The Usual Suspects

DJ did you just pick the DVD? Check it out if you haven't - I just got the special edition - it's on sale at Circuit City for *13.99*. They have a bunch of featurettes about the making of the movie. Who they wanted to cast - and how they got cast. Benicio's character in the script was really a flat character - he totally brought him to life with that accent and all the mannerisms. Probably one of the top 3 ensemble casts ever imho.

J

I totally agree Lee! One of the all-time best commentary tracks.

J

Actually, this movie was ruined for me by my actually paying attention way back in 8th grade English class.

1. What is the point of view of the story?
2. Does the story have a narrator?
3. Is the narrator trustworthy?

Then its all over... I knew Verbal was lying before Keyser Soze was even mentioned. I knew he was lying from the moment the camera panned across the cop's corkboard while waiting for Dave Cujan. I SWEAR I read a story where a man completely fabricates a story to another man using only the items in the room. If it was in school then it was probably a classic, like Twain or Hawthorne. It's gonna bug me forever...

But towards the end of the movie I had a flash of doubt. When Dave Cujan talks Verbal into accepting that Dean Keaton is Keyser, Dave's spiel is accompanied by a flashback series of scenes [previously shown] in the movie--this is important, because near the end of the sequence there's also a brief flash of Dean Keaton ACTUALLY WEARING the Keyser Soze clothes. I thought at that point that I was wrong about Verbal and the filmmakers had completely bungled a potentially better movie. But Verbal was Keyser and the movie damn near approached its full potential.

But I say they still bungled the movie.

There are many people dead. The cops know who the dead ones are. Dean Keaton's body cannot be identified. Verbal and the bandaged Hungarian are the only survivors - soon only Verbal. And yes! Verbal is making up a story that could deviate from the true events in any number of ways. The whole thing is an interesting collage of truths, half-truths and plausible lies. But the following reason is WHY I FUCKING HATE THE USUAL SUSPECTS:

Dean Keaton wearing Keyser Soze's clothes is the ONE AND ONLY THING in the whole entire movie that could not have actually happened. It's a lie. And by the end of a movie about plausible lies it's the only IMPOSSIBLE lie. And where did the filmmakers put it? Right at the apex of a crescendoing reveal of the [faux] mastermind behind all of the events in the film.

You weren't tricked by the script into thinking that Dean Keaton was Keyser Soze, only to be later wowed by a neatly plotted twist ending. YOU WERE INSTRUCTED BY THE FILM that Dean Keaton was Keyser. The 'twist' ending was merely a trick, not a treat.

Minus those few frames of Keaton wearing that hat, the movie is a 9 out of 10. With those frames, I am too mad to give a fair rating...

The greatest trick Bryan Singer ever pulled was convincing the world that artistic dishonesty didn't exist in his film.

Obviously, that is a spectacular film. I was also under the impression that it was Dean Keaton. But you know what? In the script, it wasn't Keaton or Kint. And I like the way it went in the script a lot better. I would like to see what that film might have been like had McQuarrie directed it instead of Singer.
While I was in college, I got totally obsessed by this movie. I watched it every day for a week or so, and each time I imagined that a different character was actually Soze. It almost works.

Okay, now I have to watch it again.

The thing with this movie that you have to understand is, that aside from the end and the scenes with Cujan and Verbal (i.e., the non-flashbacks), that this whole movie is a LIE. Verbal is making the whole story up. Therfore, it doesn't matter if Keaton wore the Keyser Soze clothes or not because it DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Rath,

I'm just saying that if Bryan Singer had left out that scene of Keaton the film would have an honest twist ending. The way it is, it's deceitful. It's one thing to trick someone by providing evidence and say "AHA! FOOLED YOU!" when they reach the wrong conclusion. It's a far different thing to put a victim in the killer's clothes and then say "AHA! FOOLED YOU! He wasn't the killer!"

Without the scene, the audience must infer and probably infer wrongly that Keaton is Keyser, just like Cujan is saying. With the scene, Bryan Singer is not only implying, he's instructing and programming the audience to be later tricked, Verbal's lie or not. At this scene in the movie, the audience gives up figuring whodunnit because they SEE whodunnit. The lie works for the twist ending because everything else in the movie COULD HAVE HAPPENED. But after it's over, the Keaton clothes scene is the only thing WE HAVE SEEN in the movie we the audience can say FOR SURE is a lie. The only other possible objections would be the use of the names Redfoot and Kobayashi [within in the flashbacks] but even those could be chalked up to simple name substitution, performed by Verbal to Dave Cujan. Maybe Verbal only lied a little. Doesn't everybody know that the best lies are the ones that are closest to the truth? Especially under a pressure situation, such as... ummm... a police interrogation? And yes, the flashbacks were tainted by Verbal's lies. But the Keaton clothes scene didn't have Verbal talking, it was Dave Cujan, a cop. And the audience would instictively take that version as the real deal. In defense, some might say that the Keaton clothes scene was illustration of Cujan's wrong answer to the Keyser Soze question. But when ALL other flashbacks are straight from Verbal's mouth? Fuck the director. Some may call it a masterpiece of viewer manipulation, based on the fact that Verbal is lying to get Cujan to believe in the very Keaton-as-Soze flashback we see, I see it as a cheap shot that we actually see that flashback. If we had only -heard- Cujan's insistance that Keaton is Keyser, then that clothes scene would have fit the could happen/did happen plausibility of the rest of the movie. [Though some names may have been changed to protect the guilty.]

I was just bugged by it. Call me stubborn. Call me wrong, if you like. I frequently am.

My #3 movie ever.

And as I have stated, THIS film is the reason i'm a film buff. I never considered cinematography, or script, or anything like that before I saw this film.

I probably wouldn't even be a member of this site if not for The Usual Suspects. That's the truth.

Yeah, that's true. I wouldn't be on CHUD if not for that username, now would I?

But what i'm saying is, I don't think I would have looked for sites like CHUD as a casual filmgoer (like I was) if I hadn't become a film buff.

I have seen over 600 movies in my life, and "The Usual Suspects" is my favorite. Let me also say that probably 400 of those films were watched as a result of my intense love for film that "The Usual Suspects" gave me.

I've written at length about it before, so let me just say to you DJ Dylan that I am glad you loved it and are now a faithful believer. My motto now is "Tell a friend, or maybe 20!" This film needs more love.

The cast is perfect. Spacey doing his best work, the same for Gabriel Byrne. The action rules, the atmosphere rules, John Ottman's editing and especially his score, rules. This is an amazing film experience in every way.

Also, to Whim Sickle I have to disagree. The shot of Keaton in Keyser's clothes is shown during the exposition scene in which Kujan is proving and telling his theory to Verbal. Many films have used this technique of showing an image that may not have actually happened just to represent visually what the other character thinks.

A great example of this would be "JFK". Stone uses tons of subliminal cuts of people maybe doing things and maybe not doing things. He doesn't say, "This definitely happened" but more like "This is what might have happened and this is what this character believes it looks like". Its a perfectly valid technique, and in a film like "The Usual Suspects" you should already by wary of information given by the time that shot is shown. Its the nature of the film, which is ultimately a story about truth, lies, and how we react to them.

Perfect movie IMO, on that I am stubborn.

OK guys, you've turned me around. The more I ranted the more I could see my arguement getting thinner and thinner. You're replies were the icing. I no longer hate the Keaton-as-Keyser scene, don't despise the director and appreciate the movie a little more. (Though I still don't care for the preliminary boat sequence right after the opening credits - I think it would be better integrated with the rest of the boat sequence late in the film. The movie should have started at Verbal's -first- deposition "It all started six weeks ago..." But that's just my preference. Also the main titles were BORING).

Very strange. I just saw this movie a few days ago for the first time, and spent some time looking for an old CHUD thread on it. Then I go to the Films in Release forum, and what do you know, a new thread, exactly where it's supposed to be, on a six year old film. Who'd ever think to look there?

SPOILERS. If you have not seen this movie, go see it now. NOW, I say.
.
.
.
.
.
..
...
....
...
..
.
.
.
.

First thought about the movie: That guy's name is Verbal Kint? He stole it from the CHUD guy!

On the first boat scene: Definitely necessary, if for no other reason than to establish something that is assuredly true. We know that "last night" someone named Keyser shot someone or something, maybe Keaton, maybe not, on a boat, which subsequently blew up. This is true. There is no arguing it. We also know Keyser can work a lighter.

On Verbal: I suspected all along he was who he was, but mostly because it looked like a "big twist" movie, and short of having the police guy be Keyser, he was the most obvious candidate. I still loved the actual twist though, simply because it was masterfully done.

On the Keaton "trick": Trick or no, it was completely necessary, otherwise the Verbal twist was too obvious. You could see some sort of twist coming a mile away; after this, you think it's already happened and don't expect anything else. It convinced me I was wrong about Verbal, and I'd figured the Verbal thing out in the first 5 minutes.

Keyser Soze: It's incredible how much of a screen presence a guy who has two monosyllabic lines can have. Every time his name is mentioned, the tension ratchets up a notch. I also love the way the movie builds, starting about a gang of criminals like a million other movies, but slowing becoming more and more about Keyser Soze.

So yes, this movie is now in my top 10 or 5.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. Hadn't reevaluated that old peev. I'll shut up now.

I have seen over 5000 movies, and The Ususal Suspects is above the middle hump. I own it, I like it, but I think The Way of the Gun is superior. What I enjoy about the fim is the dialouge and most of the perofrmances. As Hammerin' Sickle says, the end reveal gooses you, and I too felt betrayed by it. Frame one I wasn't fooled, though I never fell for the Keaton thing, I guess my problem with it was it hinged too much on who Keyser Sose was. Well, shit, you were either right or wrong, and you feel stupid either way.

Hitchcock was right when he said it better for an audience to know and have empathy than surprise them and have them keep their distance.

And that's WITH a Baldwin brother no less.

If you watch the commentary it explains the whole Kobayashi angle. The point is that in every lie there is always a little truth.

That is exactly why I say that that Verbal only lied a little bit, just changing a few names... it's the only way to accept the movie -at all- after the fact. If not, the film is not sublime, it's sublimated - it goes from a solid directly into gas... Like you said, the significance is nothing.

As for the commentary track Ned Fats mentions(which I never heard) If you are a master of lies but every lie you tell has only a LITTLE truth to it, you ain't gettin' very far... Your lies better be MOSTLY true or yer screwed...