MovieChat Forums > Thief (1981) Discussion > Why destroy all his assets?

Why destroy all his assets?

posted 11 years ago by Redux006
16 replies | jump to latest

I get the whole thing about you have to have nothing and not care about anything to be a tough guy, but really why destroy everything? The heists he pulled off were so technically challenging that breaking into that boss guy's house and blowing him away was child's play in comparison. And if he does succeed, he's needlessly lost everything. Also what was the point of not explaining anything to his wife? Why not just tell her some crime boss will kill her and the baby unless they go into hiding, explain he has to take the boss out and that if he makes it he will find them later.

I think the problem is they rushed the ending. Killing the boss was so quick and easy that Frank's big mental prep of destroying everything he owned seemed senseless and unnecessary. The movie should have been a half an hour longer I think, showing Frank casing the boss, the boss's reaction when he finds out Frank destroyed everything, maybe Frank being captured and tortured. It needed something to make his actions seem necessary.

Or did I miss something?

[–] ccr1633 11 years ago

I think the simple explanation is the most plausible: Frank is a hotheaded guy. Once his "plan" (one last score, kids and marriage) got derailed, even if temporarily, he's the sort of personality who impulsively blows it all up. It might also have been a FU to the cops, who surely would've continued dogging him.

[–] Redux006 11 years ago

I suppose so. Thanks for the reply.

[–] Badlands1 8 years ago

I agree the ending felt rushed.

[–] Elephantlips 10 years ago

That's I how I interpreted it as well.

[–] chris-rogers2 10 years ago

The film is often described as existenialist. In that context, his actions at the end - apart from being explicable as a giant 'f--- you', stand as moving him toward self-actualisation, the highest of the levels in Maslow's hierarchy of needs - to exist is enough, possessions are nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

www.chrismrogers.net, a website for architecture and visual culture

[–] AliciaHuberman59 9 years ago

That's a great explanation. Thank you.

[–] chris-rogers2 9 years ago

You're welcome, glad you found it useful and thanks for posting that you did.

www.chrismrogers.net, a website for architecture and visual culture

[–] exaybachay84 7 years ago

The film is often described as existenialist. In that context, his actions at the end - apart from being explicable as a giant 'f--- you', stand as moving him toward self-actualisation, the highest of the levels in Maslow's hierarchy of needs - to exist is enough, possessions are nothing.

Funny you should say that. As I was watching the movie, I thought about some philosophical tones I believe were there. Frank is put in a situation that makes no sense to him, so he tries to make sense out of it for himself. This is very existentialist in its core, as is Frank's act of destroying his possessions (and burning, as in fire, is also symbolical). Besides, as somebody has already mentioned, that kind of behaviour goes very much in line with him being a hot-headed, independent guy but nevertheless a pro who follows his own rules.

This is a fantastic movie and I was delighted how much it shares with "Heat" (which happens to be my favourite film by Mann and also one of the very best I've ever seen): criminal world, skilled men with strict code, a lone protagonist, use of music to emphasize what is onscreen, Mann's hallmark blue and green colours, symbolism and other themes that I'm too tired to write about. Some scenes, in terms of cinematography, are pure art. I think this is simply one of the greatest debuts of all time, along with "Knife in the Water", "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pi".

Do you have any tobacco?

[–] badcommand 9 years ago

I could be wrong, but I thought the reason he destroyed everything and made his wife/son leave is because it all originally came from Leo - the bar, the car lot (which was a front anyway), even his son all came from Leo and he wanted nothing that had come from him. After all, how could he kill Leo for having a hold over him and still keep all that stuff - even in death Leo would continue to have a hold over him. By destroying everything, he was exorcising Leo from his life completely.

Still, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a much cooler explanation!

[–] wmlopez 9 years ago

He had the car lot before he met Leo.
I think he wanted the insurance for car lot, bar and home.
Also that way any friends left of Leo could do no harm to the people who worked for Frank.

[–] johnnydinkis 9 years ago

Movie needed some explosions, pure and simple.

[–] ArchxStanton 8 years ago

he should have worked it out w leo , not flew into a rage and killed everyone and sent the old lady packing w the baby. he needed to recover more money from leo before doing what he did. his hot headed plan cost him everything, even his crime partner got killed by leo.
by the way, Maslow never got a BJ from 2 porn star looking hookers at the same time, in vegas, railing out fat lines of coke, w stacks of cash....if he had, his hierarchy of needs would be flipped over upside down and rebuilt with hookers at the top.

[–] splintzspc 8 years ago

When he first met Leo to get his ordinal money back after they threw Gags out the window for pocketing the principal on street level loans. Leo stated that he knew everything about Frank because he was the money man. So all the loan sharks that Frank borrowed from on the streets the 4 years he was out of prison to start the car lot and the bar were all backed by Leo.

[–] parknourie 7 years ago

With all the bugs and tracking people were doing on his stuff, I say by the end of the film they've all become a liability for Frank.

Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down and a Wagging Finger of Shame

[–] BillHicksFan (10160) 7 years ago

Maybe he wanted to go back to way things were? But... does care about his wife, and kid, and knows vulnerability can only lead to trouble with his past. So he goes back to being alone, starting all over somewhere else...

That would have been a sequel I would have loved to see... Maybe even now? How an old man deals with old age, etc..