MovieChat Forums > The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015) Discussion > Torture aftermath

Torture aftermath

posted 9 years ago by shipagan
95 replies | jump to latest

I understand the tone of the film.
I get that, like in the series, Solo can be tortured and be able to run and make flippant remarks just after. Ok.

What I question is his reaction towards Gaby and Waverley. Is it let bygones be bygones ? It was all worth it now that he is in UNCLE ? It was done for the greater good ? Maybe the scriptwriter forgot about it ?

Anybody surprised that the fact that Solo was tortured by uncle Rudy as a result of W. and G. own investigation and necessary betrayal was never addressed ?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wooody 9 years ago

That is a good point because, as I recall, in flashbacks they revealed that G made full disclosures simultaneously to Uncle Rudy(as he pealed the grape)and the Count. During which, Uncle Rudy called Victoria to spill the beans. Based upon this info Victoria called for the plan of action against Napoleon.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thompsonmark 8 years ago

But she didn't "squeal" - she was directed to give them up by Waverly, her boss.

[–] MalouJensen 9 years ago

Well Gaby does stab them in the back in order to get to her father. In her defence she does it in a way, so that Illya has a sporting chance to get away. Solo however is in trouble whether she talked or not. Victoria was already suspicious of him, and he was drugged before the phone rang. I guess that's why he bears no particually ill will towards Gaby - and he would probably have done the same to her had he been in her place. I have a feeling Illya is the one with the stricter moral code of the two men, and being in love with Gaby he takes the betrayal a lot harder than Solo.

[–] shipagan 9 years ago

Interesting explanation. Thank you.
It does make sense.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MalouJensen 9 years ago

Are you ready for my analysis of the Illya/Gaby relationships? ?

1) When I used the Fraser "in love" I didn't mean the "and they lived happily ever after" kind. Sexual attraction might be a better term. You don't have to like a person to be attracted to him/her and there is a sexual tension between Gaby and Illya.

2) I don't think Illya is particually comfortable around women. This is based on the the awkward dance scene and the hand warming scene (and on the original Illya from the to-series). He is the opposite of Solo who is an womaniser. If you notice his interaction with Gaby is different dependant on whether they are playing the role of engaged couple (then he is self assured) and when they are alone together (where she is in command of the situation.

3) And the almost kisses... If you can accept my second point, that Illya is shy around women, combined with some trust issues (he is working as a spy and in league with former enemies), then I doubt Illya is ever going to kiss any girl unless she kisses him first. And Gaby is flirtatious in a very unpredictable way - he is as likely to get a slap as for her to kiss him back.

4) The almost kiss after she has stabbed him in the back and the balcony - they are interrupted before they get to the kiss, he does look up when she leaves the room albeit to late to say goodbye and he does look at her when she walks out to the balcony. I grant you he doesn't stare at her in a lovesick way - but then again this is a spy movie, not a rom-com.

And the conclusion is: Yes there is a "love connection" between Gaby and Illyan, but it is not meant for a main plot, like if it was a romantic comedy - more in order to create a different kind of tension between two of the characters (Solo and Illya has the US vs Russia tension).
And no, if we are lucky enough to see a movie two or three, I seriously doubt the sexual attraction between Gaby and Illya will turn into a romantic relationships but more likely a bond of comradery.

And good question about them being allowed to stay in the same room as "engaged" and not married. I don't know about the moral code in the 60's.

[–] peggygeordie 9 years ago

I don't think a posh Roman hotel would have a problem with "engaged" or even not. It took a lot more to make a scandal in Italy than America.

I don't think what Illya feels for Gaby is just sexual attraction. He also feels a great deal of protectiveness toward her (doubling his shock when he thought he was betrayed) beginning with tucking her in when she passed out ("Good night, little chop shop girl)." He seems keenly aware that she's more vulnerable than she acts, which he may relate to. I think that would continue in any sequel.

[–] MalouJensen 9 years ago

I agree that he feels very protective of her. And I don't think that is going to change. But I stil don't think that their relationship vil ever evolve beyond flirting, attraction and maybe a kiss. Part of me like the idea of them being romantically involved and another part hope It will never happen, mainly because it would ruin the dynamic of the trio if two of them becomes a couple.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MalouJensen 9 years ago

Sorry, I didn’t see any latent homosexual tendencies. But that is what is great about movies, books, music and art in general – it is open for interpretation.
But to quote my Danish teacher “No interpretation is wrong as long as you can argue your point” So here is my argument:

What you might see as sexual tension between the Napoleon and Illya, I see as the tension between two men who against their own wills are starting to respect each other.

Both men are taught that the other one is the enemy. And neither is serving their country out of a patriotic sense of duty. Napoleon is only spying for the US in order to get his sentence reduced (and in order to continue his side-line business of art theft etc.). Illya is spying for the regime that sent his father to Siberia and (as I understand it) turned his mother into a prostitute – he is serving in order to escape his father’s faith. Neither of the men gets any respect from their commanders.

When forced to work together – they fight to see who the alpha male is. And I don’t just mean the physical fight but also the fight on words. And in my opinion Solo wins, mostly because he has Gaby on his side in the beginning – I am thinking of the “Take it like a pussy” scene. However Illya redeems himself – especially after saving Solo from the electric chair. They have two different sets of skills which compliments each other.

By the end of the mission they are back to being enemies in theory. But by that time they respect and like each other more than they respect the men they are working for.

So no romance – just at sense of respect and an aversion to admit that fact.

[–] peggygeordie 9 years ago

Excellent analysis. So far only one person on these boards is reading the male relationship as one of romantic attraction, so I think that if it's true that everything in films is subject to individual interpretation (and I don't entirely believe that, when script, director and actors have put no evidence of such interpretation on the screen) then it's only that she WANTS - I would say needs, given the heat with which she has argued it all over this board - for this to be a romantic attraction. Literally NO ONE else sees it this way.

This is entirely different from fantasizing about it, which anyone can do about this or any other pairing on film, and there are famously boards devoted to detailing these fantasies. But it simply isn't there on the screen.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MalouJensen 9 years ago

Okay so I am not going to convince you that the two men are not in love/attracted to each other, therefore this is going to be my last entry on the subject.

Neither the two articles or the YouTube clip proves that Napoleon and Illya are sexually attracted to each other.
The authors of the two articles are using Guy Ritchie interest in the male bond of friendship and the interaction of men amongst men (which has been the theme in most of the films I have seen directed by him) into "proof" of a latent homosexuality in the characters. I am sorry but it's not proof - by using the articles' form of arguing their point, the girls of "Sex and the city" are also secretly in love with each other - and all the men in the series are just a misdirection from the real plot.

About the You Tube clip: the interviewer says to Armie Hammer (not to be mistaken for the character he plays; Illya) that he (Hammer) and Henry Cavill (not to be mistaken for the character he plays; Solo) is a great team and has great chemistry, to which Hammer reply "we are in love". I am pretty sure he is joking, but I must admit that I haven't researched the two actors sexuality as it is unimportant to the discussion of whether Illya and Solo (e.g. the characters they play) are in love or not.
My point being - you can not transfer a reference made by one actor about the working relationship/friendship with another actor to the characters they play.

My final question is why should the two male characters be in love? What does it bring to the plot. You might argue the same about my view that Gaby and Illya is attracted to each other. But as I have stated in a earlier post; the attraction between Gaby and Illya brings a tension between two of the three characters, whereas you don't need to make it about sex in order two create tension between Napoleon and Illya as the US vs Russia plot is already creating tension between the two.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MalouJensen 9 years ago

Nope you are not going to convince me either :-)

[–] peggygeordie 9 years ago

Or anyone else. :-)

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

You know, I have a wry smile on my face at the idea that you could teach us anything, or even come close to the "truth". Oh, sorry, the truth being that Henry isn't married (nudge nudge wink wink) and that Armie is married with a child (this means beard, natch) - and that in the middle of delivering one straight-faced joke after another - stole the hat - no American can wear one - he perfectly seriously decided that was the moment to announce he and Henry were a couple! And then laugh uproariously at the way that quip set up the poster of he and Henry on the Vespa.

But of course, he would choose such a moment for something which I am sure would have hit the tabloids a long while ago - he and Henry being in love. And then surround that with jokes. Perfect!

You know those little bits of advice you offer us, occasionally couched with the words "you might want to think about that"? You might want to think about the absurdity of such an announcement on such an occasion, rather than chopping it out, forgetting that jokes are often delivered with a straight face (because laughing at you own joke can kill it) and claim the fact that words were said means they were the truth, and that Henry and Armie are a couple.

Perhaps we aren't cowards. Perhaps we just cling to the idea that at some point, you might say oh, hold on, he wouldn't say such a thing seriously in that situation. I doubt it, of course, as that would involve opening your eyes and admitting you possibly didn't quite see what Armie was actually doing when he threw away that comment.

It seems about as unlikely as anyone ever agreeing with you, but hey, we're all stupid ignorant idiotic cowards, aren't we.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

Is sidestepping your word of the week? Just asking.

Are you forgetting that the MOVIE contained MANY indications of what was going on, which I've listed in detail elsewhere, and that Armie's serious comment was merely the confirmation of everything I had already seen in the theatre?

What about the two articles YOU found and posted? What about the thread started back in August by RuthlessGoat? And yet you're STILL trying to claim I'm the only one here who thinks they were in love, like Armie SAYS they are??

As I've said, I went to the movie without having read any of the reviews, so I had absolutely no expectations. But when I saw what was developing between the two guys, it was a very pleasant surprise. I thought, Wow, how bold -- instead of just pairing off the shy giant with the bitchy little bag, like they do at least 99 percent of the time, in any movie.

But this has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was writing about, which was Henry and Armie. Talk about sidestepping - you've stepped right round and gone off in a completely different direction.

He said it. Was he lying? Evidently you think he just had to be "joking". Why? How was that the least bit funny?

No, he was being tongue in cheek.

By 1842, the phrase had acquired its contemporary meaning, indicating that a statement was not meant to be taken seriously

Thanks wiki.

As I have explained several times (and am a little mystified that you seem unable to grasp this concept) - the whole thing was meant to be an entertainment. Everything else in that whole conversation was joking - and that is not the same as lying. But if you can't see that kind of playful joking around, there'll be no explaining it to you, I suppose.

Oh, you mean ASIDE from the two articles which YOU posted, and the thread started by RuthlessGoat? Can you go even a single day without sidestepping the reality that's right in front of you??

When I gave you those articles, I didn't expect to have them used as a weapon to beat me over the head! Thanks a lot! I posted them in all good faith... (that's all tongue in cheek, by the way).

How one can possibly sidestep reality, I'm not sure. I suppose because it's not reality, and it's very far from being right in front of me? Yes, that might explain it.

Hey, you said it, not me.

Except, of course, that they're words you've applied to people who disagree with you. Coward. Really? Isn't that a bit strong? We just don't think you've grasped the way the humour in the works.

Oh well. A lack of a sense of humour is a very sad thing, in my view, and I must stop teasing you about it.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

Why?

Because the whole conversation was kidding around with stuff, that's why. And that's the 4th time I've said that (I think).

It seems to me that if he meant it in the way you are implying, it would have been important enough to say seriously, on a more serious occasion.

HOW was that funny?

As I've said (am I getting repetitive here? Hmmmm!) Tongue in cheek. He and Henry are great buddies, apparently, and Armie thought it was funny to play with fan reactions. If there's a single actor out there who's unaware of slash fanfiction well, they need rapidly bringing up to date. I'm pretty sure most actors are perfectly aware of what goes on - indeed, I think the interplay between film/tv and fans is becoming more and more interesting.

Do you think it's hilarious when two guys care deeply about each other and risk their own lives to rescue and protect each other?

And here we skid off to the fiction of the film, from the reality of the interview.

No, if I were watching an entirely serious film about two men caring deeply for each other and risking their own lives to rescue and protect each other, I wouldn't be laughing, I'd be taking the intention of the film on board seriously. Serious films need to be taken seriously. Films with tongues in cheek need to be understood and films with tongue in cheek humour.

But isn't saving one another part of the job, perhaps? Solo rescues Kuryakin because they're on the same team. Would be pretty unsporting to let him die, wouldn't it? Not necessarily indicating they love each other in the way you keep on and on suggesting. Perhaps more in the way suggested in buddy movies.

Do you go to weddings and laugh uproariously at the loving couple?

No - but no wedding, and no loving couple in this film. I'm not going to mention Illya and Gaby because you'll just say again how horrible you think she is. You're fond of the straw man example, aren't you.

You mean it's only "funny" when it's two guys who are in love? Wow, the stuff that's in your head.....

You think accusing me of homophobia is the way to go? Wow, the stuff that's knocking around in that head of yours!

Since there's no gay relationship (despite the two articles, one of which I had hoped you would realise was just a touch biased, and the other takes a slightly more subtle approach) - only playful, tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement that fans will soon push the various relationships the one step further needed - then there's no two men "who are in love" - in either pairing, which are becoming inextricably entangled in that head of yours.

You need to start watching the BBC show "The Musketeers". There are four men in love with each other. Three wear hats and one doesn't. One grabs the other's scarf from round his neck. It's fantastic. They even kiss each other. (Cat, you're creating a monster here - stop teasing, woman!).

Okay - off to read fanfiction, the only place where these two character really truly love each other in a gay relationship. Or Illya loves Gaby truly, deeply and madly. Such fun!

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

Oh, I see. You think the fact that you keep saying it means it must be true.

It has actual logic behind it - and it's rich to read you saying that, when you think saying what you say over and over, adding more and more emotive adjectives, will make your idiotic interpretations true.

About the seriousness or what you think is the lack of it on the talk show: Conan O'Brien jokes and teases EVERYBODY about EVERYTHING. He was obviously planning to tease Armie, because he had that poster all cued up ready to show those two big men snuggled up together on that tiny scooter.

Oh, now I see! Armie, being far too dim in comparison to you, and totally lacking in any understanding of what kind of show it was, innocently chooses that programme to declare he's in love with Henry! And you, being the genius of interpretation you believe yourself to be, can see daft ole Armie being caught out, and the serious declaration is met with a poster -- would that be because the interviewer knew he was going to make such a declaration and therefore had the poster handy?

Gosh - logic in your world is a strange and wonderful thing - and I'm sorry, but the logic of the narcissist

and no slash-fiction rewrites were even necessary.

Good grief- was there really a scene of them kissing that I missed? Of them being demonstrative about their gay love in any way whatsoever? Is it all wordless pining? And slash fiction doesn't re-write. No slash fiction writer worth their salt would re-write the film in order to make it a film about a gay relationship. They may add in scenes - but the fact that they have to be added is the clue. Just because director and actors must be aware of what is being written (see Supernatural for that being quite clear) doesn't make their film about a gay relationship.

rude, snotty, and bitchy little woman who kept smacking him around for no reason

You know, I thought that's rather what Illya and Napoleon did to each other (except that Illya nearly killed Napoleon) in their first two encounters. And what they said to each other in the café - true perhaps, but not nice, boys. So when the gents are pretty rude and violent to each other it's okay, but when the woman is less rude and less violent it makes her "rude, snotty and bitchy"? Doesn't that strike you (as it has struck me for some time) as being just a touch sexist? Or more than just a touch? Man nearly kills man = fine. Man hurts other's man's feelings deeply with the plainest language about his family = nah, that just shows they're falling for each other! Woman doesn't like the smell of truffle = oh what a bitch! How rude! Woman plays with Illya's big hands = oh help! She's attacking him! It's - it's like abuse! It must really hurt! The bitch! The rude, snotty bitch!

I do find that the silliest part of your whole silly thesis.

And no, I do not feel inclined to read your unconvincing list yet again - but I am looking forward to seeing the film again. And I look forward to seeing the way these three become a team - which, if memory serves me correctly, is where this whole futile argument started. And yes, I know it's futile, but arguing opinions generally is, and it's good mental exercise, even though you have no chance of convincing me (or anyone else) that your lack of understanding of what is being done by the UNCLE team (that includes actors and directors and writers et al) on the boundaries of the double entendre make this a film about a development of a male/male love relationship in the way that you think it does.

Okay - back to real life I go...

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

Nice try, but no. I think he was talking about Napoleon and Illya then (which is why the poster was relevant) -- but when that seems to upset the TV show purists, people keep trying to pretend I just meant the two actors.

Conan says: "You are paired with Henry Cavill" "You guys make a great team, you have great chemistry".

Clearly Conan is talking about Henry and Armie.

So why are you now claiming to think they were talking about Napoleon and Illya? I mentioned before that you were talking about Henry and Illya and you didn't correct me. What was all your talk about Henry apparently not in a relationship and Armie's wife probably being a beard if you think he was talking about Napoleon and Illya, which he wasn't in this clip?

Did Illya ever kiss Gaby either, even after all those opportunities? Gee, the answer to that would be NO.

Course not - that would ruin the franchise, if they were hoping there would be. Unrequited is so much more interesting. But what you say doesn't affect my point at all.

Have you forgotten that Napoleon had just generously gone to all the trouble of making a nice (and expensive) meal for her

And for himself, of course. Maybe he's neither as hysterical nor as thin-skinned as you?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

Not clearly

Yes, absolutely clearly. Unequivocably. Sorry it doesn't suit you to say so, but absolutely definitively.

I never said she was "probably" a beard. I just pointed out to the naïve and ignorant that his being married with a child proves absolutely nothing about his sexuality. For both, it was simply to point out that we don't know either man's sexuality for sure, in real life.

You dropped the heaviest possible hint that it was so - how else could you support your theory that the two men love each other, than by poking your filthy nose into their marriage and claiming that Armie could be gay and using his wife as a beard? To shrink from what you said yourself is just ridiculous back-tracking.

But in the movie, it was clear that Napoleon was bisexual

No it most emphatically wasn't clear - really, this is too silly for words. He slept with two women, one for sheer pleasure and one because he was the honey pot. It's clear that, by the end, he both respected and liked Illya - but that doesn't make him bisexual - it just means he has male friends.

Being annoyed at rude and ungrateful people does not make me "hysterical", nor "thin-skinned".

Yes, actually, it does. The tub-thumping you indulge in is hysterical, and you are far too thin-skinned.

I would have dumped her risotto con tartufi right over her head. And Illya should have smacked her right back.

You would have dumped boiling hot rice on her head just because she said she didn't like the smell? And that makes you fair?

Does anyone with healthy self-esteem enjoy being insulted and abused?

Anyone with healthy self-esteem wouldn't keep coming back to put a point of view that has never had any credibility, for two reason 1)you push Illya and Napoleon closer together than is shown in the film - and of course they are a team by the end, and respect one another, and owe each other their lives. But they're not getting their clothes off, however much you fantasise about that, not in the film they're not and 2) you keep saying the most horrible things you can think of about Gaby, despite the fact that she is the third member of the team.

You have exhausted even my goodwill, BetterThanThis. You have such a very particular agenda, and will go to any absurd length to support it - I'm down to the wry smile at your antics.

[–] ayanami-chan 9 years ago

Lol. Feeling like bashing your head against a wall yet? 

"We're a team, Garrus. There's no Shepard without Vakarian."

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

Ha! I think I've been doing that for quite a while, truthfully - well, more leaning against the wall is how I like to think of it. That can be reasonably comfy and an interesting place to observe the poster from quite close up (if I may be allowed to put curlicues on the metaphor). However, recently it's become a very crumbly wall, and attempts to shore it up from the other side are becoming weaker and weaker, so it's not quite as comfortable a place to view the world as it used to be. If I go on leaning, will it collapse? In all honesty, I think it's pretty close, though the wall itself is far too obtuse and obdurate to realise that.

OOPS! Is there such a thing as metaphor madness? The swallowed dictionary I owe to competition with my brother...

But you gotta laugh, right?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

case

I'm not trying to make a case, oh daft one. I'm just discussing with you - I thought that's what I was meant to be doing!

Didn't you notice that this is a discussion board where we are ALL discussing actors and the roles they play?

No one else but you tries to say that their marriage could be a sham, just to support their completely irrelevant point. How does proving Armie and Henry are brimming with gay love for one another support your point that Illya and Napoleon are in love with one another? No one else is even interested - and yes, of course Armie would laugh himself silly at your point, because it's ridiculous! But this being a discussion board doesn't give you carte blanche to say what like about an actor. So yes, "filthy" was my pretty careful choice of word there.

Can you imagine how exasperating it's been for me

I'm doing my best to, believe me! But getting exasperated over the gayness or otherwise of a relationship in a film? I think that's something you need to calm down about, and think, hold on, why am I doing this? I know why I continue to respond to you - why do you continue to defend an interpretation of a film which is untenable at best, and probing for lubricious detail at worst.

my agenda is to point out reality

No, actually it's to fabricate quite the opposite - an unreality you have created.

I never give up

Hysterical attachment to making a point about a film - not very healthy, that.

I'll say it just as often as I need to.

You "need" to? To do what? Convince someone on this board that your fiction is "reality"? How's that working out for you? You've found people you've agreed with, usually because you've not quite grasped the tone in which they've said it - but how about a supporter? A side-kick, even, to help you "win" this debate, and put me and everyone else in the wrong?

Helloooo - anyone out there like to apply for the role?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

Turning all the points back on me doesn't answer them, it merely shows the dereliction of your point of view - such an unimaginative response from someone whose "case" was disproved weeks ago.

you are getting exasperated

Nah. Grinning far too much to be that. You underestimate my skill in creative writing. It's not much, I grant you, so I always like to give it a bit of exercise if the opportunity arises.

Isn't that what you're doing? Yes, it is!

Well, if it's blindness for me to do it, and if we're both doing the same thing (ha!), then it's blindness on your part too!

But I'm not accusing you of being blind - I'm saying you're imposing your own fiction on another fiction, the film itself.

Why is it "filthy" of me to speak of what Armie himself has mentioned without embarrassment or shame?

He's said his wife is a beard? Wow, I certainly missed that revelation. He was being tongue in cheek when talking to Conan, and was completely shamelessly joking? Yeah - I knew that.

Anyway, I'm off now to have a rather too real day - or possibly a very good day, we shall see. BFN girlfriend!

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MaggieMarlowe 9 years ago

Here's an article you might find interesting. One of the people quoted wrote a book about MFU, so it's not just a "fan" thing.
http://www.dailydot.com/geek/man-from-uncle-fandom-slash-history/

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

Oh yes - that was very interesting. Thanks for that. The "falling in love" happens again and again in fanfiction, some of it quite beautifully written. But it's not there in any romantic sense in the film - it's just there, in the sense that everyone from Ritchie on downwards must have realised what fans would do with the characters later.

Some of the best fiction around, and it's all free folks! Supernatural, Musketeers, Man From Uncle -- and many, many more. What a joy. And mostly, apparently, written by women to be generously shared for free with whoever wants to read it. I think it's an incredibly positive thing to do.

There's a great book that I have somewhere, called The Spock Effect, which explains very well the appeal of the remote, apparently repressed character.

Thanks for that.

[–] MaggieMarlowe 9 years ago

As I said earlier in the thread, I don't see them as "in love" as BetterThanThis does, but I think there is some definite subtext. I can see Ritchie giving a bit of a wink to the history.

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

Oh yes - to the history, and probably to what he knows will come in the future as the fans crack their knuckles and apply themselves to their keyboards.

And one cannot doubt they knew exactly what they were doing with the jokes, either, some of which barely qualifies as subtext!

[–] MaggieMarlowe 9 years ago

That top/bottom line made me go "Whoa, did I just hear that?" 

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

Oh yes! Of course, the innuendo isn't confined to Illya and Napoleon - there's a number of choice moments for Illya, Gaby and Napoleon.

[–] ayanami-chan 9 years ago

"All turned on now?"

"We're a team, Garrus. There's no Shepard without Vakarian."

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

Oh yes! Thanks! Since I'm in the UK, I'm not receiving my DVD until next week, I think it is. So that's a moment I can look forward to.

Napoleon's face was a treat - he seemed to be thoroughly enjoying their embarrassment.

I think fondly of the way Illya rubs his hands together - and what's the wording of the joke about him getting lost?

[–] Ambrosia-I 9 years ago

Gaby: What are you doing down there?
Illya: Trying not to get lost.

I'm in the UK, too. I'll definitely be getting the DVD. Can't wait.

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

Oh yes!

Poor Illya, lost when it comes to Gaby ...

Got my amazon notification yesterday - now getting excited.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ayanami-chan 9 years ago

You know, I've been around this board since shortly after the movie's release and by now it's become kind of a running gag here to see poster after poster argue this point with BetterThanThis, without being able to convince her that she has is - plainly and simply - wrong!

I gave it shot myself for a while, but I actually put her on ignore by now as she's a fricking broken record in that regard and doesn't get even the basic separation between actor and character that you, like many others before you, have pointed out. Granted, I think she was already on this track before she'd ever seen that interview, but ever since she keeps clinging onto it like some indisputable proof to her precious theory.

Word of advice, keep to your statement and really don't argue this any further with her. You'll have better chances of talking sense into your bedroom wall. 

"We're a team, Garrus. There's no Shepard without Vakarian."

[–] wooody 9 years ago

AMEN! After I posted the interview with the director who directly addressed this issue and she STILL rationalized her way through the black & white evidence..I too gave up. I actually question her sanity.

She would make a tremendous insurance saleswoman.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ambrosia-I 9 years ago

I don't think anyone has denied that there are homoerotic elements in the film, which include some of the cheeky double entendres and particularly the scene in the dress shop. What there isn't are any openly gay scenes where the two men embrace or have sex or declare their love for one another. That particular poster seems to equate homoeroticism with homosexuality - not the same thing at all.

I put her on ignore long ago. I got tired of her repetitive posts.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DBLurker 9 years ago

He was acting more like a father or a brother to her, like when she got drunk and passed out.

Try getting out of your basement to learn how to read people.

Their relationship evolved to "romantic" during the drunk wrestling itself. You must live in your own bubble if that all looked brotherly to you. FFS, do you need a sign saying "THESE TWO WANT TO KISS AND *beep* EACH OTHERS BRAINS OUT."?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ayanami-chan 9 years ago

Lol! Trust me, in this specific case even that wouldn't have helped.

"We're a team, Garrus. There's no Shepard without Vakarian."

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Maryjnberry 9 years ago

The relationship between Ilya the Russian agent and Gaby is the same as any romance book, where the parties really pretend to hate each other until they don't, then they fall in love and the story goes on...classic hate/love scenario....also did you ever hear of the swinging 60's? Everyone was involved no one looked twice at an unmarried couple especially in Europe where they were staying, I know because I grew up in the 1960's and believe me it was not as straight laced as you would like to think. The fashions depict a lTer time that 1965 perhaps 1967 or so when all inhibitions went right out the window!

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wooody 9 years ago

You are an embarrassment.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Maryjnberry 9 years ago

Well, yeah, the original Man from UNCLE had Napolean Solo and Ilya Kuryaghan(sp.) so reliant on each other it became a silent bromance. We will see if that continues here, it is obvious that they were competing on their spy brilliance with each other the whole movie (at the same time as trying to one up each other) in the next installment. Do I believe that they are heading for a (romantic)relationship....nah! both are too intent on doing the other in after all it's a competition between Russia and America Cold War and all that...😍

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Maryjnberry 9 years ago

Go ahead, think what you like, but my thoughts are the same, that Illya will continue as he has done, becoming closer to both of his partners, but still holding himself back, you may remember, at the first of the movie when his childhood was outlined by Solo, as being one of structure and dependence on the KGB, who as you may know or not used brainwashing of young orphans in completing various assignments, including embedding themselves in American life (like Salt, the movie with Jolie) until a code word is spoken or passed and then terrorism is then carried out by the embedded KGB agent. All of this is one of a number of precedents used by the current day terrorist organizations.
Do I think that Guy Ritchie would write his Russian agent in as you suggest....maybe...but probably not in this instance, this is how sequels get made leaving us wondering from one movie to the next what will happen next! All I say is leave your options open don't settle for one explanation just because you want it to be that way, surprises are very likely in store for all of us....including you!😘

[–] jpogi 9 years ago

Same as the posters above me. I think he was in love with Gaby. It was his moral sense of duty that prevented him from Gaby's advances.

"And that was even before she had betrayed him and stabbed him in the back."
Um, it was explained in the movie, Gaby gave him just enough time to escape.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hurry_up_N_buy 9 years ago

She tried to kiss him three different times and he wouldn't kiss her back, even though he certainly could have each time, if he'd wanted to.

Huh? I just finished watching this movie about 10 minutes ago and this statement is so mind boggling.
All 3 of those kisses were interrupted, it wasn't a matter of him not wanting to. 1st time; she's drunk and on top of him. He's hesitant, to say the most, but doesn't throw her off of him, had he had done that, well, then you would have had an indication of him "not wanting to," but he didn't. The guy's eyes were nearly closed, with his lips perched in anticipation of a kiss and they opened back up widely when she passed out next to his head instead of kissing him. 2nd time; both (sober) parties are both equally more willing but are interrupted by Solo. 3rd time; they both, literally and clearly, go as far as to simultaneously lean in for the kiss and are interrupted by the bell hop. I don't know what the relationships are in the other respective forms of this story, I don't know what the actors sexual orientations' are (nor do I care,) but in this movie, there was a definite sexual desire and tension between both Illya and Gaby. It seems to me that you are assigning romantic motive to the contrary of what is represented on screen.

You could certainly argue that Iilya and Solo are bi-sexual and have an attraction to each other, I don't necessarily agree but that notion would add an interesting layer of depth to the dynamic of the relationship between these characters. However, to say that there is no implied sexual attraction between Iilya and Gaby i sjust wrong, based on the body language and dialogue presented on screen. Simply put - you want it to be the way you say it is because it makes the movie that much better for you.

People hate what's popular and people jump on bandwagons. The rest of us are in the middle. Done.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

Simply put - you want it to be the way you say it is because it makes the movie that much better for you.

Simply and accurately put, if I may say so - as is the rest of your interpretation.

My advice, for what it's worth - unless you enjoy arguing with a brick wall, leave it at that. You'll never get the person concerned to agree with you, even though I (and I venture to say, most others) see the relationships just as you did.

However, if you want to try to make the agenda-driven person change their tune please, be my guest.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

Exactly! Gee, CatPetal, your case gets weaker by the minute.....

Because someone can see Illya and Napoleon as bisexual and attracted to each other?

Hardly the full-blown love affair you've been pushing for, pal.

And, for nth time, I don't claim to have anything as posh as a case. I just saw the film and know that while these two are certainly enjoying their bromance very much, that's all that was intended in the film. As for someone else saying something - so what? One person conceding there might be a bromance going on is what I saw in the film too. If they need to throw in the word "bisexual", well, since you believe nearly every man you've ever met is either bisexual or gay, I'm hardly surprised you think this is some kind of victory.

I don't mind in the least what kind of relationship they have - I'll happily read any species of relationship being produced by the fanfiction writers - it's just not a full-blown love affair in the film.

As for re-posting all the threads - I can read and remember, you know -- you don't have yet again to draw attention to it all. I could post all the threads where people disagree with you, and think your points are not supported by the film, salacious or somewhat daft. But I won't, since I'm not trying to assemble a case. I'm just saying what is going on in the film, which is far more playful about sexual and non-sexual attraction than you can ever see.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MydnightRose 9 years ago

Lol this is entertaining...just wanted to drop some commentary on the various convos going on in here. I don't find Gaby attractive in the least... I'm actually surprised she was the leading lady in a spy film. Illya clearly had feelings for her and if the series continued they would have ended up together. The homoeroticism in the movie was tongue and cheek and I like how all involved embraced it with a "yeah we know wht everyone is going to think" kind of mentality.

 Superman & Wonder Woman

[–] thompsonmark 8 years ago

Huh? I am mystified at how you could possibly say "There wasn't ONE SINGLE THING to suggest he was ever...." Granted, "in love" is too strong a phrase (they never even kissed), but it was blatantly, patently obvious that they shared a very strong, *mutual* attraction.

Here's just one thing (of many): His desire for, and attraction to, her was like a flashing neon sign when he adjusted the tracking device strapped to her thigh.

What you describe as "She tried to kiss him..." was obvious to me that they very much wanted to kiss each other, but were interrupted (by Solo, by the bellhop, etc.).

What you describe as her being "rude and abusive" I wholly take as her trying to get his attention and manifesting sexual frustration. Their "wrestling match" in the hotel room was clearly romantic/sexual energy finding a different outlet. (I still remember the bloody nose a girl in grade school gave me because she liked me.)

Assigning blame to her because she "betrayed him and stabbed him in the back" is misplaced -- she was ordered to give them up by her boss Waverly.

He didn't ignore her at all. Throughout, he was trying not to let his romantic feelings subvert his mission for Mother Russia. Your statement about him not looking up while on the phone when she left is just wrong. His back was turned when she exited. When he had the caller hold and turned to talk to her, she was gone.

This is all very typical romantic/sexual tension, which is a staple component of story telling, and I really can't understand what's led you to having such a (in my opinion) grossly skewed view of the obvious, more-or-less-standard-fare romantic elements of this film.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thompsonmark 8 years ago

I assumed nothing. I simply saw what to me was obvious.

Between this and several other of your posts about this subject in this film, it's clear you have some sort of personal "thing" about it, and are seeing it through an unusual (I believe very skewed) prism.

But, your opinion is as valuable as mine. I'm glad we both enjoyed the film. :)

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shipagan 9 years ago

Hi Mario. Thank you for your explanation.
I get your CIA training/low intensity torture point.

As for Gaby, strangely enough, I don't think Solo was after her, even if he is a womanizer. It's not a diss against Miss Teller. It just seem to me their rapport was professional.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catpetal-1 9 years ago

To be modern

Could I just say - it's not about being "modern". Many 60s series had a male-female team, or a male-male-female team. The ones that come to mind immediately are "The Avengers" and "The Champions" - the latter having the same two-men-for-one-woman ratio as this film. British soaps have a tradition of strong women - Coronation street, for example. There are others - it's too early in the morning to drag them out of my brain.

The 60s wasn't the dark ages, or a time when theme tunes were rubbish (I believe I remember you mentioning them previously) and shows were primitive and barely watchable. They were fun, entertaining and pushed hard at the envelope of what had been acceptable on tv. They did what they could with special effects on the money available, and Man From Uncle was particularly inventive -- as was, of course, Star Trek. And if Uhuru didn't begin as a strong female she certainly became one as the years went on.

It's also worth noting that "The Girl From Uncle" is also a 60s show, so it's great idea to import a character like her (as gifted, smart and irreverent as the men) into the film.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MaggieMarlowe 9 years ago

The 60s wasn't the dark ages, or a time when theme tunes were rubbish (I believe I remember you mentioning them previously) and shows were primitive and barely watchable. They were fun, entertaining and pushed hard at the envelope of what had been acceptable on tv. They did what they could with special effects on the money available, and Man From Uncle was particularly inventive -- as was, of course, Star Trek.

A lot of TV shows (and movies) of the past look bad when viewing them with a modern eye, but like you say, they were fun and entertaining, which I think is the most important thing in the end.

[–] Ambrosia-I 9 years ago

I love Diana Rigg as Emma Peel. I think she's the most beautiful and cool heroine ever! She's my favourite of The Avengers women. Sadly, the recent film somehow didn't work. I think Ralph Fiennes is wonderful, but he wasn't Steed. Don't know what went wrong.

[–] MaggieMarlowe 9 years ago

That film was strange. I'm still not sure what to make of it.

[–] eighteen_percent_gray 9 years ago

I think I'm the only one who liked that movie. All the complaints mentioned that the characters were too aloof. I think it worked. I still remember Uma Thurman getting caught in what amounted to a maze. She would find her way to a certain point, then realize she had already been there. She got more and more disturbed. I think they could have done that another couple of minutes. There was something at the end like big stuffed animals. I didn't care for that.

[–] signlady 9 years ago

Guy Ritchie is the BOMB - I loved the Sherlock Holmes stuff and knew this would be great ...

I remember the series - but not many plot details (im not THAT old lol)

... but the era and the way the movie was shot - they nailed these elements and merged them perfectly with these charcters ...

The chemistry between the 3 main characters was fantastic ...

the balance of banter, competition, and respect between Illya & Solo, who by the way were the best forms of eye candy to us ladies - another nod to the era of manly men elegant, mysterious, classy, funny -

And the character Gaby- if course she was 'Audrey Hepburn-like' - jyst as the guys were Gary Cooper and a little Cary Grant-like ....

Another example of the films charm:
I enjoyed the fact that I didnt have to sit thru scene after predictable scene of shooting their way into the island compound - instead we got to fast fiward thru it in super fast split screens -

Non stop nods to 60's film making - so fun!

I was so glad this movie did not need to be rated R ... which was another nod to a great era of movies ...

This is one of those movies I will add to my collection.

Can't wait for the second one to see these 3 again!!!

[–] thompsonmark 8 years ago

I think you're over-thinking it. It's not that deep a film. (A very good film, I believe, but not a deep film. Not supposed to be.)

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ruffian82 8 years ago

Should have known when there were over 50 replies this had veered oft.
But seriously

I did wonder how Solo was able to be up and about ---without a change of clothes.

Mom went thru Occupation and atrocities stayed with her all her life...

I was happy to see this movie trouncing Nazism so stylishly.

[–] shipagan 8 years ago

Hi there.

I'm sorry for what your mother went through.

Of course, the tone of the film is not meant to be rooted in realism. In the 60s series, it was understood that Solo could get "tortured" then get up and prance about with a flippant remark. This is what they do as well in the film. It's the tone of a spy comedy.

I agree that in real life, Solo would have needed to go to the doctor and would have needed a change of clothes, yes. Just not this kind of film.

The Nazi part - with uncle Rudi - was chilling and stylishly done indeed. Very effective. But it still was an intense interlude in a spy comedy.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (5715013) 8 years ago

You're right that the tone of the film was not to be too heavily realistic, and that such things as torture would be tossed aside with a flippant remark.

Which was why I had such a problem with the pictures in Uncle Rudi's photo album. I've seen quite a few pictures of wartime horrors; and the first time I saw the movie, I looked at a few of them and then suddenly thought, "Hey, wait a second -- those pictures are REAL!" (I've since read that they were indeed real pictures, with Sylvester Groth's face photoshopped into them.)

I saw the movie three more times in the theatre, but I always had to look away after that. To me, that was the one jarring note in this light and funny spy caper. I really wish they hadn't done that.