MovieChat Forums > The Godfather (1972) Discussion > Ending makes no sense--spoiler alert

Ending makes no sense--spoiler alert

posted 3 years ago by Adam60z (3774)
22 replies | jump to latest

Why does Michael have Carlo killed, considering the whole first part of the movie is based on Connie's and Carlo's huge wedding? It makes no sense he would kill his sister's husband, even though he was a rat. The lie he told Carlo would make much more sense: that he's out of the family and going to Vegas as punishment. So Carlo wasn't that dumb to confess, believing that Michael would never kill his brother-in-law. But wasn't that smart not to hedge his bets.

But G2 was totally ridiculous, with the whole Fredo thing, Senator thing, etc. Mediocre followup script, though a much bigger budget riding the coattails of G1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vZx7yF_a7M

[–] strntz (12474) 3 years ago

I suspect there aren't many who are going to agree with you. Forgetting for a moment that Carlo routinely beat Michael's sister Connie, Carlo setup Santino to be killed. Does excluding Carlo from the family business and sending to to Vegas seem like a punishment that Michael would think squared things for Sonny's murder??

[–] Adam60z (3774) 3 years ago

They conveniently left out Carlo's funeral, which I presume would have been attended by many of his wedding guests. Point is the wedding was a huge event and the center of the whole first part of the film. Then the guy not even part of the family business becomes the Don and kills the man who got married: his brother-in-law?
The other aspect I didn't get was how and why exactly did Carlo set up Santino? He beat Connie knowing she would call Sonny, knowing he would leave the secure compound and drive there using that tollbooth...that's a lot of contingencies.
Just because Sonny beat him up? Wouldn't he know that would spell his own death? They should have gone further into the setup.
I mean I know in real life the Mafia used to hit their own, and not many outsiders. I know that Sammy the Bull killed his brother-in-law. Maybe he was copycatting what he saw in G1!

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

"Normal" families by the millions the world over sometimes suspect the motives of the people who marry their sons and daughters -- but fete the couple with a wonderful wedding nonetheless. With the Connie Corleone wedding , the guests who showed up were largely there to honor Don Vito first, Connie second...Carlo probably not at all.

Don Vito likely made sure not to give Carlo access to family business secrets out of caution...had Carlo proved a really good guy and Mafioso, maybe he would have been given more to do.

But he indeed beat Connie(and insulted her at the family dinner table) and got on Sonny's bad side early(irony: Sonny brought Carlo IN to the family -- they were pals.) There has been some discussion on these boards that in the book, the point was made that Don Vito was going to allow Carlo to beat Connie(an "acceptable" aspect of some Sicilian marriages with the man as God), but Sonny was a different matter in the movie.

As with a lot of great stories, we get to infer things rather than see them. Carlo was treated as an outsider by the Corleones, beaten up by Sonny -- he "didn't get no respect." Barzini probably learned about this -- maybe Carlo complained.

With Don Vito wounded and Sonny(who hated Carlo) as the acting Don, Carlo felt it was time to break with the family and likely took the bait when Barzini approached because of that.

Meanwhile, quiet, brooding and intelligent Michael thought about all of this and fit Carlo into his "vengeance massacre" payback plot.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I do like the "sequence" of killings at the end. First Barzini and all the other family bosses, en masse. Then Tessio(who is at least just driven off screen; Michael doesn't hang around to see him killed.) Then -- finally -- the man for whom Michael has no respect: Carlo. Michael powers down on Carlo like a Bad Dad who has his errant son "right where he wants him" for sadistic verbal punishment: Barzini's dead, Tattaligia's dead, they are all dead, you're all alone.."don't insult my intelligence" about your complicity in the plot.

Michael gets the confession (one word: Barzini) and brilliantly gets Carlo to thinking he'll just be banished to Vegas. I even like how Michael barks at Carlo "get out of my sight" so to "keep it real": he's not suggesting he'll ever be Carlo's pal, godfather or not.

And then, the garroting. Notice how, unlike as with Tessio, the victim is killed "on the grounds." Notice how -- unlike with Tessio -- Michael comes out of the house to watch both the execution and how brutal it is. Payback for family.

I'd like to believe that Tessio was simply taken somewhere and shot in the head for a quick death. But Michael reserves a brutal garroting for Carlo...and makes sure to watch.

It all makes great narrative sense to me...and keeps The Godfather interesting to the end. When all of this is followed by "the women" -- Connie and Kay -- powerlessly confronting Michael over all of this, with his answers all lies -- these are the final killings of the film: emotional killings.

[–] Adam60z (3774) 3 years ago

Interesting analysis. Except Michael lied to Kay to satisfy her (temporarily), not kill her emotionally..that came later in G2.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Thank you for reading...I can certainly take your point that the "emotional killing" of Kay REALLY comes with Godfather II, but I will note this.

In 1972, when The Godfather came out, nobody thought or knew that there would BE a Godfather II. Sequels to major classics wereh't a "thing" back then.

So the final scene of The Godfather seemed to be the end of the story, for all time. And what Michael did there to Kay -- showing for the first time(and all time) that he would never be truthful with her about his work -- and then having the door close on her...well, it may not have been an emotional killing, but it was something.

Connie KNEW Michael had Carlo killed and it didn't matter that Carlo beat her and may have helped kill Sonny(she didn't seem to believe that.) So she was pretty destroyed, too. Again, Godfather II got to show how badly she was destroyed, but again, there was no Godfather II planned at the time.

[–] Mitzy (10) 3 years ago

Great write up, you are spot-on with your analysis. 👏👏👏

[–] strntz (12474) 3 years ago

The other aspect I didn't get was how and why exactly did Carlo set up Santino? He beat Connie knowing she would call Sonny, knowing he would leave the secure compound and drive there using that tollbooth...that's a lot of contingencies.

Yes it is, and for all we know, there may have been previous setups on Sonny that he simply didn't fall for, or the traffic on the causeway made the hit impractical, etc.

But, we do know for a fact that Sonny would fly off the handle and deal with Carlo directly when he beat Connie - like when he savagely beat Carlo on the street earlier for the same exact offense. It was no secret to anyone that Sonny had a bad temper and for paying Carlo a visit after Carlo beat Connie. It was Sonny's predictability made the setup work.

It's also possible that the big fight between Carlo and Connie on that fateful day may not have been pre-planned at all, but after Carlo beat Connie up, he might have called Barzini and told him there was a good chance Sonny was going to come after him. Calling Barzini at that point to intercept Sonny on the causeway would also save Carlo a beating. Barzini's goons met him at the toll booth and the rest is history.

As far as why the movie didn't go more into the setup, remember that this film was almost three hours as it was, and the film left out tons of stuff that was in the book. Still, I think the setup was fairly well covered.

[–] radarlove73 (119) 3 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mitzy (10) 3 years ago

No, no one would’ve attended Carlo’s funeral, he was not “made”. He was not part of the organization. Maybe just close family, and that’s it.
Sonny’s death was a set up that Carlos admitted to. Likely a time was set and it would happen. If not that day, then another day. The beating by Sonny wasn’t the catalyst, rather Carlos was clearly a weak link seen by the Don’s enemies. He was used and manipulated to end the life of Sonny.

[–] marktayloruk (2509) 2 years ago

The Don had tested Carlo out at the bookies - turned out to.be incompetent.

[–] roreyking (607) 3 years ago

Adam60z: You should learn something about movie criticism by reading professional reviews of both films, especially Pauline Kael's. Then you won't have to embarrass yourself with such a moronic post.

[–] Adam60z (3774) 3 years ago

Looks like we found the troll.

[–] roreyking (607) 3 years ago

LOL! We'd already found you.

[–] Who (5146) 3 years ago

🎣

[–] roreyking (607) 3 years ago

Adam60z - your comments are moronic. Better stick to comic books

[–] Adam60z (3774) 3 years ago

But you're an idiot defined as someone with an IQ of under 30. Good luck with that!

[–] roreyking (607) 3 years ago

LOL! I hope you're not older than 8. Don't bother to reply - I won't read it.

[–] Adam60z (3774) 3 years ago

I know for sure you're a 6 year old troll. Fixed it for ya!

[–] radarlove73 (119) 3 years ago

Adam6Oz Stick to films that don't require thinking

[–] Adam60z (3774) 3 years ago

You'll never see there are films better than the gangster garbage you like. So pathetic.

[–] Mitzy (10) 3 years ago

Adam, read the book then go back and then watch the movie again. The intricacies within the family are important. The nuances that are shown and inferred hold the answers to the issues you don’t understand. The Godfather is a masterpiece. Coppola saw that The Godfather could be seen as more than just another crime story with the tired old moral, “Crime doesn’t pay.” Instead, he filmed it as a metaphor for the Italian immigrant experience in America. As the daughter of an immigrant who’s family was involved in Underworld crime, the film was stunning. Coppola wrote the book, sent the first draft and it was published without revisions. But as a film, with the enhancement of 1) Coppola’s insight, 2) Puzo’s revisions, and 3) Brando’s performance, not to mention Pacino, Robert Duvall, and others… it becomes positively Shakespearean in its feel. It feels like grand opera, with its eternal themes of family, loyalty, betrayal, revenge, and power. Except it’s realistic and believable.