GODFATHER PT II QUESTION: KILLING OF HYMAN ROTH
Perisha
always troubles me because it doesn't seem to be true to the Corleone
method. Why did they have Roth be killed in such a public place, only
to have his assassin gunned down by the cops? Was this truly a
suicide mission by Michael's henchman or did he think he'd get away
with it? Wouldn't the fact that he was murdered by a known Corleone
associate have put heat on the family also? Is this a Copolla
mis-step or did I miss something? I'm interested in your opinions.
Chris
Roth was dying but Michael want to send the message if you cross me, I will
get you.
As far as the assassin goes, I think he knew it was likely a suicide
mission. The Mob has done that in the past taking someone who my be
indicted or on the run from another murder and agree to take care of his
family if he does this impossible job.
Remember Tom's conversation with Pentanglli in the Army prison about how
if the plot fails against the Emperor they were always given a chance to
keep their land and have their family looked after, if they did the right
thing, Suicide. Sort of the same thing with the guy agreeing to kill Roth.
Just my opinion.
C
That is why
"Perisha" <perish...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:329ce59b.01112...@posting.google.com...
ron salvatore
I think that part has bothered quite a few people. The weirdness of it suggests
that Coppola and Puzo, not knowing how to bring the Roth story thread to an
end, capped it with a finale that's bloody but not really believable.
While I think GF II is a great, great film, I do believe it sacrifices some
things in service of its novel past/present structure. The Rosato Brothers/Roth
plot is pretty hard to follow; it's a little clumsy, in fact. And that's not
helped by Coppola's decision to cut back and forth between the two time
periods. Each time this is done the story we're following, whether it be the
Vito or Michael thread, is interupted and a bit of its drama is lost. For
instance, the need to swindle the Sentator is established early on in the film,
but because of Coppola's juggling so many other story elelments, the pay off
comes so much later that you've almost forgotten its being set up.
Ultimately, I think Coppola made the right choice-- the structure of GF II adds
so much depth and richness to the Corleone story that you hardly lament the
loss of some legibility. But I don't think it's beyond reason to find some
flaws in the Roth storyline and its conclusion.
But part of me also wants to see the suicidal assassination of Roth as yet
another indication of Michael's ruin and his abandonment of his father's
values. Tom, a foster brother whom Michael has begun to push away along with
the rest of his family, counsel's Michael to forget Roth. But Michael's need
for revenge has at that point superseded everything else, and sensibility is
thrown overboard.
ron
Chris
me in GF 2 was who killed the assassins who botched the hit on Michael and
what part did Fredo actually play in being the traitor.
Did Fredo open the drapes?
Did Fredo arrange to let the hit men in? Fredo told Michael that he did not
know it was going to be a hit, we know he stupid, that is why he could not
have killed the 2 professional hit men.
I know you are going to say Fredo but then who killed the 2 professional
assassins, certainly not Fredo.
"ron salvatore" <salf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011122144438...@mb-me.aol.com...
ron salvatore
>Did Fredo arrange to let the hit men in? Fredo told Michael that he did not
>know it was going to be a hit, we know he stupid, that is why he could not
>have killed the 2 professional hit men.
I've seen the movie tons of times and I still can't quite get a handle on the
Roth/Rosato/Fredo sub-plot. This is what I mean about that part of the movie
being a little clumsy.
I'd guess that Fredo opened the drapes and let Roth's guys into the Corleone
compound. Michael says that the assassins must have been killed by someone
close to the family. So maybe some of the thugs under Fredo's command killed
them? But if Fredo's not lying when he says that he didn't know Roth was going
to attempt a hit on Michael (and I don't think he is) then that doesn't make
much sense. Unless Fredo means that he didn't know a hit was planned when he
*began* communicating with Roth, meaning that the plot spiraled out of his
control later on.
It's frustrating, but as I said earlier, I can forgive the movie for these
problems. The first two Godfather films are more about family, power and the
corruption of the American immigrant dream than they are about criminal
machinations (though they certainly encompass some of that too).
The element of GF II that is worked out exquisitely is Michael's relationship
to his father, including his inability to assume his father's seat and sustain
the family he created. That and Michael's betrayal of himself, of his own
dreams as a young man. For me at least, this part of the film has an incredible
dramatic thrust to it, especially when it's viewed in tandem with its
predecessor.
ron
Man...An Ancient Race
it's simple. coppola wanted to make a statement about oswald's death,
that it was a mob job.
notice roth gets plugged like lee harvey.
larry legallo
>>Did Fredo open the drapes?
>>Did Fredo arrange to let the hit men in? Fredo told Michael that he did not
>>know it was going to be a hit, we know he stupid, that is why he could not
>>have killed the 2 professional hit men.
>
>I've seen the movie tons of times and I still can't quite get a handle on the
>Roth/Rosato/Fredo sub-plot. This is what I mean about that part of the movie
>being a little clumsy.
>
>I'd guess that Fredo opened the drapes and let Roth's guys into the Corleone
>compound. Michael says that the assassins must have been killed by someone
>close to the family. So maybe some of the thugs under Fredo's command killed
>them? But if Fredo's not lying when he says that he didn't know Roth was going
>to attempt a hit on Michael (and I don't think he is) then that doesn't make
>much sense.
I think Fredo did know it was going to be a hit. He gave the
blueprints of the house to Johnny Ola and he probably opened the
drapes. What did he think was supposed to happen?
As far as who killed the two guys, I've always thought that maybe
there was a third man in on the job, who killed the two other guys
before escaping. But Fredo could have done it, in which case you'd
understand Coppola not wanting to show who their killer was, for the
sake of suspense (in not knowing Fredo was in on it) and then not
mentioning it afterwards in order to preserve the audience's
perception of Fredo as "innocent."
What I've always wondered is after Michael knew Fredo had betrayed
him, why did he him about Roth's plan to assassinate him? Was he
trying to use Fredo to set Roth up that night?
About the original question in this thread, I think the idea of a
"suicide mission" is probably right, but then why did they have to use
Rocco? He kills Paulie, Tattaglia, probably a buch of other guys for
the family, and then they tell him to go into one of the most public,
crowded, secure places imaginable and kill a guy who's being protected
by several armed guards? Rocco must have been pissed at old Mikey when
he gave him that assignment.
Plus, it cost Tom Rosqui (the actor who played Rocco) a chance to pick
up a check for Godfather III. Yeah, I never liked the Roth hit
either.
ron salvatore
>him, why did he him about Roth's plan to assassinate him? Was he
>trying to use Fredo to set Roth up that night?
Doesn't Michael tell Fredo about the planned Roth hit while the two of them are
sitting in that Cuban cafe and talking? This is when Fredo seems to almost tell
Michael of his betrayal and then doesn't ("oh, why didn't we have this talk
before?).
Unless I'm forgetting something (and I might be), Michael doesn't find out that
it's Fredo who betrayed him until later that night, while they're at that sex
show.
>About the original question in this thread, I think the idea of a
>"suicide mission" is probably right, but then why did they have to use
>Rocco? He kills Paulie, Tattaglia, probably a buch of other guys for
>the family, and then they tell him to go into one of the most public,
>crowded, secure places imaginable and kill a guy who's being protected
>by several armed guards?
It's a weird scenario, but I do think it fits rather well into the theme of
Michael's fall from grace. By the end of the film Michael has become like some
kind of inhuman specter, and he's only capable of being satisfied by revenge.
The line separating those who are "family" and those who are "enemy" has become
blurred and his desire to off has Roth superseded everything else.
In that sense the "suicidal" mission of Rocco is yet another comment on
Michael's increasing disregard for his "family," a disregard that began to
manifest itself in the first film when he had Carlo killed immediately after
standing as godfather to his son.
Keep in mind that Coppola sets the scene up by having Michael brush off Tom's
advice to forget Roth. Here the point is clearly made that a hit on Roth is
both uneccesary and unwise. So it's fitting that it comes across as the most
senseless and least thought-out killing of the two films.
ron
VinnyBadabing
> another indication of Michael's ruin and his abandonment of his father's
> values.
I think that's right. Roth represents the old way. Roth also
represents business. Killing Roth shows that Michael no longer does
things for business reasons, it's personal.
We Italians are strong on message, by the way. There was once a
mobster who talked too much and ended up in a body bag in the river.
They identified him from his credit card. The newspaper reported that
the card was found "between his legs". It was a polite way of saying
that it was found in a place where you wouldn't usually put a credit
card.
The wise guys obviously wanted the body to be found. It sent a message
to others who canaried. Roth's murder is the same. Sends a message.
~Vinny