Some glaring plot holes...(SPOILERS)

Yes on the first paragraph (subject to the next sentence). The answer to the question in the second paragraph is that the Assistant convinced the Director to hire Harry. Exactly how he convinced him we're not told: presumably by noting something to make him suspicious of his wife (easy enough to do, particularly with the wife's cooperation).

It's a little weird, however, that the couple would say, "that's where we'll do it". Usually couples don't talk to each other that way if they're meeting for
an intimate rendezvous. If they mentioned a specific time and place, then it's even weirder.

If the assistance plotted it, then why did his boss hire harry and not the assistance himself?

1. Exactly.

2. I agree there's not much in the movie to suggest that. Other than the cookies, I suppose. And the Assistant's manner. In any event, the basic notion, I think, is that the Assistant is playing the Director for a fool. Whether he's his gay lover (which is barely in the movie, if at all) or just his assistant, they clearly have a relationship of confidence. The confidence, on the Director's side, is misplaced. Nothing odd about that. At least in movies, it's one the fundamental pieces of the vast majority of film noirs and lots of other movies.

3. What the OP describes as a plot hole IS the plot. The didn't "invite" him. They lured him, by making him think, inaccurately, that he had heard a conversation they didn't mean for him to hear. He thought he was going to "bust" them in the middle of an assignation. He wouldn't bring "henchmen." He didn't think he particularly had anything to fear, and the whole thing was tawdry and embarrassing. He wouldn't want anyone even to know about it. If he brought someone, it would've been the Assistant. Which, possibly, he did.

4. I think that passes what we need to suspend disbelief. Stab wounds could be covered up with a bunch of other wounds, by making the body a mess. Or, possibly, the body wasn't recovered. It could've been burnt. Also, people do asphyxiate in car crashes, by having their airway damaged or blocked. Christopher Moltisani, for example (though that takes place in a different fictional universe). The details aren't important to the movie.

5. Again, the details aren't important to the movie. They may have bribed a hotel employee or something. It's possible to get a dead body out of a hotel. The movie's not a crime procedural, so there's no need to show that detail.

6. The Assistant is definitely in on the deal with the couple, and that's exactly why he wants the tapes. He's trying to maintain control of the plot.

7. I didn't see him reading anyone's mind. He's nailing down details. Destroying tapes isn't a bizarre thing to do (the question on everyone's mind in 1974 was why Nixon didn't do exactly that). What they were recording was dangerous, for obvious reasons. They were trying to obtain evidence of marital infidelity. The fact that doing so is a dangerous undertaking is, again, a basic feature of many movie plots. "Chinatown," just to throw out one example. At the end: he knows Caul knows what's on the tapes, and that the Director is dead. Even if he doesn't know Caul was at the hotel, it's plenty to worry about. He does not want Harry going to police or the press and talking about the tapes.

No, no, no. There was no murder. Harry has gone crazy.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

indeed. Had the same thought during that scene. He also breaks into the room and puts his fingers all over everything.

I enjoyed the movie even more the 2nd viewing. Picked up a lot of things I missed, like Harry crossing paths with other main characters. That said there are certainly flaws.

1. I can't see Harry ever letting anyone he doesn't work with into his secret lair. It kinda works for the movie plot, but I find it suspicious that he's so sloppy, drinks much, isn't suspicious that an attractive woman wants to seduce him. And rarely removes his cheap rain coat...lol He's very secretive. That said, I understand the director is making a point about Harry getting burned opening up to someone and have a human connection. His dream about revealing his childhood further emphasizes all that. He was rude and condescending to people at the convention, but invited some back to his base.

1A. A "famous spy" is kind of an Oxymoron. I realize probably only those in the industry may know of him, but still.

2. I do tend to agree with those who think Ford was gay. I just got that sense subtly and if you read the other posts there is the whole offering a "Cookie" thing to confirm that suspicion. So, why would he kill the Director then? Maybe he was either ambitious and cut a deal with the couple. Maybe he had unrequited feelings and jealousy for the director. Maybe revenge for something else (no evidence of that). 6. The director does question him "stop playing it, it's like you want me to believe it". Someone else said Ford altered the tape to make it sound like an affair, not a murder plot and thus why he wanted the tapes given to him and Harry got suspicious.

3-6 There was no murder in the hotel room. Was Harry's delusion and paranoia. For all we know the Director just had an "accident" on the way to the hotel. No one mentioned that. While Harry was creating a bloody scene in his head, the hotel rendezvous was merely a ploy to get the director into the car and have an "accident". This is very common with high profile "accidental" deaths. Plane/car/boat accidents. I will have to freeze frame the newspaper now to see what time the accident took place, if it's listed.

7. Harry was probably watched from the very beginning. The whole things was a set up. They were paying alot of $ for credible tapes, so they would spare no expense to ensure they got what they needed. I suspect he was listened to the whole time or his assistant was in on it. He was asking questions as to what Harry was thinking the whole time. Maybe even the Mime, who was followed via camera in the opening scene for several minutes (cringey) might have been an observer even. I had forgotten about that entire scene the 2nd viewing and thought it odd it was a focus for so long. I don't think it was meaningless or it would have been left on the cutting room floor.

The woman stole his tapes (how would she know which ones to get if not instructed?). Harry is betrayed from all angles, except maybe the Girlfriend that he questions and keeps distant from.

He didn't even want his landlord in his apartment. He certainly wouldn't let those people in his workspace. It's also possibly a side effort of this whole conspiracy was to steal Harry's methods, by paying someone off on the inside and watching him. There are several motives for this, from corporate espionage, blackmail and selling spy devices, which is big $ in it's infancy judging from the trade show.

That said the movie is more of a commentary on society, humanity as a whole with an intriguing plot.