MovieChat Forums > There Be Dragons (2011) Discussion > Why did Manolo do what he did?

Why did Manolo do what he did?


This may represent an embarrassing lack of insight on my part, but here's my question. Why did Manolo
shoot Leila? And, why did he say something like "It was the first thing I ever did that she wanted me to do"? Any thoughts?

reply

[deleted]

Dear tsco13, Those all make sense, although I still don't understand why he said "I finally did something she wanted me to do." Thanks for writing. Red-125

reply

[deleted]

The right-wing forces were about to take them captive, and her fate would have been horrible.

reply

Dear pjpoconnell,

Thanks for writing. That makes sense, although she didn't appear to want him to do it. (He said
she wanted him to do it, but how did he know that?) Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful answer.
Red-125

reply

She was asking for a pistol to kill herself, so he took it once step further and shot her.

reply

Dear latin buddy,

Yes, that could make sense if that was what she asked. However, she had tried two rifles, but the bolts were jammed on both. She probably wouldn't have used a rifle to kill herself. The subtitles read,
"I need a gun." (At least, that's what I remember.) Did that mean she needed a gun so she could keep fighting, or she needed a gun so she could kill herself?
Red-125

reply

[deleted]

Dear tsco,

Not messing, and not totally convinced. She did say that she wanted a bullet to take her to her lover.
However, she was in active combat at the end, and when she saw the pistol in Manolo's hand, she
hardly looked overjoyed.

A few months ago I asked a question about a different film, and I received answers from
six people. All the answers were different, and each writer was honestly convinced that she/he had
the correct interpretation. Films are artistic endeavors, just as paintings or novels are artistic
endeavors. None of us can be certain that our opinion about a work of art is the only correct opinion.
Red-125

reply

Dear Red-125,

That's fair. None of us can be certain our opinion was the filmmaker's intent. The other responses that you have received on this thread all seem consistent and somewhat in step with the ones I offered.

You have not yet voiced one. I'm now curious to hear your view. And as to her not looking overjoyed when he aimed the pistol at her face, perhaps the reality of getting what she asked for did not live up to the romantic notion of her wish. She looked shocked and terrified to me. You said she didn't look happy. How did she look to you? Or is this Ariadne's thread and we conclude by eliminating all other possibilities? And I know that implies that there is but one answer. Just curious.

reply

SPOILERS AHEAD.




Dear Red: that is only one in a hundred things in this movie which don't make sense. Nothing prepares you for this scene. She seems to be willing to die fighting. If she wanted to commit suicide it would have been easy: just charge the enemy with an empty rifle and get killed.

For me nothing about Manolo makes sense. His motives are absurd. One does not switch sides so easily. Nor is the (first? only?) son of a landlord usually destined to a seminar.

Making him an impoverished peasant attending seminar would have been more accurate (that was the fate of many peasant children) and would have established a logic rivalry between Escrivá and himself, being on both sides of a bitter ideological dispute, as Manolo gets more radically leftist. That would have made a lot of sense. But no, the screenwriter wanted to make Manolo rich to create an artificial conflict with the young Jose Maria so the audience sides with the latter. It does not make sense.

And then, you have this guy killing people in revenge and becoming a spy! What? The son of a landlord, a spy. Joining Falange (a fascist group which is TOTALLY forgotten in the film) would have been logical, even participating in killings. A lot of "señoritos" did that. But a spy infiltrated (what for?) in communist organizations, give me a break.

Not to mention the historical mistakes. Ay Carmela would not have been sung during the battle for Madrid; it is a song about the Battle of the Ebro, a couple of years later. Manolo's voice-over says he joined a Communist cell. The image shows ANARCHISTS! With anarchist banners and the anarchist CNT letters on the truck. And to top it all, anarchists wave republican flags (unlikely, they didn't have any respect for the State) and sing The Internationale, the communist anthem! Preposterous! Anarchists and communists hated each other's guts and in fact fought among themselves.

And of course, no sign of Falange and the numerous atrocities on the fascist side. Conveniently, Escrivá's ordeal finishes when he crosses the border. In fact, he went back to the fascist side in Burgos and must have witnessed terrible acts, which he conveniently silenced for the rest of his life. The film is mum about that part: only the Republican atrocities count. Escrivá collaborated with Franco's dictatorship and in fact was able to become a huge power in the shadow, placing several ministers in Franco's cabinet from the sixties on. Another thing the screenwriter conveniently forgets.

reply

For me, this is a bad copy of Dr. Zhivago, Soldados de Salamina and Novecento.

reply

Dear Larean,

Thank you for your very informative and thoughtful letter. I've been interested in the war in Spain since I was a child, because many of my relatives were members of Friends of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. To say of someone, "He fought in Spain" was a high accolade. I've seen some documentaries and read some books about the conflict as well. Still, my knowledge is essentially superficial compared to yours. So, now we have at least two things to criticize in this movie: the unbelievable plot twists and the inaccurate history. That too bad. I've seen good documentaries about the war, but not too many other feature films.
Maybe a good one will come along.

Sincerely, Red-125

reply

My grandfather fought the war on the Republican side. I have nothing but the deepest admiration and thankfulness for the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. I used to receive the ALBA newsletter, but it seems to have been interrupted.

As to the great film about the Spanish Civil War, you are right, it hasn't been made yet. Ken Loach's Land and Freedom is fine, but it is not a great film.

Salud, compañero.

reply

"Ay Carmela" is based on a popular XIX century song, so it could have been singed anywhere in Spain (maybe with different lyrics.)

reply

That's why this film has such a low rating - it does not make any bloody sense. What Manolo did does not make sense on any level, and no man in his right mind would have done what he did. On the other hand, he did not seem psychotic, so how can anyone explain his action rather than saying this is a terribly badly written movie with the worst accents I have ever heard. Too bad for the good acting crew wasted here.

reply

Dear Alexander,

That may be the best answer at all. Essentially, it doesn't make sense. Why would a movie have
something in it that didn't make sense? Essentially, because it's a bad movie.

Thanks for writing.

Red125

reply

Thanks for agreeing with me. It's the only LOGICAL explanation, and it's so obvious. They were using a cheap trick - shock the audience, make this movie stick, make it memorable. Never mind it doesn't make any sense. What a wasted opportunity! I've come here for the same reason - to look for an explanation, and all offered here are rationalizations that do not hold water, trying to justify what's not justifiable as logical. She was going to shoot herself anyhow? Oh, great...! Well, you know what baby? Don't bother. I'm going to shoot you straight in the head and live with that for the rest of my life. No, wait a minute... Why on earth would I do that? Whoever sane would do anything of that sort? Ask yourself. And don't tell me he was insane, because he wasn't. They could have developed his character as psychotic, but they didn't. And how do I know that she was going to shoot herself anyhow? Just plain ridiculous. I can't believe IMDB is showing this movie to be in the TOP500. Too bad for the writer and the director - a wasted opportunity. He had many things working for him here and he blew it. Including with the accents.

reply

Dear Alexander,

"Works for me." Red-125

reply

She did not want to kill herself. She was willing to die on the battlefield. Otherwise she wouldn't have tried 2 rifles that were jammed. She said that she was willing to see her lover but that's only if it came to that. Maybe this was his way to end her misery in a war she did not belong in or to end her suffering if she were caught. Manolo was in tears when he realized she did not have to die. War is not logical and neither was his decision. That is part of war.

reply

I see I'm late. You came to the same conclusion. Incredibly bad movie.

I hope to have contributed some other reasons why it is SO incredibly bad. Not even a history advisor! Even an amateur like myself can spot the mistakes!


reply

Dear Larean,

With respect, you're a very well-informed amateur! Red-125

reply

Thanks! I just found out my misgivings were right. This movie was produced by a supernumerary member of Opus Dei, as confessed by one of the leading Catholic journalists in Spain, Juan Manuel de Prada (you can look it up in the critics section, I believe it's the third link). This is just a piece of propaganda.

I just watched it on Cable TV a few hours ago and I couldn't believe how bad it is, even as propaganda.

reply

Dear Larean,

Suspicions confirmed! Very interesting. Thanks for sharing this.

Red-125

reply

[deleted]

As many others have mentioned, Leila, had the desire to be with her lover (can't remember his name at the moment) "on the other side". He mentioned in case of his death that he'd be "waiting for her". Seeing as it was a time of war filled with insecurities of not knowing one's fate, I can definitely see why he'd say such a thing. Leila wanted to be with him and Manolo gave her in a sense what she wanted. I, personally, don't think it's linked to any of the other reasons mentioned in this thread, but that's just my take on it.

Also, someone mentioned Manolo not having any qualms with killing people. I don't necessarily believe this to be true. His moral strings were clearly being pulled on as was evidenced with his first assassination (the union leader in his car). As you may recall, someone else literally had to pull the trigger for him because he, himself, couldn't. Manola clearly had a conscious which was reflected not only during this scene, but in learning that he went back for Leila's child.

This film will probably haunt me for a long time to come.

"Don't like me? Then jog on, my friend."

reply

Dear Christy,

Very interesting take. Thank you. Red-125

reply

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that it was an unselfish and unqualified act of love and mercy. If he had wanted to kill her he had had many previous opportunities. He knew exactly what fate awaited a radical young woman at the hands of ultra conservative soldiers, he also knew that she had no desire to live and that he could spare her the agony of having to commit suicide. As a catholic he was also sparing her the sin of suicide by taking it upon himself. It was also a formal confession of who he was, in case there was still any doubt.

It's possible too that he had picked up on the notion that Leila also considered suicide to be a sin; both she and her lover had made references to meeting on the other side, indicating that they believed in an afterlife and hence in the possibility of God, even if not necessarily a Catholic or even a Christian version thereof.

reply

Dear Nuages,

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I guess you'd have to decide whether running at the enemy with an unloaded weapon--as suggested by an earlier writer--would be considered suicide or not. I'm not sure that I can buy your version, but that doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong. It could be just the opposite. Thanks for writing. Red-125

reply

No, personally I don't think Leila had any intention of running at the enemy with an empty gun or committing suicide for that matter. Neither would she want Manolo to do her any favours, either by killing her or providing her with one of his filthy passes. Her ideal demise would have involved getting a gun and fighting on until she was killed in battle - taking as many of the enemy as she could with her - hence her desperate plea for a gun!

However it is Manolo's motivation that is critical here. He, realising all of the above, wanted a quick end for her and did what he thought was the decent thing! He could not grant her ideal wish (that was a very unlikely outcome) but he could give her what she wanted in a sort of double sense. He could reunite her with her lover and since she had a pretty good idea by then what he, Manolo, was, it could be at the hands of the enemy. It was the only thing she could ever want from him and he finally gets it!

reply

Thanks, Nuages. Interesting. Red-125

reply

Just a small correction. In this particular scene of the movie the opponents were not "ultra conservative soldiers" but Muslim "regulars" (aka moors.)

reply

To latin-buddy: I believe they were Spanish "zouaves". Although dressed in a peculiar looking uniform, they would have been Catholic, and served the Spanish royalty. I didn't have a chance to see the color of their skin in the film. According to Wikipedia, later regiments did indeed raise regiments of zouaves composed of North African Muslims. So you could be right.

reply