I don't really understand this.
Of course, he didn't kill the "pansy". But the motive provided was that he killed him to "cover his tracks". A gives B a lot of money for a partnership business. Why would A kill B to cover the tracks?
I think you do understand it. Ethan & Joel screwed up. Much of the premise of the film is not well thought out. In addition, the cops know that $10,000 was involved but they apparently don't do anything to discover what happened to the money. We don't see them question Ed about it. Of course, it's all narrated by Ed and he could have left that stuff out, but still, it's strange. Further, the charge against Ed and his subsequent trial cannot be taken seriously. The prosecution can come up with a plausible explanation for Tolliver's murder, but it has to provide proof to gain a conviction. Ethan & Joel didn't bother themselves with that sticky detail. After all, they had a movie to make and they weren't going to let a little thing like believability get in their way.
Interested in collaborating on a new type of film rating system? Contact me.
That's very well written, Mark. Especially, this:
After all, they had a movie to make and they weren't going to let a little thing like believability get in their way.
i didnt take it as sloppiness on the coen brothers' part, i took it as they were implying indifference and sloppiness on the part of the police/lawyers/jury, etc. try the wife for one murder she didnt commit, try ed for another murder he didnt commit, switch lawyers, mistrial, try for mercy, get the electric chair, whats the difference? truth, justice...what is truth, what is justice, what can you be certain of the more you dig? why dig that hard? lets convict and execute the wrong guy for the wrong murder for the wrong reason, what's the difference? i think that was the point.
shareIn the end he got what he deserved. The facts have no meaning...
Quite exciting, this computer magic!share
He deserved death for blackmailing his wife's lover?
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
Appreciate I'm bringing up a post from over a decade ago, but although I watched it once when it came out on DVD, I've only recently re-watched it twice and I've been looking for an explanation to this very question. Sadly, I don't think there is one because I've gone over it and over it in my head several times now.
Just to clarify, the script says this:
I'd gotten Doris to steal the money, the pansy had gotten wise somehow, and I'd had to kill him to cover my tracks.
So why would he get Doris to steal the money? He wanted to go into business with Tolliver, which he wouldn't be able to do if... Doris stole the money. And if he believed he had been scammed and wanted his money back, then wouldn't he have been in a better position to get it back himself?
I could maybe understand if Doris objected to the deal and convinced Ed to do anything to get the money back, including maybe to kill Tolliver, but that's not given to us as an option.
And as the OP said... why would he need to cover his tracks? What did he mean by that?
I don't mind the fact that we don't know what happened to the money - Tolliver could have already deposited it somewhere.
But I try to make sense of why he's been charged with Tolliver's murder and I just keep hitting a brick wall no matter which path I go down. It's a real shame because I love this film until that point. And the Coen's are usually very good at tying up loose ends, but I really think they've dropped a real clanger with the ending of this one.