MovieChat Forums > Fargo (1996) Discussion > why the Mike Yanagita scene is critical.

why the Mike Yanagita scene is critical.

posted 8 years ago by TxMike
41 replies | jump to latest

This comes up periodically and old responses get purged so I figured I'd re-post it so everyone will understand.

Many think the scene where Marge meets old high school friend Mike Yanagita is unnecessary. Some mention that TV broadcasts of the movie cut that scene. But it is a critical scene in the overall story. Here's why.

Mike knew Marge in high school and contacted her after he saw her on TV news broadcasts of the murders. The scene with Mike came after her first visit to the car dealership, where Jerry assured her he would know if any cars were missing, and she went away content.

After her meeting with Mike, where he told her he was successful, had been married to Linda Cooksey, etc. she spoke to another old friend from high school who basically told her everything Mike said was a lie. As she is driving away, in her car, you see the flash of realization on her face, she was being too trusting, Mike had lied to her and maybe Jerry was lying too. So that realization caused her to go back to see Jerry, to press the issue about the Tan Cierra, and ultimately resulted in Jerry fleeing the interview, the beginning of her cracking the case.

Presumably if she had not encountered Mike she would not have suspected Jerry was lying to her face and the case might not have been solved. Or at least would not have been resolved the way we see it in the movie.

It is part of the "good vs evil" theme in the whole story. Where Marge lived and worked people were straightforward and honest, when she encountered Jerry then Mike she assumed, incorrectly, that each of them were being straightforward and honest. It was an "aha" moment for Marge that influenced her investigation of the case.

..*.. TxMike ..*..

[–] EonNomad 8 years ago

Thank you very much for this explanation! Just saw the movie and was curious about why the scene(story bit) with Mike was there. I loved the first season of the Fargo show and enjoyed the second one so it was about time that I saw this!

[–] RobbieCalifornia 8 years ago

Oh absolutely! The film and the two seasons of the tv show are must-see. Anxiously awaiting season three.

I've seen the movie many times and never questioned why they included the Yanagita scene. Just thought it was part of the weirdness. Marge was so smart and Jerry so fidgety, she was onto him pretty quickly.

I'll watch for it on my next viewing.

[–] tsheehan-86345 8 years ago

Great explanation, truly! I think the scene may be a little too subtle. If cut out it is just a simple, albeit far less intersting, revelation she has. I guess I wouldn't call the scene critical. Even if it didn't have this purpose I would still be happy for it to be there because it is so well done.

[–] DeepFriedJello 8 years ago

Have seen this movie many times, and always liked the scene with Mike as it was just Quirky (Japanese guy speaking Scandinavian. ya jeez). But just tonight on TV that scene was missing, too bad. It's not necessary, but is fun.

[–] Mandingo609 8 years ago

I agree. Now, if you could explain the "C'mon...gimme a signal" scene where the pancake dude was staring at Jean and Carl in that weird homicidal way, I'd appreciate it. My theory is, that was the point when he decided he would kill them both and take the ransom for himself.

[–] TxMike 8 years ago

I'll work on that for you!!

Jean

[–] janet-conant 8 years ago

Thanks TxMike.

I always wondered the same thing what was up with Mike Yanagita scene crying and calling her a super lady. Now I know.

By the way Pancakes Dude, Peter Stormare, was in Longmire and played an equally troubling character with the strangest accent ever.

[–] Saltpeter 8 years ago

The problem with all this is, Marge should have known Jerry was lying the first time she met him. He was acting nervous, fidgety, impatient, evasive; clearly lying about something, clearly hiding something. She's supposed to be a trained, seasoned, experienced police officer, so how could she not have noticed his suspicious behavior?

She certainly didn't need to experience something later with someone else in order for the light bulb to go off in her brain about Jerry's behavior.

Not that I minded the Mike Yanagita scene; to me it was typical of the Coen Brothers' quirkiness. But I don't find it plausible that it was necessary to make her wake up.

My two cents, anyway!

[–] avortac4 (3746) 3 years ago

"The problem with all this is, Marge should have known Jerry was lying the first time she met him. He was acting nervous, fidgety, impatient, evasive; clearly lying about something, clearly hiding something. She's supposed to be a trained, seasoned, experienced police officer, so how could she not have noticed his suspicious behavior?"

Exactly the point I was going to make, thank you!

So this movie is telling us she was a BAD police officer before she met Mike, and she always trusted nerdy 'nice guys' who tried to lie to women to get laid - THERE IS NO WOMAN STUPID ENOUGH TO BE THIS TRUSTING in this world.

Let alone a police officer. She would have had met enough men to know men do almost anything to get laid, and lying is one of the first things creeps like Mike would attempt (since they have no game, no knowledge of PUA or women's psychology, they don't know what else to try).

She would DEFINITELY know this from her own youth, history and experiences as, you know, living in a female body in this world for so many decades.

Even if she wasn't a cop, there's ZERO change or reason for her to trust anything Mike says, especially after realizing Mike is such a pervo hornbeast.

But being a trained cop, she should know how to read body language, she should have intuition, his lying is _so_ obvious, it's inexcusable to think the Mike-scene was needed to make her to be 'not-so-trusting'. She's shown to be COMPLETELY COMPETENT police officer during the rest of the movie, why would she suddenly lose that competence?

In other words, Saltpeter is 100% correct, I don't buy the necessity of the stupid, misandristic Mike-scene.

[–] Luke_was_a_terrorist 8 years ago

It's so sad that after 20 years, this post still needs to be written.

I will never understand how people did not understand the significance(which the OP is spot on about)

I think you're the opposite of paranoid, I think you walk around with the delusion people like you.

[–] Mandingo609 8 years ago

You're assuming that most people commenting here seen this film during it's theatrical run. How do you know that the people commenting here didn't just discover this film after the popularity of the TV series?

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FearlessOneDay 8 years ago

Thanks for your explanation. I think the screenplay could easily have made the connection between Mike's b.s. and Jerry's b.s. more concrete. For example, Margie could have said something to herself in the car, "Margie, you're gullible." Or "Margie, you're too trusting." That's all it would have taken for viewers to NOT think the Mike scene was unnecessary. Because frankly, I've seen the movie several times and like many other viewers, I didn't make the connection. She's in the car eating a sandwich from Hardees....and then she's re-interviewing Jerry? And the Mike scene is so strangely amusing that you think the Coen Bros just slipped it In for comic relief. (The only thing funnier would be a Somali immigrant saying, "Okie Dokey.")

[–] TxMike 8 years ago

"She's in the car eating a sandwich from Hardees....and then she's re-interviewing Jerry? "

I get your point, and that would have been unequivocal, but they chose to make it more subtle. If you are paying close attention to Marge you see her body language and facial expressions that make the connection more subtly. And because so many miss that connection I started this thread.

..*.. TxMike ..*..

[–] FearlessOneDay 8 years ago

Thank you for doing that.

[–] avortac4 (3746) 3 years ago

" Margie could have said something to herself in the car, "Margie, you're gullible." Or "Margie, you're too trusting."

This sounds like something that would happen in a bad cartoon or typical romantic comedy. It's extremely unrealistic and unbelievable, and completely out-of-character. Don't have a character talk to themselves unless it's absolutely necessary. It wasn't.

The whole Mike-scene STILL doesn't make sense, for reasons I already mentioned in this thread, and for the reasons Saltpeter mentioned in his great post before me.

[–] jevicci (163) 4 years ago

Really? You think an intelligent policewoman like Marge would need this experience with an old high school friend to suspect that someone might lie to her, especially someone acting as obviously suspicious as Jerry was in that initial interview? That makes no sense to me.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 4 years ago

I think it's legitimate that Marge would let Jerry "slip by" at first because he wasn't a target. She was just tracing the car back to its possible source, Shep Proudfoot. At that point, she'd have no reason to suspect Jerry, so her antennae wouldn't be as sensitive.

Of course, WE know, at that point, how sleazy Jerry actually is.

I liken it to her interviewing a random witness for background information.

[–] avortac4 (3746) 3 years ago

"I think it's legitimate that Marge would let Jerry "slip by" at first because he wasn't a target. She was just tracing the car back to its possible source, Shep Proudfoot. At that point, she'd have no reason to suspect Jerry, so her antennae wouldn't be as sensitive."

I think your thought process is wrong. It's definitely not legitimate, a police officer is not supposed to switch their training off to let someone 'slip by' based on whether they're a "target" (what do you even mean by this, a SUSPECT, maybe?) or not. No matter what she's doing, her every single interaction with every single entity should have her training on, and anything suspicious should've been noticed and noted.

She shouldn't need a 'reminder' that she's not supposed to trust people when she's investigating, she should always keep everything as a possibility.

"Of course, WE know, at that point, how sleazy Jerry actually is."

Regardless of what we know or what she knows, Jerry is behaving extremely suspiciously and a trained police officer would have ALARM BELLS RINGING SUPER LOUD IN HER HEAD at this point. You can't explain your way out of this with such a flimsy rationalization.

"I liken it to her interviewing a random witness for background information. "

So what? This shouldn't change anything. It shouldn't matter to a police WHO they're talking to or what reason - the police is there to get info and truth, and that means they should notice EVERY SINGLE suspicious sign, including body language, tone of voice, fidgety nervousness, etc. etc.

Sorry to say, but you failed to rationalize an unreasonable point.

[–] avortac4 (3746) 3 years ago

"Really? You think an intelligent policewoman like Marge would need this experience with an old high school friend to suspect that someone might lie to her, especially someone acting as obviously suspicious as Jerry was in that initial interview? That makes no sense to me."

Is it necessary to mention 'policewoman'? Why are women always pedestalized, can't we EVER treat a woman just as a police officer, as equality would demand, or do we always have to make a special mention to her vaggy? Come on, I am so sick of this crap. Treat people as human beings regardless of their genitalia already!

Anyway, other than that, I agree with you - regardless of her (questionable) 'intelligence', she is a trained and competent police officer, and _IF_ she just accepted Jerry's stuff without even slight doubt, it's complete contradiction to her character and a bad police work.

The only thing I can think of her letting 'slip by' is when she's out of duty, letting her guard down and being in a private situation, and an 'adorable guy' explaining things, fine. She's not a 'police officer' in that situation basically, so 'she's allowed to unreasonably trust someone she knows (a friend of sorts)' - but for Jerry's situation, that doesn't make any sense.

[–] jevicci (163) 3 years ago

I called her a policewoman because that's what she is. Where's the pedestal or mention of her vagina? Referring to her as a police officer is fine as well. I don't care. You're the one who's fixated on gender here and reading more into the word than is called for.

[–] legnadibrom (6248) 3 years ago

sir, 2021 would like a word with you

[–] jevicci (163) 3 years ago

What does that mean?

[–] legnadibrom (6248) 3 years ago

excuse me sir, your post count is too low for me to answer your question

[–] phifty2 (141) a year ago

jevicci (127) 2 years ago
What does that mean?

It means these people have too much time to devote to the most useless of things.

[–] VanHellion (656) 4 years ago

TxMike NAILS it. Thanks for putting this out there. I have had to explain this to people a bunch as well.

[–] avortac4 (3746) 3 years ago

Txmike 'nails it' when it comes to explaining WHAT happens in the movie, and WHY it happens in the movie, but not in 'convincing me it makes sense', because it doesn't.

A trained police officer should know better and not need Mike to make that connection.

In other words, the scene is NOT critical, and this explanation doesn't change that, so in a way, Txmike doesn't nail it.

[–] VanHellion (656) 3 years ago

Ok, you make a valid point, but when I saw the movie and ultimately upon repeated viewings and even TxMike's description, think of this: You said a "trained police officer". Was Margie that hardened or seasoned for a triple murder and all of the deceptive crap taking place? Some of it, to me at least, she was learning as the story unfolds. The scene with Mike gives her the "a-ha moment" because of how convincing he was telling his emotional story. I still think the scene is critical, if not pivotal.