Firstly, thank you fgbd for responding so admirably to trpdean's questions. I think I can assist in one or two cases where things are still uncertain:
======
i) how does anyone wind up with $100 million? They asked for a ransom of $5 million - because (as is true) they had no one to fence the $100 million diamonds to - They got the insurance money instead, which was £100m
Wait, what? The original heist was to steal about £five million pounds' worth of diamonds in the flask - an amount that Lon Di wouldn't notice. But when Hobbs' removed ALL the diamonds from the vault, the solicitor brought a ransom note for £100 million to return the diamonds. The amount taken is even greater than one hundred million pounds sterling, but Lon Di doesn't have that much liquid cash on hand, and would have to ask their insurer to pay the ransom on their behalf.
ii) assuming the ransom paid was $100 million (which it really wasn't), are we supposed to assume that no one coule ever find Michael Caine to grack down the millions paid? Sounds pretty unlikely, doesn't it? Those pesky Swiss, eh. Google the 1934 Swiss Banking Act
Also, Hobbs had communicated through an intermediary solicitor - who apparently never even knew the identity of his client; I don't think anyone knew it was Hobbs until Quinn went to the Finch and told him where the diamonds were, after Hobbs had time to flee and vanish.
iii) assuming the ransom paid was $100 million, why did Caine give it all away to her? He wasn't interested in the money. He wanted to get back at the insurance company. This is all explained in the sewer at the end of the film
The scene in the sewer where he gabs on for a long time while holding a (really empty, we find out later) revolver on her.
tl;dr recap: The individual man in the King's Row insurance firm who underwrites the London Diamond Company's insurance policy had also made his reputation and wealth on running a health insurance company Hobbs and his wife had policies with. The wife is diagnosed with cancer at an early stage and it's completely treatable, BUT the insurance company drags its feet on paying out for treatment for years, so when they do agree, the cancer has become inoperable and Hobbs' wife dies. He wants to get revenge on that man in a way that hurts him more that a bullet ever would: ruin him financially - King's Row has a policy that the INDIVIDUAL man who underwrites a policy has to 'make good' on King's Row's losses for paying out - the £100 million would have been about equal to his entire personal wealth, leaving him a pauper.
iv) why does she continue working for the company after the theft - does she still hope to move up in the company? Is it the insurance company that insists that the diamond company reverse its decision to terminate her - while she helps in the investigation? Because she wasn't convicted of anything, and it was determined that Hobbs worked alone
Technically, she would've proven her loyalty to Lon Di by revealing the location of the diamonds to Finch so they could be recovered. As such, the firm itself would likely reverse its decision to let her go. Additionally, MKA's son takes over after his father's heart attack, and Ollie seemed to look upon Quinn as a personal friend, so would likely 'go to bat' for her. Besides, it would be suspicious if she quit so soon after the grand heist.
v) is this sewer somehow self-contained? I've never heard of such. Doesn't it flow out somewhere? In the days since the theft, hasn't the vast majority of the diamonds simply gone out to sea? I guess the force of the relatively stagnant water in the sewer wasn't enough to was them away
Agreed, the drain was dumping rather large amounts of diamonds right from the start - the sewer isn't very full, nor has much of a current (just enough to have some flow; a diamond is denser and heavier than...erm, 'what the sewer's made to remove' *blush*). I'm sure some diamonds would've washed away, but not very much, and I'm sure King's Row was willing to take 99% of the diamonds they NEEDED...
vi) I still don't understand why the head of Kings Row, the insurance company, called in the reporters - why ever would that cause a diamond company to pay a ransom -- since it does nothing to get back the diamonds? (In fact, that's exactly what happened - they paid the ransom and got back nothing). I wasn't sure about that either Okay, the HEAD man of King's Row is confronted with an impossible situation: either they pay out the £100 to Lon Di to be given as ransom to the mysterious thief, or pay to replace every diamond lost - the fictional diamond reserves of MOST OF THE WORLD - which would not only be more expensive, but destroy the diamond market and brand King's Row as a company that makes impossible promises they cannot possibly keep. As such, even though paying out is going to destroy one of their members (see above), the company as a whole is still a reliable and viable entity. Releasing news of the heist to the media strengthens the decision of the head of King's Row to pay to recover the diamonds, against the wishes of the individual underwriter.
Fundamentally, why does she keep the $100 million instead of turning it over to the insurance company - if she was willing to call in the police on the location of the diamonds? I don't get it. If that's the way she feels - that restitution should be made and crime shouldn't pay - why didn't she immediatley call Kings Row when she learned of the Swiss bank account and say "OK! Great news for you! I've got the money that you were wrongly robbed!" Because she feels sympathy for Hobbs, and believes that doing one over on the insurance company was a noble act. She believes and shows that good can be achieved with the cash.
And after her continued frustration at promotion, she probably lost any sense of loyalty to Lon Di.
When did she become this do-gooder? Are you a giver or a taker?
a direct quote from the movie, and that of a PIVOTAL LINE from same.
We saw absolutely no evidence of it before. So? Characters change, events unfold
Extraordinary events can cause surprising changes of behaviour on people; this apparently was one of them. It may well have already been in the works, since it appears that she was beginning to become disillusioned with a career as a business executive.
Why is she now returning to London after being away forty years? Because she wanted to tell her story?
She's finished her 'duty' of giving awa- correction - PUTTING THE MONEY TO GOOD USE IN PHILANTHROPIC WAYS and is now a 'free woman'; she might have wanted to tell her story before now, but it'd then be likely that the remaining 'relief fund' she had would be seized by the insurance company.
This ending is exasperating.
I really don't want to cause offense, but your failure to pay attention to critical scenes in the film is more exasperating. :(
--
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin
reply
share