People have discussed how the book was switched when it looked as though he was never distracted enough for the switch to be made in the bathroom. But there is a much bigger problem. How did they know "The Process" was in a red notebook? They needed to have an identical book on hand, with blank pages, but they never saw "The Process" until he walked into the bathroom with it. Did I miss something?
shareSPOILERS!!!
Both Joe's boss and Susan Ricci were in on the con; it was probably one of them that gave the description.
The only second chance you get is to make the same mistake twice. - David Mamet
[deleted]
Another possibility was one of their spies watched Joe leave his office with the book, radioed ahead for them to buy an identical book before Joe arrived. Although I prefer the explanation involving Klein better.
shareWhen Susan gave the coffee and cookies to George and Joe, the book that the Process was in was in full sight along with the Don Budge tennis book. This also tipped off Susan that Joe had made the drop to Ms. DeSilva and still hadn't discovered that she was an older woman and not Jimmy's sister.
shareIt was his boss plain and simple. Only he and his boss had a key to the safe, why the hell would they need to spy on him?
"If I'm laughing at what I think I am, its very funny"
SPOILER-SPOILER-SPOILER-
Wasn't anybody listening to the US Marshall at the end who told Joe that it was Klein who set it all up.
Life isn't a rehearsal, so make this one your best performance
It's probably even a standard issue invention documentation book that the company bought for him. So, he ordered another or stole it off the supply shelf at work.
shareMy flaw is that how did Ross not remember that it was within Susan's scrapbook that he got Agent McEwans's fake FBI contact number, and Susan basically introduced the two of them at the beach? How did he not figure that Susan was part of the scam all along?
'...I thought we were talking about petroleum?'
Joe thought that he was smarter than Susan and that since he couldn't figure it out then why would she.
shareI have no problem here. Just because the card is wrong doesn't mean Susan is in on it. The agent lied. Not (necessarily) Susan.
Also, since he is not in the con world (nor is he a fan of Mamet's films) would he know to be so suspicious of everyone, or prepared to be wary of each participant.
Speaking of: Mamet needs to make a movie where the main character's mom is in on it.
Lesson: Don't Trust Anyone. Not even your mom. Ouch.
Heh heh.
Mamet needs to make a movie where the main character's mom is in on it.
I just noticed something different: It was implied towards Joe that the FBI agent was already after Jimmy while on the island. Why would she identify herself as an agent then?
shareIt was implied towards Joe that the FBI agent was already after Jimmy while on the island. Why would she identify herself as an agent then?
I think Ed O'Neil's character is supposed to be a sleight-of-hand artist, which is why you only see him in that one scene. He's the one who made the switch; he deliberately sets the radio on top of the book so that Joe won't notice anything is amiss when he switches the book. It IS a bit of a cheat since Joe is not distracted long enough to physically make the switch, but I enjoy the movie enough to suspend a little disbelief in that area.
shareThe only flaw is that he didn't check the book as soon as it was handed back to him. He's sitting on the bench for over half an hour, and not once did he glance at his book.
"Rape is no laughing matter. Unless you're raping a clown."
If it was his boss, why didn't he just install a secret camera in his office and get his combination, then stage a break in?
Oh.. i forgot, it's hollywood.
He didn't need the combination. He had his own key (there were only 2 keys, his and Joe's. Remember)?
The point of it all was that they needed a fall guy. They set everything up to have Joe take the fall, already have sold the Process and then die. Joe kept meddling; forcing them to go to plan B. Besides, the place was supposedly quite secure.
There was no "they". This was exclusively Mr. Klein wanting all the profits from the "process" for himself. As it was, the profits would have gone to the investors, and whatever they deemed Klein, Ross, and whoever else involved with the company, should have.
I think Klein had an inclination that the investors would not leave as much money to him as he would like. He sees an opportunity to steal the "process", and sell it himself, thereby collecting 100% of the profit. He knows he would be a prime suspect if the "process" ups and disappears. He knows Ross would also be a suspect, and being that Ross is Klein's subordinate, it allows Klein a certain amount of control over him. Making it easier to engineer a scam, where overriding evidence, would convict Ross of being the thief.
The deal is so lucrative, that Klein can give a sizable cut to a cast of professional cons, to carry out an involved scenario that would ultimately convict Ross of the crime. Meanwhile, Klein would sell the "process" overseas and escape with the money.
Klein is the obvious answer to the book matching problem.
The switch does not seem feasible, except for a just barely possible opportunity during a 3-4 second cutaway to Pat McCune (Felicity Huffman,) at 1:02:33-1:02:37. We don't know for certain that he was not distracted then, or that someone didn't pass between him and the red book. If the cutaway were longer, the switch would be more believable. So maybe it's just an editing slip-up on the duration of the cutaway.
That's all I can suggest for the book switching problem.
But another problem is: What if he looked at his book, while they were still there, and saw that it was blank? They should have arranged to have it sealed or wrapped up for some pretext.
what if it was the rollerblade guy who made the switch when he bumped into joe coming out of the men's room? just a thought.
sharewhat if it was the rollerblade guy who made the switch when he bumped into joe coming out of the men's room? just a thought.
I think it's more a case of the director not worrying about us repeat-viewing.
Within the context of the final cut, there is truly no way for the switch to have happened, but it doesn't matter if you only watch the movie once.
As for why he didn't look at the book after they handed it back: That's just a chance they took, part of the con. If he looked, either the con is over, or they pull a gun on him and take it anyway.
I agree that:
Within the context of the final cut, there is truly no way for the switch to have happened
We have a point of view of the main character, so I think the "switch opportunity" scenes were just put in to show that he was so occupied with the FBI business that he didn't think at all how he handled the book. It's the most important thing he has in the world and he's putting it all over the place, whereas normally we'd suspect he'd clutch it like his life depended on it.
So it doesn't really matter at which point exactly the book was switched(the actual scene is possibly never shown), we just see his point of view of being occupied with the operation and in the midst discover the book got switched. It's like in real life where you suddenly realize you've lost something you were carrying, but can't remember when.
Not sure how everyone seems to feel a need to explain the switch in a time context. How many of you have ever watched a magician make something either appear or disappear? How many of you have watched this live? Do you ever take your eyes off the magician as he/she is performing the trick? How many times have you ever actually figured out how a trick is done while watching it being done? The trick of a con man (same as with a magician) is to get the mark (volunteer from the audience) to engage with the patter and actually participate in the stage show - the more they are engaged, the more likely they are to miss what is the pivot point of the trick (or con). And, this is when you are seeing something live. Give a film editor a job and you can hide anything you need hidden. I doubt many of you have ever walked out of a magician's show so, don't spoil the movie for yourself getting too involved in trying to figure it out.
Most people aspire to drink from the fountain of knowledge, i just wanna gargle
they definitely could have known what the book looked like, but the switch always bothered me too.1) He is not distracted enough. 2) It would take a lot for him to be distracted because of the underlining importance of it to him, he would be subconsciously watching it like a hawk and they would have had to be so slick to switch it out.
shareI've always figured that the switch happens after he finishes talking to the "FBI" in the bathroom and before he gets to the carousel. As he's walking in Central Park, a rollerbladder goes by him very quickly and brushes up against him. Presumably the rollerblade dude was a sleight of hand artist who pulled the book from under his arm and replaced it with another one. Obviously there really are people who can do that kind of thing, so I don't think it's too much of a stretch.
shareI'd agree with you there. The best thing about this thread is that it's shown it really doesn't matter when the switch happened and the director deliberately kept it ambiguous, but it's still legitimate to consider which was the likeliest candidate, and I think it's the rollerblader. Someone on another thread said it couldn't have been him because he was clearly empty-handed, to which I'd respond, duh, he'd probably just stuffed it into the back of his trousers, and if he was a skilled pickpocket switching the book when he collided with him (conveniently in the centre of a darkened tunnel) should have been a simple enough job.
Another thing that annoys me is when people question how the con artists knew what the book looked like. Again, this is obvious: the con was being run by his boss, and the book itself was probably the standard issue in the company.
Ricky Jay is one of the best sleight-of-hand magicians in the world. I'm very surprised that Mamet didn't concoct some sort of pretext to have Jay make the switch. Perhaps Jay could have been there with the FBI and assure Joe that all was copacetic, and then show him make the switch quickly for the benefit of the skeptical audience.
shareIt is absolutely not the rollerblader. There are two very brief moments in that scene where the book is out of the camera's sight. The first time, as Joe turns to look behind him, the rollerblader is still several metres away (so unless those are Go-Go-Gadget Skates, there's no way he could have reached it). The second time, during the collision, the book would be in his reach (in fact he's still in physical contact with Joe), but both his hands are in clear view and remain so.
In one of those two quarter-seconds when the book is out of sight, you're suggesting that the rollerblader produced a second, hidden book (his hands are visibly empty both before and after), stole the real book right out of Joe's hand and replaced it with the fake, and then stuffed the real book "into the back of his trousers". Without being detected either by Joe or the camera. Without using his hands. And you describe such a task as "simple enough".
You greatly overestimate the abilities of rollerblading pickpockets.
A challenge for you: find a hardcover book of similar dimensions to the macguffin. See how quickly you can stuff it into your pants. Then see how quickly you can do that while rollerblading and without it being incredibly obvious to even the most casual observer. Then consider that that seems to be the easy part of your scenario.
Also, I know that Joe wears glasses, but I'm pretty sure that when he turns and watches the guy skating away, he would have noticed a large book-shaped bulge in the back of his pants.
The boss was in on it, and he obviously knew what the book exactly looked like because he had a key to the safe.
These people who have no patience/mind for these nice (but rather obvious) plot resolutions are clearly the ones who put this movie at 7.3 instead of 8.5.
To summarize: there is no fatal flaw. Scott Glenn's character was conned, somehow. Someone pulled the switch on him. Yes, he should have caught on to Rebecca Pidgeon's complicity earlier, but he didn't. This film has a decidedly British flair to it.
A comparable is the Brit mini-series 'Amnesia', with John Hannah. He is 'set up' by a clever fella who murders for money under different identities, but is also a computer expert. He pulls off impossible computer-related stunts to fake evidence implicating John Hannah's character, a police investigator. The audience is completely bamboozled, as was the cast (from an account I read). It doesn't really matter that any IT guy could rule out the fakery as impossible. It made for a jaw-dropping conclusion.
Mamet is the ultimate con-man!
:-) canuckteach (--: