All we know is those names ended up as corpses at the dock fire.
But the whole narrative he spun, is it fully bogus or could parts of it have been true? (Ie the meeting with redfoot at the buddist shrine)
Just curious. I'd like to see a recut of this MINUS all the scenes with keaton's crew, to see how the story flows without the diversion scenes.
Good question.
I would say....
Yes, Verbal's story represents what did in fact happen.
It's just he changed some of the names. Indeed using names off of the office board.
The Redfoot meeting probably did happen. And obviously a "Kobayashi" type was involved.
An outright lie I can think of....
"Back when I was picking beans in Guatemala...."
This aside, yeah, he explained what happened, using real names only when necessary - fabricating the rest.
That is my take too. Kobiyashi was real, but not the name. (Pete postelwaite picks him up in the car at the end)
Yeah the guatemala and barbershop quartet and etc were just little side lies sprinkled in for effect probably.
I agree with your take. (Similar to my reply below)
One thing i love in this movie is Esposito's performance. Top notch.
.....and of course Chaz too, a fave of mine. They were all good. A masterpiece.
Oh, ok, I added more below.
Looks like we are on the same page. Great.
Yeah, terrific film.
In fact you've inspired me to take another look at it today.
Or....
Maybe all that stuff DID happen, the way he told it, but he took them out at the dock to wipe out loose ends then got nabbed leaving so he had to weave that story to throw the cops off, get released?
Ok, its been awhile since Ive seen the film. SO I don't claim to be 100% accurate.
Going by memory....
Didn't the cops find bodies in the bay? There was an explosion, boats. All of this the cops knew. The cops would have had the bodies of Verbal's crew - and would have known their real names.
Verbal's story fits for what happened, and it fits for the cops. Thus he is released.
What other story could he have come up with that would fit all the evidence the Police had?
PS - And yes, Verbal himself took out his own "crew". But obviously he couldn't tell the cops about that part of it.
Right. Yes, that is how I see it. He built retroactive red herrings onto the hard facts he knew the cops already had.
Its a briliant piece of storytelling. I remember when it came out in 95 i was at a mob owned pizza joint (in GA) and everyone in there was talking about it, crazy about this film. Haha
Some must be somewhat true, like the New York taxi service bit, or the murders in the parking garage.
I think most of it isn't true, or else it would go against the idea of the twist and the fact that Verbal/Keyser Soze is a great storyteller who was able to create this entire myth and knows how to improvise.
I'm wondering....
For argument's sake, is it 'possible' all that could have happened exactly the way he told it? Or is there a way we can COMFIRM certain things didnt occur. This is what I am wondering.
All we know is the names were accurate, and they are dead at the dock. But can we definitively prove the narrative is invented?
For me this is the question.
Well, that's so great about the twist, almost all of it could've happened as shown or none of it happened. You can change your mind with every viewing. The things taken from the bulletin board are obviously not true, though.
However, I really doubt that the point of the bulletin board is to suggest he only changed the names. Remember, Verbal starts out with a completely different story and changes it every time Kujan starts pushing for more. And like I said, it would go against the actual twist, which isn't that Verbal is Keyser Soze (we can't even be sure about THAT), but that the entire movie is just a story told by Verbal and we can't trust anything of it really happened. The big shocking moment is when Kujan drops the mug. He doesn't even know Verbal is Keyser Soze at that point, he simply realizes that he's been fed a total BS story. That moment becomes rather pointless if all Verbal did was change some names. It's the least likely scenario and not what the writer intended, in MY opinion. But there is no real answer to the question what did or didn't happen.
Well said. Great input.
I love this story. Truly virtuoso.
I like mind benders like this one, or Kyle being his own father in Termimator, and a few others. I find irony a strong story element.
Plenty of the story HAD to have happened because of the actual evidence.
You can't make up the two boats, the explosion at the dock. The sudden death of the criminals in Verbal's crew.
Not to mention all of the other dead bodies.
It makes sense that Soze's entire intention from the gitgo was to simply not be recognized. Thus he had to make sure the one person on Earth who could identify him was knocked off. Because of the massive protection this man had, Soze and "Kobayashi" had to come up with an elaborate scheme to be able to get to him.
And if Verbal isn't Soze, then what is the point of the film?
What I think happened (OP concurs) is stated above.
"You can't make up the two boats, the explosion at the dock"
That's not even part of Verbal's story. I mean, we see that happening in present time with other characters. We don't have to solely rely on Verbal's testimony for that. The only things from his story that we can be sure about are the New York taxi service and maybe the murders in the LA parking garage, because they are events Kujan and Rabin would recall.
"It makes sense that Soze's entire intention from the gitgo was to simply not be recognized."
I didn't suggest that wasn't his intention. But it's not actually a part of Verbal's story either. It's something that Kujan infers from existing documentation. That's why we can be more certain about that.
"And if Verbal isn't Soze, then what is the point of the film?"
The actual point of the film is to make you reconsider what you just saw. But, I also believe he is the man behind the Soze persona and I think it's what the fax is supposed to imply. But it's not actually something we can be sure about, so I can't object to anyone believing Verbal's not Soze. However, there's also no point to the twist that Verbal told Kujan a whole bunch of lies if he only changed the names. You think the guy who created the Soze myth wouldn't be more creative with telling the truth? Changing names also doesn't mean he was the mastermind, all it has to mean is that he likes to make up anecdotes and maybe protect some of his colleagues. But that's certainly not the intention of that scene.
Oh noes, the OP concurs??? Is he some kind of authority on this? He also called my input "great". He simply has an opinion like all of us.
Ok, I'm not going to go further with this because I haven't seen the film in probably 20 years.
I'd rather not make statements I'm not 100% sure on. Such as...
I thought Verbal told Kujan about the supposed cocaine deal which explained the boats.
And the man who could actually pin Keyser Soze was killed - it's shown in the film.
But - again, Im not 100% sure so I'll withhold further comment. Just this...
"Oh noes, the OP concurs??? Is he some kind of authority on this? He also called my input "great". He simply has an opinion like all of us."
That wasn't necessary, I didn't say he was. It's a simply a fact I mentioned. What is it, are you sensitive or something? Massive ego? Whatever your malady is, what I said about the OP had nothing to do with you.
I've seen the movie plenty of times in the last 20 years, so maybe I can help.
"I thought Verbal told Kujan about the supposed cocaine deal which explained the boats."
Verbal told him they were there for coke, but no coke was found. Did the rest of the crew think they were there for coke as portrayed in the movie? We'll never know, since we only have Verbal's word for it.
"And the man who could actually pin Keyser Soze was killed - it's shown in the film."
Yes, true. But that was not simply part of Verbal's story. You have to differentiate between the flashbacks that are Verbal's story and the scenes with the cops in the present. It's Kujan who discovers this and then weaves into Verbal's story. Verbal actually insists he didn't know the guy was the target.
Uhm no. If anything, it seems you might have an ego problem. Why mention it at all in a reply to me if it has nothing to do with me? What else was the point except to affirm your own theory? Seriously.
Ok, fair enough, you may be right.
One can't say for sure so I'll leave it alone.
"Uhm no. If anything, it seems you might have an ego problem. Why mention it at all in a reply to me if it has nothing to do with me? What else was the point except to affirm your own theory? Seriously."
It's snowing outside. There you go, this true statement has the same relevance as "OP concurs".
"One cant say for sure so I'll leave it alone."
My name isn't Verbal, but suit it yourself.
"It's snowing outside. There you go, this true statement has the same relevance as "OP concurs"."
So both statements you really shouldn't have brought up in this thread, aye...👍
"My name isn't Verbal, but suit it yourself."
I have no idea what this means
"So both statements you really shouldn't have brought up in this thread, aye...👍"
No, neither were important - only in the context of it was what I felt like saying in that moment. What you can be absolutely sure of is both statements are true, and neither has anything to do with you.
It means that I'm not an unreliable narrator like Verbal, so you could take my word for it. But you choose not to, so whatever.
In this context I feel like saying...some people's farts smell worse than mine. A true statement, but it has nothing to do with you...really...
"It means that I'm not an unreliable narrator like Verbal, so you could take my word for it. But you choose not to, so whatever."
How do I know that? As an example, it hit me a couple of hours ago, at the beginning of the film, we see a dark figure (during the boat melee). He has a gold watch and gold lighter. But I don't know that this actually happened. I do know Verbal (if this was his real name, we don't really know who he is) has the exact same lighter and watch.
So, what does this mean? I don't know. Just like I don't know whether or not you are an unreliable narrator.
So was there a Usual Suspect like twist somewhere in this thread that suggested I am a unreliable narrator? Hey, if you're willing to believe most of what Verbal told really happened, you can extend the same courtesy to me!
"But I don't know that this actually happened."
Actually, we do know this happened, since it was presented to us before Verbal began his story.
Yes, but how do I know that you know?
As far as I know, you could be Keyser Soze. But I don't know this either. Because Keyser Soze's existence, we are relying on unreliable data from a gentleman that claims his name is Verbal. We don't know who he really is either.
And since I don't know who you are, it's theoretically possible you could be Keyser Soze, assuming in fact Keyser Soze does exist. Or you could be the gentleman that called himself Verbal. Or you could even be the gentleman that picks up the gentleman supposedly named Verbal in a car. And we don't know the name of the pick up person either.
So, with all of these "I don't knows" going on - how can I rely on the veracity of anything you say??
I am not Keyser Soze, but I *am* Kevin Spacey. If you don't believe me, I will touch your private parts.
🍑☝️
How do I know?
You could be Benicio Del Toro. But I don't know that either.
Or you could be Gabriel Byrne - but once again, I don't know.
In fact, you could be Edie Finnerman. We know she exists.
So as far as I know, you could be Edie. But I don't know that either. And since I don't know who you are or who Edie is (which means you could be Edie) - I'm only left with one conclusion...
I don't know.
"You have to differentiate between the flashbacks that are Verbal's story and the scenes with the cops in the present." I consider this key to answering the question.
shareHis entire story was made up of things lying around that office he was in which is what made this even more enjoyable when the Detective finally connected the dots at the end, but it was too late and Keyer Soze got away Scott free. Makes me wonder if the Detective lost his job or was heckled for an eternity over getting hornswoggled by this man?? 🤣
shareread my comments above. I am asking if it's possible the story played out that way anyway, and if not what proof do we have to confirm it didn't.
see above comments...
my interpretation is everything Verbal says is a lie. The lies may be tweaked to fit the facts. But as I read other posts I may need to watch again and rethink.
shareYes, anything that could be verified by the cops would have been true.
What doesn’t make sense is Verbal telling Kujan that he cold-bloodedly shot a man in the head at close range.