the real meaning of the ending (SPOILER)

Note: This is a very, very long post... you may want to do yourself a favor and just read the first few paragraphs !

First, please note that the New York Times nicely written review (by A. O. Scott) second to last sentence is:
"It is also the portrait of a brilliant hustler working a very long con. "
(link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/31/movies/a-most-violent-year-with-oscar-isaac-and-jessica-chastain.html?smid=fbnytimes&smtyp=cur&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bicmet=1419773522000&_r=2)

Now, just what is the "con", and how does the ending reveal it and tie a nice bow around several plot points? Keep in mind a few things:
a) in principle, the fuel yard Abel is intent on purchasing is not currently active (i.e., dormant, and tanks presumably empty)
b) in signing the final purchase agreement, Abel mentions there is $11,000 worth of heating oil in one of the tanks
c) the script is not a "wordy" one, so it may be noteworthy that the $11,000 was mentioned (i.e., otherwise, why mention it?)
d) recall that we (conveniently) know that a truck load of heating oil is worth $6,000 (presumably on the black market), thus we can do the "math" and determine that $11,000 is a good price for 2 truck loads (or, an even better price for 3)
e) Abel has had a couple truck loads hijacked recently (trucks recovered, but no oil)
f) apparently Abel is the only player in town that buys his oil from Texas, which is "marked" by some type of dye that makes its color distinct from the otherwise (reddish?) color of heating oil originating from elsewhere

Thus, when the bullet pierces the tank in the final scene and the obviously marked (black, to make it extra obvious) heating oil spurts out, we know that the orthodox Jews (the landowners) are part of the con (and, either didn't know about oil marking, didn't expect it to be seen, or didn't care).

Now, why doesn't Abel scream out "those damn Jews!" when he sees the marked oil? Well, by that time, he is resigned to the sub-optimal deal he wound up with, and it's just not in his cold calm character to vent like that, instead he just coldly and calmly plugs the hole with his handkerchief. In fact, Abel has just witnessed two very disturbing things at the same moment in the last scene, the suicide of Julian and the marked oil, and Abel reacts almost identically to both (i.e., basically no reaction, cold and calm, plug the hole and says "call the police"). [btw: it is unclear to what degree Abel's wife and attorney know about the marked oil, what it looks like, and its implications... see below]

Regarding the goal of the con and its scope, I would argue that is unclear. What is clear is that the land owners were in on the con, but not necessarily the "masterminds" of it. There are several variations (left intentionally ambiguous) that I can imagine. The first would be the relatively straightforward con of getting Abel to go "all in" with his entire life savings in cash as part of a profit-motivated "sure thing" (in this case, Abel letting his business expansion ambitions "blind" him to the risk of placing his entire life savings in cash into a huge non-refundable deposit scheme with a 30-day closing limit, while he initially views securing the bank loan and closing in 30 days as a "sure thing"). In this con, the goal would be to grift Abel out of his life savings (i.e., the deposit) by conspiring to defeat his ability to secure financing by the deadline. In this case, it would be a failed con attempt, of course, since Abel did not have to forfeit his deposit in the end. Thus, I tilt away from this variation, since I view the film as a "successful" con rather than a failed one. That being said, I could imagine a scenario where the land owners are banking (pardon the pun) on the banker pulling out at the last minute due to the indictment and/or co-conspiring with the banker. However, the district attorney gave Abel a gentlemanly "heads-up" on his pending indictment, so he didn't drop that bomb on Abel right before he closed his deal, but instead gave Abel enough warning (1 or 2 weeks, I forget) for Abel to be able to go back to his banker and secure the banker's reassurance that the loan would proceed despite the indictment. My theory in this scenario would be that the district attorney was not in on the con, but that someone above him was influencing him regarding the timing and targets of the pending indictments. So, the district attorney kinda threw a wrench into things when he gave a heads-up to Abel, because Abel could go back to the banker and get reassurance. If the original plan of the con was for the banker to pull out at the last minute due to a surprise indictment, that plan would no longer work when Abel got the heads-up, because Abel potentially would have sufficient time to secure alternate and legitimate financing, thus the banker gave him reassurance.

Now, of course, the banker ultimately does pull-out at the last minute, but this is due not only to the indictment but also the gun incident and the overall "cloud" over Abel's business. My theory is that the banker would have pulled-out at the last minute no matter what, either because others were conspiring to insure that by the last minute circumstances would be such that no legitimate banker would proceed, or more likely that the banker was in the con from the get go, and that the con included making sure that Abel was confident that he would get the loan while the con artists were orchestrating circumstances to provide a credible last minute reason for the banker to deny the loan. The con may, or may not, have included all the various provocations to Abel's business (including violence to drivers, salespeople, Abel's home, etc.), but the con did not depend upon it. In other words, we could view all the various provocations as efforts to get Abel to "snap" and "fight violence with violence" (which would give the banker a reason to kill the loan). But, of course, ultimately, Abel does not "snap" (although Julian, the driver does) before closing the deal, and also if/when Abel would "snap" is hard manage "timing-wise" for the purpose of a con. Thus, I believe that the con benefited from all the various provocations and perhaps even facilitated/encouraged some of them (i.e., arranging to store and/or purchase stolen oil), but did not "orchestrate" them because the timing of when things would "come to a head" was too difficult to manage/foresee. Thus, it was "luck" that Julian snapped when he did, from perspective of the con. In other words, sooner or later someone perhaps would snap, but the timing of Julian was "luck" to fit nicely into a credible reason for the banker to pull-out at the last minute. Now, of course, a well-planned con cannot depend on lucky timing, so my theory is that the banker would have pulled-out no matter what at the last minute, so when he didn't have the last minute indictment to use as the only excuse (because it was prematurely revealed to Abel), he would have used some other excuse for cold feet (second thoughts on the indictment, or claiming that the banker himself is now being investigated, or some last minute problem at the bank, etc.). In other words, the excuses the banker could have used to pull-out at the last minute are several, but the Julian incident just made the pull-out that much more credible. In the back of my mind is that the Teamsters manager (of the drivers) could have been part of the con as a "Plan B", in other words, if the lucky timing of Julian didn't occur, then perhaps the Teamsters just stop driving (at the last minute) because they are unarmed feel unsafe. In fact, Abel's attorney spells out this risk to Abel, and without drivers then banker has a perfect, credible reason to kill the loan. But, for this variation of the con, I am willing to say it's just the land owners and banker, scheming to grift the deposit from Abel and simply benefiting and to a degree enabling everything else going on (adverse to Abel), and somehow influencing the timing and targets of pending indictments (or, simply somehow having foreknowledge of them). However, regarding this variation of the con, it was a failed con, since the deposit was not forfeited. And, of course, there's that little tidbit of why would the landowners give Abel a 3-day extension, if they really wanted to keep the deposit (yeah, maybe they thought it was not much of a risk, but why risk it at all "simply to appear reasonable"). Well, that 3-day tidbit, in my view, does not fit in with the failed con scenario described above, but it does fit with the con variation described below.

Which is why I prefer a different variation of the con, which makes the film about a successful con instead of a failed one. Basically, my theory is that the final landing point was, in fact, the goal of the con, and that in addition to the land owners and the banker, some/most of the players that Abel winds-up being in bed with at the end, were in on the con. Basically, the way I look at this, is to start with the premise that the movie is to a degree about the transition from the old generation to the new (at least in the heating oil business in NY, but also more broadly). Abel is the newbie and he is upsetting the apple cart, but the apple cart itself is in transition. Ten to twenty years earlier, when Abel's stepfather was in charge, and that (tennis playing) other owner's father wasn't in prison, etc., a newbie like Abel would easily be "dealt with" (if not made an "example of") and would quickly wind-up dead in the business (figuratively, if not literally). But, although it was "a most violent year", in fact there is a transition from the old way (of dealing with a newbie like Abel) to a newer, less blunt, less crude "weapon" to use against Abel: the long con. To try to put words on the context and goal of the con, my theory is that it goes something like this: Abel has the audacity to disrespect the status quo way of doing things, he is poaching customers, violating territorial boundaries, trying to buy a strategic oil yard, basically he is "guilty" of ambitions to expand his business and do it in a "clean" way on his own terms ("clean", except for the "standard industry practices" such as overbilling, etc.). Viewed from the status quo stakeholders' perspective, Abel's intent to expand equates with "stealing" from all the various stakeholders who benefit from the current business scheme, since the heating oil market overall in that area is basically a "finite" market, a zero-sum game. The intent to purchase the oil yard, and the strategic advantage that that would provide, is sort of the "last straw": how dare Abel attempt to do that without giving due respect and a "taste" to some of the existing stakeholders (especially, the more powerful/assertive ones)?

Thus, the con goal basically boils down to: ok, Abel can go ahead and do his deal, but not without our involvement (see below) and benefit and taste (share), however unlike the old, more blunt way, we will achieve this goal via a con which will result in Abel coming to us and inviting us in (to his deal) instead of disrespectfully shutting us out and upsetting the overall apple cart. In other words, the participants in the con are not only the landowners and banker, but also most (if not all) of the players that Abel winds-up in bed with to close the deal (no, not his younger brother). Abel gives them the taste and involvement that they wanted, that he would never have provided otherwise, and he does this willingly on their terms because he does not realize he is being conned, which is the "beauty" of the con.

Thus, for the con to be successful, it required that Abel scurry around at the last minute to willingly jump in bed with all the various players that he otherwise would never have wanted to invite into his deal, and certainly on terms that he never would have agreed to. And, that is where the 3-day extension comes in, which is just enough for Abel to scurry (after already scurrying for 2 days was it?), but not enough for him secure anything outside of a box of limited choices which the con artists had already anticipated. In other words, if the indictment had indeed been a surprise (no heads-up) and roughly 5 days before close, then perhaps an extension would not have been necessary. Regarding who was in on the con, I would argue that at a minimum it was the landowners, banker, and one or more of the players that Abel winds-up in bed with (in particular, the mobsters). More likely, it was most, if not all, from the landowners and banker, to all the players Abel winds-up in bed with, and up to and possibly including the district attorney and maybe even Abel's attorney and wife. The motives to participate would be varied, for example, landowners and banker may have preferred to either just go for the "simpler" con of getting the nonrefundable deposit (and, splitting it) or not being involved at all, but remember that this is an overall situation in "transition" from the old way but not yet entirely new, in other words, the situation has a balance and status quo of its own, and the landowners and banker are basically part of that status quo and/or dare not "disrespect" it (like Abel). In other words, at a minimum, they are "smart" enough to know that they dare not sell or finance such a strategic oil field without getting "permission" or else otherwise risk incurring the wrath of some enemies (keep in mind that there "ought" to be a reason why such a strategic oil field was not leased or sold previously and was instead "abandoned", and my guess was that there really wasn't a "competitor" waiting to buy the property, but instead it was intentionally vacant as part of the status quo). Now, I will leave up for grabs who "masterminded" the whole con and/or whether it was more of a "coalition" effort. But, my guess is that the landowners and banker knew full well that they needed "permission" to move ahead with the sale, (or, put alternatively, knew that it was in their best interests to not do the loan, but instead steer things towards inclusion of the final parties "providing the financing" on their desired terms). So, the basic idea is that in order for the landowners to sell their property (at a nice price, which presumably they wanted to do) they need to be part of a scheme that insures that the banker seems ready to do the loan but pulls the plug at the last minute. As for the banker, he does not wind-up making a loan, and in fact, "loses a customer" because he maybe he cuts all ties to Abel after the gun incident, but presumably he is spiffed in some manner by some of the other con participants and/or just tows the line because he knows the apple cart and does not want to upset it. The motives for the players that wind-up with a piece of the deal and/or a "piece" of Abel, are self-explanatory. Whether, or not, other players, like other owners that were not part of the final deal, are somehow compensated behind the scenes, is up for grabs, they may simply be less assertive/powerful in the mix and willing to settle for what they wind-up with. Regarding the Teamsters manager, unclear, but maybe a "Plan B" as mentioned above. Regarding the district attorney, either he or someone above him was influenced to target Abel (one of the smaller and cleaner players, at that time) not only with the indictment itself but also the timing of it. My guess is that it is the district attorney himself, since he winds-up with political support from a newly empowered Abel in exchange for a lenient plea bargain (both implied at the end), whether he gave his heads-up to Abel as part of the con and/or to get Abel more aligned with him in the end, is up for grabs. Regarding Abel's attorney, not sure about that, but he seems "worldly" enough to know that moving ahead on Abel's original terms was a recipe for disaster, so he could of been in on it (not necessarily as a "bad guy", but perhaps a well-meaning "practical guy" that realized the only viable way for Abel to proceed was by ultimately being in bed with the other stakeholders). Regarding Abel's wife, also not sure, but part of her whole "gig" is the family safety and security thing, and a secure future, and she is unimpressed with Abel being a wuss and she is "worldly" enough to know you either have to fight fire with fire, or maybe even better be part of the fire and not fight it. Then there is the skimmed "savings" that Abel's wife has stashed away, and only manages to mention at the very last moment after Abel has already dropped his pants to everyone in town. Now, I will admit that with the benefit of partaking in several beers by that point in the movie, my memory is a bit vague, but my recollection is that Abel's wife says she has this stash, either saying or implying that they don't need to take the last loan (from the tennis guy?) because they can use her stash instead, to which Abel replies something like he doesn't want to use that skimmed stash because it's dirty money? Now, perhaps it was the beers, or perhaps not the best written dialog in the screenplay, but it seemed to me that Abel's logic was that the wife's skimmed money was more "dirty" than the loan money (not to mention the influence that goes along with it), so he rejected using the wife's stash (didn't he?). Or, maybe he rejected the skimmed stash at first, and then later accepted it (can't remember clearly, but if he did a 180, it may not have been so clearly spelled out why). Anyway, not sure what the point of that was script-wise, maybe just to show where Abel's moral compass was at that point, or maybe the nature of his wife (confessing and depleting the skim is better than doing that particular last loan), or maybe Abel doesn't want the risk of using skimmed money while under indictment for tax evasion (among other things) but for some reason he changes his mind, or maybe something else. Either way, whether my beers or an aspect of the script that could have been a bit better written, and whether Abel rejected the skim and later did a turnaround, or not, I would just say that the con remains the same but if Abel did a turnaround and used the skimmed stash after all, then the last loan (from mr. tennis?) was not part of the con (or, was indeed undermined, by a surprise stash and Abel's use of it).

P.S.: this means that the hijackers were indeed likely "independents" that were encouraged/enabled by the con (place to store the oil, someone to buy it), but not necessarily "working for someone". thus, the other owners were not "stealing" the oil directly, but instead "buying" it on the black market. the salesperson that was ambushed was standard turf war stuff, not part of the con, but another example of the risk that Abel is willing to place his crew in order to expand his business. and, regarding the "burglar" at the house who drops his gun and flees, well having a gun and then dropping it to run away smells more like a "message" than anything else, but either way probably just "ordinary" harassment rather than a part of the con.

Well, those are my (more than wordy) thoughts on the topic !

Not sure if I got the nature and scope of the con right... but, is it just me, the NYTimes reviewer, and a handful of others that think this was also a con flick?