Yeah. That's what I find kind of funny. Because it works/makes sense in the movie (IMO), even though in reality, I think the people doing the same are total assholes. And I wouldn't necessarily think that Johnson is advocating it in a real life context, although I don't know either way.
I think part of why it works in the movie is because the scene initially seems like it might end with Helen snapping and killing everyone in a murder suicide. So it's reassuring that she actually had a logical and murder-free plan.
Edward Norton, at least, has said
he played Bron as a "smoothie" of Musk, Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos), and Adam Neumann (We Work).
I actually just saw a video on this subject https://youtu.be/etC9bbx2rl0
I like the point made that People care more about protective glass getting dirty than awareness for actions that should be taken to keep people from actually dying.
There's an old officers joke that real generals actually hate chess and strategy games (especially when people try to use them to teach strategy) because they're all set up so you're equal and don't have to deal with any of the real life factors. Clue might piss Blanc off because it's ultimately arbitrary who killed who and none of his talents would make solving it easier.
Which is actually the joke in the movie version of Clue that the movie provides a deluge of clues and evidence but, ultimately, any one of the suspects could have done it.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Dec 29th 2022 at 10:49:16 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.![]()
Yeah, I didn't exactly have a positive view of Western society when within a week of Notre Dame catching fire billions in donations had been contributed for its restoration, and none for literally anything that actually matters.
Edited by TheAirman on Dec 29th 2022 at 1:01:25 PM
PSN ID: FateSeraph | Switch friendcode: SW-0145-8835-0610 Congratulations! She/TheyThe Mona Lisa is protected by plastic or glass. The so-called defacing is only symbolic and the actual work of art is not being damaged.
Regarding the film, I thought the story is too much based on the protagonists' luck:
- The victim of the first murder had a twin sister who is willing to take much risks
- Miles invited said sister to his murder party for no reason
- A bullet is stopped by a Pocket Protector
- Blanc conveniently happens to have tomato sauce in his pocket when needed
Edited by gropcbf on Dec 29th 2022 at 9:54:21 PM
Regarding your nitpicks:
- I'm not sure off-hand whether Agatha Christie used identical twins in any of her books (I think so?...) but I know it's included in Ronald Knox's famous "Commandments of Detective Fiction"
as one of the things writers shouldn't do - But importantly, everything Knox lists was a common Golden Age Detective Fiction trope.
- Miles did not invite Helen to the party. He invited Andi - and presumably well in advance of deciding to murder her.
- No argument here. The Pocket Protector is kind of cheap.
- Blanc did not "conveniently" have tomato sauce in his pocket. It was a jar of a celebrity-made (Jeremy Renner) hot sauce which Miles handed out earlier in the movie which Blanc is shown as tasting (and recoiling from the spicieness). So it's basically an example of Chekhov's Gun.
Edit - Tangentially related, but I have pondered the humorous contrast between how unflappable "Andi" is (and Blanc is) during the first half of the movie contrasted with her (and him) flailing and making use of the Indy Ploy during the Once More, with Clarity second half.
I think it perhaps that (besides being entertaining) it is supposed to support the movie's commentary on intelligence, since she's able to adapt and "roll with the punches" despite very limited resources.
Edited by Hodor2 on Dec 29th 2022 at 1:13:47 AM
I think Helen received the invitation at her own place not Andi's. I may be wrong but I think this is discussed by Blanc. Inviting Andi would malk little sense anyway, as pointed by everyone who isn't Miles or Blanc.
Regarding the sauce, even if handed earlier who keeps that in their pocket with no intent?
Edited by gropcbf on Dec 29th 2022 at 10:26:56 AM
Miles 100% did not invite Helen. He was barely even aware, if at all that Andi had a twin sister.
Whose to say he had no intent?
It's kind of a thing in the Southern U.S. for people to carry around hot sauce with them to spice up food (granted, Blanc didn't seem to like the hot sauce...)
But also, it doesn't seem to be particularly odd to me that anyone would take with them random souvenirs they picked up while interacting with a billionaire.
Edited by Hodor2 on Dec 29th 2022 at 1:32:28 AM
Rian has not said that Miles was not partially inspired by Musk. He's said that he did take inspiration from that 'species' of tech billionaire. And Musk was presumably one of the big ones sense he is one of the big names in that department. It's just that it means he took inspiration from others as well, Wich was already known, his character sheet points out some references to Steve Jobs. What he said was that how relevant the film ended up being, thanks to Musk's actions when it came out, was an accident
"There’s a lot of general stuff about that sort of species of tech billionaire that went directly into it. But obviously, it has almost a weird relevance in exactly the current moment. A friend of mine said, “Man, that feels like it was written this afternoon.” And that’s just sort of a horrible, horrible accident, you know?"
Bow to the PrototypeI like to think The Louvre pulled a fast one on Miles and gave him a high quality reproduction instead of the real deal. Since he isn't as smart as he thinks he is he didn't notice.
Also, about destroying a piece of art. Lots of movies feature important and symbolic monuments getting blown up. Once upon a time you couldn't make a Hollywood movie without destroying a precious landmark.
Edited by PhilosopherStones on Dec 29th 2022 at 6:19:37 AM
GIVE ME YOUR FACEEven if it is fake, if the Louvre pulled a fast one on Bron by making him pay and handing him a fake, they'd probably wait until the dust settles and he is ruined to maybe pull the real one out.
As for the billionaire inspirations, Elizabeth Holmes is another one what with building an empire on selling bullshit and just asking engineers to "do stuff" no matter how possible it is.
One other Beatles thing I meant to note. The song "Glass Onion" references the eponymous "Fool on the Hill" (from another Beatles song). Which makes me think about Derol.
"The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still / But nobody wants to know him, they can see that he's just a fool / And he never gives an answer."
I really enjoyed just how much of this I called month ago in this very thread when the title came up. Something-something 'If that's the meaning of the song, then maybe they're investigating something that's really simple and everything keeps adding unneeded complexity onto it all'. Which ended up being completely correct; The murder is stupidly simple and it only goes for as long as it does because no one thinks the murderer would genuinely be that horrifically stupid. It's arguably a minor case of 'Complexity Addiction' on the part of the detective rather than the planner.
As for the actual film... I rank it below the first one, but not as an insult to the film. I didn't feel the cast was quite as well rounded as the first. Of the "Shitheads", a lot of them felt pretty surface value and "what you see is what you got". Which is maybe part of the point; the first cast HAD dimension and evolution setting us for an expectation to look for it. Much like Miles claiming the guy picked up his drink, it feels like Rian told us to look for more, knowing that there isn't and he's red-herring us.
The entire film is an overload of red-herrings that, because the original was so tightly written with everything tying together neatly, we're sitting there trying to tie everything together ourselves into a neat bow... and looking the fool when we can't. Because, again, the mystery is really extremely stupidly simple and we have a complexity addiction via narrative expectations.
But it comes at that cost. The cast does then feel flat in retrospect. Claire, Lionel, Duke, and Birdie don't have unique motives and characterizations that I'll be interpreting later like I did Linda or Meg in the first. ALL of them have the exact same motive and opportunity which kinda just lugs them all together. No one really stands out among the others except Lionel in that he has the least presence.
In the first, I actually felt pretty sympathetic towards Linda. Harlan had reasons to be furious with Walt, Jodi, Richard, and Random. If anything, Linda was the child he was closest to and the one he tried to help in telling her about the affair. Her being cut out of the will does feel like a massive dick move and one utterly blindsiding her where as everyone else should have seen the writing on the wall. Heck, Linda gets an entire scene and subplot just devoted to developing her relationship to Harlan. I've also talked about Meg here before in this thread.
One might also note that A LOT of the red-herrings and small details of the first film build onto the characterization a lot more. EVERYONE saying "I was out-voted" tells you a lot about the family. Or how they all view themselves as the one at Harlan's side on his birthday. Or how it's Walt alone who confronts Martha or Meg calling Martha without the rest of the crew directly in those interactions. Even if they're irrelevant to the mystery, they tell about the characters.
I didn't feel similarly about anyone else in this movie. They all betrayed Andi for pretty clear cut impersonal reasons and ones that don't say much about the character or their relationships to each other. They didn't lie on the stand because they hated Andi; simply because Miles was a relationship they wanted to maintain.
Which, again, is the point. You're meant to be filling gaps that don't really exist. But it does mean the characters are ultimately lesser.
Which gets me to Hellen. I liked Martha more. Knives Out hinged a lot more on Martha's choices and her characterization which made her not just a suspect/character in a mystery but a heroic character. The movie puts a HUGE point on Martha being a good nurse being what ruined the killer's plan entirely and when she easily has the choice to let Fran die, she saves her despite the accusation made. Martha's character irrevocably changes the story and it is HER story.
Glass Onion isn't really Hellen's story. Nor does Hellen really make any particularly strong choices that change the narrative. Granted, yes, irl, putting yourself in danger to disguise yourself as your recently murdered twin IS something a normal person wouldn't do. But it's... also the narrative sustaining one. It's what I call a "Basic Choice"; the freebie choice of 'Yes, of course the character will do it or otherwise there's no story and they don't deserve credit for that'.
Hellen doesn't survive the gun shot or find the napkin because of who she is as a character. *Anyone* could have done so. Same goes for the other guests; they only turn on Miles when it's clinically and calculated for them to do so. Not because of a character relationship or a particular breaking point.
BTW, I'm amused that And Then There Were None has come up in the same paragraph as Lombard, but no one pointed out that Hellen IS the Lombard twist, just one we're made aware of early on; A character attends a mysterious party on an isolated island under the false identity of one of the guests.
I do further want to point out that Miles wouldn't just be in the shit for burning the Mona Lisa and it occuring with his "state of the art fuel source", but also because ''the dumbass undermined the Luvre's security system and installed a backdoor to it "so I can look it in the eyes". Having it wasn't enough for him. He needed unobstructed access to it. Not only was it his having the painting there and him providing the gas to burn it, but also his own hubris of needing EVEN MORE access to one of the most famous paintings in the world than his immense wealth already provided him exclusivity of.
Which kinda contributed to "But what if the Louvre gave him a fake?" question; he's still in the shit for ruining their security for it and likely in violation of the terms of the contract. It being the real one is an icing on the cake here, but he's still ruined even if it's not.
Maybe Miles' Lawyers could argue that they're in shit for a fake, but I don't think anyone would side with him as the Louvre would have been proven correct in their decision to not actually giving it to him. And, at the very least, it's also the social capital at stake here too. Miles only gets a lot of the shit he does because of the perception of who he is, not his actual character. It's not about the financial ruin but the symbolic destruction of his character.
Edited by InkDagger on Dec 30th 2022 at 3:20:27 AM

Wow that is really fucking stupid. At least some of those guys are getting fucked, like the chucklefucks who threw tomato soup on that Van Gogh painting
"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."