveness to your brother , it is you who are the betrayer if you're willing to retract that forgiveness at any moment without further trespass by that brother.
I mean, I think the options were (1) kill Fredo, or (2) get out of the game entirely. Keeping Fredo around not only potentially put Michael in danger due to stupidity/betrayal, it also put the greater Corleone mafia Family in danger. And, even if Michael chose option 2, there would still be blood shed over territory, since Michael leaving the game would create a power vacuum. It's a real Sophie's choice of a decision, but I think this one actually resulted in the least amount of blood shed, although at the expense of his brother
I really think he should have chosen the second option, not just because it's more ethical given the two choices, but also because he was supposed to be making the Corleone family legitimate in the first place. In my opinion the only reason for him to stay in the game would be ego and or greed because he certainly made enough of a fortune to retire comfortably and support his actual family for the rest of their natural lives. So if its options were till Fredo or let Fredo live and get out of the game I think really you should have got out of the game oh, because the reasons to stay in the game in my opinion were not good enough to justify killing his own brother. But as Dennis Miller used to say, _"that's just my opinion, I could be wrong"_ 🤔🙂
If Michael had left the game the luves of him and his children wouldn't have been worth spit. You don't leave heirs to the throne alive. Michael got a crap sandwich, neither option was without very serious repercussions.
@@mbryson2899 but that doesn't make sense in the context of the mafia, in real life Joe Benigno did retire from the game and was safe his problem was that he kept trying to make his son boss, which was nepotism and actually not how the American Italian/Sicilian Mafia-- usually called _"Coss Nostra"_ or the gramatically incorrect _"LA Cosa Nostra"_ (incorrect because the Italian phrase 'Cosa Nostra' means 'our thing', or 'this thing of ours' while 'la' means 'the'. 'The Our Thing' or 'The This Thing if Ours' are just wring and sound dumb when one thinks about what the words actually mean) not how the mob usually works, the position of boss isn't a throne that sons are supposed to inherit in the mafia. It was actually very rare for a boss's son to follow inherit their father's position in the real Cosa Nostra) And Bonnano also made himself a target while retired by trying to openly speak about Coss Nostra activities in news interviews and in his memoirs. Remember, Joe did this when Omerta was still pretty much flowed in the Life, unlike in more recent times where loads of Mafioso sing like canaries at the first hint that they may get loads of prison time... And the Mob _still_ chose not to whack him... Michael may have had to pay for privilege of retiring peacefully, but unless he tried to run shit and secretly stay in the life while 'retired' I just don't see his being a big target. Even if Michael himself was targeted for revenge for his actions in the killing of the heads of the other four of the Five Families-- I even more can't see his wife and/or kids becoming targets with him. Cosa Nostra, especially back in the day, usually made it a point (and even a clearly started rule of the Mob) that family members who were not in the Life, as well as and other 'civilians' in general, should be off limits. This rule wot out of any sense of honor or nobility, of course, but because the Mafia upper-echelon thought it would bring less heat down on the Mob if mobsters pretty much only killed other mobsters. Mobsters loved to say (some still do) that they weren't so bad because they only murdered each other or if they _did_ whack someone who was not a Made Man or an associaate in a Family, it was only someone who was none-the-less still a criminal and who had some kind of associationj and/or dealings with Cosa Nostra. Given everything I know about the films and novel and the mafia and how the Matthews portrayed in the films oh, I just can't see Michael's family being in more danger if Michael retired from the mob. Even if Michael was so hated that people wanted to kill him out of Revenge or for some other reason like Hyman Roth wanted revenge for Moe Greene or something and they have still tried to kill him even if you retired, I adamantly think that his family, at the very least, would have been safer with him out of the mob then with him in it. And if Michael's true primary goal/motivation was the safety and prosperity of his actual, non-Mafia, family, I truly and honestly think that he should have left the Life before the events of Part 2 even began. Of course, all of this his just my own opinion. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that I could just as well be wrong. Cheers 🤔🙂
@@munstrumridcully I was talking about the world presented in the books and films. Those have only a nodding acquaintance with the real world, they are stories presented for entertainment which dwell more on themes than facts. Wasn't Vito chased out of Sicily so he would not pursue vendetta? Is that "realistic?"
@@mbryson2899 well in that case I guess you'd be right because I think Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola wrote to film at least I don't know the book was very similar but I think the film had more gravitas but they said they wrote it as more of a Shakespearean drama of like the family of a Roman Emperor, so in that case I guess if we're going with sons take over for their fathers and it's a dynastic situation and the mafia families are akin to like Machiavellian princes in the Italian Renaissance Era then yeah I guess it would be a little different but I still think his family would have been fine family would be left alone cuz even in the books and the movies they didn't really go after civilians like the wives and children of mobsters. Like even if Michael would have been killed for retiring which I don't even know if in the film world that would be true but they might like I said in my other comment have killed him out of Revenge for like the murderer of the heads of the four families they will say five families but they didn't murder the head of the Corleone family so it was only four of the five families LOL, or like if Hyman Roth still wanted him dead for killing Moe Greene which seems to be y Roth wanted Michael killed so badly oh, I just don't think they would have killed his wife and children too. So I guess it depends on if the safety of Tay and the children what's better served by living in a compound with armed guards as Michael isn't active boss of a Cosa Nostra family, or if their safety would have been better served living in the legitimate world. To me I still think it would be the ladder rather than the former because the only reason K and Michael son Anthony wherever and any threat of being shot in the assassination attempt was because it's so hard to get to Michael that they had to take their shot when they could if Michael was retired in civilian life without all the guards in the compound and all that figures walk up behind one day and pop them in the head without involving family at all but I do see your point
In that world, there was no choice. Mercy is seen as weakness. Weakness is death. Only the Strong rule. "Yea, though I walk thru the Valley of the Shadow of Evil, I shall fear no Evil. For I am the meanest Son of a B!tch in the Valley!"
*How would Vito handle Fredo's betrayal?*
th-cam.com/video/b6ZRB7KSoMQ/w-d-xo.html
I knew it was you my beautiful boy, you broke my heart
He'd banish him to Italy for life, but that wouldn't mean much since Michael would likely let Fredo come back and the cycle would repeat itself.
Better question is, how would *Sonny* handle Fredo's betrayal? Or even Tom for that matter.
@@maylabrown4584 We never really get to see Sonnys character grow like we do with Fredo. He certainly would never have used Fredo in the way Michael did because I don't think the respect was there. Long story short I think Fredo would never have been given the opportunity to betray anyone. Not that Sonnys judgement was impeccable. He brings Carlo home and ultimately sows the seeds of his own destruction so I suppose I could be entirely wrong.
@@vespasian606 Well the Book goes into Sonny's Character more, but in this scenario Fredo has already betrayed the Family regardless of how improbable it'd be for him to be in the same situation just like how Sonny or Vito is alive in this hypothetical too.
Personally I think Sonny would absolutely beat Fredo down, making the Corleones look weak and likely putting Fredo in the hospital, he'd disown Fredo causing him to become a later traitor if he is let to live.
Strange....Michael calls Freddo stupid & weak BUT he went to Cuba with a briefcase of 2 million dollars?
Michael forgave Fredo in the personal sense, as his brother. However, as Godfather, Michael must operate within the world as it is. Michael's role as Godfather, and all that entails, required that Fredo be liquidated. Michael is a follower of Machiavelli's teaching. The prince must rule in the world as it is, not as he'd like it to be. Fredo's survival would be a symbol of Michael's weakness. His enemies would take succor from knowing Fredo the traitor lived and benefitted from his treachery. His enemies would have found a way to use Fredo (again) as a weapon to destroy the Corleones.
@jpssteveshanahan you also don't have to defend yourself from a multitude of criminal elements that could put your whole family and everyone you love at risk
Frank never betrayed him, the only reason he was willing to testify against him was because he was told that Michael double crossed him and wanted him dead, Michael would of done the same thing in his place.
If that was the case, that would have been the assumption by his enemies anyway because he didn’t kill Fredo until his mother passed. Surely his enemies wouldn’t have assumed that he was waiting for his mum to die to kill his brother. On the contrary, I think Michael did it to set an example and show Roth and the rest how ruthless he can be and he’ll kill his own family because of betrayal. That act from outside the family looking in sends a clear message he can’t be taken lightly as michael could probably envisage a takeover the way he was being infiltrated and played by Roth and Roth knowing Micheal killed his friend moe green and Michael knowing Roth knew. He never felt comfortable with what he did to fredo and this showed in the 3rd movie but he knew he had to show how heartless and callous he could be, it chess and had to sacrifice an important piece for a power play and and show they were playing the same game and it’s about winning. I don’t think there was bad intentions with what fredo did, he just got played into thinking it will help Michael and the family and he can show Michael he can do good. Michael could have kept him banished away and kept busy with cocktail waitresses, 2 at a time 😂
Exactly!!!
Michael could have made Fredo totally powerless without killing him. He and His Father did all that for Family in the First place. How can You kill what You are trying to provide for, You become a selfish Monster. And if he looked at only from how others would see him, how would His own Family see him wasn't considered then. In part 3 Michael always says I killed my Father's Son, it shows His emotional detachment from Fredo but the continuous guilt of betraying His own Father cos the Don could die for either one of His kids. Michael was very selfish with that decision
Imagine for a moment if Fredo were not his brother.
When he served as Vito’s bodyguard, Vito was shot multiple times and nearly died while Fredo fumbled with his gun.
This bodyguard was sent out west to heal from the trauma of that event.
While out west, he made a fool of himself until the man who was babysitting him had to slap sense into him.
He took that man’s side against the Corleone’s interests.
He moaned and complained to the Corleone’s enemies about how much they mistreated him by not letting him do anything important. (Sort of like Luca Brazi did but not as a spy, and on orders from Vito. He did it as a natural expression of his discontent.)
He conspired with these men to attack Michael Corleone’s home, specifically his bedroom where not only Michael would be, but also where his wife and child could be.
He lied to Michael about his connection to the assassins and then turned around and casually let slip his involvement to someone else in Michael’s very presence.
He was straight up an enemy of the Corleones. The only thing saving him is the blood running in his veins. He’s a dangerous figure in Michael’s life and really he’s a danger to the entire family. The sad part is that he’s only weak and not cunning. His actions nearly wiped out Michael’s family (and they were also Fredo's family, by the way. Brother, sister-in-law, nephew) He’s a clueless dangerous person who has no code to live by. He’s unpredictable and fickle. He can’t possibly make up for the hit on Michael's home. He literally has nothing to offer, and Michael has zero sympathy. In his eyes, Fredo cannot be redeemed.
But his weakness makes him a very sympathetic character. We feel sorry for him like Connie does. She says he's sad and lost. She acts as if Fredo is a homeless puppy they should take in, but this puppy has rabies.
Michael believes both of his siblings are weak, but Connie has devoted herself to him, and is not a threat. Fredo always will be.
Of course, it was absolutely morally wrong to kill Fredo. It is very sad and goes against all that is decent. We all can agree. However, this is Michael Corleone we’re talking about, and killing Fredo was well within his moral code.
Fantastic analysis.
I have never looked at it as deeply.
I think even Al Neery although uncomfortable with it, he understood that Fredo was not to be trusted.
Part of the Mafioso code is the Mafia family first, then your own family. It’s bad enough to keep your eyes on your enemies but so much more dangerous when you have to look at treachery from ‘loved ones’.
Great analysis on Fredo.
I feel that Connie grew an extremely thick skin by the third movie. She's imo the most badass character in that movie. Her taking out Don Altobello and giving Vincent the OK with Neri to take out Zasa, made her in my eyes a more of a Godfather than Michael was in the 3rd movie. Too bad some of the other casting choices were... Questionable. We can all agree that Sofia Coppola can't act. Just a bad choice overall.
Robert Duvall not being in the movie was a bad choice. It would've been awesome to see Tom Hagen in the 3rd movie.
Yes, i like the 3rd movie. It just has a bad rep of being the worst Godfather movie, but can you really blame it? It had to follow 2 of the most iconic crime drama movies of all time.
i have a question to your last statement if it is Wrong for Michael to Kill Fredo ..was Fredo in the right to have Michael killed?
Michael knew that if Fredo was willing to Allow hitmen to kill him just to get "respect" how long til he just straight up went to Michaels family his realatives and just shoot them point blank? Fredo is no Sympathatic Villian nor is he to be pity he knew his actions and thought he could "play" on peoples sympathy to gain some form of forgiveness and most likely when his Ego popped up to say hello again would Attempt another hit on Michael
One thing that was not mentioned was that Vito, in his conversation with Michael before his death about the Barzini meeting (which exposed Tessio as one of the family traitors; Carlo being the other), that women and children were allowed to be careless, but not men. Despite Fredo having child-like tendencies, in the end, he was a grown man and grown men were not allowed to make mistakes, especially those that could have killed Michael and his family.
That last hug Michael gave to Fredo after the death of his mother. The way he stares at Al Neri says it all…
His ruthlessness for disloyalty
I don't want anything to happen to him while my mother's still alive.
If Michael wasn’t gonna deal with that betrayal then what would that mean for the Corleones? Folks would be lining up to betray Michael, so Fredo made a dumb choice by going agaisnt the Corleone
By this look he gave the order to kill fredo.
@@Aven-Sharma1991 so you kill a family member just to teach others a lesson? Michael was ruthless, he never even played with his kids, never an affectionate moment with Kay from the very start. You can see it in his eyes that he was a narcissist, cold killer. Sonny would have never killed his brother, maybe beat some sense into him but not kill him.
@@Aven-Sharma1991they would be seen as a glorified crew
Michael warned Fredo don't ever go against the family again. Fredo was a liability. He had no choice
He couldn't just banish him and send him somewhere on the island or to another country and gave me some money and tell him not to contact or come around here again
The mistrust of Tom is pure paranoia at this point. After the assassination attempt he trusts tom enough as his brother to make him don in his absence (and presumably if anything happens to him) but the betrayal s by fredo frank and Kay push him to the point that he trusts no one. From the look on al neri' face he doesn't even want to kill fredo , but he knows if he doesn't he's next..
Tom's not a wise guy. The less he knows the less value there is in tryna turn him against Michael. Process of elimination
He didn't have to have him killed. Michael could have simply exiled Fredo to some very remote location. Well, I suppose the bottom of Lake Tahoe is remote enough.
Yes.... maybe to Italy.....
You have a point, but what if Fredo was found out in Italy? I mean, Michael was (hence Apollonia’s death). Having Fredo walking around anywhere is just too risky, and clearly his feelings of jealousy & resentment were going no where, the confrontation scene was proof of that.
@@natashadenique idk we have had ex employees tell our secrets to rival production companies. our workflow, mision and important information with suppliers is changing all the time. by that company doing things exactly like that exemployee told them to. we were already doing it differently, better and in different venues.
the family could have taken the time to remake their security and plans so that if he got caught by rival families he would have only old and useless intel. yes It would have taken so much work and money but Fredo was family.
I always thought the safest thing the family could have done with Fredo was to make him a Priest.... keeps him safe and out of the way.
Fredo is an example of how to convert members of another group into a spy, saboteur, or assassin. He is someone who has been passed over for a position of power that should've been his by birth rite therefore he's going to be disgruntled, jealous, and angry. And when you have someone who's been practically shunned; then you have your spy, saboteur, and assassin.
Yet, n da ancient Summerian, da god, ( Enki ) responsible 4 creating & protecting humanity, could not truely do so, bcause his brother ( Enlil ) dtested us. Enki had been passed over, simply bcause his mom, wuz not a sister. So tho older, & nfinitely mo brilliant, he had 2 bow down 2 lil brother Enlil.
We lose, rather da stoOOopid rulez r followed, or rather common sense, n passing over a weakling, iz applied.
So sorry 4 Fredo, BUTT datz whut he gitz, 4 thinkin he wuz smaht!
The moment Fredo betrayed Michael was the moment he was out. As in Michael stopped seeing him as a brother because he has been betrayed by everyone but never by his own blood. But where I stand is that Fredo was making poor decisions that were negatively affecting the business. Even when Vito was alive the family was at risk because some weren’t taking them seriously. Fredo was never thinking for the family. He was selfish and immature which would have opened the same doors again. But killing him was for the business but destroyed the family. Where as Vito could balance both.
Trying to "balance both" produced this pair of assholes. Along with Sonny. Vito did not balance anything, he just punted the problems down a generation.
What action would Vito take?
@@1987AnimeBoy
A better question is, would Vito have been in Michael's situation in the first place?
Vito actually was pretty shrewd about not letting unreliable people get close. He kept Fredo in Las Vegas for a while, and he kept Carlo Rossi at arm's length. He was even suspicious of Paulie Gatto, the traitor who set up his own assassination attempt, when he was absent the day of the hit. He recognized the weakness of Fredo's character from his behavior in Vegas. People think that it was simply the Don's sense of propriety that was offended by Fredo's womanizing, but if you pay attention, there are other clues to the source of the attitude. Tom is contemptuous of Jack Woltz letting his attraction to the girl Johnny Fontane seduced govern his business decisions. The Sicilian idiom that is translated as "Ladies' Man" has a connotation of immaturity and dependency, suggesting a child who is breastfeeding. Vito disapproved not of Fredo getting laid (Michael knew that he would not care about Michael's extramarital sexual relationship with Kay), but of Fredo's emotional weakness that drove him to excess. A comparison would be that he does not care if his sons drink, but Fredo's a lush, so he can't trust him.
He also almost reflexively shuts down any suggestion that Carlo be "made", letting him earn with the Family, but not be brought inside.
Michael got sloppy, or overconfident, or perhaps optimistic about the transition to legitimate business. He retained Tom as Consigliere despite his initial instinct that Tom was not competent at the security and violence end of the business. He kept Fredo in his inner circle, despite the ample proof of his weakness, such as in his choice of a wife, and her behavior. But at the same time, knowing of this weakness, he didn't show him respect and delegated menial tasks to him. Fredo would never be in a position to betray the homestead's security arrangements if he had been acting the way he did at the party under Vito.
Michael either got careless, not wanting to push away Fredo, or take the risk of cultivating his trust by giving him serious duties. He might have though that since they were going legitimate, security and betrayal were no longer things he had to worry about. Vito's final conversation to Michael was an admonition that men in their position can't be careless.
mollify
That gangsta life worked out well. Eh, first son murdered, other son murdered by your third son etc.
Fredo...you're my older brother and I love you...but don't take against sides with anyone against the family again...EVER!
FREDO WAS DULY WARNED!
Fredo's core motivation for betraying Michael could not be undone. The fraternal jealousy would always burn in his heart. It would always pose a lethal threat to Michael and the entire family. It is only a wonder that Michael waited so long.
..
he was waiting Mom to pass away
@@Enlazador9 Yes that seems to be completely correct.
..
only after the passing of their mother,could such a move be made.
Michael was most definitely wrong for killing Fredo. Without question. That was the beginning of his end.
Great video,super hard question. Being a huge fan of the Godfather movies,I've always wondered, could Michael had let Fredo live? Was killing him a mistake? I don't think so,it was the price Michael had to pay. When Michael became Godfather,and Fredo was passed over,it was just a matter of time. Fredo, always thought he was smarter,than he was and he could run the family. Him giving Michael a hard time over Moe Green in Vegas,shows he has no respect for Michael's authority. Fredo,was weak, jealous and easily fooled. No matter what restrictions Michael put on him, unfortunately Fredo would always be a threat. Even if indirectly, example, people try to kill Michael again and replace him with Fredo,who would be just someone's puppet. Not to mention, Fredo put Kay and the kids in danger,that was game over! Michael,could kill his brother or possibly be murdered himself; Maybe his wife or kids would be murdered. He really had no choice,in my opinion and Fredo put him in that position.
I don't think it was fredo's intention to hurt michael but wanted to do some sort of deal that would've made him look worthy to the family and not stupid, He also swore it wasn't his intention to hurt michael as he swore and hes religious so it wasn't some sort of white lie. but really really only case I could see where fredo lives(That's even a maybe not a 100%) is if he was scretley taken to the town of corleone(or any country outside the americas), so the other dons don't view michael as weak. because in the long run michael was affected hugely after ordering the hit on fredo. he'd even scream fredo when he had panick attacks, Michael regretted it big time and it shows in the third movie, especially how close they were with eachother. even when michael even enlisted in the military fredo was the only one that was truly happy for him.
Too many mistakes by Fredo. Got to eliminate the risks. Period. When you talk family, its not special conditions for a few. Otherwise its not family.
@Paul Odenfield No man, you can't correct someone out of jealousy/revenge etc... Michael didn't have to correct / teach Tom Hagen even though Tom was older than both Micheal and Fredo. Tom used to see Micheal as a little brother BUT started seeing (and respecting) Micheal as the Don, later. Fredo only saw Micheal as little brother AND was still pissed over being stepped over. There's nothing Micheal could teach
@@avasdv lmao 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😇
Theres no mafia in heaven 🤣😂😂
When Michael gave Fredo "The Kiss of Death" (Originating from Ancient Rome) it a declaration that Michael could not change.
I bet when Connie told Anthony they were going to Reno and Al got in the boat Fredo's heart sank realising Michael's "forgiveness" had been a show.
Fredo’s heart sank? What about Michael’s when he was in Cuba and found out that Fredo lied about knowing Roth and ola and was the one who was a constituent in trying to have his family killed
I don't think Fredo saw it coming. First off he's highly naive. Second of all he was completely turned facing away from Al while fishing although it was certainly bad form to not let Fredo finish saying the Hail Mary before pulling the trigger
I think Michael killing his own brother was that line, that difference between his father and him. But if something ever happened to him Fredo may have got the job as boss and that couldn't happen.
It sends a message to his enemies as well. If he's willing to kill his own brother, than he would have no problem killing me if I cross him.
I have thought about this for a long time. I actually have never much pitied Fredo, and let me show you why.
The former king passed over his weak and craven older son when the crown prince was assassinated. The crown prince pays a call on a significant noble and discovers the prince revealing royal secrets that could compromise the families place on the throne and the kingdom at large, especially as this noble is revealed to be in league with an opposing monarch. Later this prince betrays his king repeatedly attempting to usurp the throne. Finally the king gives the order for the treacherous sibling to be executed for his treason.
This is the same story, but in a setting nearly 400 years prior, and none of us would have questioned the necessity or morality of this decision.
To say that Michael was more than merciful would be an understatement. I believe that if Fredo had stepped into the car with Michael and confessed all to him, at least all that he could remember then, and kept coming to Michael with information relevant to that dictation of others, he might have repaired the damage done, though he would have still been reduced to favorite uncle of his nephew. This might have also been true even as late as the boat house, had he knelt, as Connie either had or soon would, and swore loyalty to the Don and the Family and confessed all. However, he was indolent, borderline insolent, and non-compliant. This sealed his fate, because, in his hubris, he would never have knelt. In many ways, he reminds me of Joab in I Kings 2:28-34 in that by the time he sought for mercy, the time for mercy had already past, and thus he commences saying a last rosary in search of a pardon in the hereafter for his crimes in the present.
If anyone has watched Part 3, you will see that Michael regrets it, but only on a family level, he still knows he had to kill Fredo.
It was justified in the mob sense, but killing Fredo took something from Michael on a personal level.
There is no loyalty in the underworld, only obedience and fear.
5:01 Even on the way to the fruit stand, Fredo tells his Father that Paulie was a 'good kid' thus revealing he was a poor judge of character.
The foreshadowing of Fredos weakness is showed in part 2 in the scene where Fredo is sick as a baby in his crib…
Severe fever in infancy can actually cause lasting brain damage. Maybe this is what happened to Fredo?
The character was painted into a corner… there was no other way for him to react…of course it’s wrong to kill off your siblings but the story is the story.
Aye mate agreed. Killing your brother is generally frowned upon in most cultures
In the real world, throughout history, especially in families with money or power or both, fratricide was common.
In the book Fredo thought it would be a kidnapping. He wanted his brother kidnapped. Stop making excuses for that idiot
You make the best Godfather videos on TH-cam.👍👍😎😎
Thank you
He was definitely justified in killing Fredo. Not only did he deserve it, but he would always be a threat to Michael
Even Pacino blieves it was right dcision. Debate ends there
Well Said !
He did tell everyone that nothing happens to his brother wail his mother was still alive
I don't agree. He was no longer a threat and kiiling him destroyed the family and MIchael.
@@shrimpflea Agreed. Also he could have fully exiled him from the family--no contact, tiny stipend.
he was right to kill his brother because fredo was a trator to the family and also Micheal had to protect himself as he almost got killed with his brother having somthing to do with it.
and that could of happened again if he didn't kill him.
no doubt fredo would have continued to plot against Micheal.
6:07 you can't borrow THAT line from The Sopranos without a member of the Corleone family being caught catching.
I don't know if its been mentioned by others but Fredo resembles Vito the most but a weaker version of him. Killing Fredo was Michael killing the image of his father in a way as well.
this is true
Dont know which movie you watch but frodo is the opposite of his father.
Smart vs dump
Calm vs unbalanced
Wise vs foolish
Professional vs careless
Familyman vs betraying the family
40 years of marriage vs banging Cocktail waitresses
5 children vs no children
Head of the family vs Clown of the family
Charisma vs no charisma
Many friends vs no friends
Physically strong vs fumbling the gun and crying
The only thing they have in common is the italian mustache.
@@mr.xtothez I think you're misunderstanding my point. Resemblance in the face (physically) as the casting portrayed. Of course his "character" is opposite of Vito... Its just the family resemblance between those two is more than the other children and Michael killing Fredo, although justified seems ironic given its Fredo appearance was like a weaker manifestation of the great father Michael reverved.
This is my favorite analysis of yours yet. Never before have I thought of the subject matter they way you've presented it here.
I must admit I've always believed that Michael's decision to have his brother killed was wrong...given this psychological profile of Michael's position in detail. You make a compelling argument.
But in organized crime, he would have no choice.
Letting him live would be seen as weak.
I thought it was wrong but he killed off his brother but he'll always have to watch his back 24/7 just in case his brother decides to turn on him again
It's not just that, you have to be ruthless and cold with organized crime.
Everyone who does business with Michael would know about what happened to Fredo, Hymen Roth, and Frankie.
It wasn't reckless either, it was necessary.
I think he should have taken better care of his brother.
@@Sjcstro84 Fredo was a grown man who was seemingly “made” well before Michael stepped up, so he should’ve been able to handle himself. Plus it isn’t like Michael didn’t give Fredo a chance/ responsibility and power. Fredo fucked up repeatedly a world where one mistake adjacent is enough to get someone killed.
Very good analysis on both sides. I believe Michael could not find it in himself to consider his brother’s betrayal as business. Not for a minute much less a lifetime. It was personal. He could no longer stand the sight of him. He had to put him down.
I’ll push back on the flashback scene at the table. They’re among family, so why would Fredo have to check himself and not give his honest opinion of Michael joining the military? If it were completely outside company, then yes, he would be speaking out of turn if he disagreed after Sonny voiced his displeasure with the news. Also, I doubt Vito would have said anything either, for the very same reason.
For that moment, yes. Fredo was the enemy within. He would have gotten Michael or his family killed one day one way or another. Yes, there's sibling rivalry, maybe he really was that stupid. But his jealousy outweighed his love for his brother and that's dangerous.
Hyman Roth would have killed him if he won over Michael.
Think about it: Why keep a guy around who betrays his own brother & blood over some petty "but i wanted to be at the cool kids table!". Id be thinking "if he will turn on his brother, he will turn on me when he perceives I didnt give him a seat at the cool kids table in MY organization.
Its horribe but Fredo has been BEGGING for a bullet.
I think this is the wrong question. The question should be: “How do you banish Fredo without killing him, and prevent Fredo from doing more damage in the future?”
1. Make sure he is banished physically from the family and therefore has no access to any information about them.
2. Never be allowed to see any relatives again.
3. Earn his own living without access to family money.
4. Michael would notify him that even though they are “brothers” Michael would not tolerate any breach in his or their no-contact rules.
5. If the rules are followed scrupulously no harm would come to Fredo. If not, Fredo would never be able to predict the date of his death.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
send Fredo back to Sicily,instead. his safety there, as a corleone/andolini would not be assured either. that's how i might have taken care of the treachery.
I never thought about that before. Michael forgiving Fredo at the funeral, even though it wasn't genuine. Could have been Michael not wanting Fredo to suffer mentally and worrying what was going to happen to him. He went out into the boat and knew nothing, was just shot in the back of the head.
While saying his prayers no less. By mob standards I suppose that’s the best deal one in his position could hope for lol
@jpssteveshanahan who knows? Interesting idea
I wish I could disagree; Fredo should've known the moment Connie whisked Anthony away so he could 'go to Reno.' Was she in on it? But, I think it's more likely Fredo realized it only when they got out to the lake
a strategic move in the chess match between roth& micheal.
Fredo, quite simply, had Dunning-Kruger effect in an industry where it runs rampant.
fredo is alot like christopher from the sopranos in my opinion, he should have never been allowed into the crime family, let alone be allowed to rise as high they did, because frankly neither were cut out for the life
I think he did. Fredo was completely beaten, and he was FAMILY. You don't kill family unless it's truly for your own survival. And even then you would grieve, of course. They were brothers, and Michael would have had memories of his big brother Fredo playing with him when they were kids, etc. In this case, it was not necessary for Michael's survival. Michael lost a part of his soul that Vita kept until his dying day.
as my dad always said years later looking back at a decisions/actions he made years ago when he knows more now than he did then ' i am sure if i knew then what i knew now i would have done things differently '
I swear NO ONE analyzes The Godfather like you CR. LOVE your vids. 😎👍
Great analysis, Fredo betrayed Michael and there was a level of selfishness. It's possible he was duped entirely, but the film leads us other places. I'd say possible he was duped from Greed, Duped from stupidity or duped from a mix of the two. If he was just duped, he becomes a tragic figure.
Fredo certainly was a tragic figure. Vito even treated him as a weakling in GF I.
I think they intentionally tried to leave it open ended as to wheater or not he knew or not. But i think he did.
1) The hitmen who tried to kill Michael where killed even when they where ordered to be taken alive? Fredo had them killed... so that they couldn't talk?
2) Who opened the blinds? Fredo...?
3) And Fredo obviously was clever enough to understand that the hit was Ola and Roth since he answered the phone and said they lied to him, which means he obviously knew something was going to happen that night. What was supposed to happen that night in Fredo's mind if not a hit?
NOW: Fredo obviously DID regret it. He didn't do it out of hatred or true malice, just mostly out of the feeling that he got "passed over" and he was ambitious. But he did try to come clean to Michael when the two sort of just sat down and talked and acted like brothers. But Michael didn't pick up on it and started talking about buisness instead.
@@Mukation Excellent points
@Iconoplast For the survival of any herd, family, flock etc. the lesser members, which are not able to keep up with the rest ,will only slow down/endanger the many if the weak are "tended".
on point # 2?they were Roth's men @@Mukation
Michael was backed into a corner. Fredo was his brother, but he betrayed him. He has also warned him once of not taking sides against the family, yet, he did nonetheless. Fredo put Michael, the business, his family and all their legacy, everything their father built in danger because of his insecurities and selfishness. You can even see Michael wanted to give Fredo a chance when he wanted Fredo to get in the car with him but instead Fredo run away therefore he doesn't really trust Michael no more. Also during their talk in the lake house and he asked Fredo "You believe that?" maybe if Fredo said "Yes" Michael would've at least punished him but not at the extent of having him killed but instead Fredo answered "There was something in it for ME" Fredo outright admitted he did all that for himself, not for the benefit of their family but all for himself which is the epitome of selfishness. Let's say he didn't have him killed, Fredo was a very huge liability and easily breaks through pressure and FBI loves people like that, snitches. My man wasn't just made for all this shit their family is in. Morally it's wrong but in a business and personal decision then it was probably right. Ahh, the beauty of Godfather we still discuss this movie no matter how many decades have passed.
Vito also warned Sonny never to let people out of the family know what he was thinking, people make mistakes not always willingly, so was Vito suppose to kill Sonny because he was interested in the drug deal? NO! But Michael probably would have.
Fredo's demise was neither "Cold" nor "Heartless". Simply a matter of business. It's not like Fredo 'didn't know' what manner of business the family was in, or how things worked.
Fredo was always going to be liability. He might not have been able to betray the family to another rival again, but the Feds might have pressured him into turning. He was weak and would be easy to intimidate. He may have also been targeted for kidnapping and held for ransom, or a concession. Michael would have been obligated to get him back, but that would also show him as being vulnerable. That’s another reason why sending him to another part of the country would have been risky. He was too big of a problem to be managed forever. Michael had to eliminate that problem. It’s hard to say how much of that decision was personal or business. It could be explained or defended from either perspective.
You make an excellent point, in that Michael sent an unmistakable message that betrayal would not be forgiven,
Fredo's execution was the extreme version of a corporation firing someone who had screwed up, more like an army shooting a traitor who had become a mole for the enemy during battle. To Michael, ever the competent CEO and general, it was a business or military decision mixed in with the personal hurt of brotherly betrayal. The phrase "too stupid to live," is literally applied to Fredo. After Fredo's betrayal, Michael closed himself off to everyone and morphed into an ice-cold monster. That makes mob life literally like the Hunger Games.
No matter how it played out Fredo was never going to be kept alive by Roth, after Michael was killed Fredo was next on the Roth hit list
Michael had a tragic flaw that his father did not have. Vito was loving to his family, and as you said, he had a sentimental spot for them. But Michael was much more self-centered. Even his decision to go into the service reflected that need to go off on his own rather than be part of the family. As he developed in power and control, his disconnect from love becomes more profound. He says he loves his brother, for instance, but what did that really mean when he is able to have him murdered? It was not a true feeling at that point. Your analysis that everyone around Michael betrayed him is spot on, and of course, this just enhanced his self-centeredness and inability not only to trust, but to love, because love requires opening oneself and being vulnerable. For Michael, those in his sphere are his possessions, even family.
The best comment 👌 👏 everyone saying Fredonia should die are cold hearted and don't understand how important family is and how if don vito was alive, michaels actions would have never been forgiven never that was a purely selfish move and shows he is not a family man
Good presentation and good comments below. Just a few points that I can add:
1- I don't think even a young / hard Vito would've killed a family-traitor; for Vito blood-family was prior to business.
2- precisely that, was Michael's tragedy, that he, for all he wanted to maintain his family, unwittingly he put business before family.
3- on the other hand, what is the mafia code for traitors within the family? Vincenzo on Godfather II came all the way from Sicily prepared to do the see the ultimate punishment to his brother Pentangeli; but fortunately, Pentangeli learned to follow the code and committed suicide.
4- it is the ancient / legendary Roman tradition that the ultimate tragedy is fratricide - Romulus vs Remus.
You missed one - connie betrayed him as well, letting Kay see the children without him knowing - this was the final betrayal before he ordered the killing….
Wrong. Kay was allowed to see the children but she had to be gone before Michael showed up because he didn't want to see her.
Yeah, no. Fredo died in Cuba. It just took a while for the boat to find him.
@@tradewins fair enough - I always interpreted it this way - it was connie that begged him to forgive fredo, so when she “betrayed” him, he finally took him out
@@lukedady4073 What? I know Connie wanted Michael to forgive Fredo. Are you saying she knew that Michael was going to kill Fredo as evidenced by her taking Anthony off the boat? I think that's a bit of a stretch.
Given how resentful Fredo was for being passed over, Fredo was always going to be a threat to Michael and would eventually try to kill Michael again. So therefore, yes, he was justified.
I've always been very conflicted about this whole thing. I'm usually more forgiving than a lotta people seem to be about things like this cause what might seem obviously horrific to someone on the outside looking in might look like the best of bad options for someone in the middle of it and the rational approach someone uninvolved has isn't necessarily the same one someone deeply entrenched may have. I get that people do things in the heat of the moment and/or blinded by a number of factors that I never even considered.
But that murder just seemed to be too much for not enough of a good reason. Fredo may always be something of a liability but he was clearly also a lot more and Michael was already so powerful and already won to such a degree that it just feels cruel. He coulda just kept him on the compound as a nanny never allowed to be involved in business again and been fine.
Michael never forgave Fredo. He wanted to keep fredo alive as long as their mother was still alive. After their mother passed away Michael hugged Fredo. While hugging Fredo he gave Al Nero a look. With that look he gave the order to kill Fredo.
Killing your own brother? An extremely crazy move..that decision had very negative effects. He could have easily shelved Fredo, but… in that “life” this is a part of that business. So in some ways it gave Michael even more of a reputation of being ruthless.
it's as old as cain and abel
Morally and as a brother? No. As a Mob Boss? Yes.
Michael said later it was the biggest mistake he ever made !
IMHO Michael was a conflicted person from the beginning. He was a war hero with metals for bravery. The Mafia believes soldiers are fools because they kill people they do not know for generals and politicians that do not know or care about them personally. They believe a man should kill to protect his families, both his crime family and his personal family. (What are all these Christmas ribbons for? Bravery. What miracles do you perform for others?) So Michael was conflicted from the start. His belief system was totally upended when he went to the hospital and found Vito alone, set up for another assassination attempt. That was his “Come to Jesus” moment when he instantaneously abandoned his lofty ideals and became a mafiosi. In front of the hospital with Enzo his hand never shook like Enzo’s. He was cold and calculating from the get go.
Michael’s second flaw arose at that time too, he lacked the good heart of Vito, Sonny and even Fredo. He was cold hearted to the core. In GF2 Tom asks him “Do you feel you have to kill everyone? I mean you’ve won. Ross is defeated.” Michael answers “I don’t feel I have to kill everyone, just my enemies.” Michael’s cold heartedness means he kept his own counsel and didn’t value Tom’s advice, or anyone else’s except Vito’s and Vito was dead.
So when it came to killing Fredo, his lack of empathy for anyone, including his own family of Tom, Fredo and even Kay, meant anyone who betrayed him was to be done away with. No he wouldn’t kill Kay, supposedly the Mafia doesn’t kill women (but in reality they do). Tom, as you pointed out in that scene, had his loyalty tested again. So in this cold hearted mindset and ruthless boss image Michael had of himself his flaws compounded to where he asks Mama if by being strong (as he imagined himself) for the family could someone lose their family. Mama Corleone doesn’t understand and says you can never lose your family and Mike replies times change. More accurately he should have realized it wasn’t time but he himself that had changed.
So to answer your question, Michael thought he was justified in killing Fredo. In his mind, which allowed no other’s counsel, he was justified. But as GF3 poorly showed, as he aged and self reflected, he realized he was wrong. “What betrayed me, my heart or my head?” No, Michael should never have killed Fredo. After 1. Fredo failed to protect Vito when Vito was shot and 2. after the Moe Green and Las Vegas incident, Mike should never have made Fredo underboss. The mistake was Michael’s and Michael’s alone. Fredo had already made two grievous errors. He should have been left as Entertainment Director of the hotels or kept at arms length as a capo or a soldier under a capo, with buffers in between (“Yeah, buffers, Senator. The Family had a lot of buffers”). Like Bruno Tattaglia who only ran the club and nothing else. Bruno wasn’t in the prostitution side of the family (per the book).
As a related side note: The movie GF1 left out a very important interaction between Sonny and Michael when Michael says he would kill Sollotzo and McClusky both. ONLY Sonny laughs and says his “get their brains all over your nice Ivy League suit”. In the book Michael gets mad at Sonny for laughing and stands up with a look that radiated danger and told Sonny “You better quit laughing.” Everyone else turns and looks at Mike in surprise. So Sonny says “I wasn’t laughing at you. I was laughing at the way things turn out. They’ve got you figured for a yellow Guinea but you’re a Corleone after all and I’m the only one who knew it. I’ve been sitting here for 3 days waiting for you to break out of that college boy, war hero bullshit character you’ve been wearing and become my right arm and help me kill these f()cks that are trying to destroy our father and our family!” Sonny had recognized the transformation in Michael immediately.
Sadly, Michael (Neri) killing Fredo eliminated a great uncle for his own son, Anthony. Uncle Fredo spent time with his nephew, telling the story of the one time he bested his brothers.
@mphrdlin And it follow's Micheal's surviving son would be Fredo's next target. Sorry , but this is a high stakes game , and playing tiddlywinks doesn't cut it
@@ciccioaporta3774 You mean fishing doesn't cut it?
yes. Fredo's casting his lot , with enemies of the family, endangered even Micheal & Kay's young family.
If Michael had treated Fredo with respect, Fredo would never have betrayed the family
Oddly, I think of Stabler's mother on L&O:Organized Crime. Despite that family's best efforts, she blew past every guardrail they had set up, and she seems to be getting worse. While they're not going to kill her, and Fredo is not an old cantankerous woman, the similarities are surely there. If Michael kept Fredo under house arrest, then there would surely come a day when the next Roth or Greene whispered in his ear how sad his being passed over was, and Michael would be yelling "You know he's not supposed to be.." whatever it was. Fredo was not cut out for life in the family business, yet there is where he kept trying to be a part of. If not by his brother's decree, then it would have been one of these big plans.
On Michael ironically destroying his family with the actions he takes to protect his family, it makes me picture Kay Adams saying to Michael in The Godfather part part 3--
_"If I have to hear one more time how you did it for the family"_
before Michael interjects with--
_"I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it. And I was really, I was alive!"_
IMO, Michael destroyed his family because his ego and perhaps greed led him to stay in the life far after he was supposed to have gone legit. He never needed to make the entire Corleone criminal family legitimate-- by the beginning of Part Two, if not earlier, he was wealthy enough to leave the life and still provide quite well for his family.
Michael retiring from the life would also have the added benefit of making his family actually much safer, as he, and by extension, his family, would no longer be targets for rival gangsters.
So his killing Fredo and driving away Kay (and in the process, lose a son either by a stress induced miscarriage, or by Kay intentionally terminating the pregnancy, as the film makes it ambiguous, IMO, as to whether or not Kay said the latter just to get under Michael's skin and break his icy, emotionless facade, snd didn't really get an abortion) would not be solidly "justified" by it being necessary due to his position as boss of the Family, or because showing favoritism by sparing Fredo. could potentially _“create a little dysentery in the ranks.”_
Stuff like that, IMO, is all just BS; and that Michael uses such excuses to hides behind and try justify actions taken, again IMO, because of ego and pride-- and perhaps some greed, but I think he did what he did way more due to the former two, than the latter --thus is actions were inexcusable even in the context of Michael being the Boss of the most powerful of the Mafia's Five Families of New York City.
But, to stress it one more time, and as Dennis Miller used to say--
_"That's just MY opinion..._ _I could be wrong."_ 🤔🙂
You nailed it..I never understood why Michael couldn't run his Las Vegas casinos and let NYC go. He liked the power of being a Don. Of course, maybe Hyman Roth would always be scheming against him, so he had to stay the Don of the Corleone family.
Of course not. That’s what sealed his fate. Once he killed his own brother, he was destined to die alone and unhappy.
Godfather 3 is a ridiculous unrealistic movie with an agenda. No wonder, considering the time and mental climate it was made in. Of course it has to appease the libturds. It shouldn't be taken seriously. It's not a sequel, it's an excuse.
You make a good point by highlighting all of the betrayal Michael underwent in the saga. By mob rule, Fredo had to go, no question. When you choose that life, you face the consequences, brother or not. Michael made the right decision. If he hadn't eliminated Fredo, the other capos certainly may have planned to take Michael out for his lack of leadership and responsiblity to the family. Even Neri knew Fredo had to go.
agreed this was unnecessary. without strong enemies to persuade him, Fredo is harmless.
Watched Taxi Driver on Netflix last night for the first time in at least 20 years, possibly De Niro's best work, and certainly the best film ever about a single character. Have you ever reviewed it?
Heavy facts, I'd say that the Movie overshadows the Actor, cause I rarely hear anything Non-Mafia related with De Niro which is annoying
@@maylabrown4584 a mind blowing performance for me, literally in the top three of all time, he's so cringe in places and awkward, then disturbed and dangerous, then other scenes you can't help but think he's a good guy, just flipped out down the wrong path. Supporting cast is good, but they're literally almost out of focus compared to Travis.
Not yet
@@CineRanter I am excited to hear your take when you do!
I would have endeavored to find out exactly what Fredo did to help Roth on the night of the attempted assassination. Open the drapes, what? Then I'd ask myself whether or not Fredo's claim that he "didn't know it was going to be hit" was credible. If he didn't think it was going to be a hit, what DID he think it was going to be?
One could also argue that a year later Al Pacino's character had John Cazale's character killed again in Dog Day Afternoon. This was all for Al Pacino's character robbing a bank for his lover's sex change operation and dragged the John Cazale character along. At the end, in the getaway van, the driver who took them to the airport was a cop and immediately shot John's character in a split second when really he posed no threat except having a gun in his position.
Been waiting on another video thank you.
Michael should have exiled Fredo to Italy much like he was in the first movie but without a chance to ever come back to America
Michael could have exiled him back to the casino and let him do cocktail waitresses two a time, forever, forever, forever.
He didn't have to kill fredo, cutting him off was just as effective as killing him because he would have cut him off from any information that would have endangered him.
Good video man. You make a lot of good commentary for both sides. It makes me wonder what would Vito done if he hadn’t of died. Would Fredo still put a hit on his dad? And if he still did and Vito found out? Would Vito put a hit out to kill his son?
liked/shared I cannot imagine any scenario where Fredo isn't killed
The only time we truly see Michael completely vulnerable, trusting, and compassionate is during the few scenes with only his father and himself on screen. His trust, loyalty, and respect for his father are shown to be unquestionable during those interactions.
Fredo's inaction and cowardice during his father's most vulnerable time in his life, the assassination attempt, would have had a lasting effect on Michael. Being the youngest he would have had to expect the same devotion to their father from his older brother, Fredo, that he unquestionably had. Sonny had shown loyalty on a reckless scale that ultimately cost his life. Why had Fredo not?
Should Michael have been the brother to deal with Sollozzo and McCluskey? Should it have not been Fredo? Sonny ultimately ok's this because he knows Michael is his only option. Sonny knows the effect this will have on his "kid" brother, there will be no turning back. We see the tension on Michaels's face as the scene builds up to the point where he finally murders Sollozzo and McCluskey. We see the disgust in Micahels reaction to what he's done when he drops the weapon as he walks out of the restaurant. This is a man who's been to war. Most likely killed already, but not in this way. He knows he's killed unarmed men who had no chance to defend themselves and he will be changed forever as a result. He's compromised his core morals. Morals that his father has told him would make him a senator someday and separate him from all of this.
But still...Michael, despite his better judgment, owed his father's son one last chance at redemption sending him away to hopefully atone and become a man. He subsequently fails which, once again, places the one thing Michael cares about most (his son) in absolute peril.
If Vito valued the well-being of his son above all else then how could Michael not do the same? In the end, Michael did what had to be done to protect his family and suffered the ultimate price for it.
In 3 when Michael is sitting alone, with only his thoughts, just before his own demise, I'm sure his father's acceptance and uncharacteristic, indecisive, possibly ignorance with his older brother was something he was still struggling to understand.
"Would my father, who placed his family above all else, had sacrificed himself and everything he stood for, as I have had to do?"
Michael will never know.
Fredo deserved to be wacked. He did express murderous resentments towards Michael in the boat house. He did receive that phone call when they attempt to kill his brother. Ferdo knew exactly who he was working for and what they planned for his little brother. Michael did the right thing.
ferdo
Killing or harming anyone is like killing or harming your brother or sister. Soulless. Vile. Disgusting.
Great video!! Fredo should not have been involved in the family business. He should have been sent with his family elsewhere to run a legit business and Michael should have paid for his house and expenses. Fredo's family could have been a safe place for Michael's family, at times.
The murder of his brother, I believe, goes back to Cain and Abel - and that murder of your brother "marks" you and makes everyone else look at you as though you are a monster. Sending Fredo to Vegas knowing that Fredo is not smart and could be used and pushed around was stupid move. Fredo got a taste of power and wanted it back when he was moved aside as Michael moved into Vegas. Sometimes you can't see the tree from the forest.
Fredo never came back. Michael went to him.
Fredo betrayed his own family. Enough said.
Do you remember Tessio's final words "Tell Michael, it was only business not personal. I always liked the kid". Michael even admits as such in GFIII when he tells the confesses to the Cardinal "he (Fredo) wounded me".
Michael's decision to kill Fredo was personal, not business. There was no business reason to kill Fredo. He presented no threat, was generously remorseful about his role in setting Michael up. Fredo was weak, stupid, and jealous. His failings were used to and manipulated by Ola and Hyman Roth to their own ends. It's not like he was actively scheming against Michael the way Carlo betrayed Sonny. To be fair, Michael wasn't all that nice to Fredo either, treating him as a low-level employee and not a brother. It was bound to create resentment.
When you mix personal feelings into a business decision it's always going to end badly. Same with Hyman Roth who tried to get revenge for Moe Green.
It’s all Don Ciccios fault he doomed Vito to a life of revenge and Vito doomed his children to a life of pain and betrayal that pretty much sums it all up
@jpssteveshanahan still comes down to Don Ciccio asking for money in the first place
Can you make a video explaining the guy's lucky coat in Godfather 3?
It wasn't necessary and Vito would never have approved or done something so evil as that
I can understand Michael's decision. I have a brother I've thought of putting a hit on from time to time. But so far banishment seems to be working so I'll stick with that for now 😎👍.
Yes. If Fredo was willing to be part of a plot he thought was to kidnap Michael’s son when Roth tricked him since the plot was really to kill Michael. Fredo was willing to put his family at risk to get something for himself….he had to go. Michael could never trust Fredo and Michael warned Fredo to never take sides against the family….NEVER.
As you say, if Michael had killed him earlier it wouldn't have felt so cruel. But doing it when Fredo was already a whipped dog felt like a pointless move. Great point about old Vito tho. We already know the older Vito got the more he was 'slipping' as others put it. So it's very reasonable to assume 'What Would Vito Do?' may not be the best mafia mantra at that point.
Vito was a reasonable man from a young age, Michel was always cold and ruthless from the start even before he became the boss.
It's pretty simple. When Fredo conspired to have Michael killed he became an enemy, not family, not a brother, just an enemy. Michael had every right to get rid of him after he found out. It didn't matter that Fredo asked for forgiveness or what his motives were, Fredo crossed a line and there was no going back. He only lived as long as he did out of Michael's concern for his mother.
He was right to dis-own him but you do not kill your mother and father's children!
It had more to do with Michael's ego.
And with regard to Kay, Michael betrayed her by lying through his teeth when he went back to her later; "In five years the family business will be..yada,yada..etc."
Killing Fredo was the greatest disrespect by Michael to his late parents. Exile would have done the job.
Betrayal of the mafia code of honour is one thing but to have a family member (albeit non-blood) do it is beyond the pale, I think that fact that Fredo wasn't Michael's actual blood brother made Fredo's demise even more inevitable after Michael's mother passed.
My comment upon a recent rewatch of Godfather 2 was "he shouldn't have killed Fredo".
My opinion even if he did screw up a lot no I don't think it's worth getting him killed he would have been banned from all family business and moved away from the family
I think many people overestimate Fredo here. My own impression after watching the movie was clear - guy just wanted to prove himself, wanted a piece for himself - we see that not only in the scene where he vomits it all to Micheal, and making him disown him, but also while he got that call during the night, while in bed with his wife. Fred is a fuck up. Liability. Sure. Although here lies the issue - was what he did more of a malicious treachery, or a honest, Fredy-style fuck up? People are poiting out message Micheal would give by sparing Fredo. Well think about this: if most of Micheal men knew what kind of reputation Fredo had, and let's be honest - most of them knew, like, right during the party Michael had to ask someone to get Fredo's wife under control - then what kind of message did Michael actually sent? "Betray and you die"? Nah, in my oppinion that was more of a "make a fuck up and die". Add to that the Frank Pentaangelli suicide after he publicly did not accuse Micheal and took back his own confession and you start to give a rather mixed message to everyone under you.
At least that's my oppinion, though I would not die on that hill. I mean, most of Mike's men knew or thought they were smarter than Fredo, so they would never make a fuck up of the magnitude poor, slow Fredo managed to pull off. Then again this sort of situation would sure end up creating underlying tension in cases when someone did mess up, which could escalate. Who knows, who knows.
Once you profess your forgiveness to your brother , it is you who are the betrayer if you're willing to retract that forgiveness at any moment without further trespass by that brother.
I mean, I think the options were (1) kill Fredo, or (2) get out of the game entirely. Keeping Fredo around not only potentially put Michael in danger due to stupidity/betrayal, it also put the greater Corleone mafia Family in danger. And, even if Michael chose option 2, there would still be blood shed over territory, since Michael leaving the game would create a power vacuum. It's a real Sophie's choice of a decision, but I think this one actually resulted in the least amount of blood shed, although at the expense of his brother
I really think he should have chosen the second option, not just because it's more ethical given the two choices, but also because he was supposed to be making the Corleone family legitimate in the first place. In my opinion the only reason for him to stay in the game would be ego and or greed because he certainly made enough of a fortune to retire comfortably and support his actual family for the rest of their natural lives. So if its options were till Fredo or let Fredo live and get out of the game I think really you should have got out of the game oh, because the reasons to stay in the game in my opinion were not good enough to justify killing his own brother. But as Dennis Miller used to say, _"that's just my opinion, I could be wrong"_ 🤔🙂
If Michael had left the game the luves of him and his children wouldn't have been worth spit. You don't leave heirs to the throne alive.
Michael got a crap sandwich, neither option was without very serious repercussions.
@@mbryson2899 but that doesn't make sense in the context of the mafia, in real life Joe Benigno did retire from the game and was safe his problem was that he kept trying to make his son boss, which was nepotism and actually not how the American Italian/Sicilian Mafia-- usually called _"Coss Nostra"_ or the gramatically incorrect _"LA Cosa Nostra"_ (incorrect because the Italian phrase 'Cosa Nostra' means 'our thing', or 'this thing of ours' while 'la' means 'the'. 'The Our Thing' or 'The This Thing if Ours' are just wring and sound dumb when one thinks about what the words actually mean)
not how the mob usually works, the position of boss isn't a throne that sons are supposed to inherit in the mafia. It was actually very rare for a boss's son to follow inherit their father's position in the real Cosa Nostra) And Bonnano also made himself a target while retired by trying to openly speak about Coss Nostra activities in news interviews and in his memoirs. Remember, Joe did this when Omerta was still pretty much flowed in the Life, unlike in more recent times where loads of Mafioso sing like canaries at the first hint that they may get loads of prison time... And the Mob _still_ chose not to whack him...
Michael may have had to pay for privilege of retiring peacefully, but unless he tried to run shit and secretly stay in the life while 'retired' I just don't see his being a big target. Even if Michael himself was targeted for revenge for his actions in the killing of the heads of the other four of the Five Families-- I even more can't see his wife and/or kids becoming targets with him. Cosa Nostra, especially back in the day, usually made it a point (and even a clearly started rule of the Mob) that family members who were not in the Life, as well as and other 'civilians' in general, should be off limits.
This rule wot out of any sense of honor or nobility, of course, but because the Mafia upper-echelon thought it would bring less heat down on the Mob if mobsters pretty much only killed other mobsters. Mobsters loved to say (some still do) that they weren't so bad because they only murdered each other or if they _did_ whack someone who was not a Made Man or an associaate in a Family, it was only someone who was none-the-less still a criminal and who had some kind of associationj and/or dealings with Cosa Nostra.
Given everything I know about the films and novel and the mafia and how the Matthews portrayed in the films oh, I just can't see Michael's family being in more danger if Michael retired from the mob. Even if Michael was so hated that people wanted to kill him out of Revenge or for some other reason like Hyman Roth wanted revenge for Moe Greene or something and they have still tried to kill him even if you retired, I adamantly think that his family, at the very least, would have been safer with him out of the mob then with him in it. And if Michael's true primary goal/motivation was the safety and prosperity of his actual, non-Mafia, family, I truly and honestly think that he should have left the Life before the events of Part 2 even began.
Of course, all of this his just my own opinion. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that I could just as well be wrong. Cheers 🤔🙂
@@munstrumridcully I was talking about the world presented in the books and films. Those have only a nodding acquaintance with the real world, they are stories presented for entertainment which dwell more on themes than facts.
Wasn't Vito chased out of Sicily so he would not pursue vendetta? Is that "realistic?"
@@mbryson2899 well in that case I guess you'd be right because I think Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola wrote to film at least I don't know the book was very similar but I think the film had more gravitas but they said they wrote it as more of a Shakespearean drama of like the family of a Roman Emperor, so in that case I guess if we're going with sons take over for their fathers and it's a dynastic situation and the mafia families are akin to like Machiavellian princes in the Italian Renaissance Era then yeah I guess it would be a little different but I still think his family would have been fine family would be left alone cuz even in the books and the movies they didn't really go after civilians like the wives and children of mobsters. Like even if Michael would have been killed for retiring which I don't even know if in the film world that would be true but they might like I said in my other comment have killed him out of Revenge for like the murderer of the heads of the four families they will say five families but they didn't murder the head of the Corleone family so it was only four of the five families LOL, or like if Hyman Roth still wanted him dead for killing Moe Greene which seems to be y Roth wanted Michael killed so badly oh, I just don't think they would have killed his wife and children too. So I guess it depends on if the safety of Tay and the children what's better served by living in a compound with armed guards as Michael isn't active boss of a Cosa Nostra family, or if their safety would have been better served living in the legitimate world. To me I still think it would be the ladder rather than the former because the only reason K and Michael son Anthony wherever and any threat of being shot in the assassination attempt was because it's so hard to get to Michael that they had to take their shot when they could if Michael was retired in civilian life without all the guards in the compound and all that figures walk up behind one day and pop them in the head without involving family at all but I do see your point
I didn't realize it was a commonly held thought that it was wrong to do so in the first place
You have to be strong to forgive, but weak to kill unnecessarily.
In that world, there was no choice. Mercy is seen as weakness. Weakness is death. Only the Strong rule.
"Yea, though I walk thru the Valley of the Shadow of Evil, I shall fear no Evil. For I am the meanest Son of a B!tch in the Valley!"