Towards the beginning the secretary that's typing out the check for Bishop makes a joke as she hands him the check. He says "it's a living". She says "not a very good one". I wasn't sure if the joke was that he wasn't paid very much to do the job or if she meant morally it wasn't a good way to make a living. What do you think?
shareI was confused by this line. I guess she meant financially it's not a good living. Maybe they wanted to establish that Robert Redford's character isn't rich?
shareI'd say it's that the pay-to-risk ratio wasn't very good. A person may say they make $100/hr. And you might think that's a pretty good living until you hear her job is disarming bombs.
**WARNING: MY POSTS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**
.
I think it's meant to be interpreted both ways...
That line has always resonated with me. It strikes me as extremely rude of her to say that, very insulting.
shareI've always felt that way too. But then, it does follow Redford saying "But first, who's got my check?" which has always struck me as rather crass.
shareagreed on both - but it is swift screenwriting. It quickly informs that he's in the bank's employee and indifferent to the job, while she quickly informs about how the team isn't raking in huge fees. I think it's just an aspect of pacing. But yeah, I can remember thinking how rude both seemed when i first saw it in theaters.
Very good points. I think the line also illustrates how jaded and mercenary Redford's character had become.
shareYep. The other spot where I thought something didn't quite mesh was when they inform Liz that she can't leave the party. Though that made perfect sense considering the high risk involved, the way Crease convinced Redford's character by basically saying she couldn't necessarily be trusted (with Redford oddly agreeing) felt strange. As did the way she sort of brushed it off. Also odd since he had clearly trusted her more than Crease - as she knew Redford's secret from way back. Maybe that moment existed to have the audience doubt Liz's loyalty. I absolutely love this film, so little wrinkles like the rude teller stand out more I think.
Makes me wonder if some of these conflicts are more the result of the editing room. Dialogue or even full scenes cut might have added more context, or softened some edges.
I always interpreted that part as a matter of Bishop being concerned about Liz's safety rather than distrusting her. He was sufficiently spooked by the codebreaker's potential that he didn't want to take any risks. Creese's wife and daughter were sitting away from the action and didn't really know anything about the machine, so they couldn't spill any beans. But Liz witnessed the machine in use, and Bishop had the foresight, which was probably honed by being on the run for so long, to see the threat it could pose to her life.
Edit -- Just saw your point about safety. After watching the scene again, I still think it was an altruistic thing, though I see where you're coming from. Bishop and Creese probably felt that Liz could be blackmailed or threatened to spill the beans on Bishop and the gang due to her closeness to Bishop. I think Creese had that smirk not out of disrespect but rather as one seasoned vet talking to another.