Thomas Crown Affair
Jul. 30th, 2007 03:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackThe Opening SceneAt the start, he's staring at the Haystack. This seems to define his character -- he's rich and can do whatever he wants, and is passionate though not destructively so. He's not defined by everyone else, he likes this painting, so comes to look at it. He's friends with the attendant, but brusque with lots of people.
But isn't that all completely undermined? Wasn't he just there to try to steal the Monet? Or alternatively switched his attention because it was expensive. But he never went back to look at the Haystack.
The same happens a few minutes later. Crown rolling quickly under the falling gate is supposed to make him seem like "seize the moment". But actually, it was all planned.
It's like the movie tries to have its cake and eat it too -- to use his behaviour as evidence of both "him being art appreciative in his own way" and "him being a smooth actor". The thing is, it *works*. Logically, I know both can't apply, but I *feel* like both describe the character.
Is that sloppy? Or is it deliberate, not part of the continuity, but a message from the author, like using a coincidental symbolism to define a character?
The stooges
It seems like a nice idea. Only he himself knows about his theft, despite using other people to open the way.
It didn't occur to me until I saw someone discussing it on a message board somewhere. What happened to them? They suggested he had some nice retirement salaries waiting for them when they got out of jail.
That hadn't even occurred to me -- he didn't seem to have any particular loyalties, I assumed he thought "they took the plans, they did their best, it's not my fault if they chose to act on a plan they ought to be able to see wouldn't work."
But *I* seemed a lot less bothered by them than by Crown. Why? They were both thieves. The Albanians probably needed the money more. Is it because he tried to make the museum not suffer? Really, it's just because he's exciting and you want to watch him, and they're a bit gruff and grizzled. That's rather disturbing to think about.
The psychiatrist
It may be stupid but I liked it; I have a lot of sympathy for characters who deal with emotions by analysing them. And sometimes feel they're too controlled and have to consciously try to lower barriers.
Stealing the second painting
When the second painting is gone when the screens roll back, I assume there's no provided way for him to have done it? He's just supposed to have had some clever unexplained plan. The first time I saw it, I thought that was a cop out. Later, it seemed like a nice way of showing how this game could go on forever.
But isn't that all completely undermined? Wasn't he just there to try to steal the Monet? Or alternatively switched his attention because it was expensive. But he never went back to look at the Haystack.
The same happens a few minutes later. Crown rolling quickly under the falling gate is supposed to make him seem like "seize the moment". But actually, it was all planned.
It's like the movie tries to have its cake and eat it too -- to use his behaviour as evidence of both "him being art appreciative in his own way" and "him being a smooth actor". The thing is, it *works*. Logically, I know both can't apply, but I *feel* like both describe the character.
Is that sloppy? Or is it deliberate, not part of the continuity, but a message from the author, like using a coincidental symbolism to define a character?
The stooges
It seems like a nice idea. Only he himself knows about his theft, despite using other people to open the way.
It didn't occur to me until I saw someone discussing it on a message board somewhere. What happened to them? They suggested he had some nice retirement salaries waiting for them when they got out of jail.
That hadn't even occurred to me -- he didn't seem to have any particular loyalties, I assumed he thought "they took the plans, they did their best, it's not my fault if they chose to act on a plan they ought to be able to see wouldn't work."
But *I* seemed a lot less bothered by them than by Crown. Why? They were both thieves. The Albanians probably needed the money more. Is it because he tried to make the museum not suffer? Really, it's just because he's exciting and you want to watch him, and they're a bit gruff and grizzled. That's rather disturbing to think about.
The psychiatrist
It may be stupid but I liked it; I have a lot of sympathy for characters who deal with emotions by analysing them. And sometimes feel they're too controlled and have to consciously try to lower barriers.
Stealing the second painting
When the second painting is gone when the screens roll back, I assume there's no provided way for him to have done it? He's just supposed to have had some clever unexplained plan. The first time I saw it, I thought that was a cop out. Later, it seemed like a nice way of showing how this game could go on forever.