Spoiler within!! Why did Jones...
kill Anders and not Vaslov?
shareBecause he already suspected Anders . He had vouched for Vaslov and when he came round all he could see was Anders trying to stove in his Russian friends head with a crow bar -- Hence he shoots him
It's the icing on the cake in a very dramatic scene .
It also makes you wonder , as you watch the film if everybody ( especially
Mcgoohan) will realise that Anders was actually a 'good guy'
Jones was still disorientated when he woke up and all he realised was his friend in danger.
However, later, after reaching the ice station, we can see Jones observing Vaslov very closely. You remember - they both are asking the survivors about the fire, yet Jones is also keenly watching the Russian. It may not yet be suspicion, but at least he appears to think everything is not over yet.
I suppose he figures it out while inside the hut, before he reappears, and I always find it fascinating how Mr. McGoohan expresses what is going on in the Jones character without even uttering a word - the disappointment at the failure of the mission, the contempt for the traitor and the disillusion when he realises that Vaslov's friendship was a sham. The way he finally spits out the word "comrade" when addressing Vaslov says it all. This is not the generic secret agent, it is a man with a personal history, perhaps of loneliness and losses.
The disoriented theory is pretty good although I'm not 100% sure. I think he may have realized that Vaslov was the one who hit him with the crowbar.
I think he may have suspected that the capsule was booby trapped and that Vaslov was the only one who could defuse it. It wouldn't have helped any if he accused Vaslov at this point as Vaslov would either be dealt with before he could have defused the trap or he wouldn't have cooperated. Just a theory.
All very interesting. I'm just pleased that so many perceive the genius--the subtlety, in McGoohan's work.
Carpe Noctem
absolutey i quite agree
Aslan is on the move
I think there's a little over-guessing going on here.
Jonesy definitely shot Anders because of mis-identification of where the threat was coming from. I watched it again last night and it is clear that was the plot. He still trusted Vaslov afterwards because he threw him the empty film box to place in the capsule before Vaslov handed that over to the Russian commander. It was only very late on in the confusion of the smoky gun battle that Jones realised Vaslov was betraying the West in favour of his ex-countrymen and only luck that Vaslov took the bullet in the back and not Jonesy. Jones' instant reaction showed his mental toughness though, hardened as he was to betrayal he did not flinch from preventing Vaslov's escape.
Jonesy didn't know the Captain had a destruct button for the camera capsule either, nobody did, that's why the young lieutenant gets shot, trying to prevent the hand-over of the film. The subtlety of Jones though was that he did see the destruct button in the Captains hand just before it was activated and was happy to settle for a 0-0 result in that particular Cold War tussle.
http://theatrical-mcgoohan.mysite.orange.co.uk/
I think Jones made the understandable mistake in killing Anders, but, even though he's down and hurt, it doesn't take him long to realize what is happening. The level of anger he must be suppressing as he comes out to meeting on the ice, the desire to kill Vaslov must be intense. You can hear it in his "Comrade" line, then the hateful look he gives Ferraday when he thinks the film is going to be given over to the Soviets. Vaslov might think he and Jones are cut from the same cloth, but Jones is intensely idealistic at the core. And he hates to lose. Great performance!
By the way, Anders should have followed through with his threat to just stand there and get shot thereby blowing Vaslov's cover.
"You eat guts."--Nick Devlin
I think Jones made the understandable mistake in killing Anders, but, even though he's down and hurt, it doesn't take him long to realize what is happening.I'm still not clear at what point Jones realised Vaslov was the enemy. I watched it again the other day. When he throws him the empty film tin there was a sense of his testing Vaslov as to whether the Russian would, or would not put the empty tin in the capsule. But Vaslov did, and so passed the test..... The shooting at the end was completely unpredictable, being sparked off by the marine who wanted to prove himself.......
I don't think Jones knew for sure that Vaslov was betraying him until that last second when Vaslov tried to run to the Russians with the film, and Jones' encounter with him owed more to luck than cunning - especially Vaslov taking the bullet that could easily have killed Jones instead.
share
I'm still not clear at what point Jones realised Vaslov was the enemy.
When Vaslov stood up with the capsule Jones saw that the Russian Col recognized him.
share
Y'know, I'd read the Wikipedia entry before watching the DVD, and it would appear that whomever wrote it didn't realize that filmmakers might not be able to get hold of stock footage of Russian aircraft...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Station_Zebra
"Ferraday orders Jones to hand over the film. However, Ferraday had earlier found a device identical to Ostrovsky's. The Russians send the canister aloft by balloon to be picked up by an approaching aircraft. At the last moment the incoming jet is clearly revealed to be an American F-4 Phantom (not the expected MiG) prompting Lieutenant Walker to tackle the Soviet soldier holding the detonator to prevent him from actuating the self destruct (Walker is shot in the process). Instead, Commander Ferraday then activates his detonator destroying the film. Note that this is a paradoxical ending. It is left open as to why Ferraday would choose to destroy the film when it was about to fall into friendly hands."
When the actual scene came up, I found myself laughing, "No, that's supposed to be a Russian jet!"
Somebody needs to edit that Wikipedia page.
This is the problem with this film - that sort of detail should not be left in an ambiguous state. Ebert speculates that these plot holes were created by editing a long movie into a mandated time-slot.
-drl
Ebert speculates that these plot holes were created by editing a long movie into a mandated time-slot.
Ebert's review of this film is worse than the film itself.
He complains it's "stretched out" and next speculates it was edited down.
"But it's been stretched out to roadshow length and loaded down with lots of gimmicks to conceal the thinness of the story.
At least I guess the story is thin. It might have been complex, and then they edited it down."
He also wrote this astonishingly dopey "critique" -
"we're never exactly sure who the Russian spy is [it was Vaslov], or whether there are two [there was one, it was Vaslov]. We discover that someone jammed a torpedo tube open [Vaslov] and nearly sank the sub -- but we never discover who.[it was Vaslov]"
He also spends far too much time complaining about minutia (no vapor when they breath? They don't always have their hoods up? It takes 3 days to get from GB to the Arctic? The miniatures weren't as good as 2001?)
Even if someone hates this film (and I'm not a fan myself) Ebert's review is a dishonest, misleading mess.
share