Was he just crazy with paranoia and revenge by the end of Godfather Part II? Or did he have some kind of justification in mind like in the killing of Carlo and Tessio (in that they would always be a potential threat to the Family, so they had to be rubbed out).
ummm… excuse me… but Fredo ratted them outt! That’s why the big kiss and the line, “I knew it was you, Fredo.”
And Fredo knew he was gonna catch a severe case of bullet in the head when he went out on the boat. 
Yeah, what Mr. Waffle said. Fredo was warned in Godfather I, too, in the meeting between Michael and Moe Greene: “Don’t ever side with anyone against the family again.”
Simply because he could no longer trust him. That’s the dominant plot line in the Godfather II; once you violate Michael’s trust, your days are numbered. Fredo was also a major screwup and admittedly jealous of Michael’s power, so Michael had to be thinking that it would only be a matter of time until Fredo pulled some other stunt like that.
Coppolla wanted to have Michael kill Fredo right away, but Mario Puzo (the author) didn’t agree. Their compromise was that Michael would wait until their mother had died.
Remember, Michael did something similar in the first film. He had his brother-in-law killed for betraying Sonny, but he waited until after Vito’s death.
Basically, Fredo was a harmless idiot, after Michael had wiped out Moe green, Hyman Roth, and the rest of his enemies. So why the bullet in the head (apres the HAIL MARY prayer)? My guess is that by this time, Michael has lost whatever humanity he once had-he has become a cold, unfeeling automaton-everything that his late father wished he HAD’NT! AT LEAST HE HAD THE DECENCY NOT TO kill Fredo while the mother was around-although she never opened her mouth about such matters of business. I just remember that cold hard stare that Michael gave the hit man, while embracing the hapless Fredo-it REALLY gave me the creeps! I think Michael should have set Fredo up in a candy store instead, although he probably knew too much to be left alive-and Michael certainly didn’t want him talking to a senate investigative committe!
Michael learned in the first movie that his father’s enemies were quick to take advantage of any perceived weakness on Don Vito’s part. Thus, he was detrmined NEVER to show any sign of weakness. By killing his own brother, Michael sent a loud, clear message to all would-be traitors: if I’d do this to my own brother, imagine what I’d do to YOU.
Recall what Kevin Spacey said of the omnipotent criminal Keyzer Soze in “The Usual Suspects:” Soze understood that the secret to power was being feared, and the secret to being feared was in being willing to do what nobody else would do- includlling your own family.ing ki
I’m glad other people picked up on that. That was what convinced me that Michael had really lost whatever humanity he might have started out with. Michael was planning his brothers death even while he was embracing Fredo during an emotional moment. A great, chilling scene.
–Nut
A good man has few enemies. A ruthless man has none.
Michael just couldn’t handle any threat to his hold over the family or anyone questioning his decisions. Michael was paranoid that he was losing control so that he precieved any disention as a direct threat.
Fredo was an Idiot and a risk to the Family, but he was just niave and thought he could help himself without hurting the family. Remember Fredo didn’t know Roth was going to attack the Compound.
In reality Fredo was no longer a threat after that as he broke away from Roth.
As I pointed out earlier, Michael was already a cold-blooded SOB in the first movie. He plotted to have his brother-in-law killed even as he agreed to stand as his nephew’s godparent.
As Tessio said, “It was only business.”
I don’t know that you could say that Fredo wasn’t a threat after the death of Roth. As long as he lived, Fredo would be an opportunity for one of Michael’s enemies to exploit, because Fredo always made bad choices.
I don’t think he knew but I DO think the sister knew, that is why she didn’t want the kid to go out in the boat. I agree that Fredo was a weak idiot who made bad choices and was a risk to the family.
I’m SMAHT!
…poor Fredo
No she didn’t know. Michael’s son was taken away by one of Miceal’s men under the pretence that he had to go out. Connie had no clue, she tried to have Fredo forgiven by Michael.
By that point Fredo was on his last legs. While he was in exile he was as Connie described weak and helpless. Under supervision he would be no threat because all power he had before was stripped. Don’t forget when he made the deal with Roth he was working a few Casinos for the family and had oppurtunities to make contacts. Without any responsibilities he wouldn’t have outside contact, therfore no threat.
kingpengvin–in that case, then, I view Fredo’s death as a mercy killing. Who’d want to live that way?
But um, didn’t his brother-in-law beat his sister, so Sonny went out and beat the guy up, and they killed Sonny?
Also, I was watching the beginning of the first one yesterday-with the wedding part, and all that. I know it’s in the book-which I read-it just depressed me that Michael, who seemed like the good guy of the family at first-became the SOB. And I’m sorry, but what’s her name-Kay was an idiot.
Some guy told me a story about his father being in the Mafia, I think I’d split.
Two different incidents. Sonny goes over to Connie’s place and finds her with a black eye and fat lip, then goes and finds Carlo and beats him silly.
The next time, Connie answers the phone call from Carlo’s girlfriend, gets in fight with Carlo, and he beats her unmercifully. She calls the house and gets her mother, who gives the phone to Sonny. Sonny leaves, presumably to kill Carlo this time, but Carlo has already sold Sonny out to the Tattaglia family, and they gun him down.
That’s why, when Michael visits Carlo after the christening of Connie’s son, and has wiped out Tattaglia, Barzini, Moe Greene and everyone else, he tells Carlo, “You have to answer for Santino.”
Still pretty frickin evil to kill a guy after the christening of his Kid. At least he gave Fredo a little while before offing him (a week or so?)
But I have a question in number 3 (uggh) Was Michael repentent that he killed his brother or that his killed his mother and father’s child?
If you mean during his confession to the Cardinal, I’d say so. I thought the point of that scene was Michael releasing all of the humanity he’d pent up over the years. He always wanted to let it out, to be legit, to get out of the business, but protecting the family came first, and he felt that protecting the family offered him no other choices than the brutality he’d caused so far.
Still pretty frickin evil to kill a guy after the christening of his Kid. At least he gave Fredo a little while before offing him (a week or so?)
But I have a question in number 3 (uggh) Was Michael repentent that he killed his brother or that his killed his mother and father’s child?
This is reinforced in Part III when we hear Connie talk about the tragic circumstances of Fredo’s boating accident. She never found out.
I think this incident is important in pointing out that Michael isn’t really much of a nice guy, even in the beginning. I think he obviously relished telling Kay the “brains or signature on the contract” story, and his efforts to distance himself from his father’s “way” is hypocritical. I don’t think he holds any moral judgement against what his family does–he may be out of the business loop, but it’s still in his blood, something he’s proud of even with his clean-cut military hero demeanor.
Guinastasia, the secret to any good screenplay is conflict. If Mike going bad bothered you, the writers did their job.