MovieChat Forums > The Angels' Share (2012) Discussion > [Spoiler] Help! What did he pour? [Spoil...

[Spoiler] Help! What did he pour? [Spoiler]

posted 12 years ago by bookworm345
11 replies | jump to latest

When Robby poured the content of a bottle into the barrel was he adding whisky from another barrel, or just pouring back in the whisky that was in the the tubing? I am confused because the 4xteam all looked so anxious when the American auction winner was tasking the whisky. It seems it would be pretty risky to adulterate the barrel (unless he is sure the American, who knows nothing about whisky, is going to win). But if not, why were they all biting their nails as the American was tasting, and seemed so relieved when he judged the whisky as fantastic/divine?

[–] tcbuzz 12 years ago

You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!

They added in the whisky from a different barrel, so that they would not notice some was missing.

They were nervous because when you mix two different whiskies together, there was a chance that it would taste horrible and that they would notice it had been contaminated.

As the American had not tasted the original whisky before, and the taste seemed to be ok, they were "off the hook" so to speak.

[–] bookworm345 12 years ago

Thanks tcbuzz, that's what I suspected but I thought it that was too big a big risk to take, especially that they took out only 4 bottles! Not very flattering for the American then, he paid for adulterated whiskey and did not even notice!

[–] PoppyTransfusion 11 years ago

Not very flattering for the American then, he paid for adulterated whiskey and did not even notice!

I suspect this may have been intentional ...

Why problem make? When you no problem have, you don't want to make ...

[–] hendem 11 years ago

"Trainspotting" moment there. What do the Scots have against the Yanks? (I mean apart from what all the rest of us have against them.)

[–] DaliParton 11 years ago

As an American I got a vibe of making the guy look a fool, but it didn't seem culturally directed. There was another American at the first tasting and nothing was made of him one way or the other.

Also, I was aware of these findings and wouldn't be surprised if it applied to whisky drinkers too:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/apr/14/expensive-wine-cheap-plo nk-taste
http://www.freakonomics.com/2010/12/16/freakonomics-radio-do-more-expe nsive-wines-taste-better/

[–] Kookyburra 11 years ago

It was odd that this guy who apparently had a love of whisky would adulterate the barrel like that.

I agree that it was based on an assumption that the winner would be a rich American fool with no real taste. The "angel's share" was taken first for the people who would love the whisky for the sheer joy of it...

But of course that isn't why they did it, they stole it to sell for a lot of money to another criminal... rendering the title of this utterly misguided film completely redundant.

Seriously, I still can't believe what Ken and his script writer did with this one. He seems to be taking an "if you can't beat em, join em" approach to rampant capitalism. Utterly bizarre to witness for someone who has followed his career for a long time.

[–] kolnoaMograbi 10 years ago

Regarding "[Loach] seems to be taking an 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em' approach to rampant capitalism. Utterly bizarre to witness for someone who has followed his career for a long time."

You're right, this one did have more of a "Full Monty" zing to it. But compare to Raining Stones, which also had a happy ending.

When you think of garbage, think of Hakim!

[–] dbeane 10 years ago

I agree with tcbuzz; Robbie even mentioned to the other three earlier, "don't worry, nothing's going to be missing..." (paraphrasing).

[–] yan-trussart 11 years ago

I don't think he was adding whisky taken from another barrel, but merely putting back the whisky that he didn't have the time to get out of the very long tube he used to commit the theft, being in such a hurry to retrieve it from the barrel.
He then collected the leftover in a bottle and put it back after the visitors had gone.
That would explain why he only put one bottle back in, even though he took four out.

[–] mi_jah 10 years ago

I think so too, he put the same whisky from the tube back in the cask.
But i do think that action would be strange. I would think it more probable to just take that extra bottle too. It would be easier as well, since it would take one less (risky) action!
Also, i would have filled up the small sample-bottle to the max!

[–] mme3924-1 9 years ago

He took whiskey from another barrel, one against the wall. The film plainly shows that.

And the taste, except for the experts, is so much predicated on expectation and pretend expertise. The aficionados are told this is a rare, perfect, whiskey, and unless they have a great nose like Robbie, or the experts, they don't know the difference, but they pretend to know because they are snobbish and rich whiskey collectors.

Also, Maloney's client was not a rich American, but a Russian. When asked, after the auction, his client's name, he says he doesn't know, only that it's a Moscow number. People shouldn't jump to such conclusions about Americans.