I may have missed this, but did it ever explain who Ivan was, and how the couple ended up in Walter's apartment?
share[deleted]
I thought that Ivan was maybe a maintenence guy or doorman or something along those lines - someone who had access to the apartment keys & could make duplicates? He probably knew that Walter was never at the apartment & therefore could rent it out & make some side money.....just my 2 cents...
shareThis is, in my opinion, a very good question that points to the heart of the art of story telling. People seem to hesitate to ask or answer questions like this one, perhaps because they are intimidated by the fact that everyone else is full of praise or doesn't seem to notice or to care. The art of storytelling is an infinitely intriguing subject. This is the comment I posted on IMDB:
"You walk into your own apartment and find two complete strangers not
only living in it but also paying rent to a man named Ivan whom you
have never met nor heard about. Your locks are intact, no one has
apparently ever broken into your place. But someone else, whom you
don't know, has the keys. Is this situation not worth explaining?
Surely it is. How does Walter react? Of course he doesn't react. He
just accepts the fact. He doesn't ask any further questions. He is
completely uninterested in finding out who Ivan is and how he can
possibly have keys to Walters' apartment.
Frankly, this is unsatisfactory.
If we are made to believe that the apathetic demeanor of Jenkins'
character sufficiently explains his disinterest, I still want to
receive the basic information that will clarify this intriguing
situation and render it plausible. Otherwise I will keep thinking about
it, expecting some kind of resolution. If this is not explained, it is
a story-deficiency that will keep deflecting my attention from the
story itself.
Have you heard of the term Chekhov's gun? (Named after the great
Russian author Anton Chekhov): "If in the first act you have hung a
pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired.
Otherwise don't put it there." The keys are the gun.
I imagined all kinds of scenarios while watching the film. Maybe Walters' wife had a secret
lover to whom she had given the keys, whom Walter will find about
later. Or the housekeeper has a little business on the side, making
money off of apartment owners who live elsewhere. Who? Where? How?
McCarthy offers no explanation and contents himself with what I
consider to be a sloppy set-up.
I had to rewind the film to make sure I didn't miss anything.
It is interesting that everyone I watched the film with had exactly the
same reaction. We were not so much absorbed with this film's
socio-critical aspects and leftist stance which seems to successfully
feed on the anger and disappointment with the Bush administration. We
were simply interested in the story.
However, this does not mean that the rest of the film is bad. On the
contrary. One does have to acknowledge that most of the acting is very
engaging and the film poignant and charming. But if I don't understand
the basic premise, the story's set-up, then the story does not work for
me and I can not fully enjoy and appreciate the movie.
This is a pity."
[deleted]
This is hardly a plot hole. There are a million things Ivan could have told the couple to explain why someone's possessions were there. Ivan could have said it belongs to someone who does not use the apartment much (that part WAS true) and who gave permission to sublet their furnished apartment. Ivan could have said it was his own apartment that he didn't need because he had moved in with his girlfriend. And so on.
As for Walter not looking for Ivan, how pray tell would he find him? And he really didn't have much motivation to, since the couple did not damage the place or steal anything. So he let it go. It is the couple that were scammed by Ivan; they were the ones who paid him money.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
[deleted]
I was not speaking of plot holes but of story deficiencies. These are not necessarily synonymous terms. The question is not what Ivan told the couple (this is rather banal, there are a million possibilities), the question is HOW this character we know nothing about had the key. It is a plausibility issue, an issue of story set-up.
I am talking about apples, you are talking about oranges.
The fact that there are dozens of posts pointing towards this story deficiency is for me an interesting starting point for an intelligent discussion.
"To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts." -- Sir Isaac Newton
And I say there is no deficiency. There is no plausibility issue -- I gave 2 examples of how it could have been done, and that is hardly an exhaustive list.
The fact that there are dozens of posts about this merely indicates that there are lots of people who want everything spelled out for them. That doesn't indicate a story deficiency. There is a difference between unexplained, and unexplainable. Since you are aware that other threads deal with this, maybe you can find some of the threads were people talk about how common this type of scam is in big cities.
I am doing this from memory, but I loved this statement from someone in reply to someone making your same complaint:
Sorry, but one of the great things about this movie is its faith in its viewers' logical capabilities. Anyone with half a brain can think of half of dozen ways for this scam to work, and whichever one "Ivan" used has absolutely no relevance to the plot.
Oh, I am sorry, how stupid of me. I didn't know that this film was made only for people who live in big cities. So, in NY this scam is normal and everyone knows. Does this mean that folks like myself living in the countryside are left out? And if we want to understand why this movie works, we should go and look up threads on the internet that explain the plausibility of its plot? Thanks, great advice.
It's why Chinatown is such a masterpiece: because we have to look up how the valley irrigation system works, if we want to understand the film. Right? Apples and oranges.
The comment you quote is probably one of the most pretentious things I have read. People usually adopt an insulting tone when they cannot make a sensible argument. What was it that Gandhi said about insulting other people's intelligence...? Or is it just fashionable nowadays to put some Gandhi quote in your window like a flower that embellishes your soul?
It always comes down to this, doesn't it: De gustibus non est disputandum, as we say in the countryside.
You are not reading what I write. This is hardly an engaging discussion. But thank you for your effort.
This is not to take away from anyone's opinion, but I didn't care who Ivan was either. They mentioned it in the beginning, but I didn't think who Ivan was was important because it really didn't have anything to do the the real subject of the film. I actually forgot about Ivan very soon after and I didn't think about him again until I came to this board.
shareSure, mate, everyone's entitled to his or her opinion, as long as people don't insult each other for idiotic reasons. It's interesting that you didn't care about Ivan as much as it is interesting that I did. It just tells us something about the way people's minds work. The Ivan question, I think, is a very good example.
shareI guess I was more intrigued with Tarek and Zainab. After they left the apartment the first time and the Walter invited them back, Ivan became moot for me. I was more interested in how they were going to interact.
Walter should have cared about Ivan, but I guess it was part of his personality flaw.
You can see it like that. But for me it was like a bug that kept bugging me until the very end. This is why I couldn't fully enjoy and focus on the movie - which, as I said before, does not mean that I think it was a bad film. On the contrary. This is one of the rare occasions where I can say that I like the film but am dissatisfied with the story resolution.
On the other hand it is also interesting that our group is non-American and we all were irritated by the Ivan question. People started even commenting during the film. I wasn't the first one to bring it up, but it started to intrigue me. It remains one of the most intriguing questions about the deficiency or non-deficiency of film plots I have come across lately. McCarthy is probably laughing, if he is silly enough to read these comments. It must be a film maker's wet dream to have so many people discuss your crap (in the good ways). Anyway, I think I have wasted too much time already. All best.
guess I was more intrigued with Tarek and Zainab. After they left the apartment the first time and the Walter invited them back, Ivan became moot for me.
[deleted]
I never said this film was only for people who live in big cities. You're reading things into what I said and choosing to be insulted. Guess what, I've never lived in NYC and never heard of this scam before I saw the movie, but I could catch on to what had happened. Again, the exact mechanism of how Ivan scammed the couple is not relevant to this movie, which is about what happens after Walter and the couple meet.
But since you're hung up on how Ivan got the key, someone above had already suggested that he is the landlord. It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility for a shady landlord who knows that a tenant hasn't used the apartment in a year, to take advantage of that situation. Or it could be someone who does maintenance work for the landlord and was able to obtain a tenant's key. While watching the movie, I just accepted that Ivan, being a scam artist, had thought of something that would never occur to me to do. And that the movie didn't need to spell out his tricks of the trade.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
Ohmyohmy, Gandhi. I am sorry, but you are turning a potentially interesting question again into a heap of banality. Let's leave it at this.
You didn't mind, lots of other people didn't mind, while many other people did mind and were irritated by the Ivan motif. I think this is fair enough. For you there is no story deficiency, for other people there is one. You have said what you think, I have said what I think, and we have now polluted the internet sufficiently, I think.
I was rather hoping to have an interesting discussion, but I do not need you or anyone else to explain to me the technicalities of the scam in the life of Walter Vale. You simply do not understand, nor are you willing to understand (potentially not able to understand) my questions. You don't understand what I am after, and I will not repeat it again. However, I can see that you need to have the last word, so let's end this with the profoundness of your conclusion.
This is not a sexist remark, Gandhi. But I am absolutely sure you are a woman. It reminds me of the never ending arguments between men and women, when the words are spoken in two completely different spheres which do not coincide. Like in Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. This sort of thing. It can be permanently terminated only by divorce. You and I, we simply have incompatible interests.
By the by, you quote someone whose comment implies that everyone who cannot think of a plausible backstory for the Ivan-scam is half-brained. When I point out that insulting remarks like this one are inappropriate, you write back to me that I am the one who chose to be insulted. I mean....?? It is hard not to admit that your arguments really insult my intelligence.
I therefore happily give up.
It's lovely though that people feel passionate enough about films to waste their energy like this.
[deleted]
Sorry, but one of the great things about this movie is its faith in its viewers' logical capabilities. Anyone with half a brain can think of half of dozen ways for this scam to work, and whichever one "Ivan" used has absolutely no relevance to the plot.
Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Criedshare
Excellent post, Denniswattens! I think we needed a bit more (maybe a lot more) explanation about how they came to be using Walter's apartment before we could accept the fact that he would try to help them immigrate. Many other things rang false with me – the drumming and the note in the detention center probably wouldn't have been allowed, lest it be a code – but the biggie was how the couple first gained access to Walter's apartment. This was a decent film with excellent performances, but I could not suspend disbelief for very long.
shareI think that Walter was really lonely. Like when he requested that Tarik's mother stay in the apartment, walking out into the street as he had done before with Tarik and Z (sorry I forget her name). It was more about the premise than the actual technical process of how it came to be.
shareI don't think it's "the apathetic demeanor of Jenkins'
character" that should make us believe it's plausible that he doesn't inquire into who Ivan is. It's the simple fact that he gets caught up in a whole lot of other events that are way more important to him. Also when he's still living there Ivan won't be able to try his scam again. (At first I thought Mouna was his next victim, haha.)
I also think your comparison to Chekhov's gun doesn't really apply, since the keys are used to explain the couple being in his appartment, and actually trigger the whole story. So the proverbial gun IS fired with all the consequences for the storyline.
I also think your comparison to Chekhov's gun doesn't really apply...
Hear Hear Dennis.
Sorry, this message has planted itself on page 3 of this thread, I actually tried to place it after Dennis's first comment.
If it's a boy, do you think it will look like Rodney? It doesn't matter as long as it's healthy!
[deleted]
Just saw this movie yesterday.
I liked the fact that we never found out about Ivan. Not every stone has to be turned and I like that Thomas McCarthy dared to leave such a big stone unturned. Not many movies go this route.
I AM curious to who Ivan is and why Walter never researched this even the tiniest of bits.
If I had been him I would not sleep easily in that apartment until I found this Ivan guy.
Walter not checking out on this is part of his character in my book.
The couple living there under the Ivan scam I can totally believe, even if I live in a small sleepy town in the middle of Sweden.
I can also think of a number of reasons and ways this Ivan guy could do this, no beef there.
It IS unsatisfactory and I love it!
RE Ivan
I assumed Ivan was a guy who was subletting from Walter, Ivan somehow vanished and Ivan subletted the apartment to Tariq and g-friend forgot her name.
Thats never really explained but thats how I understood it.
I just watched this movie and read this posting. I know it is old, so I don't know if anyone cares, but I just felt compelled to reply.
For things that come up in movies like this, I believe the person who writes the script looks at it to see if certain details are necessary to drive the story. In the movie, we know Tariq and his girlfriend rented Walter's flat from a guy named Ivan, who had keys. We know Tariq and G had paid rent to Ivan. We know when Walter arrives, he finds them there. This sets up our story. What we don't know is what Ivan told the couple. We also don't know what actions Walter took. Did he get the locks changed? Did he check with the super? Or a cleaning service? Would any of this had driven our story forward? No. Therefore, it does not need to be in the script. It does not mean Walter did nothing in regards to this having happened. It just means that we don't need to hear all about it in relation to THIS story. I hope that makes sense to some people.
Right...so the "gun on the wall " was Not the keys,but Ivan himself,and since Ivan was not necessary to advance the storyline,he never materialized.
shareI believe Ivan was a criminal who was taking "rent" money illegally from the "squatters" because he knew there was a vacant apartment that hadn't been used in a long while. Perhaps he was a maintenance person at the building.
shareCould it be that Ivan is the guy that Walter witnessed when he was first in detention center, in front of him there was a Russian guy whom was furious about someone (ivan) moved away from center. Just a theory...
shareI'm the type to be bothered by this kind of thing, but on watching the movie it was clear to me that Ivan was someone who knew that Walter was away most of the time, could make keys, and saw an opportunity to make some money. During the scene where Walter discovers the two in his apartment, I felt that we were seeing them figure this out as well. Walter didn't press the issue because he could see that they were in a bind that wasn't their own doing. And I'm not someone who's lived in a big city or dealt much with rental situations like that. That said, the fact that many people didn't pick up on this points to a failure of the movie to clarify it. The audience is the final judge. Like anything else designed for the people who use it, if one adopts the approach that any problem is due to a faulty design, and never the fault of the user, one makes a better product.
This didn't bother me at all. Walter is the non-confrontational type who wanted nothing more (or so it seemed) than to keep his head down and continue about his routine. So much so that he is even apologizing to a stranger in his own bathtub for barging in. His focus isn't on tracking down a scammer who had taken advantage of him, but rather on the opportunity to reach out and help two people he sees in a jam.
share