Miller's Crossing---Questions for Its Fans
rickr...@hotmail.com
Adams.GemMemory,JohN and Joseph Kinney. Your well-wriiten replies to
my original post were appreciated and helped answer some questions I
always had about the origins of my favorite film. Due to the high
level of intolerance, hostility and rudeness found in too many
newsgroups, your posts reminded me why Usenet can be a tool to a
greater appreciation of things that deserve to be appreciated.
I hope you all respond to the following questions I have always had
about the film. As with any complex work, there can be differing
interpretations of it. I have mine, but I am VERY interested in
hearing your analysis. I realize that you may not have the same
extreme interest in the film that I have, but I couldn't pass up this
opportunity to discuss it with people who do appreciate it. Sorry
about the length of the post, but I thought this best than posting
numerous times.
(1) What is your interpretation of the symbolism of Gabriel Byrne
[Tom] always losiing his hat? What does the hat represent? [Note
that the only time Byrne clearly controls the hat is at the end of the
film at Bernie's funeral when he says goodby forever to Albert Finney
[Leo] . After Byrne says goodby, he puts it firmly on his head. And
the hat stays.
(2) Did Gabriel Byrne intentionally break with Albert Finney [Leo]
so as to throw himself in with Caspar so as to destroy Caspar's crime
family or was it something he only decided to do after he was "fired"
by Finney for screwing around with Vera?
[3] At the end, at the funeral, why did Byrne refuse Finney's offer
to go back to Finney ["So things can be the way they were."] ?
Was it because Byrne was so full of self-hatred that he felt he was no
longer worthy of Finney's friendship? That his respect for Finney was
so great that he felt he was doing Finney a favor by rejecting the
offer? [Remember how disgusted Byrne gets when Finney TRIES to
forgive him for screwing with Verna----Byrne responds, "I didn't ask
for your forgiveness and I don't want it ."]
[4] The Final Camera Shot: At the end of the film, after Bernie's
funeral, Byrne rejects Finney's offer to rejoin him. Byrne forcefully
puts on his hat and watches Finney walk away. This camera shot lasts
a full minute, the camera staying only on Byrne's face. What was
Byrne saying with that expression? In "Movieline," there is a
column entitled "Great Performances." The reviewer wrote an entire
column on Byrne's performance in this movie. The reviewer said the
entire movie led up to this final look and only Byrne could have given
it the soulfullness it had. The reviewer said he has watched this
scene numeorus times and the meaning changes every time he watches it.
I agree. What's your view.
[5] If you don't have writer's cramp, what do you think the film
was trying to say?
I know you guys are thinking that if this movie was a women, I would
be charged with stalking. Maybe so. Its just that I have been a film
buff my entire life and this is my favorite film. My friends think
its foolish to discuss movies as if they have meaning outside of a way
to waste a couple of hours of time. I think movies have the ability to
alter your beliefs in two hours like no other medium. It disturbs me
that you can find 100 movie books on "Titanic", which is a good movie
but really has nothing new to say beyond the visual experience, but
you can't ever find books about films that are about ideas and things
peculiarly human---like ethics, loyalty, friendship, compassion.
My two cents. Very understandable if ignored. Sorry for the
length, but after all, I am a lawyer and am used to getting paid by
the word. Whoops, I hear an ambulance. Gotta run. Literally.
Thanks.
rickr...@hotmail.com
this post from the earlier post I made reference too. I'm the guy who
posted "Miller's Crossing and Some Useless Trivia" on November 6 as
"to...@using-my-work-computer-illegally.com" I posted that one from my
work computer. Obviously, I couldn't rationalize spending work time
to write the long-winded "novel' I just posted. After all, the
senior partner in my law firm needs sheepskin covers for his new
Mercedes and somebody has to earn it for him.
Sorry. And looking forward to your analysis.
Rick.
Joseph Kinney, Jr.
>A quick thank you to LennyB, J.D.,Bt_RKO,Gonigal,JID.Sam
>Adams.GemMemory,JohN and Joseph Kinney. Your well-wriiten replies to
>my original post were appreciated and helped answer some questions I
>always had about the origins of my favorite film. Due to the high
>level of intolerance, hostility and rudeness found in too many
>newsgroups, your posts reminded me why Usenet can be a tool to a
>greater appreciation of things that deserve to be appreciated.
This group a blast.
>I hope you all respond to the following questions I have always had
>about the film. As with any complex work, there can be differing
>interpretations of it. I have mine, but I am VERY interested in
>hearing your analysis. I realize that you may not have the same
>extreme interest in the film that I have, but I couldn't pass up this
>opportunity to discuss it with people who do appreciate it. Sorry
>about the length of the post, but I thought this best than posting
>numerous times.
"Miller's Crossing" not only allows for extreme interest, it actually
forces extreme interest. Many people have takin' an in-ter-ist in this
film, Jack included, and as a result we've had some nice discussions on
Miller's Crossing before (and will again I think) of which you can peruse
via http://www.dejanews.com/ Those threads I'm sure belong in the
non-existant Coen FAQ.
>(1) What is your interpretation of the symbolism of Gabriel Byrne
>[Tom] always losiing his hat? What does the hat represent? [Note
>that the only time Byrne clearly controls the hat is at the end of the
>film at Bernie's funeral when he says goodby forever to Albert Finney
>[Leo] . After Byrne says goodby, he puts it firmly on his head. And
>the hat stays.
We have discussed the hat as being a symbol of power or control which is
used primarily to accent events depicted in the film. Being that the hat
does not appear to be used exclusivly within any one particular metaphor
(making it difficult to attatch to it any singular undeniable
relationship), we at this point can only see that the hat is being used
within similar film events. Let's consider a few of the hat-filled
instances.
"I'm sick of the High Hat!"
This seems to reference the traditional top hat worn by politicians and
figure heads. In this first confrontation Leo is exercising his power over
Caspar.
"Where's me hat?"
Here we find a loss of control in Tom. After getting drunk, losing money
at cards and passing out in a restaurant, Tom's hat is taken away from him
by yet another vice, Verna.
The hat has also been discussed as a counterpart to the head. (Dualality
being an oft enjoyed Coen device)
>(2) Did Gabriel Byrne intentionally break with Albert Finney [Leo]
>so as to throw himself in with Caspar so as to destroy Caspar's crime
>family or was it something he only decided to do after he was "fired"
>by Finney for screwing around with Vera?
My opinion is that Tom's character is motivated purely by logical desicion
as opposed to emotional decision. In this event he is forced by logic to
provide Leo with the proper information needed in order for his boss to
make the correct decision regarding Verna and the business of crime. The
following series of decisions made by Tom are generally logical with the
exception of his "feelings" towards Verna.
>[3] At the end, at the funeral, why did Byrne refuse Finney's offer
>to go back to Finney ["So things can be the way they were."] ?
>Was it because Byrne was so full of self-hatred that he felt he was no
>longer worthy of Finney's friendship? That his respect for Finney was
>so great that he felt he was doing Finney a favor by rejecting the
>offer? [Remember how disgusted Byrne gets when Finney TRIES to
>forgive him for screwing with Verna----Byrne responds, "I didn't ask
>for your forgiveness and I don't want it ."]
Supporting my own theory (suprise suprise), I feel that the death of
Bernie concludes the death of Tom's heart, for as earlier at Miller's
Crossing (pivitol decision), Tom is asked to look into his heart, where he
makes an emotional decision as opposed to a logical one. By not killing
Bernie at that point in the film, his problems are made more difficult,
yet he is not forced to kill his love's brother (a decision that was also
made poorly by Leo and advised against by Tom).
By films end Tom has realised this weekness and removed it (his heart),
therebye removing Verna and Leo from his life forever. Tom is now in
control and able to live the life of the mind as opposed to the life of
the body.
>[4] The Final Camera Shot: At the end of the film, after Bernie's
>funeral, Byrne rejects Finney's offer to rejoin him. Byrne forcefully
>puts on his hat and watches Finney walk away. This camera shot lasts
>a full minute, the camera staying only on Byrne's face. What was
>Byrne saying with that expression? In "Movieline," there is a
>column entitled "Great Performances." The reviewer wrote an entire
>column on Byrne's performance in this movie. The reviewer said the
>entire movie led up to this final look and only Byrne could have given
>it the soulfullness it had. The reviewer said he has watched this
>scene numeorus times and the meaning changes every time he watches it.
>I agree. What's your view.
Oof. I feel we're looking at a man who has a level of control over his
life and decisions that few of us can achieve. This to me explains why
regardless of Tom's heartlessness, he is still perceived as a good person.
>[5] If you don't have writer's cramp, what do you think the film
>was trying to say?
Frienship, character, ethics.
>My two cents. Very understandable if ignored. Sorry for the
>length, but after all, I am a lawyer and am used to getting paid by
>the word. Whoops, I hear an ambulance. Gotta run. Literally.
Sometimes I just don't have the time to site and type into this group for
as long as I would like to, but when the topic is right I enjoy sitting
and hacking the english language.
...
tweek on
LennyB
group. I am fascinated by everyone's opinion on Miller's Crossing and one of
the reasons I love the movie is because it IS open to interpretation.
LennyB
Joseph Kinney, Jr. wrote in message ...
cy...@construct.net
twe...@rpa.net (Joseph Kinney, Jr.) wrote:
> rickr...@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> >(1) What is your interpretation of the symbolism of Gabriel Byrne
> >[Tom] always losiing his hat? What does the hat represent? [Note
> >that the only time Byrne clearly controls the hat is at the end of the
> >film at Bernie's funeral when he says goodby forever to Albert Finney
> >[Leo] . After Byrne says goodby, he puts it firmly on his head. And
> >the hat stays.
>
> We have discussed the hat as being a symbol of power or control which is
> used primarily to accent events depicted in the film. Being that the hat
> does not appear to be used exclusivly within any one particular metaphor
> (making it difficult to attatch to it any singular undeniable
> relationship), we at this point can only see that the hat is being used
> within similar film events. Let's consider a few of the hat-filled
> instances.
>
> "I'm sick of the High Hat!"
> This seems to reference the traditional top hat worn by politicians and
> figure heads. In this first confrontation Leo is exercising his power over
> Caspar.
>
> "Where's me hat?"
> Here we find a loss of control in Tom. After getting drunk, losing money
> at cards and passing out in a restaurant, Tom's hat is taken away from him
> by yet another vice, Verna.
>
> The hat has also been discussed as a counterpart to the head. (Dualality
> being an oft enjoyed Coen device)
if you consider the opening credits to be the dream that Tom described to
Verna later in the film, there are some intriguing details of interest:
Tom has the dream just after he's lost his hat to Verna; but it's also
just after the first scene in the film, which sets up the inevitable
conclusion of the break-up of Tom and Leo's friendship. the hat blowing
away foreshadows that break-up.
Later, when Verna asks Tom what he's "chewing over," Tom replies he's
thinking about the dream in which his hat blew away. But this scene
occurs right after Leo gives Tom the kiss-off. He goes on to say there's
nothing more foolish than a man chasing his hat.
The final, infamous frames of the film reveal just how deeply Tom
cared for Leo, imho, but he has made a conscious decision not to
chase after. Leo is all in black as he walks away, the only object
in the frame that isn't the golden or red of the leaves. His black form
echoes that of the hat blowing away in the opening credits. Tom puts
his hat on and Leo put his own on, right after. It seems
pretty obvious that, among the many other things the hat represents,
it represents something precious to him that he cannot allow himself
to hold onto or chase after: his bond with Leo.
-cynsa
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Gonigal
>if you consider the opening credits to be the dream that Tom described to
>Verna later in the film, there are some intriguing details of interest:
>Tom has the dream just after he's lost his hat to Verna; but it's also
>just after the first scene in the film, which sets up the inevitable
>conclusion of the break-up of Tom and Leo's friendship. the hat blowing
>away foreshadows that break-up.
>
>Later, when Verna asks Tom what he's "chewing over," Tom replies he's
>thinking about the dream in which his hat blew away. But this scene
>occurs right after Leo gives Tom the kiss-off. He goes on to say there's
>nothing more foolish than a man chasing his hat.
An additional irony here was that right after he wakes up from his dream, in
which he claimes he didn't chase after his hat because "there's nothing more
foolish than a man chasing his hat", the first thing he does is chase after his
lost hat, which leads him to Verna, the source of the breakup between Leo &
Tom.-*
-D.G.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very
angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
-Douglas Adams
Joseph Kinney, Jr.
>In article <tweeker-1311...@d185d1eb3.rochester.rr.com>,
> twe...@rpa.net (Joseph Kinney, Jr.) wrote:
>> rickr...@hotmail.com wrote:
><snip>
>> >(1) What is your interpretation of the symbolism of Gabriel Byrne
>> >[Tom] always losiing his hat? What does the hat represent? [Note
>> >that the only time Byrne clearly controls the hat is at the end of the
>> >film at Bernie's funeral when he says goodby forever to Albert Finney
>> >[Leo] . After Byrne says goodby, he puts it firmly on his head. And
>> >the hat stays.
>>
>> We have discussed the hat as being a symbol of power or control which is
>> used primarily to accent events depicted in the film. Being that the hat
>> does not appear to be used exclusivly within any one particular metaphor
>> (making it difficult to attatch to it any singular undeniable
>> relationship), we at this point can only see that the hat is being used
>> within similar film events. Let's consider a few of the hat-filled
>> instances.
>>
>> "I'm sick of the High Hat!"
>> This seems to reference the traditional top hat worn by politicians and
>> figure heads. In this first confrontation Leo is exercising his power over
>> Caspar.
>>
>> "Where's me hat?"
>> Here we find a loss of control in Tom. After getting drunk, losing money
>> at cards and passing out in a restaurant, Tom's hat is taken away from him
>> by yet another vice, Verna.
>>
>> The hat has also been discussed as a counterpart to the head. (Dualality
>> being an oft enjoyed Coen device)
>
>if you consider the opening credits to be the dream that Tom described to
>Verna later in the film
I don't think we have a choice on this one.
>there are some intriguing details of interest:
>Tom has the dream just after he's lost his hat to Verna;
Nice observation! (no sarcasm)
>but it's also
>just after the first scene in the film, which sets up the inevitable
>conclusion of the break-up of Tom and Leo's friendship. the hat blowing
>away foreshadows that break-up.
This I think you need to continue to more in-depth. In what way does Tom's
hat blowing across and above fall's leaves symbolise the eventual
seperation of (I want to say "Father and Son", which makes me think of the
progidal son story gone alternate ending) Leo and Tom? An interesting
question.
At this point I cannot see any intentional connection made by the
filmaker to refer to any physical aspect or portion of the film. I can
see however the relationship between the camera's POV and Tom's situation.
It being his hat and all.
>Later, when Verna asks Tom what he's "chewing over," Tom replies he's
>thinking about the dream in which his hat blew away. But this scene
>occurs right after Leo gives Tom the kiss-off. He goes on to say there's
>nothing more foolish than a man chasing his hat.
I think your observations of the chronological order of events regarding
this aspect of the film are vital to the understanding of the relationship
between Hats and Men. I'mslightly out of it tonight, so if you could just
continue...
:)
>The final, infamous frames of the film reveal just how deeply Tom
>cared for Leo, imho, but he has made a conscious decision not to
>chase after.
Sorry to interrupt, but keep in mind that Tom has two people on his mind
at this point, and that Tom also would not have been chasing after his hat
by returning to Leo (because Leo invited him back), but RATHER WOULD BE IF
AS HE DID EARLIER IN THE FILM, WHEN HE WENT BACK TO VERNA AFTER SHE WON
HIS HAT. That's it maybe. The key point of this film would be that Tom
decides to side with Verna as opposed to Tom when he decides to save
Bernie's life. I think we're dealing with a love story here, but it's just
not visible through the web of crime-drama!
Think about it (not that you wouldn't be). What happens at Miller's
Crossing? *Tom chooses the girl. Chasing his hat may be drectly related to
chasing Verna. The important thing is that by films end Tom realizes
chasing after Verna (and protecting her) is not the correct way to solve
the problem. In fact, its silly.
*"Tom chooses the girl."
Here we can find a direct comparison to "Barton Fink". In " Barton Fink",
Barton eventually chooses the life of the mind, er I mean he chooses the
woman (Judy Davis God bless her) from what's consequences we might
concluded was not only a poor decision, but also an executed rejection of
a close friend. In "Barton Fink", Barton chooses the life of the mind, he
chooses high art, he chooses the real writer, he chooses to reject the
common man in favor of the upper class, were as similarly in "Miller's
Crossing", Tom chooses Verna, he chooses the true decision maker, he
chooses the person in charge, he rejects his friend, but still he chooses
the life of the mind. He rejects his heart, to instead think with his
mind, to utilize his weapon, to serve the common man,
>Leo is all in black as he walks away, the only object
>in the frame that isn't the golden or red of the leaves. His black form
>echoes that of the hat blowing away in the opening credits. Tom puts
>his hat on and Leo put his own on, right after. It seems
>pretty obvious that, among the many other things the hat represents,
>it represents something precious to him that he cannot allow himself
>to hold onto or chase after: his bond with Leo.
>
>-cynsa
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
...
tweek on
Joseph Kinney, Jr.
>In article <tweeker-1311...@d185d1eb3.rochester.rr.com>,
> twe...@rpa.net (Joseph Kinney, Jr.) wrote:
>> rickr...@hotmail.com wrote:
><snip>
>> >(1) What is your interpretation of the symbolism of Gabriel Byrne
>> >[Tom] always losiing his hat? What does the hat represent? [Note
>> >that the only time Byrne clearly controls the hat is at the end of the
>> >film at Bernie's funeral when he says goodby forever to Albert Finney
>> >[Leo] . After Byrne says goodby, he puts it firmly on his head. And
>> >the hat stays.
>>
>> We have discussed the hat as being a symbol of power or control which is
>> used primarily to accent events depicted in the film. Being that the hat
>> does not appear to be used exclusivly within any one particular metaphor
>> (making it difficult to attatch to it any singular undeniable
>> relationship), we at this point can only see that the hat is being used
>> within similar film events. Let's consider a few of the hat-filled
>> instances.
>>
>> "I'm sick of the High Hat!"
>> This seems to reference the traditional top hat worn by politicians and
>> figure heads. In this first confrontation Leo is exercising his power over
>> Caspar.
>>
>> "Where's me hat?"
>> Here we find a loss of control in Tom. After getting drunk, losing money
>> at cards and passing out in a restaurant, Tom's hat is taken away from him
>> by yet another vice, Verna.
>>
>> The hat has also been discussed as a counterpart to the head. (Dualality
>> being an oft enjoyed Coen device)
>
Chris Pando
... snip ...
>
> This I think you need to continue to more in-depth. In what way does Tom's
> hat blowing across and above fall's leaves symbolise the eventual
> seperation of (I want to say "Father and Son", which makes me think of the
> progidal son story gone alternate ending) Leo and Tom? An interesting
> question.
separation and prodigal
... snip ...
> Here we can find a direct comparison to "Barton Fink". In " Barton Fink",
> Barton eventually chooses the life of the mind, er I mean he chooses the
> woman (Judy Davis God bless her) from what's consequences we might
> concluded was not only a poor decision, but also an executed rejection of
> a close friend. In "Barton Fink", Barton chooses the life of the mind, he
> chooses high art, he chooses the real writer, he chooses to reject the
> common man in favor of the upper class, were as similarly in "Miller's
> Crossing", Tom chooses Verna, he chooses the true decision maker, he
> chooses the person in charge, he rejects his friend, but still he chooses
> the life of the mind. He rejects his heart, to instead think with his
> mind, to utilize his weapon, to serve the common man,
>
"from what's consequences we might concluded was not only a poor
decision,
but also an executed rejection of a close friend."
It sort of looks like english but it doesn't seem to make any
sense. Some sort of code, maybe?
Proofreading is our friend.
HTH, Chris
Joseph Kinney, Jr.
<sirk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Joseph Kinney, Jr. wrote:
>
>... snip ...
>
>
>>
>> This I think you need to continue to more in-depth. In what way does Tom's
>> hat blowing across and above fall's leaves symbolise the eventual
>> seperation of (I want to say "Father and Son", which makes me think of the
>> progidal son story gone alternate ending) Leo and Tom? An interesting
>> question.
>
>separation and prodigal
>
>
>... snip ...
>
>
>> Here we can find a direct comparison to "Barton Fink". In " Barton Fink",
>> Barton eventually chooses the life of the mind, er I mean he chooses the
>> woman (Judy Davis God bless her) from what's consequences we might
>> concluded was not only a poor decision, but also an executed rejection of
>> a close friend. In "Barton Fink", Barton chooses the life of the mind, he
>> chooses high art, he chooses the real writer, he chooses to reject the
>> common man in favor of the upper class, were as similarly in "Miller's
>> Crossing", Tom chooses Verna, he chooses the true decision maker, he
>> chooses the person in charge, he rejects his friend, but still he chooses
>> the life of the mind. He rejects his heart, to instead think with his
>> mind, to utilize his weapon, to serve the common man,
>>
>
>"from what's consequences we might concluded was not only a poor
>decision,
> but also an executed rejection of a close friend."
>
>It sort of looks like english but it doesn't seem to make any
>sense. Some sort of code, maybe?
>
>Proofreading is our friend.
>
>HTH, Chris
Now Kris, why did you have to go and do this? Don't you know pointing out
spelling errors isn't "cool" anymore. Discussing film issues is all the
rage now! In fact, posts within this newsgroup don't even count towards
your GPA. Go figure! This petty observation of yours is really missing the
point here.
When I sit down at this computer, after a hard day's work, I don't have
time to proofread every post, let alone proofread other's posts. It's not
worth it. I'm just trying to push out ideas and share thoughts. Your
dismissive comment regarding my english being code-like makes you sound as
if you don't get a lot of things.
...
tweek on
cy...@construct.net
>
> In article <72qj8j$iai$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cy...@construct.net wrote:
>
> >In article <tweeker-1311...@d185d1eb3.rochester.rr.com>,
> > twe...@rpa.net (Joseph Kinney, Jr.) wrote:
> >> rickr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> ><snip>
>
> >Tom has the dream just after he's lost his hat to Verna;
>
> Nice observation! (no sarcasm)
>
> >but it's also
> >just after the first scene in the film, which sets up the inevitable
> >conclusion of the break-up of Tom and Leo's friendship. the hat blowing
> >away foreshadows that break-up.
>
> This I think you need to continue to more in-depth. In what way does Tom's
> hat blowing across and above fall's leaves symbolise the eventual
> seperation of (I want to say "Father and Son", which makes me think of the
> progidal son story gone alternate ending) Leo and Tom? An interesting
> question.
I guess I have a weird perspective, because I have always connected hats
with fathers or grandfathers. No one in my generation has ever worn a
fedora. admittedly, this is deconstructionist crapola. However, I don't
think it is unreasonable to trace a relationship between male power,
father figures and hats, especially when considering the gangster and
noire film genres. Leo is the power figure in Tom's life, even though
Tom "knows all the angles."
I also think what Gonigal said was quite significant:
Gonigal wrote:
> An additional irony here was that right after he wakes up from his dream, in
> which he claimes he didn't chase after his hat because "there's nothing more
> foolish than a man chasing his hat", the first thing he does is chase after
> his lost hat, which leads him to Verna, the source of the breakup between Leo
> & Tom.-*
> -D.G.
cool observation.
not only that, but consider that Verna steals power, and Leo, away from Tom,
as well as his hat.
Throughout the first half of the film, Tom is desperately trying to regain
his influence over Leo, and he fails. Whether he is more jealous of Verna's
influence over Leo, or of Leo because he gets Verna, is the question. But in
the first scene, Leo's decision to protect Bernie surprises Tom, and I think
his dream illustrates his understanding that he will inevitably lose Leo. the
key is the sequence: the first scene occurs, for the viewer, then the credits
(the dream) and then Tom wakes up on the coach. we do not see the scene
where Verna wins his hat from him, we're only told about it in retrospect.
I think that's significant.
I also note that Leo throws Tom's hat at him (after he's punched him out)
right before the line: "It's the kiss-off. If I never see him again, it'll be
soon enough."
> At this point I cannot see any intentional connection made by the
> filmaker to refer to any physical aspect or portion of the film.
I think I'll go home and watch the opening credits and then watch the very
end, to see if the hat blew down the same road the Leo walks down. there
is definitely a visual resonance.
>I can
> see however the relationship between the camera's POV and Tom's situation.
> It being his hat and all.
>
> >Later, when Verna asks Tom what he's "chewing over," Tom replies he's
> >thinking about the dream in which his hat blew away. But this scene
> >occurs right after Leo gives Tom the kiss-off. He goes on to say there's
> >nothing more foolish than a man chasing his hat.
>
> I think your observations of the chronological order of events regarding
> this aspect of the film are vital to the understanding of the relationship
> between Hats and Men. I'mslightly out of it tonight, so if you could just
> continue...
> :)
mmmm, hats and men. let us not forget that Verna plucks off his hat while
he's kissing her. :> The crucial question to me is, what did Tom really
want when he told Leo about him and Verna? He asks Verna and she replies
"me." But I don't think that's primarily true. Sure, he wanted Verna,
but the real reason he told Leo was as a last gasp to try to break Verna's
stranglehold over Leo's common sense. "Trust me or to hell with ya."
> >The final, infamous frames of the film reveal just how deeply Tom
> >cared for Leo, imho, but he has made a conscious decision not to
> >chase after.
>
> Sorry to interrupt, but keep in mind that Tom has two people on his mind
> at this point, and that Tom also would not have been chasing after his hat
> by returning to Leo (because Leo invited him back), but RATHER WOULD BE IF
> AS HE DID EARLIER IN THE FILM, WHEN HE WENT BACK TO VERNA AFTER SHE WON
> HIS HAT. That's it maybe. The key point of this film would be that Tom
> decides to side with Verna as opposed to Tom when he decides to save
> Bernie's life.
I assume that second "Tom" is meant to be Leo. Here's why I think,
ultimately, Tom really sided with Leo, altho admittedly he desperately tried
to play both sides (literally and figuratively, boy what a great movie):
1. Tom betrays Bernie's location without hesitation in Caspar's office.
remember, if Frankie or Tic-tac had been told to bump Bernie, he'd have
been dead by the next scene. It's only because Tom had to do it himself,
and was given the privacy that gave him a loophole, that he didn't.
his initial choice was to betray Bernie and thus be allowed to continue
in his machinations to restore Leo to his throne. he spares Bernie, I'm
guessing because of Verna, and also because he was still listening to his
heart, at that point.
2. Tom doesn't tell Verna that Bernie's still alive. (boxing scene).
he obviously regrets it, but doesn't tell her because it might
queer his plans if it got out.
3. Tom tells Verna "I said we [he and leo] were through, it's not the same
thing."
in so many words, Tom is telling Verna that he betrayed Bernie for Leo.
in fact, pretty much every action of his in the latter half of the film
is about restoring Leo to his position of power. Verna is pretty much
out of the picture until that scene in the rain.
4. Tom ultimately bumps Bernie.
in bumping Bernie, Tom obviously would never get to be with Verna again.
this was the act with which he killed his own heart, so the funeral
could be the funeral of it. haha. I guess the question I have is,
why did he bump Bernie? the answer could be very revealing.
5. Tom watches Leo, not Verna, walking away, in the final frames.
I don't think it's a coincidence that Verna had already left.
>I think we're dealing with a love story here, but it's just
> not visible through the web of crime-drama!
I definitely think it's a love story b/w a guy and his hat. :>
-cynsa
Kaploww
>[Tom] always losiing his hat? What does the hat represent? [Note
>that the only time Byrne clearly controls the hat is at the end of the
>film at Bernie's funeral when he says goodby forever to Albert Finney
>[Leo] . After Byrne says goodby, he puts it firmly on his head. And
>the hat stays.
>
>
Not sure. But when Verna tried to figure out Tom's dream he said that it stayed
a hat. And that he didn't chase it because theres nothing more ridiculous than
a man chasing his hat. But maybe the hat is just what Tom CAN"T control. He
has an easy time manipulating the minds and hearts of men and women... maybe
the hat means that he can't really control everything. And btw... he did chase
the hat. He tracked it down to Verna's after he lost it to Mink and Verna
playing cards.
>(2) Did Gabriel Byrne intentionally break with Albert Finney [Leo]
>so as to throw himself in with Caspar so as to destroy Caspar's crime
>family or was it something he only decided to do after he was "fired"
>by Finney for screwing around with Vera?
He intentially did it. Because he loved Leo. Also because i think he really did
love Verna. He just didn't want to admit for some reason. Thats why he can't go
back to Leo at the end. It would hurt too much.
>[3] At the end, at the funeral, why did Byrne refuse Finney's offer
>to go back to Finney ["So things can be the way they were."] ?
>Was it because Byrne was so full of self-hatred that he felt he was no
>longer worthy of Finney's friendship? That his respect for Finney was
>so great that he felt he was doing Finney a favor by rejecting the
>offer? [Remember how disgusted Byrne gets when Finney TRIES to
>forgive him for screwing with Verna----Byrne responds, "I didn't ask
>for your forgiveness and I don't want it ."]
He doesn't want it for the same reason he wouldn't let Leo pay off his gambling
debt. Too much pride. He doesn't go back for the reason i said above... he
loves both of them too much and it would hurt him too much.
>[4] The Final Camera Shot: At the end of the film, after Bernie's
>funeral, Byrne rejects Finney's offer to rejoin him. Byrne forcefully
>puts on his hat and watches Finney walk away. This camera shot lasts
>a full minute, the camera staying only on Byrne's face. What was
>Byrne saying with that expression? In "Movieline," there is a
>column entitled "Great Performances." The reviewer wrote an entire
>column on Byrne's performance in this movie. The reviewer said the
>entire movie led up to this final look and only Byrne could have given
>it the soulfullness it had. The reviewer said he has watched this
>scene numeorus times and the meaning changes every time he watches it.
>I agree. What's your view.
>
I think it is a look of pain and the pride that wouldn't let him express it.
____________________________________
Please respond via e-mail. Thank you. -MW
____________________________________
you and you and you and you too -GD/TAW
____________________________________
Kaploww
>[5] If you don't have writer's cramp, what do you think the film
>was trying to say?
>
A man's got to do what a man's got to do.
Chris Pando
>
> Now Kris, why did you have to go and do this? Don't you know pointing out
> spelling errors isn't "cool" anymore. Discussing film issues is all the
> rage now! In fact, posts within this newsgroup don't even count towards
> your GPA. Go figure! This petty observation of yours is really missing the
> point here.
Fortunately, I'm not "cool". BTW, my name is Chris, and nothing has
counted towards my GPA since high school.
> When I sit down at this computer, after a hard day's work, I don't have
> time to proofread every post, let alone proofread other's posts. It's not
> worth it.
Making sure your posts are comprehensible isn't worth it?
> I'm just trying to push out ideas and share thoughts. Your
> dismissive comment regarding my english being code-like makes you sound as
> if you don't get a lot of things.
>
Those were thoughts? I am still curious as to what (direct quote)
"from what's consequences we might concluded was not only a poor
decision, but also an executed rejection of a close friend."
is supposed to mean. The words are english, but the sentence
doesn't parse. It doesn't make sense. Your post is incomprehensible,
yet you expect people to take the time to read it.
>...
>tweek on
I think you've tweeked just a little too much.
Chris
Joseph Kinney, Jr.
>> Now Kris, why did you have to go and do this? Don't you know pointing out
>> spelling errors isn't "cool" anymore. Discussing film issues is all the
>> rage now! In fact, posts within this newsgroup don't even count towards
>> your GPA. Go figure! This petty observation of yours is really missing the
>> point here.
Chris Pando <sirk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Fortunately, I'm not "cool". BTW, my name is Chris, and nothing has
>counted towards my GPA since high school.
Thanks for the spelling correction Kris. The GPA thing was actually a bust
on this grading issue of yours, but your reply...to inform me you're no
longer in high school? That's nice. Are you an aspiring teacher? An
aspiring college student? What's your deal? I'm not asking for your
rude-ass help.
>> When I sit down at this computer, after a hard day's work, I don't have
>> time to proofread every post, let alone proofread other's posts. It's not
>> worth it.
>Making sure your posts are comprehensible isn't worth it?
That's a ridiculous question. I'm venturing to say that the majority of my
posts to this group can be read and understood by the majority of readers
who take the time to read them. If for you my posts do not make sense,
please by all means, ask for clarification. When I have time, I would be
happy to make more sense for you. But please, don't come in here acting
like the tough english teacher. It's the ideas that matter.
Can you acknowledge the central ideas behind this reply? They are the fact
that we are all sharing our thoughts here, and that sometimes those
thoughts can be hacked up a bit due to the nature of the internet and it's
propensity to exist as a fleeting medium for information dispersal.
>> I'm just trying to push out ideas and share thoughts. Your
>> dismissive comment regarding my english being code-like makes you sound as
>> if you don't get a lot of things.
>Those were thoughts?
Another wise-ass comment. Feel better now? (another wise-ass comment from me)
>I am still curious as to what (direct quote)
>"from what's consequences we might concluded was not only a poor
> decision, but also an executed rejection of a close friend."
>is supposed to mean. The words are english, but the sentence
>doesn't parse. It doesn't make sense.
If your so curious, how come your not asking for an explanation?
>Your post is incomprehensible, yet you expect people to take the time to
read >it.
You're being ridiculous, try some logic:
Nobody intentionally posts incomprehensible information, therefore no one
could expect others to read incomprehensible information. Follow?
>>...
>>tweek on
>
>I think you've tweeked just a little too much.
Pretty witty Kris, pretty witty.
...
tweek on
Chris Pando
>
> Joseph Kinney, Jr. wrote:
> >> Now Kris, why did you have to go and do this? Don't you know pointing out
> >> spelling errors isn't "cool" anymore. Discussing film issues is all the
> >> rage now! In fact, posts within this newsgroup don't even count towards
> >> your GPA. Go figure! This petty observation of yours is really missing the
> >> point here.
>
> Chris Pando <sirk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Fortunately, I'm not "cool". BTW, my name is Chris, and nothing has
> >counted towards my GPA since high school.
>
> Thanks for the spelling correction Kris. The GPA thing was actually a bust
> on this grading issue of yours, but your reply...to inform me you're no
> longer in high school? That's nice. Are you an aspiring teacher? An
> aspiring college student? What's your deal? I'm not asking for your
> rude-ass help.
>
Grading issue? I don't recall grading anything.
I aspire to neither pedantry or studenthood. And while you didn't
ask for my help you did post to a public newsgroup. If my un-
solicited efforts to raise you from your current state of ignorance
(such as posting the correct spellings of *easy* words (e.g.
separate, prodigal) that you are too lazy to look up in the
dictionary) bother you, why, the solution is simple. Don't read
my posts.
> >> When I sit down at this computer, after a hard day's work, I don't have
> >> time to proofread every post, let alone proofread other's posts. It's not
> >> worth it.
>
> >Making sure your posts are comprehensible isn't worth it?
>
> That's a ridiculous question. I'm venturing to say that the majority of my
> posts to this group can be read and understood by the majority of readers
> who take the time to read them. If for you my posts do not make sense,
> please by all means, ask for clarification. When I have time, I would be
> happy to make more sense for you. But please, don't come in here acting
> like the tough english teacher. It's the ideas that matter.
I'm asking for a clarification. What the hell does
"from what's consequences we might concluded was not only a poor
decision, but also an executed rejection of a close friend."
mean?
>
> Can you acknowledge the central ideas behind this reply? They are the fact
> that we are all sharing our thoughts here, and that sometimes those
> thoughts can be hacked up a bit due to the nature of the internet and it's
> propensity to exist as a fleeting medium for information dispersal.
>
"it's propensity to exist as a fleeting medium for information
dispersal"
ROTFL. First, the possessive is "its".
Second, there is nothing fleeting about this medium. Everything is being
archived (DejaNews, NSA, etc.) and is going to outlive all of us.
Fleeting?
Jesus teen-aged Christ, finger fucking a cheerleader, fleeting is the
last
word I would use to describe USENET. Do you read your words before you
post? Any hacking is not due to the "nature of the internet" (wtf?),
but rather to your inability to form a coherent sentence.
... snip ...
> >I am still curious as to what (direct quote)
>
> >"from what's consequences we might concluded was not only a poor
> > decision, but also an executed rejection of a close friend."
>
> >is supposed to mean. The words are english, but the sentence
> >doesn't parse. It doesn't make sense.
>
> If your so curious, how come your not asking for an explanation?
>
When I say "I am still curious as to what ... is supposed to mean"
you may interpret that as a request for an explanation. By the way,
I think you meant "how come you're not asking". But I can't be sure.
The only thing I can be sure of is what you write; you seem to resort
to whining "but you knew what I meant". Guess what, I haven't got
the slightest idea what you *meant*, I only know what you wrote.
> >Your post is incomprehensible, yet you expect people to take the time to
> read >it.
>
> You're being ridiculous, try some logic:
> Nobody intentionally posts incomprehensible information, therefore no one
> could expect others to read incomprehensible information. Follow?
>
You are, therefore, unintentionally posting incomprehensible posts.
BTW, I don't need any copies of postings here sent to my private
e-mail.
ObCoen: Just got a big box from Amazon with all their scripts
(less Fargo, which I got a couple of weeks ago). Ought to keep
me out of trouble for a day or two.
Chris "rude-ass" Pando
Wiz Of Ice
>[Tom] always losiing his hat? What does the hat represent? [Note
>that the only time Byrne clearly controls the hat is at the end of the
>film at Bernie's funeral when he says goodby forever to Albert Finney
>[Leo] . After Byrne says goodby, he puts it firmly on his head. And
>the hat stays.
I think the hat represents self-respect (and as others have suggested,
control). He seems to be losing it (affair with Verna, losing at gambling,
drinking heavily, etc.)
>(2) Did Gabriel Byrne intentionally break with Albert Finney [Leo]
>so as to throw himself in with Caspar so as to destroy Caspar's crime
>family or was it something he only decided to do after he was "fired"
>by Finney for screwing around with Vera?
I think in the same way Verna misunderstands the hat dream, she
misunderstands Tom's feelings overall. She keeps giving him the option for
her stop seeing Leo if he just says so, but he never even seems tempted by
the offer. If he does indeed have feelings for Verna, his sense of duty and
honor stay way ahead of it. It may be he slept with her only to prove to
himself that he was right about her using Leo. I think Tom answered the
question himself as to when he thought of going in with Caspar (that he
wasn't sure why he did it, but something had to be done). And let's not
forget he only told Leo about the affair when nothing else (not even Leo's
trust of Tom) would work.
>[3] At the end, at the funeral, why did Byrne refuse Finney's offer
>to go back to Finney ["So things can be the way they were."] ?
>Was it because Byrne was so full of self-hatred that he felt he was no
>longer worthy of Finney's friendship? That his respect for Finney was
>so great that he felt he was doing Finney a favor by rejecting the
>offer? [Remember how disgusted Byrne gets when Finney TRIES to
>forgive him for screwing with Verna----Byrne responds, "I didn't ask
>for your forgiveness and I don't want it ."]
I think he refuses the offer to keep both Leo's and Tom's hats; in other
words to keep their self-respect and the respect of others. He knows that
if he goes back with Leo after what has happened, people would lose respect
for Leo and Leo for himself. To beat the heck out of Tom publicly (which
was also the only "respectable" way for Leo to deal with someone who has
betrayed him, as far as Tom's sense of honor is concerned) and then to
welcome him back would make Leo look like as ass. Also I think Tom feels
guilty for sleeping with Verna and feels he should be punished. Also, Tom's
refusal could be a final slap in Leo's face (but out of love!) to make him
the hard, tough boss he once was.
>[4] The Final Camera Shot: At the end of the film, after Bernie's
>funeral, Byrne rejects Finney's offer to rejoin him. Byrne forcefully
>puts on his hat and watches Finney walk away. This camera shot lasts
>a full minute, the camera staying only on Byrne's face. What was
>Byrne saying with that expression? In "Movieline," there is a
>column entitled "Great Performances." The reviewer wrote an entire
>column on Byrne's performance in this movie. The reviewer said the
>entire movie led up to this final look and only Byrne could have given
>it the soulfullness it had. The reviewer said he has watched this
>scene numeorus times and the meaning changes every time he watches it.
>I agree. What's your view.
This, among other things, is what makes this such a fascinating film. I
have watched the film a few times and gotten something different out of this
scene as well. The one that comes to mind is the feeling of satisfaction
that his friend is once again the man of repect he once was, and that he may
have regained some of the self-respect that he lost.
Joseph Kinney, Jr.
>I aspire to neither pedantry or studenthood. And while you didn't
>ask for my help you did post to a public newsgroup. If my un-
>solicited efforts to raise you from your current state of ignorance
>(such as posting the correct spellings of *easy* words (e.g.
>separate, prodigal) that you are too lazy to look up in the
>dictionary) bother you, why, the solution is simple. Don't read
>my posts.
If all your going to do within the group is correct other's spelling
errors, than possibly I should put a kill filter on you because since your
arrival here you have yet to provide any comments related to the Coen
Brothers. You're all fluff and no guts. No wonder you can't seem to get
the point that ideas amount to more than words. Don't trip over pennies
on your way to the bank.
To even the boards a bit:
Here's a quote from Chris "will program for beer" Pando, taken from the NG
alt.peeve which not suprisingly is where the majority of his time in
USENET appears to be spent (not here).
"I was assured during the interview process that there were
"non-supervisor career paths" withing my organization..."
Oh look, it's a typo. Oh this is fun!
...
tweek on
Chris Pando
>
> Chris (will program for beer) Pando <sirk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >I aspire to neither pedantry or studenthood. And while you didn't
> >ask for my help you did post to a public newsgroup. If my un-
> >solicited efforts to raise you from your current state of ignorance
> >(such as posting the correct spellings of *easy* words (e.g.
> >separate, prodigal) that you are too lazy to look up in the
> >dictionary) bother you, why, the solution is simple. Don't read
> >my posts.
>
> If all your going to do within the group is correct other's spelling
> errors, than possibly I should put a kill filter on you because since your
> arrival here you have yet to provide any comments related to the Coen
> Brothers. You're all fluff and no guts. No wonder you can't seem to get
> the point that ideas amount to more than words. Don't trip over pennies
> on your way to the bank.
>
Ideas are like whores. They are a dime a dozen. They have to be
cleaned up and dressed nicely before I even look at them. Your
ideas remind me of the sort of hooker that, after blowing you,
gives you back change from a five.
> To even the boards a bit:
>
> Here's a quote from Chris "will program for beer" Pando, taken from the NG
> alt.peeve which not suprisingly is where the majority of his time in
> USENET appears to be spent (not here).
>
> "I was assured during the interview process that there were
> "non-supervisor career paths" withing my organization..."
>
> Oh look, it's a typo. Oh this is fun!
>
Talking about typographical errors is a straw man; I haven't
mentioned any of yours. E and A are not adjacent on the
keyboard. "Seperate" is not a typo. I did point out some confusion
you seem to be having with its/it's and your/you're. Also,
I asked you to clarify a sentence that I couldn't
understand. But I let typos slide. I'm also not obsessing
on your statement "If all your going to do within" because
I figure this time you're doing it on purpose.
> ...
> tweek on
Chris "all fluff, no guts" Pando
P.S. Usenet is not an acronym; it doesn't need to be capitalized.
---
"from what's consequences we might concluded was not only a poor
decision, but also an executed rejection of a close friend."
One of the tweeker's ideas
Joseph Kinney, Jr.
<sirk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Joseph Kinney, Jr. wrote:
>>
>Ideas are like whores. They are a dime a dozen. They have to be
>cleaned up and dressed nicely before I even look at them. Your
>ideas remind me of the sort of hooker that, after blowing you,
>gives you back change from a five.
So you're saying if someone were to clean and dress up a five dollar
hooker for you then...
Regardless:
Pando = Kill Filter
...
tweek on
Chris Pando
Sounds like a good idea. First I'd clean the dried spooge from the
corners of her mouth (and , good god, her eyebrows). Long hot bath,
and we'll replace those urine soaked clothes. Couple of slaps on
the back, so she can cough up the remnants of crack pipe screens
out of her lungs. As pleasurable as the hum jobs were, we'll put
her dentures back in, so as to complement her facial structure.
My Gawd. Jesus Hugh Grant Christ on Santa Monica Boulevard.
It's yo' mama.
> Regardless:
> Pando = Kill Filter
>
Gee. Now you've gone and hurt my feelings. Lots of luck
with that Netscape "Kill Filter".
ObCoen: When does the consumer priced "The Big Lebowski"
come out? I need it to complete my collection.
Chris "catch and release" Pando