SPOILERS!
Why did he kill her?
Was she a traitor for the Sweds or something?.. I'm confused. Cause if he did it just to keep her silent, it really made me not like him from the start.
She was either bait for the team trying to kill him, or his target... but I agree, it was pretty cold.
[deleted]
[deleted]
She was a witness.
He was a professional assassin.
The shot was to establish his coldness and his professionalism.
If you watched the film you would have heard him describe her as "a friend."
The Dude abides.
he was an idiot to shoot an innocent person. not professional at all
shareIn this case, I think that a professional hit man would consider leaving "loose ends" a faux pas to the nth degree and would assure that his chosen profession would have a very short tenure.
The Dude abides.
LOL, someone called him an "idiot" and "not professional"? She's a witness. No witnesses. Even the most basic of hitman type films would have taught you that.
Do tell, since you're in this line of work, what is "professional"?
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/
@elain -
Totally professional for his profession. However, you can strongly argue if his profession is morally anything for him to be proud of.
"There is no inner peace. There is only nervousness and death." - Fran Lebowitz
this one was the major scene of the film, the one that makes it different from the rest.
a professional assassin wouldnt leave her there, and flee, for the same reason pavel wouldnt leave edward just retire, with all he knew about their trade. he killed her because:
1) it would blow his cover to leave her alive, even if she was no traitor, she would go to police
2) she would be killed or tortured anyway because of her connection to him, so it would be quicker and less painfull to shoot her
3) he would never be sure if she was a traitor or not, so, in any case, better to shoot her than to take chances
of course by the time he shot her, he had already used her enough. smart guy.
"It doesn't matter what Bram Stoker has told you... dead people don't come back from their graves"
[deleted]
It was sad to see a sweet-assed woman, in her prime, get shot in the back. The look on Clooney's face as he shot her was memorable.
shareIt was sad to see a sweet-assed woman, in her prime, get shot in the back. The look on Clooney's face as he shot her was memorable.
[deleted]
"It was definitely cold of him to not only shoot her but shoot her in the back." (I don't know how to highlight your comment, thus the quotations)
Would it have been more cold of him to have shot her while she was facing him? I understand him having to shoot her, however, if he were as professional (as cold) as he should've been, he would have made sure she was dead instantly, before her brain could process the last thought of "You killed me.".
Nevertheless, he waits for her to run past him, and shoots her in the back, and this gives her no knowledge that he had no involvement/commitment invested in their relationship. Sounds to me that he had at least a soft spot for her.
Professionals, real assassins, wouldn't hold any doubt. They'd shoot her in the face. Could it be he cared slightly for her, to have spared her 'the knowing "You killed me"' right before her body started to slump?
Ignorance isn't bliss. Ignorance is laziness. So stop being so lazy!
She could have also been used as a hostage.
I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe
[deleted]
He is Unfriendly Professional.
He plays a professional assassin.
Think about it for a minute -- she's a loose end/loose cannon. He just committed felony murder. If you're a professional hit man with bodies on your record that you've killed -- and he's probably committed multiple murders throughout Europe -- would you leave a witness?
He obviously was living under an assumed name/front when he met her.
[deleted]
when the female assassin is shot by Pavel
[deleted]
Didn't say anything about anyones reaction. Simply corrected a mistake.
No need to read more into a comment then the words that are written. Right?
[deleted]
Which doesn't alter the fact that you were completely and utterly wrong about how she died. His reaction to what happened is a seperate subject. I am simply commenting on your FALSE CLAIM that Pavel shot her. Nothing more, nothing less. Get it? Or are you one of those people who's ego is so fragle you can't simply admit when you F-ed up?
Which is it bub?
[deleted]
Holy hell. You made a damn mistake and I did was correct your flippen mistake. Now you are just side stepping and doging the FACT that you were wrong on that one tiny point.
My ONLY point in my original reply was to correct your mistake. Just admit you were freaking wrong on that detail and move on. It's really that simple.
Or are you still trying to claim Pavel shot her?
Yes or No bub? Yes or no?
Anything other then who did or didn't shot her is a seperate subject and a seperate discussion. Stay on topic Mr/Mrs Ego's so big I can't just adnit I was wrong
[deleted]
It must be hard to function with that huge ego. Especially when you tend to be so blatently WRONG on little things. Talk about obtuse, you couldn't figure out how a character died in the movie. Pretty pathetic really. How can you live with yourself, ego and all?
PS - You were wrong. Deal with it.
[deleted]
There's a lot of that going around!
Ignorance isn't bliss. Ignorance is laziness. So stop being so lazy!
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
no no no- paranoia. He suspected she had betrayed him- and Jack simply cant afford to take any chances. He realises later she was innocent.
share[deleted]
He told Pavel that she was "a friend" and Pavel tells him, in so many words, that he should know better than to make friends.
I'm the kind of guy, when I move - watch my smoke. But I'm gonna need some good clothes though.
[deleted]
Not only did he call her a friend, but he adamantly stated that she had nothing to do with him being located.
shareShe seemed genuinely surprised that he had a gun, lending credence to her being just an innocent by stander.
I was born in the house my father built
He doesn't want to leave a tail behind him; shes an unfortunate witness.
If he leaves her she might talk to the police and they'll be a description of him.
If he takes her with him, it will be harder for him to sneak out of the country and get to his next hide out.
It brilliantly set up his character (very cold) and yet, we end up sympathizing with him as he struggles with his past.
Its a great film.
--------------------------
RIGOLETTO: I'm denied that common human right, to weep.
[deleted]
Yes I concur she wasn't a traitor, you DO hear him tell Pavel that she had "nothing to do with it" right? You do remember that, so no she didn't set him up, but it still sucks that he killed her professional or not.
Like many of you that little fact really did influence my opinion of him through the rest of the movie, after all it's kinda hard to pull for a guy like that.
I'm surprised by this thread. I hadn't considered that some might find the murder of Ingrid to be off-putting. I think a very good assassin would do what was necessary to ensure his or her safety.
That said, I feel that scene went down the way it did to emphasize that we were watching a good assassin. And really, assassins shouldn't be likeable. They shouldn't all have a "no woman, no children" policy. They should kill people. And it should come easily.
In The American, I felt the violence was never unwarranted. There was logic to every scene. No shoot outs with running kids. No insinuating comments for the benefit of the "in on it" audience. No deus ex machina. No bullet dodges. No lucky breaks.
What I don't get is why he wasn't even more paranoid. Kill your blue-eyed colleague as soon as she smells funny. And announcing to your employer that you're quitting? An employer who hires assassins? And you know his face, name and phone number? I was sad when he died, but I was also glad his stupidity had realistic consequences.
Killing Ingrid was cold, and this thread has made me see how that stains the character. But when it comes down to it, I think I much more prefer movies make sense.
At least today, I do. :)
Hm. My take is that he already realized that the final job given to him by Pavel was to build the weapon that would be attempted to be used to eliminate him. So by telling Pavel he was out after delivery of the weapon it would make it more difficult for Pavel to isolate and kill him. This gave him enough breathing room to ensure he had a fighting chance.
What I thought was weird was that Pavel himself went to the town to ensure the job got done.
You've got that spot on. And then the viewer is asked to empathise with Clooney throughout the film. It was a great opening idea which you won't see in any US movies. I wouldn't call it a great film though. I needed even more dramatic tension, even if it was more of a moral kind with the Priest - not necessarily more dramatic action.
shareI believe he killed the girl in Sweden (Ingrid) thinking she was a traitor which she wasn't. He felt remorse later in Italy.
shareI think if he thought she might be a traitor, he would have questioned her before killing her since she didn't seem to have a weapon or appear to be an immediate threat. He just couldn't leave any witnesses.
shareShe was definitely not a traitor. He killed her because he does not leave witnesses and he can't let anyone know who he is or what he does. These are the same reasons that Pavel wanted to have him killed. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.
shareThe first few minutes are actually the weakest part of the movie. It almost totally discredits George Clooney's character and subsequently the whole movie.
He killed her and just left, leaving him open to a police investigation that certainly would follow. A mistake that a professional hit man would never make. Because someone must have known the relationship (between him and Ingrid), someone must have seen them the last time they were together, etc, ... He could not have been ignored by the authority.
I just watched this on HBO, and I have to agree with those who said that he killed her because he didn't want to leave a witness, but it also establishes how cold and unfeeling his character was. By the end he seems to be beginning to have some genuine feelings, if he still can't relax enough to really trust Clara. I think that the movie had to end the way that it did partially because it is only fitting given the way Clooney's character was revealed in the beginning.
shareI just watched this and did not think it was a great movie because of some of the stupid things, already mentioned upthread, that Clooney did towards the end. Up to that point I thought it was pretty good, still not great. I was also a little annoyed how he is the best option to create a one of a kind weapon with just a few borrowed tools and not any kind of professional machining equipment, but whatever.
share[deleted]
From my aspect, there is no point on assessing his professionalism. That's a major part of this film, anyway: his struggle between his professional values and personal desires. In my opinion, this is what we witness in this movie; his transformation from what used to be a cold and respected professional assassin to a mature man willing to leave this behind and kick in a normal living.
shareThank you!!! Exactly, what I wish I couldn've said with much less fewer words. Exactly.
Ignorance isn't bliss. Ignorance is laziness. So stop being so lazy!