I dont understand something when the boy's mother and father died shouldn't foley have taken the boy back to local authorities?? and when Foley died at the end where was the boy going and wouldnt he have to get back to people to send him back to the usa? please help me out in full detail please!
shareThey were too far out for Foley to take him back, and he wouldn't have wanted to, anyway. He didn't really even want the kid tagging along with him at all at first. At the end, we are left to believe that Shawn is going to make his way north where he will find someone and eventually be able to contact relatives back home. That's what I got from it.
I'm happiest...in the saddle.
BoSoxRule is 100% right. besides near the end foley say there was no time for him to take him.
share
Foley also said when he first found the kid that he didn't have the time to take him back to civilization (ie: I'm croaking). They only thing he did have the time to do is teach the kid to live. And yes, the kid headed north and I'm sure survived.
Foley knew he was dying, and it was all important to him to get back to his old homestead where his parents were buried. He didn't have time to take the boy back to civilization. I don't think he resented Shawn's presence, but rather that he took the tough love approach so he could teach the boy what he needed to learn to survive on his own. Remember, Foley pounded rocks together to attract Shawn's attention; he didn't have to do that. If he hadn't, then Shawn would most likely have died beside his parents' crushed RV.
You might not care for Foley's gruff, tough love manner, but he probably taught Shawn more about making his way in the world in just a few days than his parents had in Shawn's entire life.
"You might not care for Foley's gruff, tough love manner, but he probably taught Shawn more about making his way in the world in just a few days than his parents had in Shawn's entire life."
Amen. I started a thread saying this very thing.
I'm happiest...in the saddle.
The old coot was stupid and rather selfish. He should have taken the boy to authorities so he could be sent back to America. This was a far-fetched plot.
shareDude, he couldn't take the boy to authorities. Have you read the other posts in this thread?
I'm happiest...in the saddle.
it's a good thread. that one poster must not have read above
drugs...changed...everything..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8MGBn3KawM&feature=related
Dude, he couldn't take the boy to authorities. Have you read the other posts in this thread?
DOn't you EVER reply to the wrong post again!
lmao
drugs...changed...everything..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8MGBn3KawM&feature=related
"Don't you EVER call anyone "dude" again!"
Or else what, dude?
I'm happiest...in the saddle.
We've regressed as a society to the point where we want to judge all others by standards that we would not enjoy having applied to ourselves. We like to fantasize about how WE would be so much better in a situation judged out of full context and from afar. We also want to judge all things past by current standards. This is what has kept you from enjoying this movie.
Keep in mind this was filmed in the late 70's. Filmed in a culture where "the final walkabout" has far grander applications than just checking into a "dying institute". Others have given good observations and suppositions about why Foley didn't or couldn't "just return him to authorities. (And to what end? To just plop his ass into the equivalent of kiddie-prison? That was mostly the reality back then. Foster care in its infancy and nobody wanting to adopt an older, obviously scarred child?)
Sometimes to enjoy a movie we have to exercise what is called "willing suspension of disbelief". That means setting aside our zeal to judge things and find error and to nit-pick. In reality if I had been Shawn I would thank the Maker that Foley invited me to share his final walk and not just incarcerated me into a system that in that era, would have struggled to to any justice to the kids locked up there. (And are they much better today?). We've been groomed to think that this is the right and kind and just thing to do with "surplus children". I would take the option given Shawn in this movie, hands down. The character Foley wasn't selfish. (He could have just walked away). He made a choice to interact and did the best he felt he was able.
[deleted]
Foley was soon to die and had wanted to die where he was. He felt he would die in the city soon after taking the boy there, so he decides to teach the boy all he can and when he does die, the boy takes what he learns and we presume he makes it back home. I think part of the story is for us to think about whether Foley was right or wrong. I don't think there is a right or wrong way about it.
"Do All Things For God's Glory"-1 Corinthians 10:31
I try doing this with my posts