What was the reason for the broken nose?
Can't figure out why Goodkat had to break Slevin/Henry's nose. Someone clue me in!
sharehis story was that he'd been mugged. He needed to look injured.
share
MovieChat Forums > Lucky Number Slevin (2006) Discussion > What was the reason for the broken nose?
Homage to Chinatown!
Its that man again!!
You can't figure it out because it can't be figured out as it was just a stupid/cheap plot element used by the writer/director to fill out an extra 5 minutes and enhance the "plot twist". Without the false mugging it'd be too suspicious as to why Slevin would have no ID that shows he's not Nick, so to create this illusion that Slevin is indeed Slevin and not Nick, we have the fake mugging story.
It's stupid/cheap because logically Slevin wouldn't need to go about setting up a fake mugging and getting his nose punched in by Goodkat, it serves no purpose as he could have just turned up with no ID (or just said "I have no ID on me" to the Boss' men) and he'd still get to see the Boss and be told he owes money.
The only reason why Slevin would go to this length to set up the fake mugging would be that he knew he was a character in a movie and that there would be "viewers" who he'd need to trick to set up the twist. Logically there's no reason for it in terms of their aims to kill the Rabbi and the Boss, it achieved nothing other than trying to trick the viewer, which is tantamount to almost breaking the fourth wall imo. Hate it when writers/directors think it's OK to trick the viewer like that by making the character do something illogical which makes no sense purely to help set up a "twist" (worst example recently was "Now You See Me").
Just one of the reasons why I consider this movie to be rubbish and downright stupid.
it was just a stupid/cheap plot element used by the writer/director to fill out an extra 5 minutes and enhance the "plot twist"
Well, if you want to think that way, you could argue that the whole film was just a way of the writer/director of filling out 110 minutes!
My take on it is that having the broken nose gives his story more authenticity - I was mugged and here's my broken nose to prove it - rather than - oh yeah, I left my wallet at home, duh!
End of the day, it's a film, a work of fiction - you either enjoy it for what it is, or you don't.
share
Well, if you want to think that way, you could argue that the whole film was just a way of the writer/director of filling out 110 minutes!
The point I was making was that the mugging backstory was entirely a case of trying to inject something "interesting" for the sake of it, which in turn meant the scene itself was forced and didn't make any sense. This is sometimes what happens when writers try to "inject" something for the sake of it - they end up shoehorning something that is inconsistent or doesn't make sense into a story.
My take on it is that having the broken nose gives his story more authenticity - I was mugged and here's my broken nose to prove it - rather than - oh yeah, I left my wallet at home, duh!
Well you can agree to disagree, as for me he could have had any number of easier excuses for not having ID. I think the "broken nose/mugging" backstory was utterly irrelevant and pointless, and only done as a means to trick the viewer, which therefore meant the characters were essentially acting in a specific way purely to mislead viewers, which again is very cheap of the writers.
End of the day, it's a film, a work of fiction - you either enjoy it for what it is, or you don't.
That is a very prescriptive way of watching though. Noone has to "enjoy" things in the exact same manner as you, let alone avoid making any criticisms just because "it's only a movie". I could easily turn around and say you must give every movie a 10/10 since "it's just a movie"? If not, what causes you to differentiate between good and bad movies?
And since many of us do like to differentiate between what we perceive to be good and bad movies, that's what these discussion boards are for. Bad acting, bad directing, bad CGI, bad plot, plot holes, inconsistencies, comparisons to similar/superior movies, boring dialogue, etc etc, all of these can be discussion points. What you're essentially saying is "why bother?" on a platform that exists entirely for those who do bother. share
What you're essentially saying is "why bother?" on a platform that exists entirely for those who do bother.
Ah well, fair point. I think what I was trying to say was that, in my opinion, we don't know what the director was trying to achieve and consequently, stating an opinion as fact will always lead to polemics.
Personally, I felt that the broken nose lent authenticity to the "mugging" (because who would voluntarily break their own nose, right?). Now, you clearly felt that the whole mugging back-story was superfluous ("filler") whereas I felt it added to the drama. I mean, what was the alternative if the objective was that Slevin was unable to prove he was not Nick? If he 'just said "I have no ID on me" to the Boss men', then technically you're right, that would suffice. But it would be pretty boring for us, the viewers.
So, when I say "it's a film, a work of fiction", its - and any film's - ultimate aim is to entertain us in the context of the film. If Slevin had said "I'm not Nick but gosh, I appear to have left my wallet on the counter of Starbucks when I purchased a Latte and so I am unable to prove it" there would be, no doubt, posters here saying how ridiculous - and incongruous with the nature of the film - that sounds. It was a violent film after all and the mugging back-story was in keeping with that theme.
share
The problem with just saying "I don't have any ID on me" is that they know where he (Nick) lives.
By saying he doesn't have it on him, means he must have it somewhere and they would just search the flat, in which case they could find something which proves he's not Nick and all this ends. But by saying his ID was stolen, this means any thugs have no need to search for his ID as he's explained they wouldn't find any because someone stole it.
Why wouldn't they believe he's not Nick yet believe he's been mugged? - because he's got proof in the form of a broken nose.
If you were in his situation what would you do?
As soon as they let me go, I'd just go get my ID and show them that I wasn't Nick. But he didn't have to and the mobsters would understand because he said he was mugged and had a broken nose to prove it.
So, its purpose in the movie was to deceive people, and now you're pissed because it deceived you? It was entirely logical in the movie BECAUSE we fell for it, that's the whole point. Characters much smarter than us needed to do the same.
Sigh... IMDb users.
[deleted]
It also makes him seem less threatening. A tall skinny guy with a broken nose suggests someone who can't defend themselves and isn't a threat.
shareJust one of the reasons why I consider this movie to be rubbish and downright stupid.
I respect your right to have that opinion but you're in the minority.... Whatever that's worth.
I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!! share
The question is actually, unless i'm missing something simple...
Why does he have to pretend he's not Nick Fisher to the gangsters, breaking his nose in the process? The whole point of killing Nick Fisher was to be Nick Fisher right?
If he pretended to actually be Nick Fisher it would be a single bluff, rather than a double bluff, aka a Kansas City Shuffle.
shareBecause, obviously, he's not Nick Fisher, and has no way of knowing if either boss or their henchmen may actually know what Nick looks like. If he pretends to be Nick and they know he isn't, he'd never have been taken to meet either boss. If he says he isn't Nick, he's just saying what any guy owing a lot of money to a crime boss would be likely to say, so he's covered either way: if they don't believe him, he gets taken to the bosses. If they know he's not Nick, they just leave him alone, and the worst thing that happens is that he has to come up with a new plan. The Rabbi even believes he isn't Nick, but is going along with Goodkat's plan because he thinks it will save his son.
-There is no such word as "alot."