MovieChat Forums > The Usual Suspects (1995) Discussion > A few things I don't understand... (Spoi...

A few things I don't understand... (Spoilers)

posted 8 years ago by madaznfootballer
59 replies | jump to latest

1. So Keaton was killed on the boat, but what happened to his body? It seems too convenient that they found 5 bodies (6 including Arturo later on) at the beginning of the movie with Keaton not being one of them. This is obviously key in the cop deducing that Keaton is Soze so what exactly happened to Keaton's body?

2. What was the point of the line-up and how did Soze set it up?

3. Why was Kujan allowed to detain Verbal until his bail was posted if he already had immunity?

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

1. So Keaton was killed on the boat, but what happened to his body? It seems too convenient that they found 5 bodies (6 including Arturo later on) at the beginning of the movie with Keaton not being one of them. This is obviously key in the cop deducing that Keaton is Soze so what exactly happened to Keaton's body?

They found lots of bodies, but they weren't identified yet. Only Arturo's body could be identified by the FBI because he wasn't severely burned. Kujan doesn't think Soze is Keaton because his body isn't there, it's because he had already staged his death before.

2. What was the point of the line-up and how did Soze set it up?

The point was to bring the whole gang together for the job. Soze is powerful, he most likely has someone on the inside.

3. Why was Kujan allowed to detain Verbal until his bail was posted if he already had immunity?

Verbal was only detained until his bail was posted. Kujan actually has no authority or official permission to interrogate Verbal, but Rabin allows him to do so anyway. That's why Kujan call it "just a friendly chat to kill time". Verbal could've shut his mouth, but he chose to talk, well beyond his time to post bail.

[–] The-Animals 7 years ago

Why did Verbal make them all suspects? Why was there no coke on the ship? Why did they burn LAPD taxis? Why did they kill that guy in the car?

[–] Stratego 7 years ago

Why did Verbal make them all suspects?

We can't be sure, but the most logical reason would be to get them together and convince them to do the job.

Why was there no coke on the ship?

I'm pretty sure the movie answers this question directly. There was no coke because it wasn't a drug deal. The Hungarians were there to buy the guy who betrayed Soze from the Argentinians.

Why did they burn LAPD taxis?

It was a New York taxi and they burned it in public so the corrupt cops involved in the taxi service would be exposed. They wanted to take revenge on the police for arresting them. Another bonus was that they couldn't chase them after fleeing the scene.

Why did they kill that guy in the car?

We don't know what really happened since it's told by Verbal who's an unreliable narrator, but it seems he killed him because he wasn't willing to give them the briefcase.

[–] Klockard23 8 years ago

1. So Keaton was killed on the boat, but what happened to his body? It seems too convenient that they found 5 bodies (6 including Arturo later on) at the beginning of the movie with Keaton not being one of them. This is obviously key in the cop deducing that Keaton is Soze so what exactly happened to Keaton's body?

Bryan Singer mentioned on the commentary track that when the police lineup scene ends with the focus on Keaton's face and then cuts to the close-up of a charred body, it's meant to be a subtle hint that the burnt corpse in the dock might be his.

[–] filompra 8 years ago

That's right.

[–] sesquick-seabag 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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".

[–] summerishere77 8 years ago

Would you work for someone who kidnapped you? Or would you do a job that the 5 of you came up with...with some outside nudging.

You can call me 'Mayor Chapstick.'

[–] sesquick-seabag 8 years ago

do a job that the 5 of you came up with...with some outside nudging.

That wasn't the case though

[–] sesquick-seabag 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 naïve? 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 8 years ago

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 naïve? 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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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.

[–] Tony_Silvio 8 years ago

Well he didn't change any records, he definitely was jailed with the guy. And that was my point: I don't find it believable that he even planned that.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Well he didn't change any records, he definitely was jailed with the guy.

Uhm, how do you know this? There has to be a file on Verbal Kint, this supposed arrest could very much be included.

I don't find it believable that he even planned that.

Why not? He clearly planned the line-up, why not his stint in jail? I think it's plausible, although falsifying police records would be easier.

[–] Tony_Silvio 8 years ago

As I've said several times, Verbal tells them in the cell that he did time in county with Keaton, who hears him and doesn't dispute it.

[–] Tony_Silvio 8 years ago

It seems pretty incredible that a plan that elaborate actually worked perfectly. I say perfectly even though he ended up in a room with Kuja (whom we would have to accept he planned for), because he knew he could talk his way to freedom.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

(whom we would have to accept he planned for),

No, we don't have to accept that. I don't think he expected Kujan at all. He just wanted to tell the story of a dope deal gone wrong. It was Kujan's interference that forced him to change his story, taking inspiration from the bulletin board.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Like you said yourself, "If we're to allow that the post-lineup scene in the holding cell actually happened". Why should we? There's no reason to believe it really happened. Since it was all a set-up, MacManus probably never brought up the heist job either, it was most likely Verbal who did.

But as I said, if he did spend time in jail, he did it to establish a connection to Keaton.

[–] Tony_Silvio 8 years ago

Yeah, I am definitely not convinced that part actually happened, but if anything in the movie was depicted accurately, up to that point was probably it. We're pretty much arguing nothing now, haha. Good chatting with you!

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Likewise!;)

[–] Klockard23 8 years ago

No piece of evidence except Keaton calling him Soze in the opening scene, and the fact that Soze in that scene has all the items that Verbal asks for at the end - gold watch, gold lighter, cigarettes, etc. Plus, the way the movie is edited at the end with cuts between Kujan talking about Soze and revealing to us that Verbal isn't quite the crippled weakling we've been lead to believe is obviously the film telling you that Verbal is Soze.

[–] sesquick-seabag 8 years ago

None of that stuff actually positively ID's him as Soze, though.

Keaton calling him Soze in the opening scene

Keaton doesn't have any ID for Soze though. He's just assuming that the guy who tricked him all along about being a hapless petty conman and cripple must be the guy pulling the strings.

and the fact that Soze in that scene has all the items that Verbal asks for at the end - gold watch, gold lighter, cigarettes, etc.

Just means he was the guy who shot Keaton, not that his real identity is Keyser Soze.

the way the movie is edited at the end with cuts between Kujan talking about Soze and revealing to us that Verbal isn't quite the crippled weakling we've been lead to believe is obviously the film telling you that Verbal is Soze.

All that logically implies is that Verbal is lying about being a cripple. There's no unavoidable logical pathway from lying about being a cripple, and lying about being a stupid petty crook, to being Person X. All it implies in-and-of-itself is he's misrepresenting himself.

So the interpretation that Verbal is a hitman and spy in Soze's employ remains equally plausible.

[–] Klockard23 8 years ago

The movie is clearly communicating to you with editing and visuals that Verbal is Soze. If you lack the most basic insight to get that, that's your issue. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

[–] sesquick-seabag 8 years ago

Now, now, little child. No need for the abusiveness. And, no, the "visuals and editing" don't explicitly confirm any such thing, as I said. If you think it does it's you, not I, who lacks logic. I won't go over the points I previously made, because you probably didn't even read them in the first place. But they still stand and you failed to dispute any of them.

[–] Klockard23 8 years ago

Your points are weak as hell and not even worthy of consideration. And yes, the way the movie is cut together, it is clearly telling you, the audience, that you're supposed to think Verbal is Soze. Anyone with common sense should be able to "get" that and come away from the film thinking that without having subtitles slapped on the screen telling you. It's all right there, even right down to a man who knows what Soze looks like describing a sketch that looks exactly like Kent.

[–] sesquick-seabag 8 years ago

Not necessarily, no. And your vindictiveness doesn't lend any substance to what you say. All "the way the movie is cut together" - by which I presume you mean the montage of Kujan reading notice board, Kint walking out of the station, the zoom-in on the name Kobayashi on the base of the coffee-cup, Kobayashi picking Verbal up - clearly shows is that a) Verbal isn't a cripple, b) he took names off the notice board, c) he's in cahoots with the guy (whom he called Kobayashi) who made the proposition to the gang on Soze's behalf. In other words, he's not who he says he is. Not that he necessarily IS Keyser Soze - or even that there's necessarily any such person. The sketch is the most compelling piece of evidence but even then it's can't seriously be considered conclusive beyond any reasonable doubt. The Hungarian was delirious, and it's not made manifestly clear that Soze's real identity was made known to him. He saw Verbal "in the harbour, killing many men" - that's only evidence that he was the gunman, not that his real identity is Keyser Soze. I mean the writer has said that Verbal=Soze isn't the only reasonable interpretation for gods' sake! So your nastiness is plain out of order.

[–] Klockard23 8 years ago

The movie beginning about half-way through is about the looming prescence and mystery of Keyser Soze, the last shot of the film is a repeat of Verbal's line, "And just like that... He's gone" when talking about Soze, clearly referencing the fact that Verbal (i.e. Soze) has just slipped away from Kujan for good, etc. And then the physical description of Soze from the Hungarian, of which your arguments against are laughable. There's more than enough evidence in the movie for anyone with any amount of insight to understand that the filmmakers want you to think Verbal is Keyser.

[–] sesquick-seabag 8 years ago

to understand that the filmmakers want you to think Verbal is Keyser.

Oh, and you forgot the fact that Soze is apparently Verbal in Turkish. Yes, I wouldn't disagree that they nudge you in that direction (I've already made this clear, I don't dispute it) but what I'm saying is the actual information that's divulged is, while compelling, insufficient to positively ID Verbal Kint as Kayser Soze. It's purely circumstantial. And if you think it isn't then you're seriously lacking imagination and logic. The fact that Kint fakes a limp, borrowed names off an office room board, and the presence of a sketch dictated by a burnt, delirious terrorist probably wouldn't stand up in court if the motion was to prove his real identity is "Keyser Soze". The writer of this film has said he's fine with alternate takes on it, ie it's ambiguous enough to allow speculation. So what the hell is your problem, you angry little twat?

[–] Klockard23 8 years ago

My problem is simpletons like you who deny the obvious in an attempt to make something more mysterious than it really is. They don't "nudge" you in that direction, they make it blantly obvious for all the reasons I've already listed thus far. You are literally the reason storytelling has to be dumbed down so often, since you aren't smart enough to connect the dots on your own if something isn't 110% spelled out for you (and it just about is anyhow in this case.)

It's literally the main reason the ending is supposed to be such a twist; Not just because Verbal is lying and isn't crippled, but because he's this Keyser Soze figure that they've been talking about for the past hour.

[–] sesquick-seabag 8 years ago

Diddums. I can quite see how it stresses you, that someone has the nerve to have some fun playing around with the plot of a movie. 

And yet ... even though you disagreed with them, you were fairly amiable to the person who wonders if it could be Kobayashi on this thread: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114814/board/thread/259304126

Hmmm ... So I do wonder what I said to incur your bitter scorn, Klockard 

Anyway, onto ignore you go, as life's too short to bother with vile, obnoxious twats.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

I'm saying is the actual information that's divulged is, while compelling, insufficient to positively ID Verbal Kint as Kayser Soze. It's purely circumstantial.

The fact that Kint fakes a limp, borrowed names off an office room board, and the presence of a sketch dictated by a burnt, delirious terrorist probably wouldn't stand up in court if the motion was to prove his real identity is "Keyser Soze".

When was it ever about having enough evidence for a case in court? It's supposed to be just enough to convince Kujan and the audience what the truth really is. There are enough movies, tv shows and books, where we know who the killer is (sometimes they even say it out loud), but there'll never be enough evidence to convict them.

[–] sesquick-seabag 8 years ago

There are enough movies, tv shows and books, where we know who the killer is (sometimes they even say it out loud),

Well I am saying the evidence, clues do point to Verbal being the killer. Just not inescapably to the conclusion that he's Keyser (though he's the most likely suspect). That's a reasonable conclusion even though it deviates from the framework of McQuarrie's intent. And he's even said that himself (I think, addressing fan speculation that Kobayashi could be Soze and Verbal is his henchman), so what's the big deal.

[–] Tony_Silvio 8 years ago

The fact that Kint fabricated most of that story on the fly and tricked everyone into thinking he was a helpless cripple is the part that is supposed to tell you he's the big boss. Not to mention he keeps referring to himself as the devil, as it turns out--the man who is willing to do what the other men won't, which is clearly true.

You're really overcomplicating things. What mere henchman would Soze trust to manage this master plan that seems to have been put in motion all the way back when Verbal got himself locked up so he could befriend Keaton?

[–] sesquick-seabag 8 years ago

The fact that Kint fabricated most of that story on the fly and tricked everyone into thinking he was a helpless cripple is the part that is supposed to tell you he's the big boss

It may be that it's supposed to - but, in spite of that, it doesn't. All it explicitly shows is that Verbal is not a cripple and that he and Kobayashi are working together. Hardly hard evidence that either of them is Soze himself, or that Soze (as an individual person) is even anything other than a myth. So I don't really give a damn what Singer wanted the audience to think; what he constructed does leave enough room for alternative speculation whether he likes it or not.

What mere henchman would Soze trust to manage this master plan that seems to have been put in motion all the way back when Verbal got himself locked up so he could befriend Keaton?

Is it made explicitly clear that he befriended Keaton for that sole purpose, though? That is, for the sole purpose of using him as a pawn to clear the way for Verbal to get on board and kill the informant Marquez? Bear in mind Rabin tells Kujan that Artuto Marquez was "arrested last year, for petty smuggling" and that he turned informant to evade prison. In the jail cell scene, Keaton just says he and Verbal have met "once or twice before", that's what I remember them saying. It didn't seem to imply they necessarily met within the last year. If that was made specific I invite you to correct me.

It seems that Marquez was known to the police as a "petty smuggler from argentina" - but if he's the guy who had all that info on Soze, he must have been much more than that in reality. All I was saying was that "Verbal" could have been someone in a similar position: in reality a high-ranking member of the crime organization who occasionally poses as someone else in a lowly position - perhaps in order to "collect" people like Keaton and McManus for Soze's future use as and when he needs? Anyway, why would he have needed to befriend Keaton in order to get him involved, but not any of the others? For the record here, I think Verbal is most probably Soze (Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is the most likely) but I still maintain the movie doesn't explicitly negate the idea that he isn't.

[–] bh_tafe3 7 years ago

I don't think there's much to understand. A criminal in a room is using information around him to spin a story to a cop. the most trustworthy information in the film is what we hear from the Hungarian who survived the explosion and the FBI file of the dead informant they found in the harbour. All the rest: who knows? We hear his story checked out which means that the New York's Finest story is something that actually happened. But we've just seen him pluck Kobayashi and Redfoot off a coffee mug and a notice board, how do we know he didn't just read a lot of media coverage and work it in to his Grand Jury testimony? We can assume there was an original line up and an arms robbery in Queen's to trigger it and that a guy named Saul Berg was killed in a parking garage. We don't know if he was killed by the group. Are Kobayashi and Redfoot real people who Kint has given fake names to, or are they complete fabrications? Hell, for all we know the real Kint was some poor bastard crippled petty criminal who was part of the original line up who's lying dead in a ditch with two bullets in his head so Soze could take his identity after the boat job. We really know, for sure, very little about what went on over the 8-10 weeks that Kint's story covers.

[–] gottaluvafriend 7 years ago

I'll deal with question number one only since I don't have much time tonight...

1. All of Keaton's team's bodies were burned beyond recognition by the boat fire.