SPOILER.
-
zee944 — 11 years ago(March 21, 2015 07:48 AM)
It meant nothing. It makes no sense, neither some other things in The Color of Money. Anyone who are looking for the answer, don't blame yourself. It is just not a well written movie, that's all. It may have meant something in an earlier version of the script, but not in the final movie.
-
courts0 — 10 years ago(September 04, 2015 01:32 PM)
Eddie told Vince he was going home because he "couldn't teach him anything more", but the next time they see each other, Eddie's turned right back around and is in Atlantic City playing in a big tournament. At this point it's now obvious that Eddie's time on the road wasn't contingent on Vince, and so Vince now knows that Eddie just "used him" to regain his love for the game as opposed to helping Vince hone his game and make him money.
Game of Thrones - Best Show on TV -
jmrex — 9 years ago(November 06, 2016 08:52 PM)
If Vince wasn't such a slow learner, he'd make money. Eddie would make money. Win win. And if Eddie found new life and started playing again himself, so what? That wouldn't hurt Vincent. I explain half of it away by saying Vincent was just lashing out because he's still hurt for being cut loose early. But Eddie copped to the accusation. You're rightmakes no sense.
-
dark_liquidity — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 11:20 AM)
This issue is easily explained.
At the beginning of the film, Eddie no longer plays pool, is a successful liquor seller and just stake horses Julian.
When he sees Vincent's raw talent, it reminds Eddie of a younger version of himself. Initially he takes Vincent on the road because he genuinely wants to teach Vincent how to hustle and because he thinks he is too old to play competitively himself.
However, throughout the film, he starts growing more and more impatient with Vincent's ignoring of his advice, such as in the following scenes:- Vincent starts showing off in Chalkies, when Eddie tells him no runs over four balls, causing Eddie to walk off
- Vincent dancing around to Werewolves Of London, steering Mozzell & his stakehorse with $5,000 (Earl) away from him
- Vincent getting upset at the '2 Brothers & A Stranger' scam in which Eddie touches up Carmen
- Vincent ignoring Eddie's advice to get whooped by Grady Seasons and only losing when forced to by Carmen
In point 2) of the above, in the car Eddie says to Vincent 'I'm hungry again' and 'you remind me that money won is twice as sweet as money earned'. At this stage Eddie is starting to subconsciously get the hunger back for playing himself.
At he end of point 4), Eddie is leaning over intently, watching Vincent lose to Grady (only after Carmen told Vincent to) and Carmen says to Eddie 'what are you doing meditating'. This is the pivotal scene where Eddie has realised Vincent has ignored his advice for a fourth time and is too stubborn to teach how to hustle. Eddie also starts realising at this point he can do what Vincent / Grady are doing on the pool table, e.g. he still has the skill himself.
The next day he asks for the Balabushka and plays and beats Amos convincingly. Yes Amos is trying to hustle Eddie of course, but Eddie still makes a couple of tricky shots to win.
Eddie realises during this game with Amos that he now needs a good excuse to get rid of Vincent and Carmen, but he can't just tell them to go away he needs an 'excuse' to get rid of them. So as soon as Carmen and Vincent enter to watch Eddie play Amos, Eddie starts losing on purpose, making himself out to be a drunken old loser, giving him the perfect alibi to dump Carmen and Vincent.
Eddie's genuine anger at Vincent comes out in the scene on the stairs afterwards, where Eddie says to Vincent 'you always do what you want to do',
So when Vincent says 'you used us' he is upset because at the end of the movie, he realises that whilst Eddie initially positioned himself as a stakehorse to help Vincent win Atlantic city, what actually transpired is Eddie dumps Vincent and Carmen halfway through the journey to go it alone by himself and to win Atlantic City himself. Hence Vincent feels used. Of course he is oblivious to the fact that Eddie dumped him because he kept ignoring his advice on hustling, as evidenced in the scene on the stairs in the Amos incident when Vincent says 'I always tried to do what you told me to do', when clearly he didn't!
-
Fiery_101 — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 11:56 PM)
This is a great post and I agree with every single thing you said up until the point where you said that Eddie lost to Amos on purpose.
I believe, in fact, it is the exact opposite of this. Amos hustles Eddie. Eddie is both completely surprised by it, but his ego is also completely shattered. Not only did he not realize that he was getting conned, but the fact that he lost itself is the single greatest motivation for him to get his game back. The whole next scene with the montage of him getting his game back almost serves as proof to this.
I think that every part of your argument is correct, with the exception of Eddie losing on purpose. The way it is shot, to me, even illustrates this. We are supposed to sympathize with Eddie's failure in this scene as it drives his motivations for the rest of the film.
Definitely a great post even though I disagree on the one point. -
dark_liquidity — 9 years ago(January 27, 2017 02:15 AM)
Thank you.
I can see where you are coming from, but I genuinely think Eddie lost to Amos on purpose so that he could get rid of Vincent and Carmen.
Remember, his performance against Amos significantly deteriorates and he gets more 'drunk' as Vincent and Carmen magically appear. Initially he is sober when playing Amos and he is winning easily. I think he needed a strong excuse to get rid of them so starting dumping on purpose.
Also remember, Eddie is much better at pool than we give him credit for at the beginning of the movie. When he plays Vincent for the first time in Chalkies, Eddie runs the table and pots all the balls to win. In another game, Eddie says '9 off the break' and the 9 ball rattles against the jaws of the pocket. This proves he's still amazing even before the Amos scene.
The movie is open to so many interpretations and I think that's what makes it great. -
Fiery_101 — 9 years ago(January 30, 2017 01:24 PM)
I think, you might be able to argue that he is intentionally getting drunk, as a reasoning that he throws the match.
But to me, the thing that makes it most clear that he didn't lose on purpose is basically what happens directly afterward. I'm not including the shot where we see him break down about it, which seems to be shot in a very earnest way.
Instead I'm talking about the next scenes, where we are shown a montage of him improving his game, which seems to include various other losses and him getting a pair of glasses. If he was already such a great pool player, there really isn't any need for an "improving" montage. It would send a mixed message. -
dark_liquidity — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 03:03 AM)
The 'improving' montage is Eddie basically hustling again before he goes to Atlantic City.
He loses to that old woman and that redneck and gives them say $20, but then he always wins back the second game against them and is handed back double the amount he lost, e.g. hustling.
Same thing with Mozzell. He loses first in front of lots of people when the odds against him aren't that bad, and then he wins the rematch when the odds against him are really unfavourable. You can bet he was betting money on himself in the rematch to beat Mozzell too. E.g. all part of the hustle
Remember, he lost a lot of money going on the road with Vincent/Carmen. Vincent didn't follow his advice, didn't make much money from hustling, and Eddie was paying for their rent, food, expenses, so the improving montage is him hustling to win back his losses.
I can see your perspective on this too, again that's what makes the film so great. -
Fiery_101 — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 11:39 PM)
I thought this was pretty clear after watching the film. Especially when you consider the final line.
Eddie was using Vincent as a catalyst to vicariously relive and reignite his old passion and dream. And he was probably not even doing it consciously. This is something that people do all the time.
While it is absolutely true that Eddie was staking Vincent, and I honestly believe that he was trying to teach him something, he wasn't necessarily doing it entirely FOR Vincent, he was doing it for himself, moreso.
When Vincent confronts him with this at the end, Eddie doesn't shy away from it, because deep down he knows that Vincent is right. There was a lot of internal conflict in Eddie's character. There is conflict in Vincent's character. They're very similar. The 180 that happens for both characters near the end of the film is actually great in that the buildup to it makes complete sense in the context of both characters and the path that they had taken. It is completely earned, which is why it works so well, and why the ending scene (Including the dialogue in the original post) is so poignant.