A reviewer on Netflix wrote that 1 of the characters was a child molester. Anyone know who it was?
shareI think maybe the Tom Waits character? At least to me it seems that way. He molested the Lili Taylor character when she was young, that's why she didn't want to talk about it to her boyfriend. The bakery guy also seems a little creepy now that I think about it...
shareYes, Waits was indeed the suspect one. No conclusive evidence of any sort though. Her daughter might as well have made it up out of her hatred towards the pathetic bum hangin ´round the house, calling himself Daddy-o.
Either that or Tomlin was in serious denial.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
[deleted]
TOM WAITS character is definitely NOT A CHILD MOLESTER... He's more like a heavy drinker who sometimes makes wrong or bad decisions, if anything ,he most likely got 'Fresh' or was inappropriatep while inebriated with a teenage girl who happens to be his 'step daughter' because he's now married to Lijjy Tomlin, and because she doesn't approve of him, she keeps that card and playse it occasionally, as a wedge with her mother, and to garner sympathy with her peers.
shareI'll agree that he may not be a molester, but I can't blame Honey for disliking a lecherous alcoholic who used to fondle and harass her. Maybe he even got into her bed with her a few times while blind drunk and tried something. That stuff will mess a person up for life. Accusing her of playing the "sympathy" card is completely out of line. That's called victim blaming.
"Barker, that is not your boyfriend's dick. Do not come early."
No no no, No he didn't have the guilt or shame of somebody who was a molester You'r Saying he was a serial pedophile I'm saying that he may have been drunk and ht on her one time she has To garner sympathy from friends not blaming the victim and to keep a wedge between Her mother and her stepfather
shareNo no no, No he didn't have the guilt or shame of somebody who was a molester You'r Saying he was a serial pedophile I'm saying that he may have been drunk and ht on her one time she has To garner sympathy from friends not blaming the victim and to keep a wedge between Her mother and her stepfather And Chris Penn is the killer of thei girl who's dead in the river At the beginning of the movie
shareI'm not saying he's a molester or a serial pedophile. I'm saying that he's a lecherous alcoholic who obviously can't be trusted around young girls when intoxicated. I've heard this same story dozens of times. Man gets drunk, can't handle his liquor, wanders into young girl's bed and does something inappropriate because he thinks it's his wife. He doesn't mean it, but the child ends up scarred for life nonetheless. I don't think Honey cared about driving a wedge between her mother and stepfather since she had her own life by that point and Earl was pretty adept at driving that wedge in himself. She just wanted her mother to wise up and get rid of him.
And I really don't think Jerry killed that woman in the lake.
"Barker, that is not your boyfriend's dick. Do not come early."
Maybe he confused this movie with Happiness (1998)
shareIt makes absolutely no sense for it to be Earl, the Tom Waits character. He's one of the most clearly defined, archetypal figures in the film. Anything's possible of course, but it doesn't fit the film's internal logic or Altman's style.
My money's on Paul Finnigan (Jack Lemmon) or maybe his son Howard (Bruce Davison). Jerry (Chris Penn) seems likely in some ways but I'm not sure that making him both a murderer AND a paedo fits with the linear charactisation we see elsewhere. If we look at the actions and interactions of the characters I think there's a lot of evidence for it being Lemmon. The way he can't bring himself to think about Casey in any way, the dynamic between he and his son, his nervousness and guilt...
It is heavily implied that Earl (Tom Waits) molested his step-daughter Honey (Lili Taylor). I mean, it's pretty obvious -- as obvious as can be in this very understated film which does not spoon-feed the viewer anything.
- When talking to her mom in the trailer, Honey heavily implies that Earl molested her, about as clearly as possible without actually coming out and saying it. Tomlin lazily denies this, saying "you've told that story one time too many" but you can tell it's just a defense mechanism.
- Honey expresses genuine fear when someone jokes about Earl being in the same jazz club they're at. She's scared of him. Whenever someone says his name in front of her, she flinches.
- When Jennifer Jason Leigh's character tells Honey about the one phone sex client who demanded she pretend to be a young girl, recalling it in a somewhat joking, jaded manner, Honey immediately becomes disturbed by this, musing [paraphrase] "God, can you imagine? An 8 year-old girl getting abused by some guy... that's gotta *beep* you up for life." The specificity of this and her turning an anecdote into a concrete situation which focuses on the victim suggests that she's projecting her own awful experiences onto it. But really, how visibly disturbed she is by the anecdote is proof enough.
And there might be more. These are not just random things, they're small but telling pieces that combine to create definite meaning.
Remember Earl's a drunk who Tomlin lets in the house one night, kicks out the next, on and on. Very unstable and clearly has some problems inside of him... not at all unlikely that he'd have molested Honey.
I missed the bit where Honey says he touched her. That certainly makes a difference but I'm still not sure. Nothing she says or does, including that, can't be explained by resentment. If she was a young girl without an absent father and Earl enters her life, depriving her of her one remaining parent's attention, upsetting that parent, being a general scumbag... It just seems too obvious, too much of a stereotypical assumption ('he's the drunk guy with a bad relationship with his stepdaughter - it must be him'). If you guys are right then it's an aspect of the film that doesn't ring true for me. It just seems too easy to make it him. But I guess our awareness of (and exposure to) this phenomenon has changed dramatically since the film was made. I think the archetypal paedophile nowadays is a trusted family member or upright community figure rather than the local scumbag. Perhaps it's a product of it's time in that respect.
share[deleted]
Honey outright says that Earl "touched" her
I just checked the scene again and you're right that she doesn't literally say that, but it's heavily implied. Look at the scene where Honey brings a goldfish to her mother Doreen. Honey denies that Earl is her father, says Earl is a "pig," an assh-le, only adding "believe me, I know: he's a --" Doreen cuts her off before Honey can say what he really is: "I don't wanna hear that anymore. You told that story one time too many." She then further rationalizes it by adding, "you know he was drunk, anyway." Jeez.
And I think we can conclude that Honey was indeed molested from the scene where she talks with Lois in the apartment she's house-sitting. Lois tells her about the phone-sex call she got from a preist who wanted an "incest call with a 4 year-old girl." Honey is disgusted and clearly speaks from some personal experience: "Oh man... That could just f-ck your life up. I mean, a little 8 year-old girl, she does just whatever the adults tell her to do... Oh, man. I -- I know. Believe me, that's f-cked."
I think when you piece everything together, it's pretty obvious what the film is implying.
[deleted]
Lily Tomlin's daughter implies that Tom Waits' character molested her. This scene is obvious and must be what Netflix is referring to. But we'll never know for sure, it was a loose end like many in this film.
Daughter: He's an a$$hole I know, Mom. Believe me, I know. He's a -
Mother: You don't know. I don't want to hear that anymore. You told that story one time too many. Look at me. He was drunk anyway, and you know it.
It was 100% Earl, Tom Waits' character. It is implied several times. Most damning I think is the scene with Honey and Lois, when Lois tells about the guy who called her wanting her to pretend she was a 4-year-old, and Honey says "little 8-year-old girl, just does what the adult tells her". The only logical reason that she would hear "4-year-old" and say "8-year-old" is that she was remembering her own molestation when she was 8. It's not the only implication that he molested her - there are at least 2 or 3 others - but I think it's the strongest.
The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.