Skip to main content

Thief

Image result for James Caan Thief

Courtesy of Netflix, Diane and I recently watched the movie Thief, starring James Caan.

This 1981 release was something of a "caper" movie, but not really.  If you ever plan to see it and don't like to have the plot twists given away, consider this your SPOILER ALERT, because I'm not going to concern myself with keeping 35 year old secrets.

There was a big heist, and the action had seemed in some respects to have been leading up to that point. But the movie didn't give this event the true particularization that is the raison d'etre of a real caper movie. And the climax didn't come until well after that.

The key conflict in the movie isn't between those trying to steal the diamonds from the well-protected vault on the one hand and those trying to protect those diamonds on the other. Rather, the real conflict is within the team that succeeds in stealing the diamonds.

As part of the set-up for that, there is the conversation in the diner, portrayed in the still above, between James Caan's character and that of his love interest, played by Tuesday Weld. He was in prison for 11 years, before getting released 4 years before this movie begins. He explains to her that the only way to survive is not to give a damn about anything, including your own survival. If people know you don't care, they'll fear you, and you will survive.

But the first twist is that in the course of this film he becomes as they say "settled down" or as much so as one can be while working as part of an organized group of diamond thieves. He marries Weld's character, they acquire a son through an illegal "adoption" (i.e. they buy a child on the black market) and they have a very nice house and start to get to know their neighbors. So there comes to be a lot he cares about, contrary to the frame of mind that got him through prison.

The second twist is that he has to give up all that and more and re-capture that don't-give-a-damn frame of mind in order to kick the butts of the real bad guys in the end. The diamond thief who is exploiting  the other diamond thieves. That bad guy gets his in the end, although the end can't by any stretch be considered a happy ending.

Why do I say all this? Because I don't plan to say anything about this year's Oscars, so this will have to serve as a season-appropriate nod to Hollywood.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
7 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
13 comments
Read more