MovieChat Forums > A londoni férfi (2008) Discussion > Anachronisms SPOILERS

Anachronisms SPOILERS

posted 15 years ago by bogwart-1
3 replies | jump to latest

I don't usually bother about continuity and similar errors in films; we all make mistakes, and if a clock says 6:10 in one scene and half an hour later it reads 5:58 I really don't care.

But because this is such a long film with nothing much happening these things kept bugging me, even given the director's propensity for ambiguity.

The book was written in 1934, and certainly the film has that whole noir thing from the 1940s going on. Very Harry Lime. Yet the notes which Maloin so carefully dries on his stove are British, and one series of the £20 notes wasn't issued until the 2000s. Similarly the envelopes which Morrison uses for the cash he gives Brown's widow and Maloin are self-seal, which weren't around in those days.

And lastly, all the suitcases we see are the cheap pressed board ones in common use in the 1940s.

Then we have the issue of timing. After Maloin 'rescued' the cash, he was still drying it out at 5am, and believe his work day finished at 6am. Yet when Morrison interviews him he says 'a terrible thing happened last night' and yet so much could not have happened during the course of one day.

The film was shot in Corsica, but again, no location is given in the film. However it is obviously on mainland Europe, and neither Morrison nor Mrs Brown could have got there within the time frame.

And finally Morrison himself. Self-billed as a 'Police Inspector' he was far too old for that job; he would have been out to pasture many years before, particularly since he had a physical disability.

Why was he there? He said he was investigating the loss of the case with the theatre sale money, yet he would have had no jurisdiction outside the UK. He told Brown (and Brown's wife, and Maloin) that there had been a murder in which Brown was the suspect, yet there was no evidence whatsoever to support that contention.

And at the end, having retrieved the money, he was no longer interested, telling Maloin that it was 'obviously' a case of self-defence. Huh? For my money he was not a policeman at all - or at best a retired one - he was just acting as a fixer for the owner of the money.

Some people may say that none of this matters. And some people may be right. But when you sit watching a film for 133 minutes I for one need some kind of consistency.

[–] csenoner 15 years ago

I was thinking about some of these things as well. In terms of the location, france is close enough to england that im not sure we can say that there wasnt enough time for them to get there. i don't think that the film was meant to be set in corsica weather the book was or not. we are never told it is based in corsica. from what I saw it seems to be set in a costal town in france. the fact that the englishmen came over on a ferry with money theey stole form england it leaves me to believe that this ship must have been going across the nglish channel making the setting for themovie somewhere in northwest france on the english channel. if this were the case it would be possible for the wife and the inspector to reach the town within a day. I also found it strange when he said last night there was a crime. i had thought that it had happened more than a day before.

I think perhaps a bigger problem is the fact that these guys came over from england with money, possibly to escape, yet somehow the inspector already knew where to go to find the culprits. its not that he had heard of a murder and it was traced back to england, but rather the money was missing and somehow he knew to go to this town. he knew the man would have been on that particulat boat and thats why he staged his reenactment. i dont see how throwing the life preserver accross to the dock would give them much info. yes it shows it was feasable that he could have thrown the suitcase, but at the time they knew of no murder, yet knew that they should have searched the water , whether for the suitcase or money. why was that assumed.

also the man must have beeen a private detective. when he saw the body he left it, he left the 'killer' when obvioulsy it would be a cops job to at least get the story and question the killer to get more info. to determine it was self defence. (i thougth it was suicide until i heard that) He seemed only to care about the money and didnt seem to follow it up and report to french authorities. i guess it could be seen as lazy writing, or more likely that none of these details mattered to tarr and that the imagery and tone of the film were far more important.

In general I loved the score and thought there were some amazing shots in the movie. i didnt really mind how slow it was, but perhaps did have a few problems with plot holes. in the end i didnt expect much of a resolution anyhow. this was my first tarr film. looking forward to satantango next.

[–] tieman64 14 years ago

Why do you think the film was set in the 40s or 30s? Many modern appliances (for example in the butcher's shop) can be seen and the style of clothes and boats are all fairly modern.

"Rape is no laughing matter. Unless you're raping a clown."

[–] enmunk 13 years ago

I'm only gonna coment on the first issue you bring up.

In general Tarr Béla creates these settings that gives you a feeling of the past. All the items are old, they use fire places, ovens that runs on wood, candles etc. However I only think this is an atmosphere, and really the stories take place in modern time.

take for instans Werkmeister Harmonies. This is also set it what might seem like the 1800, but then there's a truck and all of a sudden the camera frames a modern tv (1980/1990 style) for about a minute. This cannot be continuity mistakes in my point of view.