Why did Muir not say the 'ex-wives' in his stories were 'assets'? What exactly was the significance of saying they were 'ex-wives' over 'assets'?
Was it because in his job he was not allowed to have assets?
It seems that, with a little digging, these assets were all known since the other CIA agents were able to determine that in the end.
It seems that, with a little digging, these assets were all known since the other CIA agents were able to determine that in the end.
I realize it fulfills the story line because then everyone else at the end can conclude he was lying throughout the meetings.
But why did he say 'ex-wife' instead of 'asset'? I'm not sure how the lies significantly change his story, so why did he lie?
If he said that these persons were his assets then the CIA would immediately look them up. But Muir didn't want that, to buy some time he said that they were his ex-wifes. The CIA wouldn't look his ex-wifes up, why would they?
shareBecause that way everyone assumed his phone calls and such were just private matters and didn't bother to investigate. Muir's in a room full of people he's trying to outsmart, so he pretends "operation dinner out" is just an innocuous dinner date with his wife and it takes them enough time to realize what he's truly doing.
shareI don't know if stuff like that happens in a real life situation, but the way Muir played everyone in that room was brilliant. Then, he rides into the woods with his sports car. Awesome!
shareIMHO, it just seemed like the the makers were trying to create a scene to match the end of The Usual Suspects, with the people in the room gradually realising that all the things they had been told over the last few hours were lies.
However, it does not work quite as well in this movie, because Muir was taking an unnecessary risk. His colleagues might have rumbled him by checking up at any time, and he did not need to weave his wives into the stories.
I suppose it works on some levels.
For example it shows the coldness of the work place. He'd worked there for decades, and now he was leaving without any money, without a leaving party, and without any friends (they know even the most basic things about his personal life).
It also fits in with his paranoid character (as per the comment to his secretary about Noah, and Tom's comment about how even the CIA's files did not contain Muir's correct birthday).
Finally, I imagine the makers would justify it on the basis that it was part of Muir's master manipulation. He cons Bishop in the first place into joining CIA. He keeps the one guy off balance by a throw away comment about having food in his teeth. He stops the map guy incriminating him by planting the idea that the only point of the conversation had been to issue a party invite (even though there was no party). So maybe the back story about the wives was to get his listeners focusing on that, rather than the things that could be clues to his real motives.
I think from almost the moment he walked into the room he realized he wasn't with coworkers - these were adversaries. And his training told him that with adversaries you don't give away any detail you don't have to.
Having a sting of ex-wives makes him look like a somewhat sorry, isolated man buried in his work and a bit out of touch with things. Much like the lines at the end - "Dinner out is a go? Who talks like that to his wife?" "Why do you think they keep leaving him?"
If he'd disclosed they were all assets, then he seems more like a connected, savvy operative, and they might have had their guard up more. For example, when they find out that he knew about Bishop before he came in but played dumb, they might have put someone on him that night.
Plus, he's probably told the tale of his multiple ex-wives so often it was second nature.
Why did Muir not say the 'ex-wives' in his stories were 'assets'? What exactly was the significance of saying they were 'ex-wives' over 'assets'?
Was it because in his job he was not allowed to have assets?
It seems that, with a little digging, these assets were all known since the other CIA agents were able to determine that in the end.
None of the people interviewing him knew him all that well
Exactly - and he's made damn sure they don't, over the years - there were seven different birthdays on file for him and I suspect that wasn't the only factual error in them either. Bishop also refers to not knowing anything about Muir. Muir has spent his entire career working in the shadows and, along the way, has deliberately cultivated an anonymous persona which enables him to walk away at the end and disappear.
[deleted]
[deleted]
@ jbaddock, That is a very good point. ..
Muir has spent his entire career working in the shadows and, along the way, has deliberately cultivated an anonymous persona which enables him to walk away at the end and disappear.