...of the opening heist to see who placed the briefcase underneath the bench in the gallery? Catherine noticed from the tapes that a briefcase had been put there but for some inexplicable reason doesn't ask for them to rewind to see who put it there? That would have revealed that Thomas Crown placed it there. Seems like a bit of a ridiculous plothole to me unless someone can explain it.
shareYeah, I agree. When they looked at the tapes and saw the third bench leg, it makes no sense that Catherine or McCann (Leary) didn't suggest to go back further.
----------
Movieman's Guide to the Movies
http://www.moviemansguide.com
your totally right. seems like a major plothole. because if she was that smart it's pretty much impossible they would miss something that obvious.
---
My Vote History ... http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=11026826
---
I just watched the movie and I was thinking the exact same thing. All I can say is that the movie doesn't show it when Thomas Crown places the briefcase there, we just know it's on the ground when he's looking at the painting sitting on the bench at the beginning.
But of course, if we start overthinking it, we'll find countless flaws, so let's just enjoy the movie :).
Well, maybe the recordings were only kept for 24 hours, or so! There are several possible explanation for the non-reviewing of the tapes.
She broke up with me through Backstreet Boys lyrics! If you knew it was them, you deserved it!
Yes but didn't he put the briefcase there that morning? Remember he got out of the cab with it but when he got to his office his secretary mentions he didn't have it and he says something to the effect that he probably just left it in his office (after his meetings and such he leaves with a briefcase, the one he uses to hold up the gate).
If there are several explanations for it, it would've been simple enough to just add a line in there. Like the plot hole at the end of Ocean's 11 (acknowledged in the commentary by Soderbergh and the writer) it was something they didn't want to address in the film.
That said, it's still enjoyable but this is something that has stuck out the various times I've seen the movie over the years.
----------
Movieman's Guide to the Movies
http://www.moviemansguide.com
I guess the assumption is they didn't review the tapes, but we saw them review the tapes so the assumption is obviously wrong. Since we didn't see him place the briefcase we assume he did. Still a huge assumption. The biggest assumption is thinking we saw everything that happened.
Thomas arrived with a briefcase, took a sandwich out of it, and placed it beside himself while he talked to the guard. The guard is standing in the line of sight to see if the "third leg" briefcase was already there before Thomas arrived so we don't know. It was important for them to see him enter and leave carrying the briefcase so I believe he did, and that's why there's no mention of it in the tape review process.
Not everything is shown is apparent, because they never tell how he stole the other painting later. So I have little issue with the whole video tape review stuff.
What bothers me is what you can see. Thomas takes the briefcase out from under the bench and puts the painting in it. He folds it in half wooden frame and all very easily. Later he takes it out and unfolds the wooden frame perfectly without any visible damage.
Yeah, that's another bothersome item. Not sure if it's a plothole or what, but that part always too always gets my attention every time I watch the movie...
----------
Movieman's Guide to the Movies
http://www.moviemansguide.com
It was a conscious choice bc the director thinks his audience is stupid:
The film originally showed Crown breaking the backing of the Claude Monet painting in order to fit it into his briefcase. However, John McTiernan later decided that audiences might be put off if they saw him in some way damage the painting, so he edited the scene so that it only showed Crown putting the folded painting into his briefcase, and figured most people wouldn't catch on to the fact that the briefcase was half the size of the painting.
(still love the movie though)
http://www.speakmediablog.com
Crown went into the room with the Monet with a briefcase. He left without one. Regardless of whether the guard was standing in the line of sight, reviewing the tapes would have revealed this and thus revealed that Crown left the briefcase under the bench.
Although the folded painting thing people mentioned bugs me too it's just a goof whereas this "why didn't they review the tapes?" issue is more than that: it's a plothole. The tapes would have shown Crown planting the briefcase and so they would have had some evidence he was involved from the start. Of course if the case went to court the fact that a briefcase was there in the morning and disappeared after the robbery would not be conclusive. But it would still be something someone as smart as Catherine would have checked.
What bothers me is what you can see. Thomas takes the briefcase out from under the bench and puts the painting in it. He folds it in half wooden frame and all very easily. Later he takes it out and unfolds the wooden frame perfectly without any visible damage.
so he edited the scene so that it only showed Crown putting the folded painting into his briefcase, and figured most people wouldn't catch on to the fact that the briefcase was half the size of the painting.
This is explained in the "trivia" section for this movie. The thermal imaging camera wouldn't have shown details of the person placing the briefcase, only his glowing shape. It wouldn't have been enough to clearly identify him.
sharePretty piece of crap camera then if it can't identify a person. Given that that's the entire point of a camera.
shareThis is a plot hole but actually it is not a very large one and was probably ignored for cinematic reasons. There are 2 reasons why this is a minor plot hole and should not majorly affect your enjoyment of the film.
1.) Only 2-5 minutes of film time pass between the tape review scene and the moment when Crown becomes Catherine's primary suspect. I would argue that this occurs when she watches him walk to his car after he fingers the eastern European guys which occurs approximately 2 minutes later, but others may argue that it doesn't fully click until right before she drinks the Pepsi at the 5 min mark. Either way, nothing really important happens in the matter of minutes between when they could have figured it out and when she does figure it out and thus it has no real adverse effect on either character or plot development, it is just a minor logical mis-step.
2.) What would have been the outcome if they did rewind the tapes right then and saw that he left the briefcase? They would have been suspicious of Crown slightly ahead of schedule but what evidence did they really have? Crown has excellent plausible deniability where the briefcase is concerned. Everything actually incriminating with the briefcases occurred once the cameras were off-line and he could say he sent someone to get it later that day before the robbery attempt.
The reason I think the film makers decided to ignore this plot hole is for the benefit of the film. It does not really affect the plot, but what it does do is allow them one more way to develop Russo's character. Instead of simply using the cameras to make the Crown connection (boring) we see Catherine use her intellect and instincts to zero in on Crown before there is a lot of evidence pointing in his direction. This nicely sets us up for the battle of wits that is to follow.
It doesn’t ‘benefit the film’ to make the supposedly intelligent characters be dumb.
shareSo they would have seen, that he put the briefcase there and forgot it. Okay. On the time of the robbery, he went in with a briefcase and out with one. They have no evidence who removed that briefcase or what was in there. So no evidence at all. It's a story about duplicates and lookalikes in person and things. Very clever.
Digital_Data
http://www.youtube.com/LiebensteinMovies