HI all,
Last night I watched the movie and was very intrigued by it.
A few questions were left for contemplation
How did Titta get the 100.000 $ to buy the car?
What was the relation between the maffia and the two guys ( of which the one in the wheelchair )
Was the barmaid not going to meet him at 3pm ?
Why was Titta giving the money to the elder couple. He didn't like them, because the man was cheating..
Thanks!
First I think he got the amount of money to buy the car from was the 'missing part' in the bank. He had to play strong!
I don't think there was a relationship between the two guys and Titta's boss. They were just two stupid amateurs.
I think the barmaid intended to see him at 3pm, but she was in the hospital at that particular moment...
Maybe Titta intended to fly with the barmaid and take the money with them, but when she did not showed up, he decided to end his life in the arms of the maffia and left the money in the hotel, perhaps he gave the elder couple the money because they had paid him back their debts... (?)
Hope I cleared your view on the movie a bit!
Titta was laundering money for the Cosa Nostra. He removed the $100,000 from the suitcase, prior to it being counted in the bank. The bank manager, valuing Titta's custom (and perhaps knowing that it was also Mafioso money), was nervous when $100,000 was missing, and so, to ensure that Titta kept his account open, offered to replace the money, insisting that it must be the bank's mistake. Titta obviously counted on this servile reaction from the bank manager, and cleverly implied that it was indeed the bank's fault. He probably also assumed that the bank employees would behave just as they did, ie. 'finding' the money still left in the suitcase (presumably, they would top it up when he had left). That's how he got the $100,000 for the barmaid's car (there is also the implication, I think, that he had done this in the past, as the following scene is his expensive blood-cleaning operation - I was wondering how he could pay for such a procedure - perhaps we are meant to understand that he took small amounts gradually over the course of each year?).
The two assassins were presumably two mafia hitmen - pretty low down in the chain - whose cousin, Pippo (the stout man, who is murdered in the back of the car), was a slightly more important henchman. They clearly decided (against Pippo's knowledge, and instruction) to steal the money that Titta was laundering. But of course Titta outwitted them (re-stealing the money in the hotel garage) - and got away with it initially (ie. the Mafia assumed that Pippo must also have had something to do with it, hence his murder). However, Titta himself admitted that he had stolen the case and would not return it. Obviously, believing (incorrectly) that Sofia had stood him up, he no longer wanted to live this life, and chose a kind heroic suicide by Mafia-murder instead.
The barmaid did intend to meet him, but had a car crash when her mobile phone rang when she was driving. You see her looking regretful in the back of an ambulance which in fact passes the Mafia car in which Titta is being taken to see the more senior Mafioso.
Titta gave the money to the elderly couple, I think, because the woman had accused him of being wicked (cattivo), after he exposed her husband as a cheat. Evidently, he wished to redeem himself somewhat in their eyes, and realised that - in their own way, because of the elderly man's gambling which had lost their fortune - they were as trapped as he was, only in this case, he (Titta) had the power to free them somewhat by giving them another chance to enjoy the spectacle of life (remember the scene in which the man regrets that it is over - Titta was listening to them with the stethoscope through the door). He understood their dilemma, and was clearly not a wicked man.
I was really profoundly moved by this film. In many ways - in my opinion - it was quite cliche, but Toni Servillo was just so tremendous that he lifted it from being a fairly run-of-the-mill film, with stereotypical characters (sexy barmaid, stupid Mafia hitmen, gruff-yet-fair Mafia boss, vacuous brother, etc.), to being a true existential tragedy. I will look out for this actor in the future.
Apologies for this long reply! I hope this answers your questions.
Some interesting interpretations, dude. Here are a few of my own, to round out the conversation. Discussion welcome! **Beware of spoilers.**
You write, "there is also the implication, I think, that he [Titta] had done this in the past, as the following scene is his expensive blood-cleaning operation - I was wondering how he could pay for such a procedure - perhaps we are meant to understand that he took small amounts gradually over the course of each year?"
Hm. This never occured to me, and, although it fits with the expensive blood transfusions that Titta gets each year, I am resistant to this suggestion because, if you remember, the mafioso in the car told Titta that the boss knew about the $1,000 Titta stole (for the barmaid's car). Don't you think that the bank would have reported any other short-changing, and that this would have helped the mofioso in the car make his point to Titta: (paraphrasing) "The boss likes you. Look how he turned a blind eye when you stole $1,000 from him. ... Look how he turned a blind eye when you stole other sums over the years." This last bit never comes up.
I propose that the $1,000 was the first time Titta stole from the mafia, and that this rather fits with the development of his character. In sum, Titta goes from being a complacent reactionary, devoid of imagination, to a man of action, and great imagination ... all as a consequence of love.
On the theme of "imagination", recall that Titta bemoans his lack of imagination near the beginning of the film, saying something to the effect of "a solitary life is palatable only so long as one has imagination" (my paraphrase). Later, when he is masturbating in bed, we see the images he sees, projected from his mind: memories of women he encountered throughout the day. Here Titta has no imagination; the images he pictures are things he "actually" saw, not new things that he created with his mind. In contrast, consider the images we see at the films close, when Titta is lowered into the concrete: an image of the couple receiving the money, an image of Sophia, an image of his friend fixing powerlines in the mountains. I suggest that these images are creations of Titta's mind; he has become a man of imagination. He can now bear his solitude.
But this brings up another theme: "love". Titta does not feel abandoned in his death, for he says that his friend, his best friend, is remembering him. How does he know this? Well, I wouldn't say he "knows" this, but rather he "feels" it. He has become a kind of anti-paranoid, who (to put it poetically) feels that the universe is conspiring on his behalf. Since he has loved those around himself, Titta has become familliar with love. In his dying, he feels that he is remembered, that he is loved. This is the bit of the movie that moved me the most, so I'll embelish my point, to be clear.
When we talk about "love" in the West, we usually mean a feeling of "romantic love", right? Sometimes we mean feeling of "familial loyaty or endearment". But another definition is to think of "love" as an action rather than a feeling; another definition is to think of "love" as "selfless love" (or, as the Greeks called it, "agape"). Titta is more-or-less a loveless man when we meet him. Although he is probably protecting his family by his mafia servitude, he is unwilling to take chances. For lack of a better phrase, his spirit is broken. Thus, he is right to say that it is "dangerous" for him to talk with Sophia, for he compromises his former self. The movie is that story of a metaphoric death and rebirth of Titta's character. By giving selflessly to others, Titta's heart finally unclenches. This happens gradually, but, by the end, it is apparent. He thinks that Sophia abandoned him, he thinks that the neighbours find him "evil" (cattivo), perhaps he thinks that he has abandoned himself and his family by standing up to the mafia, thereby dooming himself to death. And yet, if you think about it, Titta actually ends up giving everyone something special. To Sophia, he gives the car (without strings); to the neighbours, the money; to his family, (arguably) closure; to himself, (arguably) real freedom, i.e. an extraordinary death, i.e. a death (and a moment of life) he authored himself. Although, on the surface, the consequences of love are severe (a death, a car crash, the absence of a father), in a deeper way, we might find that Titta's selfless giving resulted in a feeling of love in the man. I hope it's not too cliche to do this, but I think the Beatles summed it up well when they sang "and in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make."
Sorry for the blah, blah. I hope the ideas are clear enough though.
Finally, I think that Pippo was in on the heist. Remember that when Titta called Pippo to tell him about the robery, Titta echoes something the hitmen said when they took the case. He says, (paraphrasing) "convince the boss that it wasn't you." Anyway, that's what I understood. I reckoned that Pippo and the others said this to Titta to convince the boss that the money was taken at some other stage of the money transaction, thereby covering their footprints.
Thanks for the excellent comments, fellas. I saw the movie without any knowledge of Italian and without subtitles so the points you brought up helped clarify a few scenes for me.
Especially confusing was the man in orange at the end. I thought the director was trying to convey the final transcendental experience of the main character at the moment of death. I interpreted the shots that abstractly joined the cables of the crane to electrical wires in some distant snowy region of the world as a way of connecting him with humanity at large, as represented by the random lineman in orange. That is, this is the main character's attempt to disassociate himself from his body as it enters the cement, he is willing himself up the wire and launching his soul "out there" to touch whomever happens to be in the path, even if it is someone who lives on the other side of the world in Alaska. Of course now that I know that the orange guy is supposed to be a friend of his this limits my flight of fancy somewhat.
There is also another man in orange. When Sofia's car swerves to avoid the road block and heads for the tractor, the camera pans away to show us the the mannequin in orange waving the flag.
My thinking was that the purpose of Titta insisting the money always be hand-counted was to make the bank assume that small deviations in the total was their own mistake and they would cover it without mention. Once he that system proven he got a bit greedy.
Paul
The first time we see Titta taking money to the bank, at the end we see the employees reacting rather vague. It's not like "9 million exactly, thank you mister". They check the total and without saying much end the session.
I think Titta skimmed a few dollars every time and the bankemployees didn't say anything because it was such a small amount and they were counting by hand...
+++ ies it safe? +++
Re. the elderly couple, my understanding was that he gave them the money (anonymously) before the scene where she calls him wicked, and in an ironic twist, she is actually paying him back out of the money that he gave them. Because, if I remember correctly, the woman gives him the money as he is leaving the hotel to go and meet the mafia; it's not until later that we see what he's done with the suitcase, though flashbacks, and I assume that he left the money for the elderly couple as soon as he retrieved it from the hitmen, i.e. before he left the hotel and was given the money by the elderly woman.
shareInteresting that you say he stole it. Makes sense, though I also think he got paid nice comissions for his work. I also think Pippo was in on stealing the suitcase.
sharethats an interesting observation. i didt really think that the woman paid him back from the money he gave them. it possible but im still not sure.
i was thinking that she really did sell her mothers painting because she was an honest person and she realized the debt needed to be paid back. paying the debt also gave her the high ground and therefore the ability to scold him for being cruel.
i think that this is one of the reasons he gave them the money:
because she made a sacrifice to pay him back and he knew their dire situation
and
he does not thin of himself as a bad person and wants to redeem himself in some way. why not give them their glory back.
although i guess you could look at it in another way. maybe she told him that she sold the painting as a lie to mask where she got the money from.
but i think it was portrayed as a noble gesture by her. and if she is just paying back a few gs out of the free 9mill they came upon, that nobility in the gesture is lost.
also, she doesnt know that he knows they are broke. she wouldnt have to tell him she sold the painting as a lie to hide where they got the money from. as far as she knows, he thinks they are still rich.
i felt that he told him that she had to sell the painting to let him know that she did make a sacrifice to do the right thing and pay him back. but along with that sacrifice she was going to get her moneys worth and tell him off for embarrassing her husband.
just my take.
Remember the dark secret he shares with the hotel accountant (or something) about eating up his younger brother's tomato sauce without any regret instead thinking that his brother could manage without it. That's how he was in his childhood and perhaps all through his life considering how his family treats him, but by the end as a consequence of love he has become a totally selfless person - giving it all up for others.
All the same an incredible film indeed.