Why did Nicky try to kill Sam with the car bombing? - Casino (1995) Discussion

[–] MiguelGordon (528) 2 years ago

Did he? I always thought it was the bosses in Kansas City who tried to off him with the car bomb, as retaliation for straying further into the public eye when he'd been warned repeatedly to be quiet and even walk away.

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

According to Ace's narration the bombing was never authorized by the bosses. According to Ace's narration he suspects Nicky was behind the bombing, the bosses had the same opinion and that was even part of their motive to kill Nicky and his brother. The movie seems to lean very heavily on the idea that Nicky was behind the bombing.

reply

[–] MiguelGordon (528) 2 years ago

Good point, I recently rewatched it and it does say that in the narration.

pretty bold move by nicky then!

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6152) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

I'm well aware that Casino is based on real people and real events. I'm asking from the perspective of the movie and characters within it why Nicky tried to kill Sam with the carbombing. I'm asking for an interpretation of the events as depicted in the movie. The movie chose to have Nicky refuse to kill Sam when Ginger specifically asked him to and then it chose to cast blame for the carbombing on Nicky and I don't understand why.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6152) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

First off, your interpretation doesn't make any sense in light of the result. No one tried to kill Sam after the car bombing. He survived the whole series of assassinations. No one else was shown to survive that was included in the bosses' orders for assassination. If the bosses really wanted him dead then they would have simply tried again after the car bombing. The narration mentions that Sam ended up back where he started as a sports handicapper. He was still working for the mob. So the bosses clearly didn't intend to have him killed.

Second, the narration specifically said that the bombing was never authorized. You reference the scene where Remo asks "why take a chance?" There he's talking about everyone they successfully whacked. Everyone who knew something specific to which they could testify in court. That didn't include Sam. He didn't know that kind of specific information that could get him in trouble.

Sam's narration leans heavily on blaming Nicky for the car bombing. His narration says he suspects Nicky of being behind it and so did the bosses. More than that, Sam's narration claims the car bombing was a motive for the bosses to whack Nicky.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6152) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

What I describe is simply the movie's narration. That's what happened according to the movie. How can you deny the movie's own narration? The movie says Nicky was responsible so that means Nicky was responsible. The movie says the car bombing wasn't authorized by the bosses so that means it wasn't authorized by the bosses. And why else would the bosses want to whack Nicky? You also ignore the fact that, according to the movie, the bosses were never convicted. And it wasn't Sam's ego that proved he was indispensable to the bosses. The fact that he kept on working for them proved he was indispensable.

Your interpretation of why the bosses wouldn't try to whack Sam again after the car bombing failed is completely unsupported by anything in the movie. The movie doesn't say that it was big news or put anyone on high alert. And you're still ignoring what I explained to you about them not having any reason to whack him in the first place because he wasn't a threat to them as a court witness.

And killing Sam after the car bombing wouldn't have been any more risky to them than all the other assassinations they successfully pulled off. If Sam being alive was so much of a threat to them that they tried to have him whacked in the first place then they would have just as much of a reason to have him whacked after he survived the car bombing. Even if those bosses were convicted (which in the movie they were not) that wouldn't stop them from whacking Sam and if they wanted him whacked then he couldn't go back to his old position in the mob anyway. Once the mob wants someone whacked, no matter what happens, that person can never go back to the way things used to be in the mob.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6152) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

Why wouldn't you accept the narration as gospel? Why would you think that the narration would intentionally mislead about facts critical to the plot? What's the point of even having the narration in the movie in the first place if it can't be trusted? It's only there for the viewer's benefit in understanding what happens in the movie.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6152) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

Of course the narration represents the point of view of different characters. But there isn't any point in the movie where the narration is wrong about the facts or where the viewer is led to believe that the narration is wrong about the facts. There's no disagreement between the narration of different characters over the basic facts.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6152) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

As I said before, the narration was put there by the script. The narration is there to properly guide the viewer. The narration is there to make sure the viewer understands the facts. The narration is the voice of the director. The narration represents opinion about the *meaning* of the facts but that opinion is never wrong about what the actual facts are themselves.

I already explained in great detail why it's clear that Nicky rather than the bosses were behind the car bombing. That explanation depends on a lot more than the narration. Given everything that we know about what happened both before and after the car bombing, Nicky's responsibility for it is the only explanation that actually makes any sense. Nicky's affair with Ginger supposedly clouding Sam's mind about the matter has nothing to do with it.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6152) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

I agree that the narration is there to give the point of view of the characters. But like I said before, that point of view is a point of view about the *meaning* of the facts. It is not a point of view that is wrong or fallible in its understanding of what the facts actually are.

reply

[–] JosephQCat (706) 2 years ago

Sam was drawing increasing heat on Nicky from law enforcement with the connection being repeatedly pointed out in the media. This was bad for Nicky's criminal efforts. Law enforcement was willing to look the other way when things were quiet and out of the media's eye.

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

That doesn't explain the car bombing because this was already the case at the point in time that Ginger asked Nicky to kill Sam. Furthermore, it was Nicky's criminal activities that were putting heat on Sam, not the other way around.

reply

[–] JosephQCat (706) 2 years ago

You have to think outside the box a little on this. Sam was appearing on local television which was rubbing a lot of people the wrong way. If you can't get directly at someone then you go after friends. Yes, Nicky generated heat on Sam as well which was far more in the open in terms of the movie.

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

This does nothing to explain the car bombing. Sam went on TV long before Ginger asked Nicky to kill Sam. Furthermore, Sam going on TV bothered the bosses back in Chicago rather than Nicky. Sam being on TV didn't harm Nicky in any way. Nicky's heat from law enforcement was entirely a result of his own violent crimes.

reply

[–] JosephQCat (706) 2 years ago

So in your mind Nicky did this for no apparent reason? I would still bet that Nicky was feeling heat from law enforcement on a local and state level. That the source of that heat was high ranking officials wanting to be rid of both Sam and Nicky. There was very little they could do to Sam so what was left was to raise the heat on Nicky. I don't understand why this is so hard to accept.

reply

[–] Sandman81 (1509) 2 years ago

Nicky said he wouldn't kill Sam over Ginger. He never said he wouldn't kill him for another reason. Remember earlier in the movie he told Frankie to have a couple of guys dig a hole in the desert, and when the time is right "go see the Jew.". He probably figured if he killed Sam over Ginger, then the bosses would figure out about the affair, and kill all three of them. But if it was for a business reason, then he might be able to get away with it. Obviously, he was wrong.

Nicky was acting very erratic at this point. This is probably the result of all the coke and booze they were doing, along with the Vegas lifestyle getting to them. So, it's very possible that at one point, he's plotting with Frankie to put Ace in a hole in the desert, the next he's refusing to kill his friend, then a few weeks later he tries a car bomb.

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

That's a good explanation. I think it ties everything together very well.

reply

[–] Bossdog677 (1563) 2 years ago

Because its a trash movie for scumbags?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (616) 2 years ago

I always thought it got to the stage where Nicky had fucked up by going so rougue and causing a lot of heat and he realized it was a matter of time before word of the affair got back to Kansas. He thought he had Ginger under control but like Sam he soon realized that the was a crazy Cunt and it was all going to come out which would be his death sentance so his plan was to kill Sam before he reported back to base and then probably kill Ginger to erase his tracks

reply