Wow, isn't it wonderful how many questions and interpretations this short inspires? Kudos to the writer & director. And I am so happy to have been offered for once a film which doesn't try to explain everything to the audience.
As for the complicated James's plan: well, it is surely not more complicated that Moriarty's scheme in TRF? Comparing to Moriarty, James is still in kindergarten 
The whole child thing intrigues me, because it seems to be the central point of the short (I mean, there is James and mafia and a lot of fighting and schooting, but it is not what I think is the core of the plot).
I admit my impression that James has some trauma related specifically to children is a speculation, however there are at least two hints that there is something more than this: the voices in his head (he hear them all the time, it is PTSD, but these "no, no, no" appear exactly in the moment he realizes James wants him to take care of the child) and the sculpture of child soldier in his apartment. Now, one hint may be always misleading, but two begin to give more substance to this line of interpreting.
A digression: I loved how they mad Benedict into a fighter-but-not-superman-bond-type. I remember Brosnan could take a beating without as much as winking and then proceed effortlessly to annihilate all his opponents. Benedict here shows Wallace as a trained SF fighter, but still one which is affected physically after his ordeal and not up to his usual effectivness in combat.
As for the ending: yet again, it is open to different interpretation. Of course, Wallace is confused, it is emphasised by the soundtrack, as well. But his final shock is due, I think, to the final act of Lilah shooting the bad guy (whatever his name). In this moment he realizes two things:
1. Lilah is not James's daughter: really cany you guys (ladies ) imagine a father who would do that. I mean, putting you kid in a danger/ train them in combat - well, it is hard to swallow, but still. However, at this point, if James wants the guy dead, he could simply kill him himself: ordering a child to kill someone in cold blood is something different than to kill them in fighting. For me it was the most terrifying moment of the film. And similarly, I think, it was for Wallace: he was confused and shocked generally, but it was this act of killing that chilled him. And this way we neatly  come back to the child theme which is, IMO, the focus of the film all along.
 

Last edited by miriel68 (November 6, 2013 10:49 am)

miriel68 wrote:

As for the ending: yet again, it is open to different interpretation. Of course, Wallace is confused, it is emphasised by the soundtrack, as well. But his final shock is due, I think, to the final act of Lilah shooting the bad guy (whatever his name). In this moment he realizes two things:
1. Lilah is not James's daughter: really cany you guys (ladies ) imagine a father who would do that. I mean, putting you kid in a danger/ train them in combat - well, it is hard to swallow, but still. However, at this point, if James wants the guy dead, he could simply kill him himself: ordering a child to kill someone in cold blood is something different than to kill them in fighting. For me it was the most terrifying moment of the film. And similarly, I think, it was for Wallace: he was confused and shocked generally, but it was this act of killing that chilled him. And this way we neatly  come back to the child theme which is, IMO, the focus of the film all along.

I think he was shocked by two things: by Lilah killing the bad guy without any imminent danger (like you said, James could have killed him himself at that point); and by the realization that he probably was completely wrong about James, because I didn't think that Wallace did expect James to act in such a way.
There seems to be a bond between James and Wallace, the nature of which is not really clear to me. But nevertheless a bond, and James clearly has betrayed Wallace. Betrayal in itself isn't such a nice thing, but the very nature of this particular betrayal... is horrifying, even for someone who has seen the battlefield. Or maybe even especially for someone who has seen the battlefield and who now wishes to lead a 'normal' life.

As for the 'complicated' plan: Yeah, well, I wouldn't necessarily compare James to Moriarty, and maybe the plan isn't even all that complicated. To me it just seemed a bit too constructed.

 

Have now watched for the first time.  Rather breathless at the moment.

Would love to see this expanded as a feature.

Curls.  As a curly girl I can testify that the slightest bit of wet or humidity and curly hair will run amok.

If I am not mistaken then Patrick V. Monroe mentioned it himself. Or somebody else from Sunny March. It sounded quite authentic. 

Of course! Ben! Definitely Ben! BAMF Ben!

Well, this particular thing (James telling the girl to kill the wounded guy) troubles me quite a lot. I read Q&A with P. Monroe on twitter yesterday and he told something about James knowing that the girld would be kidnapped but safe, since the bad guys would not hurt, because they were looking for him. Here is the quote: "There was nothing in it to hurt her without him." He also said a curious thing about James "Colin Salmon's is the worse. The question is... Is he a villain because he's done a villainous thing?". Here, however, I have to say: yes, he is. There are some actions which are so morally wrong that it is not possible to justify them in any circumstances. Ordering the child to shoot a man in cold blood is one of them, IMO 

Well, the question seems to be how much Wallace actually knows about James and the stuff he is involved it. He probably knows that James does illegal business of some sort, but I doubt that Wallace would ever anticipate something like this to happen. After all, he's totally taken by surprise at the very end.
Exaggerated code of honour? Hm. Maybe James is the only thing close to a friend Wallace has...? I don't think that Wallace has a lot of friends, if any at all... and maybe that's what makes this bond between him and James so... special, even valuable to him? So he would do almost anything in order to help James and keep this bond, this only friend?

I guess it would make sense that Wallace has saved James' life (or something like that) at one point, since he seems to owe James a favour. And maybe you're right, maybe Wallace agrees to 'help' James because he owes him a favour, and because due to a code of honour he now feels obliged to return that favour. And maybe not so much because James is his (only?) friend.
And after all, it seems that Wallace does not have the slightest idea what he's getting himself into. He might anticipate that James is in trouble and that things might get dangerous - certainly for James, but not imperatively for Wallace. If Wallace had known what this 'little favour' would turn into... would he still have agreed to help James? I doubt it, code of honour or not.

I'm not sure about Lilah, I guess I'll have to watch it again. And I mean: how much about her behaviour is truly genuine...? She has to be in on this whole thing from the very start, don't you think? I suppose she was trained for stuff like this, either by James or by other people. When I watched the film for the first time, I was completely irritated when she winked at Wallace after embracing him.

The film summary explains the debt owed by Wallace to James:

"LITTLE FAVOUR" tells the story of Wallace (Cumberbatch) as he tries to get over the scars of war and start a life away from the military when his old comrade James (Salmon) calls in a favour. Unable to turn down the man who saved his life, Wallace agrees to help James, but soon finds it may be more than just a "LITTLE FAVOUR". [Source]

Here's where Benedict talks (briefly) about the film & it's message: http://www.screendaily.com/news/production/benedict-cumberbatch-launches-production-company/5063002.article

I can't find where someone mentioned making Little Favour into a feature. From what I recall reading, Patrick Monroe would like to do it, and SunnyMarch is considering it, but they have a lot of things to choose from and they're not making any promises.

(Seriously, if they've said it I've read it somewhere, trust me!)

Last edited by Wholocked (November 8, 2013 2:41 am)