Spoilers ahead.
Hey
Does anyone know:
1) The significance of the Philip Seymour Hoffman scene? It didn't seem to have anything to do with the rest of the film.
2) Why Seymour killed John's dad? This bit didn't seem to get explainded, which was a bit frustrating.
Thanks
1) Hoffman's character is this young kid with no respect trying to make an ass out of Sydney's character. It's a sign of Sydney being from a different era; a generation gap that threatens Sydney's cool, professional demeanor. And that plays a part in the whole reveal near the end that it's somewhat of a facade.
There's a scene in the movie The Cooler that takes the young/new vs. old gamblers and how the whole style of gambling (in Vegas, particularly) has changed and addresses it more directly. It's practically an homage/slightly different take on the scene in Hard Eight.
2) It's not explained why Sydney killed John's dad, but you can guess. I don't know why it was frustrating for you. Knowing why is not the point. The point is that Sydney's been trying to cover it up/make amends (mostly for his own peace of mind) by helping John out. I think it works best not knowing, because the story is really meant to be about what's going on now with those characters, without offering glimpses of their past. Their past plays a subtle, unstated role, and that's it. It's a character piece, and forced exposition isn't necessary.
Hi
Thanks for the response. I kinda see what you're saying in point 2), but I don't think an explanation as to why Syndey killed John's dad would have been forced exposition. The fact that it was brought up meant it was an unresolved issue for me. I like the whole idea of Sydney being almost a guardian angel kind of figure. I think I would have preferred it if we were just told that Sydney was making amends for his past in his old age, but specifiying that past to the killing of John's dad left me frustrated because Anderson is giving us a mystery and not resolving it.
But mystery is good!
I think we're meant to assume that Sydney killing John's dad wasn't a special event or anything. It just happened, and Sydney killed a lot more people than him back in his day. The details really wouldn't be relevant to anything.
So it doesn't frustrate me at all, really. The big reveal is simply the fact that Sydney killed John's dad, not how or why.
Every IMDB post:
Q: "Hey guys, just wondering if anyone knows why the main character did one of the things that he did"
A: "You don't need to know that. Stop trying to wrap everything up in a neat little package. Stop expecting screen writers to spoon feed you answers. Ambiguity is the greatest thing ever because then you get to make your own movie in your head. It's a sad state that the American imagination is broken and we're often unable to do this. Mystery is the essence of creativity. More barfy cliches..."
Thanks for the response. I kinda see what you're saying in point 2), but I don't think an explanation as to why Syndey killed John's dad would have been forced exposition. The fact that it was brought up meant it was an unresolved issue for me. I like the whole idea of Sydney being almost a guardian angel kind of figure. I think I would have preferred it if we were just told that Sydney was making amends for his past in his old age, but specifiying that past to the killing of John's dad left me frustrated because Anderson is giving us a mystery and not resolving it.
"I like the whole idea" that's all you need to know. A lot more of the general pubic is used to that same idea and I think PTA being a first time feature filmmaker wanted to nix that constant. a lot of film makers do. don't get why people get upset or can't figure why they wouldn't let you know every detail. It's the old "I like me a little mystery" with the girls nude all of the time or wearing some clothes. It's a draw. It seduces you into wanting to know more and it quite obviously worked.
share