|
|
|||||||||
|
What Information given in the Film The Usual Suspects is unreliable?
In analysing the information given in The Usual Suspects it is important to consider the different ways information is conveyed in the film: throughout the film information is provided directly to the audience via ‘Verbal’ Kint’s voiceover narrative; we see and hear information that Verbal gives to Kujan; we see the actions of the story visually; and we also see and hear other characters giving information to each other. Each of these modes presents different problems of reliability.
Verbal’s voiceover narrative provides much of the background for the story. We can distinguish between the information he gives the police, and the information he gives the audience because he tells the audience things that he won’t tell the police: “What the cops never figured out … was that these men would never break.” This establishes a relationship of trust between Verbal and the audience. Although the police regard him as an ‘habitual liar’, we feel as if he is telling us what he won’t tell them – we can trust him. This trust is not broken by the revelations about Verbal’s identity. We know that Verbal has lied to the DA, and Kujan is sceptical about his testimony throughout. Finding out that Verbal has been lying in his testimony to the police does not breach our trust in what he has told us.
Verbal also tells the audience things that the other characters would take for granted, for example, what ‘New York’s Finest Taxi Service’ is. This establishes Verbal’s character as a mediator between the audience and the world of the criminal. Initially we believe that Verbal is not a serious criminal because he tells us: “it didn’t make sense that I be there … these guys were hard-core hijackers.” We also see throughout that the police and the other criminals feel the same way about him. Because of this he seems more a part of the audience’s world than the other characters do; as a consequence, we feel that we can trust him to give us access to this world. When it is revealed that he has been lying to everybody about the extent of his criminality, this relationship of trust is undermined.
We also learn about narrative events through watching and listening to Verbal being interrogated by Kujan. We are first introduced to Kobayashi in this way. Although we don’t hear Verbal tell Kujan much about Kobayashi, it is Verbal’s statement, “there was a lawyer, Kobayashi”, that introduces the character to the story. On learning that Verbal has made up the name on the spur of the moment, we are forced to question everything we have been told about him.
Verbal’s dialogue with Kujan is also used to reinforce the idea of Keaton’s death. Although we see Keaton die at the outset, this is reinforced throughout by Verbal’s testimony. He tells Kujan, “I’m sure Keaton’s dead.” Kujan is sceptical of this, initially demanding that Verbal convince him, and ultimately suggesting that Keaton has faked his own death. There is an irony here – although Kujan believes that Verbal is a liar in this case he thinks that the liar has been lied to. He tells Verbal that he is ‘stupid,’ and “couldn’t see far enough into him to know the truth.” This is a confusing moment for the audience: as we have seen Keaton die, it is tempting to believe that Verbal is telling the truth, but we have also seen the other characters say and suggest that Verbal is stupid, raising the possibility that he is unintentionally misleading us. The ultimate irony is that Verbal, cleverer than he is believed to be, is telling the truth about Keaton’s death, if not the identity of his murderer.
The narrative events that are easiest to believe as an audience, are those we are shown. So we believe that Keaton was shot on the boat because we see it happen. But it is important to be aware that there are two narratives, each being shown from a different point of view. One narrative takes place in what we are told is the present. This is shown from an omniscient viewpoint. So we see Kujan interrogating Verbal; the burnt out bodies at the marina; Briggs questioning Kovash at the hospital; and Verbal’s exit from the police station, with Kujan’s simultaneous realisation that he has been tricked.
We also see the events of the previous weeks in flashback. Verbal’s voiceover narration introduces the flashbacks, and what we see is the story told from his point of view. But we know that Verbal’s story is riddled with lies. So, although we see ‘Kobayashi’ introduce himself by this name, we learn that Verbal has made this name up in Rabin’s office. Similarly, we see Verbal watching the fire-fight from a position off the boat, yet when we learn the real identity of Keyser Söze we must infer that Verbal was on the boat. We must therefore question everything we see in the flashback section. An interesting scene, in this respect, is the murder of the informant Marquez. At this point the narrative is at its most confusing. Verbal is seen away from the boat, yet we learn that Marquez believes that Keyser Söze is on board; furthermore, as the flashback is Verbal’s story, we would have to ask how he knows about the assassination of Marquez. This makes it clear that Verbal is lying, not just to the police, but to the audience as well.
Throughout the flashback sequences, we also gain a lot of information through what we hear other characters saying to each other. As this is part of Verbal’s account, it must be treated with some scepticism. Keyser Söze is an important part of the film, yet as we never see the character identifying himself as such, all we know about his identity comes from the other characters’ accounts. Kobayashi introduces the name of Keyser Söze and tells the five men that, “Mr Söze’s primary interest … is narcotics.” Keaton, meanwhile, asserts that, “there is no Keyser Söze.” These contradictory statements pose an enigma that the audience attempts to solve by asking which source is reliable. Both characters have their own motives for their respective positions: Kobayashi is attempting to persuade the five ‘suspects’ to do the job for him, whilst Keaton is trying to persuade them not to. We must question, therefore, the reliability of any information either character gives us. Ultimately, we learn that Kobayashi’s statement about the nature of the job is a lie – there are no drugs involved – whilst the name, and possibly the existence, of Kobayashi himself must be doubted. And of course, the reality, or otherwise, of Keyser Söze is a question that is never satisfactorily resolved.
The flashback device plays an important part in film theory. Patrick Phillips1 refers to the role flashbacks play in restricting the audience’s access to information. In The Usual Suspects we have seen how the flashback cleverly uses Verbal’s viewpoint to manipulate what the audience knows. The flashbacks also help create what Gerald Mast2 calls, ‘the paradox of narrative construction.’ All narratives, he argues, are constructed to balance apparent randomness against logic, or an element of surprise against a feeling of inevitability. If a film, or any other narrative, contains too much randomness or surprise it will appear formless; if it contains too much logic or seems too inevitable it will appear contrived. The Usual Suspects achieves this balance by combining the retrospective narration with Verbal’s unreliability. As we have seen the end of the story at the beginning of the film, we are left in little doubt about the eventual outcome: the men will accept the job on the boat, Keaton will die and Verbal will survive. There are some surprises during the flashback scenes, for example, Verbal shooting Saul; however, these are relatively minor incidents that do little to counteract the inevitability of what we see. This inevitability is balanced by our final inability to trust what we have seen. Until this point, everything has unfolded as we have expected it to; however, we are left with competing, yet equally strong senses of predictability and chaos.
Possibly the only information that can be relied on unquestioningly is what is contained in the present day sections, as we see these scenes without the intervention of a narrator whose reliability must be questioned. It can be argued that we need to be able to believe these scenes in order for the film to hang together as a whole. We can question the veracity of any of the information we are given by Verbal, and anything we see in flashback, as long as there is the solid frame provided by the present day narrative: if the credibility of this section were called into question it would undermine the whole film, and leave us with no narrative at all.
Notes
1 P. Phillips, Understanding Film Texts (2000) London: British Film Institute, p. 22.
2 Cited in: T Corrigan, A Short Guide to Writing about Film (4th ed., 2001) New York: Longman, p. 49.
Bibliography
Corrigan, T. A Short Guide to writing about film 4th ed. (2001) New York: Longman.
Phillips, P. Understanding Film Texts (2000) London, British Film Institute.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
© Jason Jawando 2003
|
||||||
| page created with Easy Designer |