Odd that Mr. Oldman didn't research the family? - La migliore offerta (2014) Discussion

[–] ToHelenBackAgain 9 years ago

That's a weak spot, yeah. As Oldman's character is presented, he is a person who would have done some checking on them.

I don't mind, the resulting film is so terrific, but yes, this doesn't hold up to examination.

He probably could have got other details as well, but even if nothing else, he surely would have found that the real Claire rented out the villa rather than live in it. This kind of thing is typically public information in a first-world nation. Whole scam would've been blown up by that alone.

It really all hinged on him being sufficiently captivated by the false Claire to abandon his usual caution.

"Look! I'm a prostitute robot from the future!"

reply

[–] kingpinmultimedia 9 years ago

So what was it about Claire that caused him to abandon his principles? Because at first she was obviously a thorn in his side, so what exactly was his weakness that they preyed upon? I don't think that it was just that he'd never been with a woman, that he'd always admired them from afar. Since he was introduced to her illness and inexcusable behavior long before he ever saw her, maybe he had a weakness for an underdog, possibly because he was an orphan himself?

Terriers always smell like warm, buttered toast.

reply

[–] ToHelenBackAgain 9 years ago

She was designed to be his ideal, exactly what he fell in love with in his prized portraits. Fragile, beautiful, closed off from the world, unattainable to all but him.

If it hadn't worked, I'm sure Billy would have settled for a lesser revenge and just stolen the portraits. But he knew Virgil extremely well and directed Claire perfectly, and it did work.

"Look! I'm a prostitute robot from the future!"

reply

[–] kingpinmultimedia 9 years ago

Interesting observation. So that brings me to another question: In the phone calls that Claire took while Virgil was there, she referred to the caller as "Director"...was she talking to Billy? If so, why did she mention rewriting the last chapter? Was that code for her thinking something in their plan needed to change?

Terriers always smell like warm, buttered toast.

reply

[–] ToHelenBackAgain 9 years ago

I confess I didn't really think about it. But I like this. Makes sense to me!

"I won't hold my bread."

reply

[–] OneTwoBee 9 years ago

Didn't think of it until now, but when she was talking about rewriting she did say she wanted a more upbeat ending, so perhaps she had second thoughts about the scam, maybe felt bad?

reply

[–] mme3924-1 9 years ago

she had second thoughts about the scam, maybe felt bad

She did say, that no matter what happened, she loved him.

reply

[–] bigtyivier2k2 9 years ago

At the end it is revealed that the real Claire aka the dwarf at the bar rents her villa out to actors. Her calling Billy the director probably meant she actually liked Virgil and felt bad and wanted Billy to "rewrite" the ending aka the way they conned him.

reply

[–] kingpinmultimedia 9 years ago

Yes, she said she sometimes rents it out to "cinema people" but that she's rented it out to Robert for the past two years. I'm not sure if Robert has something to do with the cinema people she mentions or if the cinema people rented it before Robert.

But yes, I think you're right about Claire. I think she did fall a little in love with Virgil. If not in love, she at least grew to care for him, and that's why she said, "If anything should ever happen to us, I do love you." I think that's the meaning behind "In every forgery, there's something authentic." Her love was a forgery, but there was that one little bit that was authentic and that's what kept him going, even after he knew he'd been scammed.

Terriers always smell like warm, buttered toast.

reply

[–] hungvq-1 9 years ago

Robert's group probably pretended to be a cinema group to rent the villa, so they had reason to move furniture and arts into the house (for filming). And those with him and Claire including Claire were probably real actors anyway.

reply

[–] nlgarrett 9 years ago

This movie broke my heart. I watched it three times in a row trying to see what I had missed to very little avail.

I should've been suspect when I saw Donald Sutherland - that stinker! Oi. lol

reply

[–] mme3924-1 9 years ago

This movie broke my heart. I watched it three times in a row trying to see what I had missed to very little avail.

Mine, too, kind of. I want to watch it again, as well, to see the clues I missed. Though I will say, I suspected all along that she could be faking. I was just wrong about why; I didn't understand the whole of it. I was suspicious when Billy said he gave Virgil a painting but I thought he had forged the little board painting --worth $8 mil -- that he regained and gave back to Oldman. I also never suspected Robert. That was an incredibly long planned scheme, apparently, since it seemed that Oldman had known Robert for some time when he brought him the first gears. Did Billy recruit Robert or was Robert part of it from the beginning?

reply

[–] nlgarrett 9 years ago

The dwarf thing wasn't a surprise - that was rather blatant...but the level of deception required between Donald Sutherland's character and the young mechanical genius goes beyond the pale.

Why do that to Rush's character? He seemed to pay both of them well and treated them with dignity. I'm trying to understand why they would go to such extremes to hurt him. He did "insult" Donald's artistic talent, but it wasn't done with malice. I would guess someone that knowledgeable about art would say what Rush's character said.

Help me with this, please.

reply

[–] bron-tay 9 years ago

Oldman was a con man who robbed widows of the full value of their inheritances. He subverted the very art world he purported to elevate. He was planning to rip off "Claire," stealing pieces of the priceless automaton right out from under her nose, all while claiming to protect her.

Hence, Billy and Robert had no mercy.

reply

[–] nlgarrett 9 years ago

Hi there, bron-tay,

Fair enough.

Not that I've had a lot of experience in that world, but I've had enough to know a certain amount of that is to be expected. :: shrugs ::

So, yes, I can't cite the exact scene but he did ask what her plans were regarding why she was selling everything, but his response to her answer (both body language and vocal) didn't portray an "evil wolf" at her door.

Thank you very much for some food for thought. I will ponder it. It's just my gut reaction was Rush's character didn't do anything so bad to justify Sutherland's character from stealing ALL that was most precious to him, except for saying that just because Sutherland's character loved art and could hold a paintbrush, that didn't make Sutherland an artist. That was a fair assessment although it could've been said more nicely.

Thanks again!

reply

[–] bron-tay 9 years ago

You are welcome.

Here's a juxtaposition of scenes that I thought revealing:

Oldman has just stolen the last parts of the automaton and brought them to Robert. They get to talking and Robert asks, "If you were forced to choose between Claire and the automaton today, which would you take?"

In the very next scene, Oldman is buying a fabulous ring for Claire. There's his treatment of her: he robs her of something her father spent years collecting, then brings her a pretty bauble to make her think he's generous and thoughtful. He wants her to be dependent on him. (In the very next scene, he's bringing her lunch from that fancy restaurant.)

It's pretty creepy, and would probably get worse if Claire started getting too independent (i.e., HEALTHY) for him at some point.

~~~~~~~
Please put some dashes above your sig line so I won't think it's part of your dumb post.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 9 years ago

Sutherland's character from stealing ALL that was most precious to him,

About that: Oldman had a houseboy, some kind of home help, butler, someone. So how did they get all the paintings out of the apartment? Wouldn't he have been suspicious, maybe called Oldman to ask if he had approved the removal?

I'm aware that he may not have even known the paintings were there, behind that vault door, but if Claire had hundreds of items carted out, I'd think he'd be concerned.

reply

[–] Theshornwonder 9 years ago

Well Billy was doing the same thing, he was the necessary accomplice to the scam. So it's not really believable they did it because of the bad things Virgil did to other people. He did it because Virgil wouldn't take him seriously as an artist. If he'd had a problem with scamming the widows he wouldn't have been Virgil's accomplice for years. He even took it upon himself to go to the old lady in the wheelchair and buy the disputed painting they'd both bid $90,000 for knowing she was in financial trouble and offer her $250,000 for the painting even though by then he knew it to be worth $8 million. He obviously wasn't worried about the little old ladies.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 9 years ago

He did it because Virgil wouldn't take him seriously as an artist

Exactly. His pride was hurt; that was the main reason for his betrayal, not money, which he'd always said didn't matter between he and Oldman.

Pride is a noticeable element in this film. Note how Oldman looks when he is late to the auction: tie askew, sweaty, unorganized, disoriented. And the people laugh at him.

Claire also has pride issues. She's not proud of what she writes, she says.

And certainly pride is manifest to Oldman.

And even to Robert, whose talent with engineering and mechanical things is superb.

reply

[–] Xeokym 9 years ago

but the level of deception required between Donald Sutherland's character and the young mechanical genius goes beyond the pale.

Why do that to Rush's character? He seemed to pay both of them well and treated them with dignity. I'm trying to understand why they would go to such extremes to hurt him. He did "insult" Donald's artistic talent, but it wasn't done with malice. I would guess someone that knowledgeable about art would say what Rush's character said.

I think the depth of Sutherland's character's hatred of his partner went unacknowledged by a lot of viewers. He despised him. Sutherland made several quips about how his art was "good enough to make your reproductions, but not good enough to be considered an artist," and he resented that intensely. He was paid well but not considered an equal. He was paid well but not considered a partner. He had a lifetime of resentment built up of covering up so his friend could have a magnificent art collection all to himself that he shared with no one. Sutherland's character was fed up and wanted to utterly destroy Virgil from every soft spot he had, and he did.

The other "players" were just in it for the money.

I think they could have developed that a little better in the movie and made it more clear, but if they did then you would suspect Sutherland's character right from the beginning and it would ruin the "surprise" shocker ending.

I can't understand your crazy moon language.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 9 years ago

Sutherland's character was fed up and wanted to utterly destroy Virgil from every soft spot he had, and he did.

Yep.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 9 years ago

Why do that to Rush's character? He seemed to pay both of them well and treated them with dignity

I think that was just it. He thought he could buy everything. Billy said it was never about money between the two of them. Oldman disregarded and dismissed Billy's talent as a painter and that was the reason for the complete revenge. It was not enough to steal his collection, Billy wanted to break Oldman, destroy him. And he did. It was always about pride, not money. And dignity, as you say. Oldman was just blind to whose dignity. He considered only his own.

His relationship with Robert was different; that's the one that was really heartbreaking. Oldman trusted him with things he'd never told anyone. He brought him into his personal life with Claire, even smuggled him into the room. Robert's betrayal was truly terrible. But I think Billy believed that Oldman had betrayed him, Billy, with his dismissal of his art, and so he wanted to get even in the worst way he could, destroying all of Oldman's trust and his love and his hope and his future.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 9 years ago

I think that's the meaning behind "In every forgery, there's something authentic." Her love was a forgery, but there was that one little bit that was authentic and that's what kept him going, even after he knew he'd been scammed.

Great observation.

But I do wish people would use spoilers! Or that those who haven't seen this film won't come here and read the comments. It's too good to spoil.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 9 years ago

Interesting observation. So that brings me to another question: In the phone calls that Claire took while Virgil was there, she referred to the caller as "Director"...was she talking to Billy? If so, why did she mention rewriting the last chapter? Was that code for her thinking something in their plan needed to change?

Good question. I think she always knew he was there when talking o the phone. They may have had cameras in that room.

reply

[–] nlgarrett 9 years ago

Whoa! I must say you're completely spot on about this. I did not see the ending coming, and I usually do. Well done!

reply

[–] nlgarrett 9 years ago

Who would do this to another human being? It's criminal!

Is our Mr. Rush truly SO BAD that not just one person, but many because that we have to believe if your theory runs true = Donald Sutherland's character, the pretty girl, the dwarf, the mechanical genius and perhaps all his many girlfriends?

I won't say that Mr. Rush's character was charming, but he certainly didn't invoke that level of malevolence that would have to be corroborated amongst them.

reply

[–] Unshaken_Unstirred 9 years ago

the dwarf didn't know what was happening, only who was renting the house from her. We don't know if the mechanical genius's girlfriend knew about what was happening, for all we know, she could genuinely have believed the he was cheating on her with Claire. The mechanical genius is a con man who, if the dwarf is to be believed which i think she is, is pretty amoral and manipulative from how he seems to interact with women. The language he uses is even pretty revealing; he says 'make a woman fall in love with you.' Claire could be an actress or even a con woman out to make an easy buck, or she could even be another one of the women that Robert (the mechanical genius) gets to fall in love with him, and manipulates. If the person she is talking to on the phone is Robert, it would make sense that she is in a relationship with him because she asks if he is jealous of her and Virgil. Billy(Sutherland's character) on the other hand really seems more motivated out of anger than anything else. He repeatedly says that he blames Virgil for not believing in him, and believes that he is the reason for his failed aspirations as an artist. All in, only 4 people would have had to have been in on the plot: Claire, her servant, Billy, and Robert. Virgil never actually runs into anyone else involved, and a smart conman could have prevented anyone else from knowing what was happening.

reply

[–] mjd_subs2 9 years ago

I won't say that Mr. Rush's character was charming, but he certainly didn't invoke that level of malevolence that would have to be corroborated amongst them.

You sound like a very reasonable person. I would argue that you probably haven't been exposed to people like this very often, in real life. Unfortunately, I have, and I can personally attest to the fact that, more often than not, people really need NO rational reason for exacting hatred against others.

We, as a society, would like to think that humans are basically good people and I believe most people think they are because we hold ourselves to be the standard by which to measure the world around us. It's subjective and open to interpretation all the time. It doesn't necessarily mean that everybody is bad or hateful. It's really not that simple.

- Get busy living, or get busy dying. Andy (The Shawshank Redemption)

reply

[–] mjd_subs2 9 years ago

I must confess that I didn't start watching this movie until after I posted. I am about 14.5 minutes in and *I* want to hurt this man. Just kidding. I'm not a violent person but he is just awful. I was annoyed at the birthday cake paranoia, but flipping out on the woman about his having to stand in the rain. He's not made of sugar. He won't melt. Or, he could get a mobile phone or assistant to give him up-to-the minute updates.

I still don't know exactly what they do to him but it can't possibly be any more vile than he has been to almost everyone in the first fifteen minutes. Ugh.

- Get busy living, or get busy dying. Andy (The Shawshank Redemption)

reply

[–] pinkybanana2000 9 years ago

Her beauty, flaws and unavailability. He was initially seduced by the art, and the fact that he couldn't see her, as much as he tried. Then, we he did see her, he was taken in by her beauty. He obviously expected an unattractive recluse with some physical flaws. Having established that she was a beautiful woman albeit flawed, he thought if he could fix her psychological flaws, he could keep her for himself. Just goes to show you, even the most brilliant minds will be fooled by a beautiful person.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 9 years ago

SPOILERS, GUYS, SPOILERS!

Not everyone has yet seen this film.

reply

[–] Sleef 9 years ago

I agree he would have researched the family. Especially after she left him out in the rain for that first meeting. Anyone that deals with frauds as much as he did would not waste his time unless it was worth his while.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 9 years ago

His own hangups, phobias, and prejudices got in his way.

He was aware only of the woman dwarf in the bar because she was always counting things. She was not on his radar, not a person he needed to consider. His snobbery prevented him learning a lot, actually, i.e. his relationship with Billy.

We probably should use spoilers when talking about this film.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]