MovieChat Forums > The American (2010) Discussion > For Those That Were Confused (SPOILERS)

For Those That Were Confused (SPOILERS)

posted 14 years ago by naf-1
36 replies | jump to latest

I came to this board to see what others thought of this movie and found massive confusion over major plot points. Some I understood the confusion over, others made it sound like people fell asleep in the middle of the movie.

SPOILER ALERT!

1) Mathilde was NOT shot by Pavel (or anyone else). Jack rigged the gun to misfire. They explicitly show him modifying the gun (even though Mathilde only wanted the scope adjusted) and give a good hint when he looks at it again before delivering it to her. It goes by fast, but they also show sparks and smoke coming from the back of the gun right after she pulls the trigger. The next shot of her shows a large wound around her eye. The same eye that was looking down the scope. It went by fast, so if you were in a theater it might have been confusing, but if you were watching at home and can rewind, it should be pretty obvious.

Why did he modify it? Either he realized it was a setup after he called Pavel to tell him he "wanted out" or he did it for more personal/emotional reasons (or both). If, at this point in the movie, you didn't understand that Jack is completely paranoid, I'm not sure if we were watching the same movie.

2) Jack was not the target from the beginning (if he is, then only Pavel knows this). Mathilde had multiple chances to kill Jack when they were testing the gun. It is presumed her target is someone else, otherwise she would have killed him by the river when they were testing the gun. It is not until Jack tells Pavel "he wants out" that we can presume Pavel wants to kill Jack and then tells Mathilde to do it. Mathilde was supposed to kill him when Jack gave her the gun, but "the opportunity didn't present itself" so Pavel tells her to find an opportunity, thus she is forced to try to kill him in the streets with the rifle. She shoots some woman to get into her home and quickly get to a high vantage point. When the gun misfires, Jack's paranoia is confirmed.

3) Jack asks Mathilde who her employer is and she replies "same as you" - now Jack knows Pavel is trying to kill him.

4) When Jack shoots Pavel, you hear three shots but only see two flashes from Jack's gun. This is a quick hint that Jack has been shot. At the least, you know Pavel got a shot off.

5) An aside about Roger Ebert's review: Ebert seems to think that Mathilde or Clara calling Jack "Mr. Butterfly" is some hint that one of them is going after him. I don't see this connection.
When Jack and Mathilde are testing the gun, a rare butterfly lands on Mathilde and Jack espouses his knowledge of butterflies (there is an earlier scene where you see him reading a book on butterflies). He also has a tattoo of a butterfly just below the back of the neck that Clara has seen. Both Mathilde and Clara call him "Mr. Butterfly" (although both appear to have valid reasons for calling him that). I'm not sure why Roger Ebert seems to think there is some special significance in Mathilde (or Clara?) calling him this. If you can explain this, I'm all ears. Although both of them calling him this add to his paranoia.

This isn't a debate over meaning or style, but just an explanation of plot points that are not open to much interpretation.

[–] Democracy_is_Intransitive 13 years ago

Thanks for clearing up the reasons for matilda's death, i totally zoned out on that and assumed pavel shot her.

[–] catherineursula 13 years ago

EXCELLENT post naf-1!! Thanks for the clarification. I wish I knew the significance of the butterfly business too. It must symbolize something.

[–] vbelyshev 13 years ago

for number five, i don't think ebert was making a plot point, rather it was a psychological point, it was an impact on jack. he has some connection to the word, it is rather obscure and it can either mean that he started thinking about his relationship with clara as more significant, or that he thought that he was marked and that clara was a traitor. but that point of his review is pretty darn vague. i saw the film in theatres twice and loved it, can't see how anyone could've missed a plot point, or not connect with the atmosphere

Time is Luck. Luck ran out.

[–] FooserX 13 years ago

I think the obvious butterfly connection is that when the butterfly lands on Mathilde, Jack tells her it's endangered.

Jack's endangered...his profession is dangerous, he's wanting out...people are trying to kill him...etc.

X

[–] dunker56 13 years ago

I have to say I don't think it was directed badly in relation to the gun being rigged for a misfire, I pointed out the exact thing that was about to occur to my missus before it did. So I even found it slightly predictable, u just had to pay attention to scenes leading up to this, the clues were there.

[–] chrisasiama 13 years ago

I thought the same thing as FooserX. When Jack mentions the butterfly being endangered he is talking about himself. He was right about that, his profession is a very dangerous one.

I am surprised that there is so much confusion over the gun booby-trap. Jack knew that Mathilde was going to kill him before he met her to deliver the weapon. When he is done tweaking the gun he suddenly has this odd expression on his face. He obviously just twigged that he is being set up by Pavel. I think he also suspected this might happen after his conversation with Pavel.
He probably knew there was a chance Pavel would not let him walk away. I was waiting for him to make a move and when the gun exploded I kind of expected it.
He was paranoid anyway so it made sense that he would suss out the plot against him.

The problem is this film doesn't spell things out for the audience. The viewer has to figure out certain things without the director making it too obvious.

I thought the directing was rather good but it's different from the typical Hollywood style. Maybe that's why some people were confused.

[–] amoviereference 13 years ago

Good points.

It did cross my mind early on that Jack might be the target from the beginning. Certainly, his boss could have been in cahoots with the Swedes. We don't know the history of Jack and his boss, it might not have been so rock-solid. Assuming that his boss was his mentor or teacher would just be an assumption. Also, when Jack comes to him for help, he sorts out work for him while he is in hiding. Not the best idea for jack.

[–] GoodSOVeryVeryGood 13 years ago

Just watched it a 2nd time and paid attention to all these parts as I was reading the boards and it's pretty clear that Jack is the target when he calls Pavel to say he's out - he suspects that it is Pavel but this is confirmed when Mathilde mentions his retiring at the restaurant before the bus pulls up and the kids get off - he knows then that it must be Pavel but when the gun backfires (and honestly folks unless you were napping it is pretty obvious her eye getting blown out like that that from her own gun!) and she falls off the roof he demands to know who she is working for (I think just so the audience knows it's Pavel in case they weren't paying attention) and she says same boss as his .. and then the showdown and the 3 shots (again pretty clear) and blah blah to the end.

I thought the best scene was when he pounded the steering wheel of the car after he gets hit - he knows its over - it was his shot at a bit of happiness but no ... life sucks.

The butterfly at the end was a nice touch.

This film reminded me of every 60-70s French film I grew up watching - same shots, images, stories, etc etc ..

My thoughts when I originally saw it was "ah art French film wanna-be" .. it still feels that way ... (I'm surprised it wasn't shot in b&w)

[–] sweetcolleen 13 years ago

I knew Mathilde called him Mr Butterfly, from the rare butterfly incident...but when Clara did as well, while standing in the river and given his high level of agitation at that moment, I really thought Clara was in on the hit as well. He was rather mean to her then too, so it seemed he thought that as well. And while each women had seen him in vulnerable moments express his butterfly interest, it just seemed odd that Clara called him exactly the same, "Mr Butterfly". I bet it's better described and fleshed out in the book, I will have to read it now to satisfy why they both chose to call him that. But, besides this point - what a great movie!! Really enjoyed it!!! :D

[–] Jermacias 13 years ago

In the book, Jack's character's cover profession is a painter of butterflies. I think the butterfly mentions in the movie are just a homage to the book.

[–] gtbarker 13 years ago

I'd say that's a accurate summary of the points you have chosen, but I'd say they are quite obvious too and I find it hard to see how anyone could be confused into thinking anything else.

[–] tmcdanel-368-414321 11 years ago

.. and the purpose of your post is … oooo you are soo much smarter than ..