character - What significance does Mike Yanagita have in Fargo? - Movies & TV

In the Coen brothers' movie Fargo (1996), the detective Marge Gunderson gets called by and meets an old schoolmate, Mike Yanagita. He tells her that he is widowed and tries to make a move on her.

Later she finds out that he lied about being married and that he actually is a failed existence, a man who lives with his parents and has psychological problems.

The character of Mike Yanagita seems to be a side plot and does not add to the main plot of Fargo, the kidnapping and the consequent crimes, in any way.

So why did the Coen brothers put this character in? Is the subplot just there to give a better picture of one of the main characters, Marge? Is it supposed to explain the moral of the movie, which I think was "money does not bring you happiness"? Or does this character have any significance to the movie, that I am missing?

Answer

The "Mike Yaganita" subplot is discussed on the Subplot Screenwriting Tips page, and a blog commenter writes: (Source: Kathleen A. Ryan)

Every time my husband and I watch FARGO (we own the DVD, & are huge
Coen bros. fans), we have the same conversation about the purpose of
the subplot you mention. My guess, however, is this: Marge is
presented as an intelligent cop; however, she can be very trusting and
slightly naive about the nature of people. She bought Mike’s story,
and was shocked after learning Mike lied (and so convincingly). This,
in turn, propels her to return to Jerry (because maybe he lied,
too…and the evidence does point to that business). Without this scene,

what would have prompted Marge to reinterview Jerry? Her instincts are
confirmed when he “flees the interview.” (I’m a retired cop, and I
love that scene).

This was further clarified by blog commenter Joshua Christopher Mills who wrote:

Great article, by the way. I wouldn’t fault anyone on missing the
point of the Mike Yanagita subplot (I know I didn’t get it for a long

time), so I think the observation we need to take away from Fargo is,
perhaps, clarity. Even though the subplot does have a specific, solid,
necessary purpose, it ends up confusing a lot of viewers because it
appears unnecessary. The last thing you want to do is lose the audience–luckily the scenes with Mike Yanagita are funny and
well-written, a definite testament to the Coen’s skill–but most
writers aren’t the Coen brothers.

IMHO, a spot-on analysis. In short, the character/subplot exists to demonstrate to the viewer that she's too trusting of people.