Something I’ve been wondering about for years (since 1996, I guess, when Fargo came out):
What was the point of the scene between Margie and her (Japanese?) friend from high school having dinner? How did it tie in with the rest of the plot? Don’t get me wrong; it was a memorable, affecting scene, and I actually think the movie would have been lacking something without it. I just can’t put my finger on what that something is.
I’m notoriously bad at figuring out symbolism/metaphor/themes in film/books - the only explanation I can come up with is that this guy’s desperation/self-delusion enhances the same traits we see in others in the film (William H. Macy, Steve Buscemi). But there seems to be more going on than that. Anybody got any ideas?
No point to it at all. People have argued here before that it was a key scene, something about it providing insight into her psyche regarding her life or her marraige or something, but in reality it is a pointless scene that should have been cut.
When she learned that her friends was lying, Margie was opened to the possibility that Jerry was lying too. She’s so good natured that, even as a veteran and accomplished law officer, she needed an object example before she’d consider it. She’s a decent detective, but she’s just too good to understand why bad people do the things they do.
I thought it was the scene that brought Marge to the brink of an epiphany: People tell self-serving lies. Why is she taking everything Jerry Lundegaard tells her at face value, without checking whether his statements are consistent with other available information?
I’ve always believed Menocchio and *kaylasdad99’s explanation. If she hadn’t met up with her friend, she would have accepted Jerry’s explanation at face value and gone on back to Brainerd. It just raised her general level of suspicion a little bit.
I agree with Kylasdad99. Without that scene, there is no reason for Margie to suddenly start asking questions about Jerry, and pushing him on the answers.
In his review of Fargo, here’s what Roger Ebert had to say about that scene:
I’ve heard Ebert say that he originally thought that scene wasn’t really necessary, that it was just some entertaining character exposition for Marge, but then changed his mind when he read Rosenbaum’s explanation.
Menocchio’s (et al) explanation is correct. Keep in mind that scene was really two scenes: the one with Margie and Mike Yanagita, and the later one where Margie learns from another friend that Mike is lying. If you’re just trying to be quirky and fun, the second scene isn’t necessary, but in the context of the investigation, it gives Margie the insight to challenge what Jerry has been telling her.
You can see it either way. As a plot point that makes her realize that Jerry may be the victims husband (poor guy) but he isn’t being honest but, I don’t like thinking that Marge is not a great detective and that she needed this. IIRC the issue of the VIN numbers for the missing car was closing in on Jerry already.
It is also another example of ‘not happily married’ and shows us how great Marge has it. Her home may not seem exciting. “Prowler needs a jump” or 'Tree cent stamp" but she really has a blissful family life compared to everyone else in the movie.
Thanks, guys. I guess I had it about half right. And I do agree that it couldn’t have been thrown in merely as a non sequitur - say what you will about the Coen bros., but they seem to be pretty deliberate about their choices, and I can’t see them wasting all that time and money just to satisfy their need for “quirky”.
That’s how I felt it was effective also, more as a character study instead of a plot point. Fargo’s brilliance (to me) is the way it presents the humdrum routine normalcy of small town life, with the unbelievable chaos and insanity lurking underneath.
Marge’s HS friend was just another facet of this life, irrational desparation masquerading as normalcy, which made her own life so much more wonderful; all of the normalcy, with none of the desperation.
She doesn’t know about any kidnapping at that point, does she? Even on her second visit to the car dealership?
The kidnapping is never reported to any police department, so far as we know. Margie has no reason to think there’s been a kidnapping until after she (1) sees Mrs. Lundegaard’s photo in Jerry’s office, and (2) sees her body in the lakeside cabin. At that point she can connect the dots.
For me the scene was about setting the character of the midwest. Everybody is happy and jolly, even during the trying of circumstances. I thought that was why the film was set in the winter. It presented this incredibly bleak, empty world full of people tyring way too hard to be polite and kind. It’s a type of denial, putting a kind face on the situation. Mike has carried it too far, creating a lie to drum up sympathy and possibly some sympathy tail (from a married, pregnant lady who he hasn’t seen since high school!). So I thought he was just the logical extreme of the, “Ya, You Betcha!” personality.
Let’s not overanalyze it. The scene between Marge and Mike, and the subsequent phone call with Marge’s friend, represent the AHA! moment in the movie.
Mike tells Marge a tragic but plausible story. She finds out he lied.
AHA! Maybe Jerry is lying.
Sure, the storyline would have been satisfied by Marge reaching the same conclusion by tracking down the discrepancy in the VIN numbers, but a good movie AHA! moment shows us the hero’s brilliance in a flash of insight.
Why don’t I have that movie in my library? I’ve seen it for seven bucks at Target. Okay, I’m getting it tomorrow. Just a good movie. (And the Coen brothers could use another one.)
