Seriously tho - I’ve been watching this movie ever since I can remember, and long before I read the book. I have always been under the impression that the MiB is trying to “play cool but obviously rattled” under the pressure of Vizzini’s intense brainpower.
In a related note, that whole scene reminds me one thing in the movie that (once I read the books) I did think was missing, or done perhaps not quite as well as it could have been.
In the movie, Vizzini is a bully, and has two not-so-smart henchmen who he can’t even control, so the whole “I’m so brilliant” is more of a mistaken opinion on his part. He’s purposefully played for laughs as the person who thinks they’re much smarter than they are. I can’t really fault their choice, because then they have three different types of bullies represented, and it makes for a nice diverse buffet of evil.
In the books however, Vizzini is presented as really actually BEING that smart, and I really liked it that way.
Point 1) it makes him more of a powerful villain in the book (rather more like Moriarty manipulating things, than Buster Keaton being constantly surprised that he’s overturned by the world) and
Point 2) it makes MiB outwitting him more of a challenge, and you admire the out-of-the box solution because it’s such a nice show of foresight and collected activity prevailing in the face of being (most likely) outmatched in the specific moment.
I think that’s just a matter of screentime. At no point is Vizzini ever really shown to be dumb or wrong as such, it’s just that the Man in Black shows up almost as quickly as Vizzini does and gives him no chance to prove his intellect. I’m sure Vizzini really is that smart, it’s just that the Man in Black outclasses him as much as he outclasses Inigo and Fezzik.
If the tells the MiB let slip had been genuine instead of a show, Vizzini would have been right in which glass he took (and while the switching came off childishly, it was necessary; if the MiB had genuinely poisoned only one cup, Vizzini could not have beat him; neither would have drunk a cup they knew to be poisoned and the battle of wits would have fallen to a physical battle). But it all happens so quickly that, as you say, the outwitting seems less of a challenge and more a foregone conclusion.
Now, the clever response on Vizzini’s part would have been (silently to himself) “This contest makes no sense as presented; it’s classic three-card-monte misdirection – the thing it seems to be about never is – he must have it rigged somehow so that it makes no difference who drinks from which cup. Perhaps his plan is to run me through when I raise the cup to my lips? Anyway, that’s what I’ll do to him.” Never go up against a Sicilian . . .
In the movie, there isn’t a shred of evidence Vizzini is a genius or even particularly bright. He SAYS he’s bright. But he never shows it, and in the battle of wits scene he sounds like a fool. For that matter, he’s already placed himself in a position wherein a presumably expert swordsman could simply break his word and kill him (he puts down the knife, and he should know Westley could draw his sword and kill him faster than he could get to his own weapon; Westley doesn’t do so simply because he’s already killed Vizzini.)
The part I’ve always found baffling is that Vizzini IS, apparently, incredibly clever. He’s lived off his wits succesfully as a criminal mastermind for years. He doesn’t seem cocky as an affectation; he has the bluster of somebody who has never been humbled.
Yet his downfall comes when he is challenged to a duel by a notoriously cruel, callous, and, above all, long-lived pirate and he doesn’t assume said pirate will cheat.
Yes, he does. That’s why he switches the glass at the end. He knows that, ignoring immunity, his opponent would never drink from a glass he knew to contain poison. He knew the MiB would cheat, what he got wrong was how.
[QUOTE=MAN IN BLACK]
All right: where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right and who is dead.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not that he did cheat, but that he would have. Vizzini thinks that the MiB thinks that his goblet is safe, in which case he has no need to cheat. But Vizzini also thinks that if the MiB did not think that, he’d do something dramatic like throwing the goblet at him and stabbing him.
Good point. As Vizzini says himself, he knows he has no chance against the MiB in a physical confrontation, and it would be foolish for him to trust that the MiB would stick to their agreement and knowingly drink from a poisoned goblet.
As for the OP’s question, again, Vizzini knows he’s no match for the MiB physically. Vizzini isn’t merely more brains than brawn, he’s a small, middle-aged hunchback. The MiB is young, strong, a skilled swordsman, and incredibly determined. They’re in an apparently uninhabited area with rugged terrain. Escaping from the MiB in this situation would require more than just intelligence. Vizzini apparently decided there was no point even trying and stopped for lunch instead. Either Fezzik would kill the MiB, or Vizzini would have to find a way to deal with the MiB himself.
Killing Buttercup ahead of schedule would only make things worse. Setting aside the chance that this could complicate his mission, Vizzini (correctly) figures that the MiB is not pursuing them because he’s out to get Vizzini. The MiB is “trying to kidnap what I’ve rightfully stolen” – Buttercup. Once she is dead Vizzini would have nothing left to negotiate with, and the MiB might well decide to kill him out of spite.
Well, the basic cheat is much deeper than that. Vizzini’s entire premise is based upon what he thinks he knows of the DPR’s character. He believes he can put together all the stories and reports he’s heard, and based upon that can suss out how the DPR thinks and therefore how he will act.
What he doesn’t know is that Wesley is the umpteenth DPR, and no one has any real information about what he would or wouldn’t do or how he’d be likely to do it.
There’s no indication Vizzini knows the MiB IS DPR, at least not in the movie. All of his deductions come from what the MiB has done since beginning his pursuit of Buttercup.
He also started with a bad assumption - that the MiB would not drink from a cup he had poisoned.
He (Vizinni) rightly surmised that he could not drink from the cup in from of him OR the cup in front of the MiB… why he couldn’t figure out the next step that both were poisoned is his own fault.
What Vizzini should have seen was that the contest as presented – figuring out which cup was poisoned and which was not – made no sense as a battle of wits, because there are just too many x-factors – that is, Westley, even in the inconceivable circumstance that he were actually smarter than Vizzini, could not confidently predict which cup Vizzini would choose; and he’s obviously too smart to think otherwise; therefore, his chances of Vizzini’s choosing the poisoned cup come down to 50/50, and the Man in Black does not appear the sort to bet his life on those odds; therefore the contest cannot be what it appears.