MovieChat Forums > Le grand voyage (2004) Discussion > money in the sock *spoilers*

money in the sock *spoilers*


i'm a bit lost as to A) what Reda was looking for under the seat when he found the money in the sock and B) Whether the dad knew it was there and if so was knowingly wrongfully accusing the man they picked up. What's your take on this. I suspect the dad was just having an elderly moment but can anyone confirm

reply

Reda was searching for the photo of his girlfriend, which his father had taken (and later gave back). As for the sock, either the father hid it deliberately because he didn't like Mustapha and knew that accusing him of theft was a good way to get rid of him, or he might've misplaced the sock (accidentally kicking it under the seat) and thought he'd been ripped off.

There's also the possibility that Mustapha took the money sock and then returned it, but that doesn't seem plausible. Anyone who'd stolen money would be long gone, not walking outside the hotel where the men were staying.

reply

I concur with what the previous respondent said, plus I think that Reda had one of his first turning points upon finding the sock. My sense was that we watched him go from elation and impulse to tell his dad, to suspicion that his dad might have intentionally set up Moustafa to anger that they'd been starving, etc., because of thinking this money was stolen to realizing that his dad had said he could not make a false accusation of anyone while on a pilgrimage. (And Reda went through a skillfully acted set of transitions conveying those shifts.) But, from what I deduced, when Reda had the last realization, he knew that in facct he could not tell his father about finding the sock precisely to spare his dad the shame and 'failed mission' of having gone on his hajj but wrongly accused a man and thereby undone any good he could do through the pilgrimage. Hence, the made-up story about the French consulate coming through with the money.

I do think -- wittingly or not -- it's a moment by which the director shows the son protecting the father from the consequences of his religious beliefs and, as such, does seem to bear with it one judgmental note on the father's religion as compared to the son's seeming-agnosticism.

reply

Mustafa had stolen the money.
The money in the sock was some extra money which his father had kept hidden. Reda was happy to find it because he wanted to have a good time and went to the club to get drunk with that money.

reply

I wondered that too but what makes the most sense is that his father just misplaced the money and really thought it was stolen when it wasn't. The weird thing is I never trusted the guy who was supposed to have stolen the money, even before the father said not to trust him. I guess that was on purpose?

reply

At first, I thought he had hidden it in order to frame and get rid of Mustafa, but yeah the director explained, during the Q&A on the DVD extras, that the father had simply misplaced the money.

reply

Ah, thank you Joel.. I think if the director says so, we should accept that.

I believed it was an error.. As pointed out above, Mustapha would not be strolling casually near (or even back to) the hotel should he have stolen the money.

I was puzzled why the son made up the story of the french Consulate... but the explanations above (not wanting to spoil his father's trip bt revealing the error) work well.

few visible scars

reply

The father only thought the money had been stolen when in fact he had hidden it and forgot. The son discovers it but so as not to humiliate his father, who has already explained to the Turkish police officer that he would never soil his haj by making a false complaint, he pretends that the money came from a reimbursement by the French Council.

reply

Very interesting points (gleaned from the previous posts)
1) The money had NOT been stolen (it was either forgotten by the father or it fell under the seat somehow by accident - he might have dropped it?)
2) Mustapha WAS telling the truth. He did not steal it.
3) The father did NOT lie to the police. He truly thought it was stolen because he did not know it was under the seat.
4) The son found it and saved his Dad from falsely blaming someone by his subterfuge.

Really a neat sequence of points in an excellent film.

And I liked Mustapha - put there as much for us viewers as a tour guide as to move along any plot of the movie. But a good character for the film's purposes.

This "incident" and the "sheepisode" were really great little incidents to keep the viewing interesting.

reply