A few things I don't understand… (Spoilers)
-
sesquick-seabag — 9 years ago(June 02, 2016 11:13 AM)
Well all the bodies on deck would likely have been burned to a crisp, like the one we see when Baer arrives on the scene. I do wonder how Arturo's corpse ended up in the water, though, when he was killed in his cabin.
The point was that Kobyashi would meet with them after the line up and make the proposition to them there and then, no? When he does catch up with them he says as much:
You were not to be released until I had come to see you. It seems Mr Keaton's attourney Ms Finneran was a little too effective in expediting his release
. "You were not to be released" sounds like there are moles in the police force pulling some strings. But my question would probably be: Why not just simply have them kidnapped and brought to Kobayashi?
He wasn't. -
filompra — 9 years ago(June 02, 2016 11:34 AM)
Why being loud when you can be subtle?
Soze doesn't want have to kidnap nobody.
He's a God-like mobster with connections up the wazoo.
He knows that all he needs is to get these men in the same room and - first of all - he knows they're going to come up with a job (like Verbal says "you don't put 5 men like that in the same cell") and, once he finds out who the fence is (Redfoot, in California. Likely another one of Soze's pawns) he decides to set the whole crew up with the disaster job in the parking lot.
Like Kobayashi says "we can see that Mr. Redfoot testifies against you, gentlemen".
It's better to come up with something like that, rather than kidnapping 4 guys, don't you think? -
sesquick-seabag — 9 years ago(June 02, 2016 06:12 PM)
Well I'm thinking it might have been subtler not to have to involve the police..
If he has agents that could track and kill Fenster, why not just have them kidnap the suspects, bring them somewhere where Kobayashi can make the proposition to them?
Redfoot being able to testify against them over the murder of Saul Berg is ultimately neither here nor there when the deal is: accept this mission and take the money if you live, or refuse and face certain death (probably after knowing your loved ones have been violated and killed). From what Kobayashi told them - which I quoted - it doesn't seem that Redfoot was in on it. Most probably Verbal communicated with Kobayashi about their movements after Edie got them released (the taxi heist) and he was onto Redfoot before they met with him. "Mr Redfoot knew nothing". -
sesquick-seabag — 9 years ago(June 30, 2016 07:46 PM)
Something I might also ask is who exactly was Arturo Marquez? I mean, what did he do for Soze? You'd think he was someone high up if he actually had the kind of inside knowledge of Soze's operations he claimed to have (that the Hungarian mob were prepared to pay millions and millions for). But Rabin (or Baer, I can't remember which) refers to him as a "petty smuggler from Argentina".
-
Stratego — 9 years ago(July 01, 2016 08:25 PM)
Well, to the police he was only known as a petty smuggler from Argentina, but in reality he apparently was part of a huge criminal empire, which he had been able to hide well up until then. Could it be that Arturo Marquez wasn't his true or only identity?
-
sesquick-seabag — 9 years ago(July 01, 2016 08:36 PM)
That's kind of what I've been thinking, though the script is tantalisingly opaque there. Kinda like Verbal poses as a petty conman. It also makes me wonder about Verbal - is he Sose, or Sose's right-hand-man and assassin? What do you think? I believe Singer and McQuarrie said they conceived the movie so that it would be inferred that Verbal Kint is Soze (which is Turkish for Verbal). But do criminal kingpins do hits up close? Usually they have deputies (which Verbal could be) and a spokesman/counsellor (Kobayashi). All the ending ultimately implies, necessarily, is that Verbal is misrepresenting himself.
-
Stratego — 9 years ago(July 02, 2016 04:54 AM)
I think that all kinds of things, like the fax, his fake limp, the fact that he's the gunman, his lies that are as grandiose as Soze's myth, are supposed to suggest that Verbal is actually Soze. But there's certainly room to interpret it differently. Soze wanted to shoot Marquez himself, because he couldn't trust anyone else. He had just been betrayed by someone close to him and he wanted to make sure he was really dead.
-
sesquick-seabag — 9 years ago(July 05, 2016 06:56 PM)
Soze wanted to shoot Marquez himself, because he couldn't trust anyone else. He had just been betrayed by someone close to him and he wanted to make sure he was really dead.
Maybe, although one thing to bear in mind is that it's Kujan who assumes that Soze needed to assassinate Marquez personally "to make sure he got his man" but because, at that point, he's absolutely hell-bent on following his theory that Keaton is at the root of it all. So in a way he needs to believe Keaton is Soze in order to justify to himself why Keaton was involved. We of course know Keaton wasn't Soze, so it should be up to us to decide if Soze would have needed to take out Marquez himself to be sure he was silenced. I have to say it doesn't strike me as something that the spider in the centre of the web would do personally. -
Stratego — 9 years ago(July 05, 2016 07:50 PM)
Yes, it's Kujan who mentions this and he's talking about Keaton. But he also believes Keaton is the man behind Soze, so it doesn't really matter who Soze really is. If Keaton would personally kill Marquez, then Verbal would as well. The idea is that after such a betrayal, Soze doesn't trust anyone else to get rid of him. No doubt it also gives him satisfaction to pull the trigger himself.
-
sesquick-seabag — 9 years ago(July 08, 2016 05:46 PM)
Yeah but it's only Kujan's assumption that Keaton would want to kill Marquez personally. By that point Kujan is, if not quite what you'd call deluded, then failing to be completely objective. Can he really be satisfied with his theory that Keaton "was Keiser Soze, the man who could etc,etc" without hesitating for a second? He has no proof Keaton masterminded it; it's just what he wants to believe. Verbal recognizes that and just feeds him the lines he wants to hear.
The idea is that after such a betrayal, Soze doesn't trust anyone else to get rid of him. No doubt it also gives him satisfaction to pull the trigger himself.
Could be; could just as well not be. I don't see why Soze would necessarily have to be the one to pull the trigger just to be sure the mission was accomplished. Verbal could be his lieutenant or an assassin who he pays to do dangerous jobs. Some concrete proof of Marquez's death could have been obtained without great difficulty, given his deep police and legal connections.
I always thought Spacey looked a little young, anyway, in 1995, to be the guy who had already become an infamous world criminal by the year 1981 - as according to Kobayashi, Keaton's offence against Soze dates back to that time:
In nineteen-eighty one, Mr. Keaton, you
participated in the hijacking of a truck
in Buffalo, New York. The cargo was raw
steel. Steel that belonged to Mr. Soze
and was destined for Pakistan to be used
in a Nuclear reactor. A very profitable
violation of U.N. Regulations. You had no
way of knowing this, because the man
shipping the steel was working for Mr.
Soze without his knowledge.
Of course, that's just speculation. -
Stratego — 9 years ago(July 12, 2016 06:25 AM)
Yeah but it's only Kujan's assumption that Keaton would want to kill Marquez personally.
No. It's also Keaton in the opening scene, it's also the Hungarian in the hospital. None of the other characters in the movie ever questions or contradicts Kujan's believe that Soze himself killed Marquez. Soze had just been betrayed by someone close to him, it totally makes sense he wouldn't trust anyone else to do it. His anger could also have been a reason to do it himself.
Can he really be satisfied with his theory that Keaton "was Keiser Soze, the man who could etc,etc" without hesitating for a second? He has no proof Keaton masterminded it; it's just what he wants to believe. Verbal recognizes that and just feeds him the lines he wants to hear.
That's the entire point of the movie.
I don't see why Soze would necessarily have to be the one to pull the trigger just to be sure the mission was accomplished.
Like I said, Soze had just been betrayed by someone close to him, it totally makes sense he wouldn't trust anyone else to do it. But hey, if you want to believe that Verbal was just a henchman, you're free to do so. The ending is ambiguous enough to allow that. But the director himself has said that Verbal is supposed to be Soze.
I always thought Spacey looked a little young, anyway, in 1995, to be the guy who had already become an infamous world criminal by the year 1981 - as according to Kobayashi, Keaton's offence against Soze dates back to that time
One, that's the story Verbal tells Kujan. We don't know if it's true. Two, if it is true, it could very well have been at the beginning of Soze's international criminal career. Three, even if that was truly said to Keaton, it doesn't mean Soze had anything to do with it. He could've been lying. I was under the impression that much of the Soze myth was exaggerated to create fear. -
sesquick-seabag — 9 years ago(July 14, 2016 07:29 PM)
No. It's also Keaton in the opening scene, it's also the Hungarian in the hospital. None of the other characters in the movie ever questions or contradicts Kujan's believe that Soze himself killed Marquez. Soze had just been betrayed by someone close to him, it totally makes sense he wouldn't trust anyone else to do it. His anger could also have been a reason to do it himself.
Thinking that Soze killed Marquez (and that was the ultimate motive for hitting the boat rather than disrupting a dope deal) is one thing. But it's a huge leap in logic from that to assuming (without any evidence) Keaton is Soze, though, wouldn't you say? But Kujan is so blinkered by that point he doesn't stop and think. He doesn't mention his theory to anyone else anyway.
That's the entire point of the movie.
So you agree then.
Like I said, Soze had just been betrayed by someone close to him, it totally makes sense he wouldn't trust anyone else to do it. But hey, if you want to believe that Verbal was just a henchman, you're free to do so. The ending is ambiguous enough to allow that. But the director himself has said that Verbal is supposed to be Soze.
Well yeah, it makes sense - but being necessarily true is something else. No piece of evidence in the movie points to an unavoidable conclusion that the man calling himself Verbal Kint is Keyser Soze. It point to the fact that he's probably the assassin on the boat, that he's misrepresenting himself. I know Singer has said that for him Verbal is Soze, but I'm sure I recall an interview where McQuarrie says that's not the only possible interpretation.
I was under the impression that much of the Soze myth was exaggerated to create fear.
Then why is information about him and the names of people who work for him so valuable? -
Stratego — 9 years ago(July 15, 2016 10:16 AM)
But it's a huge leap in logic from that to assuming (without any evidence) Keaton is Soze, though, wouldn't you say?
Those are actually two totally different issues. Kujan made up his mind that Keaton was behind it all even before meeting Verbal.
So you agree then.
It's the point of the movie, yes. It's made pretty clear.
No piece of evidence in the movie points to an unavoidable conclusion that the man calling himself Verbal Kint is Keyser Soze. It point to the fact that he's probably the assassin on the boat, that he's misrepresenting himself. I know Singer has said that for him Verbal is Soze, but I'm sure I recall an interview where McQuarrie says that's not the only possible interpretation.
What do you want me to say? Like I said multiple times before, the movie is ambiguous enough for different interpretations. I know some of the actors have said anyone could be Soze, I don't know about McQuarrie. But Singer has said Verbal is Soze and while there's no concrete evidence, the hints only point to him.
Then why is information about him and the names of people who work for him so valuable?
Uhm, because he's still a big time criminal who has a lot of enemies. -
sesquick-seabag — 9 years ago(July 15, 2016 05:15 PM)
Kujan made up his mind that Keaton was behind it all even before meeting Verbal.
Well, exactly. And, to make that theory work, he has to assume that Keaton was/is one Keyser Soze - that the whole reason he was on the boat was to murder the man who had told the police he could expose him, and was about to sell a mine of information on him to a rival gang. But that doesn't necessarily imply that the assassin on the boat was actually Soze himself. It just means Kujan needs to believe that Soze was on the boat, because he's desperate to pin it all on the guy who got away from him before.
the movie is ambiguous enough for different interpretations.
And that's basically all I'm saying. I've acknowledged what Singer said his intentions were. But at the same time it's open-ended enough to play around with some alternative possibilities. -
Stratego — 9 years ago(July 15, 2016 05:45 PM)
And, to make that theory work, he has to assume that Keaton was/is one Keyser Soze
Only AFTER he had heard about Soze and Marquez. Before that he thought Keaton just organized the heist and staged his death.
But that doesn't necessarily imply that the assassin on the boat was actually Soze himself.
Actually, it does. Verbal already testified that Keaton was on the boat. But based on Keaton's past Kujan believes he staged his death in front of Verbal. So if he's already on the boat, why would there even need to be another gunman?
And that's basically all I'm saying. I've acknowledged what Singer said his intentions were. But at the same time it's open-ended enough to play around with some alternative possibilities.
So what's your point? I think you're trying to argue something that was never really a discussion. I said from the beginning that different interpretations are possible, even though I believe the movie wants to imply that Verbal is Soze. -
sesquick-seabag — 9 years ago(July 15, 2016 06:17 PM)
Actually, it does. Verbal already testified that Keaton was on the boat. But based on Keaton's past Kujan believes he staged his death in front of Verbal. So if he's already on the boat, why would there even need to be another gunman?
Of course it doesn't. Well if you take it on faith that his Keaton's-behind-everything theory is correct it does, but why would you when it's made pretty obvious that he's not only wrong but stupidly nave? You're fudging what Kujan THINKS - and the internal logic of that - with actual evidence.
So what's your point? I think you're trying to argue something that was never really a discussion. I said from the beginning that different interpretations are possible, even though I believe the movie wants to imply that Verbal is Soze.
Why couldn't you just leave it at that then? Why pursue the illogical argument that Kujan's belief that Keaton is Soze implies that the real Soze was necessarily the gunman on the boat? -
Stratego — 9 years ago(July 15, 2016 06:41 PM)
Of course it doesn't. Well if you take it on faith that his Keaton's-behind-everything theory is correct it does, but why would you when it's made pretty obvious that he's not only wrong but stupidly nave? You're fudging what Kujan THINKS - and the internal logic of that - with actual evidence.
No, the question was if Soze would be the gunman on the boat if he was actually Keaton. And in that case he would be, since a witness testified he was on the boat. It has nothing to do with whether Kujan is "stupidly naive". And Kujan wasn't the only one who thought Soze himself was on the boat, Keaton and the Hungarian also believed it was him and no character ever questions this theory. Do they have tunnel vision? It's really the movie telling us that Soze himself would come to shoot Marquez.
Why couldn't you just leave it at that then? Why pursue the illogical argument that Kujan's belief that Keaton is Soze implies that the real Soze was necessarily the gunman on the boat?
Because that's something totally different than you continuously trying to argue that the gunman on the boat wasn't Soze. And no, it's not "illogical" that Soze would be the gunman if he was Keaton. Because he WAS on the boat. And Verbal has no reason to lie if he's just an ignorant pawn. And if Keaton's on the boat putting on a charade for verbal, why not kill Marquez himself?