Just saw Spike Lee’s Inside Man on DVD. I think I got all the plot details (I love a good heist movie…I’m not sure if this was great, but it was good). But some nagging questions:
What happened to the mysterious document? It was missing from the deposit box at the end…I presume that snatching the document was the whole point of the heist, and that the diamonds were merely a bonus?
Did they ever explain why Christopher Plummer’s character was keeping the document in the first place, instead of destroying it?
But if the thieves have the document, why did they leave the ring, and the obscure “follow the ring” directive?
And did I miss something, or did Jodie Foster’s character do doodly-squat to earn her paycheck?
One character actually called the hole a shithole. I thought they were actually digging an escape tunnel until the end, when I realized that description was literal. As for the document, I think the idea was to blackmail the Christopher Plummer character, although if Denzel Washington’s character traced the ring, the truth would have come out anyhow.
The bank robber held onto the mysterious document for insurance purposes. If the police ever picked up on Clive Owen’s plan and arrested him, then the plan was to blackmail the bank owner into having him released.
This is largely left to the imagination, but they give you enough hints to draw your own conclusions. The bank owner had spent much of his later life trying to redeem himself for his past sins by being a philanthropist, and in one of the final scenes with Jodi Foster he had openly admitted to helping the nazis. I think that he knew who he was and was trying to move away from it, but kept his old keepsake locked up as a reminder of his sins. Maybe it was the only thing he had tying him to his past? Think along those lines.
Good question. No clue.
Another good question…maybe the final paycheck was to make her keep her trap shut about him being a nazi?
The real object of the heist was the diamonds. Since the diamonds were either directly stolen from or purchased with money stolen from Jewish refugees from the Nazis. Hanging on to the Nazi documents gives the thieves leverage over Case to keep him quiet about the existence of the diamonds. Alternatively, in the director’s commentary Spike Lee says that the documents are merely a McGuffin.
On the other hand, once the thieves have made their getaway, they apparently want to expose Case’s past, so they set Denzel’s character off with the ring.
I agree that Case pays off Jodie’s character just to shut her up.
An amusing note from the director’s commentary: when Plummer first shows up, Spike tells us that one thing you must never, ever do is mention The Sound of Music in Plummer’s hearing.
My understanding of the ‘follow the ring’ directive was that the ring was stolen by plummer character in WWII. The police were to identify the ring and where it came from and then go arrest him on charges of being a nazi/collaborator/war criminal or somesuch.
Why the ring and not just give them the document, well I geuss they wanted to keep the document as insurance, or maybe the police independently following the trail of the ownership of the ring would have had a better chance of a prosecution than some document stolen from a bank vault. Thats my WAG
The Jodi Foster character was there just as a way to explain the back story of the guy being a nazi. He had to tell someone he would trust or have a reason to explain it all, and any of the other protagonist would not be suitable.
With all the mentioning of rings, I am surprised no LOtR comments have been made, is this board working correctly today.
And why dig a hole, they dragged in enough other stuff with them, could they have not brought a portable chemical toilet for him to sit on whilst hidden behind the wall?
Criminals today, don’t they undersand a sucessful heist involves meticulous planning, tripple ply bog roll and a eye for the details.
Chem toilet was too big and they already had enough stuff.
If someone saw them bring in a chem toilet it might tip off the police to look for someone hiding inside.
They needed to dig something early in the film so that we’d think they were digging a tunnel or somesuch and this aided in throwing the viewer off the scent, so to speak. IOTW it’s a device meant to confuse.
As an aside, and maybe this would make a good thread topic, has there ever been a movie made where there were no plot holes?
I see how it is…I post a question that lays dormant for a week; but if RickJay answers, then everybody jumps on board. OK, fine.
I’m satisfied with the answers: document = insurance (or Maguffin); ring = incriminating evidence against Case. Jodie Foster’s paycheck = payoff. But she will soon go out of business, if she can’t provide any more value than she did here…
ShibbOleth, I guess it depends on the complexity of the plot. A heist movie is prone to plot holes, since its existence depends on everything coming together like a fine watch. A dumb comedy could probably be completely free of holes.
I got this from someones here in another thread about “IM”, but why wouldn’t you steal the diamonds and then put them in a safety deposit box you’ve rented a month before?
You find a slightly shady character, get him to rent a box, and after the “robbery”, you send him in again in a month to get the secret box of “stuff”, and threaten him with certain torture if he tries anything funny, plus you pay him a few thousand so that he figures the upside is all with playing along. I find it hard to believe that the bank could get permission to search every box, and if they could, then you send in the next day, before they’ve had the time to get the legalities straightened out, I would presume.