A few things I don't understand… (Spoilers)
-
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? -
sesquick-seabag — 9 years ago(July 15, 2016 06:50 PM)
And no, it's not "illogical" that Soze would be the gunman if he was Keaton.
IF he was Keaton, yes. Obviously with IF being the operative word there. But that's just what Kujan assumes, based on the lies in Verbal's testimony, and partly fuelled by his overwhelming predisposition to believe the worst of Keaton. WE know Keaton wasn't the gunman, don't we?
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?
Verbal is lying though. Did I miss something you said? Are you submitting a possibility that Keaton was the gunman? -
Stratego — 9 years ago(July 15, 2016 07:47 PM)
IF he was Keaton, yes. Obviously with IF being the operative word there. But that's just what Kujan assumes, based on the lies in Verbal's testimony, and partly fuelled by his overwhelming predisposition to believe the worst of Keaton. WE know Keaton wasn't the gunman, don't we?
We only really know he wasn't the gunman after the revelation, though. Again, Kujan having tunnel vision is the whole point of the movie. It's the reason he believes Keaton faked his death once again. And yes, that's why he chooses to believe that Keaton was the gunman Verbal mentioned who shot everybody and got away. But even after Soze's name popped up, Keaton could've been a mere henchman just like you think Verbal was just a henchman. But Kujan thinks he's the man behind Soze because he believes that the man Marquez had betrayed would come onto the boat himself to kill him. Just like Keaton and the Hungarian believed the gunman would be Soze himself. The idea of the gunman being a henchman of Soze is never introduced.
Verbal is lying though. Did I miss something you said? Are you submitting a possibility that Keaton was the gunman?
No, I'm saying that to Kujan, Verbal had no reason to lie about Keaton being on the boat and seeing him die. But even without tunnel vision, there wouldn't be a clear motive for him lying. So if Keaton was the mastermind behind the whole heist and staged his death on the boat, then he was also the gunman who shot Marquez. -
sesquick-seabag — 9 years ago(July 15, 2016 08:14 PM)
We only really know he wasn't the gunman after the revelation, though.
Really? I thought it was made manifestly clear he wasn't in the very opening scene (which only a while ago we both agreed shows us what really happened on the boat, ie that Keaton is dead beyond doubt, and that his killer was most probably "Verbal Kint"). In the rest of what you say, aren't you basically arguing that it was reasonable for Kujan to entertain that theory (though not to assume it's necessarily correct, as he does)? That he believes Keaton was the gunman shouldn't lead us to the inevitable conclusion that Soze was the gunman.
No, I'm saying that to Kujan, Verbal had no reason to lie about Keaton being on the boat and seeing him die. But even without tunnel vision, there wouldn't be a clear motive for him lying. So if Keaton was the mastermind behind the whole heist and staged his death on the boat, then he was also the gunman who shot Marquez.
Quite. It's just that, forgive me, I don't really see the logical path from that theory to Soze being the gunman. I mean, it's a perfectly reasonable theory for Kujan to have drawn; given what he knows about Keaton's criminal past, it's reasonable for him to pick holes in Verbal's account to test his certainty over whether he saw Keaton get shot or not. It just seems to me a moot point, eventually, since we know from scene one that Keaton was killed by a man he recognizes, whom he identifies as "Keyser" in the line "I can't feel my legs, Keyser" - which to me suggests very strongly that Verbal was the assassin. Though there's a degree of ambiguity over whether that alone makes it safe to draw the certain conclusion that he's actually Keyser Soze. -
Stratego — 9 years ago(July 16, 2016 04:41 AM)
Really? I thought it was made manifestly clear he wasn't in the very opening scene
No, we don't know what that scene means until the revelation. It could've been staged like Kujan suggests. Only looking back at it aftwerwards is it clear that Keaton is truly killed in that scene.
it's a perfectly reasonable theory for Kujan to have drawn
IF Keaton was truly the Soze, it would also be perfectly reasonable for us to believe he was the gunman on the boat, as we saw Keaton on the boat and up till the revelation have no reason to doubt what we're seeing. If he's on the boat, ofcourse he's going to kill Marquez himself. Three different characters suggest it's Soze and the reasoning for doing it himself makes complete sense. -
sesquick-seabag — 9 years ago(July 16, 2016 08:15 AM)
It could've been staged like Kujan suggests.
I consider that unlikely. The scene between Keaton and the cloaked man staged for Verbal? Why do we see it up close, rather than simply from where Verbal is watching? Why hear them talking in voices barely raised above whispers, that Verbal couldn't have heard?
IF Keaton was truly the Soze, it would also be perfectly reasonable for us to believe he was the gunman on the boat, as we saw Keaton on the boat and up till the revelation have no reason to doubt what we're seeing. If he's on the boat, ofcourse he's going to kill Marquez himself. Three different characters suggest it's Soze and the reasoning for doing it himself makes complete sense.
Yeah, so you're still saying that because Kujan hypothesises that Keaton would want to kill someone who informed on him personally, then it follows that Keyser Soze would also? It doesn't necessarily follow. It makes sense, stands to reason. But it could also make sense that, as a crime kingpin, Soze would ultimately rather entrust the job to a henchman rather than put his own life at risk on the boat. I know the script doesn't introduce the concept of a hitman working for Soze, but it's an equally plausible scenario the way I see it. -
Stratego — 9 years ago(July 16, 2016 09:20 AM)
Why do we see it up close, rather than simply from where Verbal is watching?
Because eventually it's clear that that scene isn't really taken from Verbal's testimony, but instead shows what really happened. But as the director has pointed out, he filmed the scene in such a way, focussing on the ropes, to give the impression that Verbal was secretly watching them.
Yeah, so you're still saying that because Kujan hypothesises that Keaton would want to kill someone who informed on him personally, then it follows that Keyser Soze would also?
No, I'm saying that it's logical to think that if Keaton is the mastermind behind the operation and staged his death, that he's also the gunman on the boat. But I'm also saying that it's logical that Soze is the gunman because three different characters believe he is. And Kujan's theory on how Keaton pulled everything off, would also apply to Verbal if he's the gunman. Meaning he's also the mastermind and thus Soze.
But it could also make sense that, as a crime kingpin, Soze would ultimately rather entrust the job to a henchman rather than put his own life at risk on the boat. I know the script doesn't introduce the concept of a hitman working for Soze, but it's an equally plausible scenario the way I see
As I've said multiple times, go ahead if you want to believe that. This all began when you asked me who I thought Verbal really was and if Soze would shoot Marquez himself. I simply gave you a logical explanation based on what the movie implies. -
Tony_Silvio — 9 years ago(August 30, 2016 04:16 AM)
You just brought something to my attention that makes the whole thing possibly even more far-fetched: Kujan's tunnel vision on Keaton and the fact that Verbal and Keaton were friends. They met in county where Verbal was doing time for fraud, he says.
So, are we supposed to believe Verbal ended up in jail (not prison) for some misdemeanor, where he happens to meet and befriend the man who is going to take the fall/credit for the whole operation because the agent who shows up has a history with Keaton and also gets Verbal in an office with him for a few hours?
Or are we supposed to believe that the whole thing was intricately planned and went off virtually without a hitch? That seems equally unlikely. Unless I missed something and Kujan only showed up because he requested to be sent over a personal vendetta, which Verbal had counted on.. That makes it a little more reasonable, I suppose, but only a little. -
Stratego — 9 years ago(August 30, 2016 11:04 AM)
So, are we supposed to believe Verbal ended up in jail (not prison) for some misdemeanor, where he happens to meet and befriend the man who is going to take the fall/credit for the whole operation because the agent who shows up has a history with Keaton and also gets Verbal in an office with him for a few hours?
When Verbal planned this, he never intended to put the blame on Keaton or expected Kujan to drop by. It was just supposed to be a story about a dope deal gone wrong. It seems he already mentioned having met Keaton before in his statement to the DA. The reason for this is that it makes it more believably that Verbal got involved in the heist, as Keaton apparently trusted him. It could be he lied about a previous encounter with Keaton thinking they wouldn't bother checking it, but it's also possible he arranged for the police records to be changed, just like he arranged the line-up.
Kujan did show up on his own accord, but it's not something Verbal counted on. -
Tony_Silvio — 9 years ago(August 30, 2016 01:24 PM)
Well, depending on what he told the DA, it doesn't seem to have been a lie. If we're to allow that the post-lineup scene in the holding cell actually happened, verbal tells McManus how he met Keaton and Keaton doesn't deny it. Don't you just find it a bit odd that someone like Kint could pull this whole thing off, but not be able to talk his way out of a brief stint in the county jail for misdemeanor fraud?
-
Stratego — 9 years ago(September 01, 2016 03:50 PM)
Don't you just find it a bit odd that someone like Kint could pull this whole thing off, but not be able to talk his way out of a brief stint in the county jail for misdemeanor fraud?
No, because if he did spend time in jail (instead of just changing the police records, which he easily could've done and which I think is more likely), then he did so because he wanted to establish a connection to Keaton.
Or are you saying that the cops should find it odd? In that case it's still no, because a mysterious third party was involved in the boat heist.