There's actually a "Jonah and the Whale" parallel tied together by three major scenes. The first is a turnaround as to the implied meaning of the background behind Thomas; the background is of his office wall that looks like acute angled teeth which at first passing views as his offensive stance towards her unknown "knowledge" status. The scene is then her replying which changes the power balance in her favor and castrates the meaning of his posturing...from "baring his teeth" to being "inside the whale" of her design(or the insurance agency's). The second scene concerning "sides" is of the two in the sauna...the red lit sauna...deep in the belly of the whale? get it? heart of the matter? Ok, so it's here that he is at the pit of his despair what with the mixed signals as to her intent and loyalties and for him a kind of a point of no return here she realizes even with her affection for him she has forgotten the big picture and not held to the responsibilities of reality(created by her association with the insurance agency). The third is the very last scene made most poignant with the vapor-trailing jet... "streaming out through the whale's spout"...see it? right? Yes! I hope you do. The idea here is really not about whether she chose to meet him or not, but that HE posed for her a chance for free will and in this characterization he is an omniscient(like during the whole rest of the film;)) or more like a crucified Christ-figure redeemed by his coming of knowledge of such by enacting/creating such a context within his and someone else's life. "It's not your funeral, you're just along for the ride.", seems to underline this with his admission of the second bank job not being about the money but about his feeling of needing to do it as a lyrically and spiritually motivated venture. That she weeps and then smiles at the end is her coming into this epiphany for which she, and hopefully the vigilant viewer, will be better off. The 60's was rife with this kind of schtick, why am I the only one mentioning it? Is everyone caught up with Brosnan's ever-so-clever lending of his patented "double-o-seven charm"? [choke..cough..vomit a smidge] The chess scene is actually just as invested. Look for lamps, (lighted) documents/openbooks, and fire, all with meaningful juxtapositioning amongst themselves and the pair. Just her walking bareback past a lamp sheds light upon her switching of tactics by making her body the tool for which she will gain the other half of her faith driven goal of full knowledge(of his actions/involvement, which neither knows how much the other does). And symbolically colored wardrobe(during a walk he's wearing a black shirt...as is she but she has over it a white coat encroaching it just as she is upon his dark deed. Actually, once I caught on from the after-auction dinner with the closeup/lefttopcorner view of the street lamp I noticed every scene is absolutely key in describing the back-and-forth play that the two have entered into, based in not knowing what the other does(the lamp...to see what there is to see). Look into it. This is not horse$h1T. Without the delicate balancing of symbolically charged mise-en-scene this *film* would just be a _movie_...a boring one at that which compels people to claim the remake is somehow (impossibly) better than the original.
reply
share
tmf_scipio
15 years ago
That's a brilliant analysis of the movie. Thanks!
"Whenever Mrs. Kissell breaks wind, we beat the dog."
reply
share