I caught part of the Godfather on AMC last night, I still have not seen the entire film. One thing puzzled me, when Michael had his brother in law killed in the car why did he go through the whole story of telling him he is out of the business, giving him a ticket to California etc then having him killed two minutes later. Was there a good reason for doing this?
Maybe he just wanted to make sure Carl got into the car without a scene. Even though most of the family was gone, there may have been staff or other people present that would have possibly repeated that before Carl disappeared, he was kicking and screaming his way to the car?
Exactly. Carlo was not the same type of gangster as Tessio. Tessio accepted the inevitable and went quietly. Carlo would have made a big, screaming scene.
It may be callous and even naive to say so, but this scene, as with many similar scenes in so many movies, including “good” movies, is all for the benefit of the audience. It’s a wee bit of closure and doesn’t serve any other major purpose except to let you know that Carlo got what was coming to him, that he was the main reason Sonny got knocked off, that Michael is a devious revenge-seeker, and that it’s not all that hard to kick out a windshield. I have read that Coppola had a budget for violence and brutality and this scene provided a check-off on the list.
But if you took it, and other audience-thrilling scenes, out of the movie, the running time would be down to an hour or less. And that would probably remove The Godfather (probably my favorite movie of all time and what a majority of IMDB types keep voting one of the Top 5) from its exalted place in moviedom.
Didn’t it give you a rush to know what a piece of piano wire can do to a man’s neck?
Bear in mind, too, that it would be (in the world of The Godfather, anyway) grossly inappropriate for anyone to be killed before Michael in Michael’s home. As the Don, he’s not supposed to have to get his hands wet, and to have such ugliness happen in his home would be extremely insulting and crass. The Don doesn’t do that stuff. Hell, the people who answer to the Don don’t usually do that stuff; it’s generally delegated at least one more step down. Carlo HAS to be killed outside, so feeding him a line is just a convenient way of getting him there.
Some good reasons…
If you see Godfather 2, a few years later, Estes Kefauver and the Senate panel are investigating the Corleone family. They establish how Michael had “buffers”, and that people killed “at the behest” of Michael… but that the soldiers almost never actually heard Michael give the order. So, what did the half-dozen or so people that were in the room actually HEAR? They heard Carlo confess to being instrumental in the ambush that killed Michael’s brother. They heard Michael give a magnanimous punishment to Carlo. Would they be able to MENTALLY put together that Carlo being whacked soon thereafter was an order from Michael? Sure. But they can’t rat out Michael because Michael could deny giving the order.
Consider, why Michael didn’t just pull out a gun and shoot Carlo on the spot? Because Michael doesn’t want to get his hands dirty. The Godfather has to be the administrator — the one who holds the puppet strings (hence the logo). Sonny didn’t get this and it was his downfall. Pulling out a gun and shooting Carlo would have been an active of vengeance and emotion — arranging his strangulation is cold and calculating. Even the hits against the heads of the 5 families is “Nothing personal. Just business.”
Michael’s detached, businesslike approach to this stuff is established about halfway through 1, when his character turns. When he says he’ll kill the cop and Solozzo, he does it with such a cool demeanor it’s the diametric opposite of Sonny. We find out by the end of the movie that Michael’s approach is the only way that would have succeeded — because emotional responses make you sloppy.
It’s summed up again in a later film when he says “Never hate your enemies. It clouds your judgment.”
Ok, I have a different question. As many times as I have seen Godfather I have yet to figure out how Don Corleone knew “it was Barzzini all along.”?
I agree that it’s puzzling, but I believe it traces to the exchange at the big meeting between Don Vito and Barzini. And it’s more in the subtext than in the actual words. Something Barzini says about “not sharing his influence” lets Vito know that Barzini played a role in the treachery. That’s how I have explained it to myself anyway. I have often wondered if some of what Barzini actually said was cut from the movie!
Because Barzini at the meeting was doing all the talking about what was needed and saying when it was settled. Tattaglia didn’t care what the terms were. Subtle but still quite certain. Marvelous writing and directing in the meeting scene and then in the car later.
Don Corleone: “Tattaglia’s a pimp. He never could’ve out-fought Santino. But I didn’t know until this day that it was Barzini all along.”
During the meeting it is Barzini that both butters up the Don with complements and it is also Barzini that is arguing the issue that Don Corleone needs to share his judges and legal connections. It is Barzini arguing to sell drugs the Negros. This was all about drugs and Barzini was the maIn driver in selling drugs. Tattaglia’s concern really was prostitution and numbers.
If I recall correctly, it was expanded on in the book. While all the evidence pointed to Carlo’s guilt, Michael felt the need to hear him admit it in order to be certain before sending him off to his death. It was contrasted with the way his father would have acted - once he decided to have someone killed, he would not have hesitated or had any doubts.
He didn’t. See the correct quote in What Exit?'s post.
Didn’t Michael force Carlo to tell who paid him off? Wasn’t that part of it too, or am I remembering incorrectly?
Nope, you’re right. It was Michael’s way of making 100% certain before he orphaned his godson, by making Carlo confess to a fact that Michael already knew.
Off-topic, but is there anything in the book about what happens to Sonny’s wife and kids after he dies? I realize they aren’t terribly relevant to the rest of the story, but it was weird how they completely disappeared.
Then in Pt III, it’s only Sonny’s illegitimate son who shows any interest in the family business. I presume the third generation of Corleones had all gone their own ways.
Just posting one of those “I just noticed …” things. Not a real question. When they are discussing the meeting with the Turk and the captain, they want to make sure it’s somewhere with people around so that Michael will feel safe.
So, he gets picked up in car, driven almost to New Jersey and then to the restaurant. Why would they worry about the meeting place but not him being alone in the car?
I don’t recall anything in the book about Sonny’s wife and kids. However, there is a middle section, 100 or so pages about Sonny’s mistress, Vincint’s mother in Pt. 3. Apperantly she had a vagina you could park a volkswagon in. She goes to LA and Johnny Fontane hooks her up with a plastic surgeon to the stars, who makes her giant vagina into a regular size one. And, I’m pretty sure Vincint isn’t in that section at all; he was made up for Pt. 3.
If there’s one thing that Coppola should be knighted for, it’s excising that stupid giant vagina story line from the movie.
Speculation: I think it’s more that they want him to feel safe when and where he’s about to do the deed … not about him just being in their company.
The line about Michael “feeling safe” was to help ensure that the meeting was to be held in the open, at a well-known restaurant in NYC. The Corleones weren’t worried for Michaels safety because he was a “civilian” and, therefore, already safe.
As far as Sollozo was concerned, the reason he met with Michael was so that Michael could deliver a message to Sonny, not to kill Michael.
And, of course, the reason why they needed to know the name of the restaurant was so the gun could be planted.