#fletcher chase

[luisamariatraumer]

Brendan Fraser thread (Eating/drinking in movies) Part 4

Part 1 (read please)

Here we go!

Furry Vengeance (2010):

Eating Bacon

Eating somekind of nut still in its shell (LOL XD)

Eating a cookie

2. HairBrained (2013)

Eating a hamburger

Drinking beer

Having Thanksgiving meal

3. Trust (2018): Drinking milk

[fuckyeahisawthat]

hi!

i just found your blog, and i've been going through all of your trust content. you write some amazing meta and thoughtful pieces! i've been really enjoying the trust renaissance, and glad to have come into it during this time, lol.

but i wanted to talk about your latest post. you said some critics are very into fletcher chase, which also happens to be my case hahahah by the end, i was even emotional when he got to go home and see his kid, because i wasn't expecting that from him.

but what i actually wanted to talk about, though, is when you say in your latest post that "he incorrectly ascertains that the kidnapping is a hoax". because he wasn't actually incorrect, was he? by that point, he was right. little paul was behind his own kidnapping. i'll be honest and say that i'm not 100% on the timeline, so i don't actually remember if when he decided the kidnapping was a hoax, it was STILL a hoax, or if primo had already gotten little paul, but at some point it WAS a hoax -- all the leads fletcher chased, no pun intended, pointed, correctly, to the fact that it was, in fact, a set up. i know this is tiny in the big scheme of things that is this show, but i always thought about that. when gail went against him and said it wasn't a hoax, she was wrong, then, and he was right. her whole reasoning was based on sentimentality, on "he's my son and he wouldn't do that". little paul ended up kidnapped for real, sure, but when the whole thing started, it was a hoax. it's just little paul's luck that berto would sell him off.

also, it really surprised me that, even though fletcher was "wrong" (as in, said it was a hoax and then it wasn't), old paul still kept working with him. i guess it says something about him, though i'm not sure what, that he'd work again with someone who was "wrong" on such a serious matter.

again, i'm not sure why i'm fixated on this, but i enjoy your thoughts on trust, so i thought i'd share it. hope this made sense, lol :')

Thank you! To be clear I think Fletcher Chase is a great character and Brendan Fraser gives a great performance. And I don’t think Chase is bad at his job--I think he is actually quite effective at getting people to tell him things and figuring out what strategy will work with different people (intimidate Marcello, bribe Berto and the hotel bellhop, be civil and gentlemanly with the Roman mobsters.) The point I was making in that other post is that he’s just not a main character when perhaps some people expected him to be (because he’s American, played by a well-known actor, and as close as the show comes to a potential law enforcement hero) and after episode 2 he’s not really the one driving the plot. I do think the story with his son is important thematically, in the same way the stories of many of the secondary characters contribute to what the show has to say thematically without necessarily intersecting with the main plot.

I had to go back and look at the timeline, because a lot of episodes 1, 2 and 3 are told non-chronologically. But by the end of episode 2, I think Fletcher and Gail are sort of...both right? Like Chase makes an entirely logical conclusion based on the information he has. He sees the part of the story where this was a plan by Paul to get money from his grandfather, and concludes that there is no kidnapping. Which leads Old Paul to give the press conference, which he thinks will get Little Paul and anyone he’s conspiring with to give up the kidnapping ruse because they’ll realize it won’t work as a plan to get some of the Getty money.

BUT by this point I think things are already out of Little Paul’s hands. The last thing we see in episode 2 is Paul chained up somewhere and crying. I think the, uh, consensual part of the kidnapping has already ended by that point, and it probably ended when those guys took him from the square. In my mind the sequence of events is that after Paul skips out on the admittedly fairly light security of the first holding location, Berto decides you know what? You can’t manage to stay hidden for more than TWO FUCKING DAYS? Decisions are out of your hands now, kid. I think that’s the point where Paul becomes unable to leave the situation and it becomes a real kidnapping and not a hoax. Whether Berto already has the plan to sell Paul off to Primo by the time he’s talking to Chase in the restaurant...who knows. But at this point Paul is not in control of things anymore, and that’s the part of the story that Gail sees and why she’s determined to keep looking for him at the end of episode 2.

[regina-del-cielo]

Yes Paul Junior, a ransom note is bad

This episode is another radicalizing moment about Rich People Doing Whatever the Fuck They Want

CONSEQUENCES

YES IT IS YOUR FAULT YOU IDIOT

Fletcher Chace is looking at these people and wondering who, exactly, is the most bonkers out of all of them and he's SO RELATABLE

"You're on speakerphone Ronald"

HERE COMES TROOPER I FUCKING LOVE THIS TRACK

[transjudas]

For one thing, he's not clever enough.

[lemonlimeimprobabilitydrive]

“Oh, a business meeting?” *puts on cowboy hat*

[bierki-sztuki]

“Wszystkie pieniądze świata” – “All the Money in the World” Miliarder Jean Paul Getty jest znany z nieustępliwego charakteru i skąpstwa. Gdy grupa nieznanych sprawców porywa jego ukochanego wnuka i żąda wielomilionowego okupu, Getty odmawia zapłacenia choćby dolara.