MovieChat Forums > Three Days of the Condor (1975) Discussion > Turner's confusion at Atwood assassinati...

Turner's confusion at Atwood assassination

posted 7 years ago by bradkay-52161
8 replies | jump to latest

Turner hypothesized about a CIA within the CIA. During his interview Atwood he determined he had discovered Atwood's network. It had to be unauthorized because if authorized the CIA would be looking for the source of the leak and be thankful for those who discovered it.

It is reasonable for him to assume Joubert arrives to kill him not Atwood and Atwood seems to assume the same.

Yet after Atwood is assassinated Turner concludes Joubert was working for the company it doesn't understand why Joubert killed a company man even though Turner has concluded Atwood isn't a true company man and had put the CIA on the track Atwood wasn't by asking about him in his call to Higgins.

Okay, it's great dialogue. One of my favorite movie scenes ever. I suppose that we could attribute it to Turner being shocked due to the events I'm not quite having his wits about him.

[–] rogueforte 7 years ago

*Spoilers*

Mr. Wabash (John Houseman) made a decision for Joubert to kill a high-level CIA director (Atwood) rather than a low-level book-reader (Turner). I would imagine that's why Turner was confused; he couldn't quite grasp why they wouldn't just let Joubert kill him and let Atwood live. It's a good scene because the audience is thinking like Turner and has the same surprise when Joubert turns the gun on Atwood, instead.

But it does bring up an interesting point. I wonder if Joubert actually waited for Turner outside of Atwood's house to see how it played out. He does, after all, tell Turner that he knew he would be there. Maybe he thought Turner would kill Atwood, himself, and save him the trouble.

[–] bradkay-52161 7 years ago

Well, after Turner's initial shock at the shooting, shared by the audience, Turner quickly figures out Joubert did it for the company. It seems strange he has to ask why.

He seemed understand at that point Joubert is no longer after him until Joubert makes the Misunderstood comment that Atwood was about to become an embarrassment as Turner is. Which Joubert then has to explain.

Concerning Joubert letting Turner do it I think that wouldn't work. The company wanted it to look like a suicide which it would not have if Turner done it. Joubert acted to take Atwood out of danger from Turner so he could do the job right.

Also presumably Joubert was paid for this job rather than doing it under threat from the company and being the man he is would not have charged his fee had Turner killed Atwood. A post in another thread characterizes Joubert as a villain. I don't see him that way. After all he is doing a job and in his own words doesn't believe in either side or any side and has no cause.

[–] bradkay-52161 7 years ago

Anyway it's a great scene.

[–] rogueforte 7 years ago

Well, the whole 'villain' thing has been twisted in movies so they're usually two-dimensional, almost cartoonish, characterizations, I suppose to keep them interesting to movie audiences.

Joubert, OTOH, is much more like, say, Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi clerk who was largely responsible for the administration of The Final Solution and I've seen described as 'The Banality of Evil'. In his trial, he was quite proud of his efficiency.

The quiet, bespectacled, unassuming Joubert falls into that same category which kind of makes him one of the more evil movie villains. To him, murdering people is just a job no different than any other. He even states the only belief is in one's own precision.

Seems pretty damn evil, to me.

[–] bradkay-52161 7 years ago

People tend to view what is basically an evil act as acceptable if it gives them something they want. Higgins addresses this when he justifies a plan to invade the Middle East by saying don't ask them now (when life is good). Ask them when their houses are cold and they are hungry.

Joubert's occupation would be condemned by people during good times but considered perfectly OK when they're in serious trouble and it provides a solution for them. Joubert, on the other hand, has no situationally dependent morality. He is consistent. Pay him enough and he'll kill someone.

For some reason the company stopped hiring Joubert. Yet when a serious problem developed and they needed the best they hired Joubert. More situational dependent morality amid Joubert consistency.

[–] KutWrite (1220) 4 years ago

Joubert got on the outs with the CIA as a result of that operation in Lebanon. The Major runs a film clip of the supposed hit at the meeting with Wabash. The Mailman was supposed to assassinate Joubert, but instead faked the car bombing, let him escape & they both joined Atwood's secret team.

[–] Druff (1447) 7 months ago

> after Turner's initial shock at the shooting, ****shared by the audience****

I think that's the real reason. The writers wanted to explain what just happened to the audience. But what were they gonna do, have Redford freeze frame in the background while Max Von Sydow breaks the 4th wall and explains into the camera?

[–] LTUM (975) 7 months ago

i want to reply to many of the posts in this thread but after 7 years have gone by, i would be talking to air so i will just pass.

too bad this site is so damn dead.