Spoiler: do not hover with your mouse if you haven't seen the movie
At first, it seems that Philip Seymour Hoffman is simply angry just because the other agencies (german and american) interfered with and messed up his scheme, however, when you analyze deeper what just happened, it was Philip Seymour Hoffman's character who introduced the man with torture scars (minnow) to the corrupt businessman who was changing donors to the shipping company at the last minute (barracuda), with the intent, that he would use the money that the guy didn't intend to claim anyway, as bait. SO, in the end, the entire blame for ruining the innocent man's life, was a result the failed scheme of Philip Seymour Hoffman's character, and falls upon him, because the minnow would have never even met the barracuda without his plan. So rather than just anger, its got to be a ton of shame and embarrassment that PSH's character feels at the end of the film.
Absolutely. He knew that if the Americans had done it their way, or if he had let them have their way, the SPOILED tragedy you refer to wouldn't have happened.
@nasdaq311 Why, because he/she doesn't agree with you?
Sure, there is a feeling of guilt and responsability but it's not that the outcome would have been different. The US people wanted Issa, one way or another.
If you can't see em, you know youve got proper invisible runes.
Excellent analysis. I also took it to mean that Gunther/Hoffman's own technique was just used on him, and it was all done in plain sight. Martha/Robin Wright told him outright that Gunther/Hoffman's network was blown in Beirut because of the U.S. When she revealed information only Gunther's group knew, he asked how she knew it and she replied "we are watching you." Just like Gunther was watching Issa, Annabel, Brue, and Abdullah. Martha used up and disposed of Gunther, just like Gunther used up and disposed of Jamal (Abdullah's son).
Martha/Robin Wright turned out to be the barracuda, and Gunther the minnow. Ouch!
I guess THIS scene, and all the dialogue contained within, completely went over YOUR head? Sigh.
I wasn't sure you'd come. I want to make one thing clear. I don't owe you anything. What happened in Beirut? You know what happened in Beirut. My networks were blown. So Hamburg is a punishment? Depends on whether you like Hamburg. Unless that's what you want people to think? Take some of the heat off you so you can get on with the real game. Which is? Dr. Faisal Abdullah. Come on, Gnther, we probably know as much about him as you do. What do you know, Martha? We know you've been watching him for months, and we know you're under pressure to get results. And we know that the man moves money through a network of Muslim charities and every time he does, some of it goes missing. Dr. Faisal Abdullah is everything we want him to be and a little bit more. He's tolerant, enlightened, engaged with the West. But every good man has a little bit of bad, doesn't he? And in Abdullah's case, that little bit just might kill you. You know all that, how come he's still walking the streets of Hamburg and not rotting in some cell in Guantnamo? Because we think, we don't know. The money leaves and we don't know where it goes. Anyways, on German soil he's got the protection of German law. That hasn't stopped you before. We don't do that anymore. You want us to do it, then. I'm more interested in knowing why you haven't done it already? Please work with us on this one, Gnther. I don't trust you. Old habits die hard. That's what I'm worried about. I was talking about yours.
Because we think, we don't know. The money leaves and we don't know where it goes. Anyways, on German soil he's got the protection of German law. That hasn't stopped you before. We don't do that anymore.
Yes, I recalled this in their later "frenemy-ly" scenes. I did not see the Americans' last move coming. That's why it was shocking.
reply share
In fact, the dialogue quoted, and in bold, only further reinforces my original point, which is that Gunther's scheme gave them the evidence they needed to move on on Issa and Abdullah, because they could now show the transfer of funds.
you must know you don't have a leg to stand on, that's why you keep writing novels (repetitive novels, I might add), without actually backing up any of what you say without producing any actual quoted dialogue from the film. None of these broken record opinions have any actual proof,, so why keep wasting everyone's time , TLDR; its all just your opinion man, nothing you are saying is actually in the script.
here's an idea, why don't you try typing out the dialogue at the minute marks you keep trying over and over to unsuccessfully cite, instead of accusing people of never having watched the film, and prove what the characters are saying at those times backs up your claims, like I did.
TLDR, you are relying on your interpretation of visual elements shown on screen that are not elucidated in the film's dialogue for your entire argument.
Your failure to produce actual quotes from the film that support your claims (quoted dialogue in the form of sentences), aside from "We know you've been watching him for months" (lulz), is a clear signal you really don't have any proof to back up anything you say. Game over.
It's easy. Just 'highlight' the area you want 'blacked out' in your post/reply, and then click on the 'markup enabled' hotkey "SPOILER" at the top of the text field.
I am not even reading the rest who replied to you ...
I find you clarify the ambiguities of the movie in a nutshell .. just one thing I want to make sure I understand correctly: the ''innocent man'' that you are talking about is the young Chechen boy? or Abdullah ?
When Abdullah switched one of the donation recipients to Seven Navigation , he then proved that his intention was to fund terrorists. Am I right ?
Yes, when Abdullah switched one of the donation recipients to Seven Navigation , he then proved that his intention was to fund terrorists, that was a major plotline of the film......
Thank you , this is why I love imdb.com because I agree with your point and I will sleep better. I wouldn't have caught Abdullah purposely made the switch, I thought somehow, that switch was forced.
Also , please help me. Abdullah's son did he lie about the traffic? Did Abdullah's son betray him?
I find you clarify the ambiguities of the movie in a nutshell .. just one thing I want to make sure I understand correctly: the ''innocent man'' that you are talking about is the young Chechen boy? or Abdullah ?
Well, the only good news in this movie was the arrest of that scumbag -- Abdullah.
So many like him in real life are out there in Europe, US, and Canada plotting crime and terrorism. Why should anyone feel pity for that piece of sh!t.
towards the end, after that collision, it was a bit confusing when everybody came out of everywhere .. SO, WHO exactly apprehended Abdullah ?? and as the young Chechen was running to his rescue or something, he got apprehended too. Can you please explain this ?
Were they BOTH apprehended ?? and by WHOM ??
the Americans? the other German politician?
btw -- the Martha character was a true b!tch .. a skank. It suits Robin Wright.