|
|
Post by OldAussie on Mar 31, 2021 21:50:41 GMT
There are 2 inconsistencies in the plot -
1. The assassins who tried to hit Michael in his bedroom are found dead shortly afterward. Fredo is secretly involved with Johnny Ola (and thus Hyman Roth) and is therefore considered the traitor.
But Fredo is totally incapable of killing the failed assassins. And later when he tells Michael "I didn't know it was going to be a hit" it seems genuine.
2. Rocco Lampone is at the very top of the Family hierarchy yet he kills Roth at the airport while surrounded by police, FBI etc. Why would such a senior member of the Family undertake a suicide mission?
On the old IMDB a genius combined these 2 into a theory -
Rocco, who at the time was head of security at the compound, was the real traitor. When the hit went wrong, he killed the assassins. Michael told him "I want them alive" but it didn't happen. At some point Michael figures out that Rocco is a traitor. Rocco is given the chance to redeem himself in the same way Pentangeli does - through suicide.
But this is all hypothetical.
We know Fredo has dealings with Ola and Roth but they are probably harmless. But Fredo has no reason to get rid of Michael - in fact quite the opposite.
On the other hand Rocco might have ambitions to take over the Family himself. That could be his motivation.
Unfortunately the movie never explains these inconsistencies but I like this theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Mar 31, 2021 21:57:58 GMT
It’s been a while since I’ve watched...maybe I’ll watch 1 and 2 this weekend...I definitely remember thinking Fredo was more of an ignorant accomplice who was more guilty of talking too much to the wrong people rather than actively trying to take Michael out. I got the impression Michaels enemies used Fredos insecurities to their benefit and kind of cornered him into being the traitor.
The Rocco thing I honestly don’t remember. I remember the hit but didn’t remember who the character was.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Social Introvert on Apr 1, 2021 13:49:00 GMT
Funnily enough I have a video on my youtube channel coming out addressing this soon.
I really like the Rocco theory and think it's very much possible
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2021 16:25:23 GMT
You know it’s a masterpiece film when the death of a character haunts you for years.
I still think about how that effected me emotionally watching Fredo get whacked.
That is the strongest part in “Godfather Part III”... Michael’s grief of Fredo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Apr 1, 2021 16:52:46 GMT
It’s been a while since I’ve watched...maybe I’ll watch 1 and 2 this weekend...I definitely remember thinking Fredo was more of an ignorant accomplice who was more guilty of talking too much to the wrong people rather than actively trying to take Michael out. I got the impression Michaels enemies used Fredos insecurities to their benefit and kind of cornered him into being the traitor. The Rocco thing I honestly don’t remember. I remember the hit but didn’t remember who the character was. I agree that the Hyman Roth/Johnny Ola team likely took advantage of Fredo's insecurities (not to mention stupidity). That seems like a plausible explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 1, 2021 17:21:44 GMT
The trouble I have with that theory is how upset Michael gets when he realizes Fredo is involved--he seems genuinely hurt by it--I think if he realized Rocco was the traitor he would have shown some reaction with Rocco. Maybe something subtle is there but..
I felt that Rocco came across as kind of the audience surrogate at times--like you looked to him for some kind of moral reaction, especially when Michael is so hardline about his brother.
It felt like Rocco might have been thinking "well, I dont agree with this but it is what the boss wants."
He seemed very loyal to Michael in a way that his own brother couldnt be because he was weak.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Apr 1, 2021 17:36:39 GMT
I saw this movie a handful of times in a short span, but this was twenty years ago..But I definitely think this is a hole.. The theory about Rocco is possible, but I remember thinking how odd it was they didn't sacrifice someone a little lower on the totem pole, but then again, we see in The Godfather, how Clemenza shoots the head of a family with a shotgun. Maybe this is for theatrical purposes - wanting the audience to see one of the more watched characters engaged in the bigger plots. Maybe it didn't seem dramatic enough if Willy Cicci were to kill Roth.
I think Fredo never showed signs of him trying to kill Mikey. His problem was his weakness, and being drunk, where he finally lets it all out.
When I first read the thread title, I thought of the time Michael told Tom if he could go outside.. "Tom only handles certain parts of the Corleone family"..
"I'll be outside if you need me" - Hagen
|
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Apr 1, 2021 17:49:17 GMT
There are 2 inconsistencies in the plot - 1. The assassins who tried to hit Michael in his bedroom are found dead shortly afterward. Fredo is secretly involved with Johnny Ola (and thus Hyman Roth) and is therefore considered the traitor. But Fredo is totally incapable of killing the failed assassins. And later when he tells Michael "I didn't know it was going to be a hit" it seems genuine. 2. Rocco Lampone is at the very top of the Family hierarchy yet he kills Roth at the airport while surrounded by police, FBI etc. Why would such a senior member of the Family undertake a suicide mission? On the old IMDB a genius combined these 2 into a theory - Rocco, who at the time was head of security at the compound, was the real traitor. When the hit went wrong, he killed the assassins. Michael told him "I want them alive" but it didn't happen. At some point Michael figures out that Rocco is a traitor. Rocco is given the chance to redeem himself in the same way Pentangeli does - through suicide. But this is all hypothetical. We know Fredo has dealings with Ola and Roth but they are probably harmless. But Fredo has no reason to get rid of Michael - in fact quite the opposite. On the other hand Rocco might have ambitions to take over the Family himself. That could be his motivation. Unfortunately the movie never explains these inconsistencies but I like this theory. The scene of Roth's death seemed intended to remind us of Jack Ruby offing LH Oswald.  
|
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Apr 1, 2021 18:01:00 GMT
The thing that irks me is the attempted killing of Frankie Pentangelis in the bar. The killers say they are acting on Michael's orders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ass_E9 on Apr 1, 2021 22:28:50 GMT
OT: Did Puzo give the weak character Fredo that name because it sounds like "afraid"/"fraidy(-cat)"?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 2, 2021 0:20:09 GMT
There are 2 inconsistencies in the plot - 1. The assassins who tried to hit Michael in his bedroom are found dead shortly afterward. Fredo is secretly involved with Johnny Ola (and thus Hyman Roth) and is therefore considered the traitor. But Fredo is totally incapable of killing the failed assassins. And later when he tells Michael "I didn't know it was going to be a hit" it seems genuine. 2. Rocco Lampone is at the very top of the Family hierarchy yet he kills Roth at the airport while surrounded by police, FBI etc. Why would such a senior member of the Family undertake a suicide mission? On the old IMDB a genius combined these 2 into a theory - Rocco, who at the time was head of security at the compound, was the real traitor. When the hit went wrong, he killed the assassins. Michael told him "I want them alive" but it didn't happen. At some point Michael figures out that Rocco is a traitor. Rocco is given the chance to redeem himself in the same way Pentangeli does - through suicide. But this is all hypothetical. We know Fredo has dealings with Ola and Roth but they are probably harmless. But Fredo has no reason to get rid of Michael - in fact quite the opposite. On the other hand Rocco might have ambitions to take over the Family himself. That could be his motivation. Unfortunately the movie never explains these inconsistencies but I like this theory. The scene of Roth's death seemed intended to remind us of Jack Ruby offing LH Oswald. Certainly. And since Ruby was taken alive, it wasn't necessarily a "suicide" mission, though still a precarious situation for Rocco. The theory that he was in on the Michael assassination attempt and atoning is cool, but that's a big thing to leave out of the movie. It could just be that he was the only one loyal and trusted enough to take out Roth in the open like that and keep his mouth shut if he lived to questioning. As for who actually killed the assassins, I really couldn't say. I don't think Fredo not knowing it was a hit rules him out - he could have been played, put two and two together, and taken out the assassins. He's never seen during the commotion and their bodies are found near his place, right? But it's hard to reckon Fredo killing them even if he had it in him to try. He wasn't very good with a gun when his father was shot. Could he have had someone else kill them? I've heard another theory that Johnny Ola could have done it. I don't think we'll ever know.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 2, 2021 0:21:04 GMT
The thing that irks me is the attempted killing of Frankie Pentangelis in the bar. The killers say they are acting on Michael's orders. I think they were just "twisting the knife" by saying his friend did it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Apr 2, 2021 0:23:15 GMT
The thing that irks me is the attempted killing of Frankie Pentangelis in the bar. The killers say they are acting on Michael's orders. I think they were just "twisting the knife" by saying his friend did it. That's my suspicion. And it unintentionally gave Frankie reason to testify against the Corleones, at least for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by Geddy on Apr 2, 2021 1:00:21 GMT
This is my take: Pantangeli hired the assassins to take out Michael because he refused his wish to have the Rosato brothers killed. Don't forget that his right hand man Ceci was with him at the compound so when the hit failed, Ceci took them out.
|
|
