Kasper's grave
I assumed that the gypsies stole the violin from kasper's grave, but why? Are gypsies known for "grave-robbing"? Just wondering...any gypsy experts out there??
-kf
The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men.
No the Gypsies did not rob Kasper's Grave. Misure Pusion (SP?) did it stole the viloine and sold it to the Gypsies. Remember the conversation he had with his wife about how short there funds where. Why he didn't sell it to the prince who could have probly givin hime more money for it I don't know. But that is what I gathered happoned.
shareI believe the gypsies did stole the red violin from kasper's grave....
Mr. Pussin was a good man despite the fact he was low on cash and if he stole the violin the monks would know about it since only they and Pussin knew where the Violin was.... So Pussin just left it there....
Later, probably years later, the gypsies came and since they are allways moving from place to place I believe that in those times they were definetly lower on cash than Pussin and the profanation of graves (not only kasper's) probably was common practice because sometimes people are buried with quite valuable objects for a gipsy to use or sell....
Cheers
I disagree. I think Monsieur Poussin was a conflicted person; he wanted to be a good man, but he also exploited Kaspar and ultimately pushed him too hard in order to serve his own interests. His name in French means "chick;" I may be reading in a lot, but it suggests to me the image of something young and tender that is used for the benefit of bigger, stronger creatures - something that gets served up for dinner. This is kind of what happened to Kaspar while he was in the Poussins' care. Just a thought . ..
shareI do not believe the older gentleman who mentored the boy (Mr. Pussin) stole the violin. if you look at the scene where the grave is forced open, the body is skeletonized, so the violin was stolen some time after the boy died. I do believe the Gypsies stole it... though it is not clear in the film.
shareHow in Hell did anyone come away from this movie thinking that Poussin robbed the grave? Were you paying any attention?
First and foremost why would Poussin have put the violin in the casket in the first place? He could have simply kept the violin and sold it without going to the bother of digging up a grave etc.
We see the relationship that Kaspar has with the violin over and over in scenes like when he refuses a smaller violin that would "fit his hands better" while he was living in the monestary, then again when the Poussin's discover that he is sleeping with it, and finally when Von Spielman offers to buy the violin and we see the look of terror that Kaspar gives Poussin at the thought of losing the instrument. Poussin is present for all 3 of these events and sees how important the violin is to Kaspar. In fact he looks at Kaspar more affectionately in each one of the three instances as their bond grows and assuages Kaspars fears that the violin will be sold to Von Spielman with a smile and a nod that immediately calms Kaspar and lets him know that the violin is safe. There is no way in Hell he would have seperated that boy from his violin. You can see that the relationship between Poussin and Kaspar has grown to that of father and son and Poussin even calls him son.
We also see empirical evidence when the camera pans across Kaspars grave right after it has been desecrated. You can see that there are only skeletal remains and in fact they are bleached white which takes many years. I'm not positive because I saw the movie most recently on a TV, but it appeared that there were other graves that had been dug up as well.
The Gypsys stole the violin from the grave. Plain and simple and no buts about it. Having the gypsies dig it up simply moves the story along. Poussin digging it up totally changes the story and doesn't make any sense. You said it yourself. Why wouldn't he have simply sold Von Spielman the violin right then and there? Are you trying to say that Poussin sold it to the gypsies? That makes no sense at all. What would he sell it for? Two chickens, a goat and a romp in the hay with their eldest daughter? I think not. He would have gone immediately to Von Spielman and gotten top dollar.
Thinking that Poussin dug up the violin totally misses one of the important points in the movie. The point being that Poussin has grown to love Kaspar like a son and would bury him with his most cherised possesion in SPITE of having tough times monetarily.
[deleted]
Poussin didn't put the violin in the casket. Remeber, he asks about it and the one monk says, "I'm sorry...we thought you knew. We buried t with the boy." Then Poussin looks at the grave, as if considering something.
If you love Bacon and are 100% proud of it copy this and put it as your signature! WWBD?
No it is very clear that when the grave was dug up it was dug up by gypsies. The boy was essentially a skeleton. Poussin was possibly contemplating taking the violin but clearly decided it belonged to the boy. It was then taken by gypsies and passed over decades (possibly).
shareI just rewatched this film, and it is obvious that the boy's grave is still fresh and his body is not in a state of advanced decomposition. It is clear from the scene before, which also follows standard movie logic, that we are meant to assume that Poussin had something to do with digging up the grave. He knew very, very well that the violin was priceless. He is in desperate need of money, as we had been told several times in earlier scenes. Why would the gypsies go to the trouble of digging up a priceless violin only to keep it for themselves? That would make no sense logically.
There was absolutely no way Poussin would let it rot in the ground because of the monks' absurd decision to bury an extraordinarily precious musical instrument in the boy's grave. Of course we have no idea to whom Poussin sold the violin, and there is a time gap before we find ourselves with it in Oxford, England, but he may well have wanted to keep the sale of the violin somewhat quiet as he certainly would NOT have wanted the monks to accuse him of grave-robbing. That would have made the sale of the violin to a famous figure like a member of the aristocracy highly unlikely.
"Hearts and kidneys are tinker toys! I am talking about the central nervous system!"
No. The grave was robbed years later. His body is a skeleton. And the time period is many years from when Kasper died. Poussin's despair in his face is because he knows that he won't get the money they need from the violin.
shareFirst of all, you are correct, the violin was indeed stolen by gypsies. But your condescending and incorrect post is really annoying. You blabber about Poussin loving Kaspar as a child, and you exclaim feverishly that Poussin would of course want to leave the violin with the boy. Unfortunately, as you tell other people that they are missing the point, you are the one missing it. Poussin wanted the violin for himself. He asked the monks about the violin, because he wanted to sell it. He was relieved when it seemed like they were going to give it to him, then resigned and disappointed when they said it was buried with Kaspar. If it was up to Poussin, he would have taken the violin and sold it. He is not a bad man though, and he left the violin as it was. The violin was stolen by gypsies at a later point.
You should really get your facts straight before you lash out at people in such a personal manner.
Agree!
What is, however, a gigantic artistic license with this scene is the grave scene: bleached bones next to a perfectly preserved red violin. How could the violin remain pristine while the body next to it has turned to bone? Alas. The state of the bones is necessary to show the passage of time.
But this hardly ranks as a complaint in one of the most perfect stories ever captured on film.
He would never have robbed the grave and if he had someone do it for his would certainly not have sold the violin to some gypsies. No way could they pay the money he could get from the Baron or Count or Prince.
The gypsies stole it. I don't think they would normally do such a thing but I imagine the story of the boy buried with his violin was the gossip of the area and that would have provided some incentive for grave robbing.
epsdel, the proper spelling of the character's name, as listed on imdb, is Monsieur Georges Poussin. I am not sure what is causing your trouble with languages (since neither your English nor your French are correct) but your post is riddled with spelling errors and misused words ("there" when you need "their" -- "happoned" instead of "happened"). Using autocorrect would help with some of those spelling errors.
"Hearts and kidneys are tinker toys! I am talking about the central nervous system!"