Miller's Crossing (5)
Jan. 3rd, 2011 06:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
malenkiyscot<continued>
At last we are ready to delve into the analysis of Miller's Crossing's message. At the center of that message is Tom Reagan's ethical journey. And the key questions our analysis has to answer deal with that journey:
- Why is Tom throughout the movie brutally (as in "brutally beaten up") honest in placing his sporting bets and even refuses Leo's offer to "square" his betting debt, while at the end he places a bet on a fixed fight, while paying off the debt with the money he obtains by tricking and (effectively) murdering Caspar?
- Why does not Tom kill Bernie when he has all the reasons in the world for it, and does kill him in the end when "there is no angle" in it?
- What is the symbolism of a hat (the hat - Tom's hat that is) blown away by the wind?
The plot is rather dense and it is hard to handle it with short straightforward sentences. So please bear with me.
To make our task more manageable let's break up the main characters into love-hate triangles and treat each group separately. Seven main characters make for thirty five trios, fortunately only some of them make sense. Let's consider them one by one:
(1) Verna-Leo-Bernie. Verna is trying to protect her scumbag brother by "showing good time" to Leo who is in position to protect him. Leo falls deeply in love with Verna and is considering marrying her.
(2) Tom-Leo-Bernie. Leo is protecting Bernie because of Verna despite Tom's better judgement: " Think about what protecting Bernie gets us. Think about what offending Caspar loses us."
(3) Tom-Leo-Caspar. Leo protecting Bernie starts a mafia war between Leo and Caspar. Tom who realizes how close Leo is to being defeated apparently switches sides. In truth he gets on Caspar's inside in order to beat him from within.
(4) Tom-Caspar-Dane. The Dane is extremely loyal to Caspar. He also hates Tom - their mutual hatred is established in the opening sequence with one long stare they give each other - and sees through his subterfuge. Needless to say, the Dane is Tom's main obstacle in defeating Caspar. And twice - in the two most nerve-racking scenes in the movie - the Dane gets very close to killing Tom. Tom's strategy is to get rid of the Dane first - by painting him to be disloyal to Caspar. Conversely the Dane, who is unable to convince Caspar to simply "bump" Tom because of Caspar's ethical scruples ("The Dane saying we should double-cross you; you double-cross once, where's it all end? An innaresting ethical question..." - just listening to how Polito delivers that line is a pleasure) is trying to expose Tom. In the end Tom who is able to keep his cool even when facing almost certain death comes out victorious against the Dane who is unable to contain his righteous rage.
Lies vs Truth: the truth gets its brains blown out.
(5) Dane-Bernie-Mink. Mink is "Dane's boy". Here we come to a major point in our analysis: it is my opinion that in Miller's Crossing homosexual love is a stand-in for deep friendship and loyalty. To wit:
[1] Caspar dismisses Leo's suggestion that it is Mink that might be betraying him by saying that "Mink is Dane's boy", i.e. Mink is loyal to his lover the Dane, the Dane is loyal to Caspar, ergo Mink is loyal to Caspar.
[2] In his dialog with Mink Tom gets wind that there is something going on between Mink and Bernie, to which Mink replies: "We're just friends - you know, amigos?". Tom: "You're a fickle boy, Mink. If Dane found out you had another "amigo" - well, I don't peg him for the understanding type."
[3] During their first encounter at Tom's apartment Bernie refers to what apparently were his homosexual liasons as "friends": "She's even tried to teach me a thing or two about bed artistry. Can you believe that - my own sister! Some crackpot idea about saving me from my friends" My conjecture is this: in general we equate a heterosexual love relationship with that of loyalty - hence being sexually unfaithful is tantamount to a betrayal. Reversing the "equation" we get: true friendship = loyalty = sexual love. Hence you may have only one true friend; and, somewhat unexpectedly, if you are truly in love you may have no other friends. More on this when we get to Tom-Leo-Verna triangle.
So, the Dane loves Mink. Mink, on the other hand, loves (and is loyal to) Bernie - otherwise why being as "fickle" as he is would he risk interceding with Tom on Bernie's behalf (noticed how nervious he is while talking to Tom?). Being loyal to Bernie means betraying the Dane - both in the general as well as in a particular sense - Mink passes to Bernie Caspar's betting fixes, which information he gets from the Dane.
Bernie does not love anybody but himself and uses everybody around him to his advantage: he uses his sister to get Leo's protection, he tries to blackmail Tom to kill Caspar, and he kills Mink because he is afraid that he may spill the beans that Bernie is still alive and then uses his body to protect Tom so that Tom may kill Caspar.
We will deal with the remaining three love-hate triangles in the conclusion.
<to be concluded>
At last we are ready to delve into the analysis of Miller's Crossing's message. At the center of that message is Tom Reagan's ethical journey. And the key questions our analysis has to answer deal with that journey:- Why is Tom throughout the movie brutally (as in "brutally beaten up") honest in placing his sporting bets and even refuses Leo's offer to "square" his betting debt, while at the end he places a bet on a fixed fight, while paying off the debt with the money he obtains by tricking and (effectively) murdering Caspar?
- Why does not Tom kill Bernie when he has all the reasons in the world for it, and does kill him in the end when "there is no angle" in it?
- What is the symbolism of a hat (the hat - Tom's hat that is) blown away by the wind?
The plot is rather dense and it is hard to handle it with short straightforward sentences. So please bear with me.
To make our task more manageable let's break up the main characters into love-hate triangles and treat each group separately. Seven main characters make for thirty five trios, fortunately only some of them make sense. Let's consider them one by one:
(1) Verna-Leo-Bernie. Verna is trying to protect her scumbag brother by "showing good time" to Leo who is in position to protect him. Leo falls deeply in love with Verna and is considering marrying her.
(2) Tom-Leo-Bernie. Leo is protecting Bernie because of Verna despite Tom's better judgement: " Think about what protecting Bernie gets us. Think about what offending Caspar loses us."
(3) Tom-Leo-Caspar. Leo protecting Bernie starts a mafia war between Leo and Caspar. Tom who realizes how close Leo is to being defeated apparently switches sides. In truth he gets on Caspar's inside in order to beat him from within.(4) Tom-Caspar-Dane. The Dane is extremely loyal to Caspar. He also hates Tom - their mutual hatred is established in the opening sequence with one long stare they give each other - and sees through his subterfuge. Needless to say, the Dane is Tom's main obstacle in defeating Caspar. And twice - in the two most nerve-racking scenes in the movie - the Dane gets very close to killing Tom. Tom's strategy is to get rid of the Dane first - by painting him to be disloyal to Caspar. Conversely the Dane, who is unable to convince Caspar to simply "bump" Tom because of Caspar's ethical scruples ("The Dane saying we should double-cross you; you double-cross once, where's it all end? An innaresting ethical question..." - just listening to how Polito delivers that line is a pleasure) is trying to expose Tom. In the end Tom who is able to keep his cool even when facing almost certain death comes out victorious against the Dane who is unable to contain his righteous rage.Lies vs Truth: the truth gets its brains blown out.
(5) Dane-Bernie-Mink. Mink is "Dane's boy". Here we come to a major point in our analysis: it is my opinion that in Miller's Crossing homosexual love is a stand-in for deep friendship and loyalty. To wit:[1] Caspar dismisses Leo's suggestion that it is Mink that might be betraying him by saying that "Mink is Dane's boy", i.e. Mink is loyal to his lover the Dane, the Dane is loyal to Caspar, ergo Mink is loyal to Caspar.
[2] In his dialog with Mink Tom gets wind that there is something going on between Mink and Bernie, to which Mink replies: "We're just friends - you know, amigos?". Tom: "You're a fickle boy, Mink. If Dane found out you had another "amigo" - well, I don't peg him for the understanding type."
[3] During their first encounter at Tom's apartment Bernie refers to what apparently were his homosexual liasons as "friends": "She's even tried to teach me a thing or two about bed artistry. Can you believe that - my own sister! Some crackpot idea about saving me from my friends"
So, the Dane loves Mink. Mink, on the other hand, loves (and is loyal to) Bernie - otherwise why being as "fickle" as he is would he risk interceding with Tom on Bernie's behalf (noticed how nervious he is while talking to Tom?). Being loyal to Bernie means betraying the Dane - both in the general as well as in a particular sense - Mink passes to Bernie Caspar's betting fixes, which information he gets from the Dane.
Bernie does not love anybody but himself and uses everybody around him to his advantage: he uses his sister to get Leo's protection, he tries to blackmail Tom to kill Caspar, and he kills Mink because he is afraid that he may spill the beans that Bernie is still alive and then uses his body to protect Tom so that Tom may kill Caspar.
We will deal with the remaining three love-hate triangles in the conclusion.
<to be concluded>
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-01-22 08:34 pm (UTC)Я думаю что история с волосами Рега, которая как бы проходит через весь фильм, как раз призванна подчеркнуть зту мысль. Все пытаются понять какой смысл было забирать его волосы. Да небыло никакого смысла.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-22 10:47 pm (UTC)http://malenkiy-scot.livejournal.com/280614.html
Фраза, "Do you always know why you do things, Leo?" - одна из ключевых, и я ее еще разберу. Но она не относится к отсустсвию стратегии(которая у Тома бесузловно есть - не детальная, конечно, но общая). Если ты внимательно проследишь за действием, то в начале фильма Том два или три раза подчеркивает Лео иррациональность поступков последнего; в конце фильма Том уже не тот, и эта фраза как раз создает контраст между Томом в начале и Томом в конце.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-14 10:05 pm (UTC)На одной ножке: в целом я согласен с твоим подходом - но это не то, что ты писал сначала :)
Подробности в заключительной части "рецензии".
no subject
Date: 2011-03-14 10:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-23 04:27 pm (UTC)