The Ending of North - A Critical Analysis

Haven't seen this film since my childhood but, if I can remember correctly, everyone wants to adopt this ignorant racist *beep* for some reason; is that right? Also, who were the people North meets when he gets off the airplane? After a quick introduction he promptly gets back on the airplane and flies off. Were they Amish?

"Don't cry, it is to be. In time, I'll take away your miseries and make 'em mine...D'Evils."

While I agree with a majority of what you said, I have to offer a counter perspective. Perhaps this movie was not meant to be a celebration of childhood, and all the innocence which comes along with it. Reiner seems interested in the complicated morality and, what he perceives to be, the unacknowledged intelligence of children. I saw the film as a roundabout condemnation of North, and the cult of innocence surrounding children.

Consider the premise. A bratty, precocious, sensitive child becomes convinced that his parents are simply incapable of comprehending his vast greatness based upon being ignored over a family dinner one night. The child nearly has a f**cking coronary at the table, for Christ's sake. Next, his father, quite understandably, hangs up on him while at work when North calls him from school; you know, just to talk. His father is in the process of humiliating himself for a goddamn living, testing pants in an absurdly designed booth with a bizarre, stereotypically false environment. This degradation, this daily ass-kissing and soul eroding labor which his father undertakes for 40 hours a week in order to support him is entirely wasted on North. For such a bright kid, he sure lacks a heap of common f**cking sense. Instead of, you know, considering the fact that his parents are literally financing his entire existence, he cries that they fail to recognize his pouting and shouting; all over the food which they put on the table for him, of course. One would think such and "empathetic" and "wise" young man would find the capacity to forgive his frazzled parents for not instantly responding to his minor emotional crisis.

Bruce Willis' character is unfairly maligned; he is the voice of reason and the moral compass of the film. This is why he is the narrator; he is the voice with which Reiner wants the audience to identify and empathize. And what is Willis' character's purpose from the very first moment he meets North until the very last moment at which he delivers him back to his parents? Quite simply to say: "Hey kid. You get two parents in this life. You can't choose 'em. Ya may not like what they do sometimes, but they have your best interest at heart. Cut them some slack, and be content with the amount of affection and love which they already provide. Family is family, kid. Love them back."

I mean, did I miss something? I think there are some fairly funny parts when one considers that all the "racist", stereotypical characters are all incarnations of North's fertile, overly active, and severely racist, subconscious. I found the absurdity of some of the situations, highlighted brilliantly by Wood's amazing skill at creating palpable tension and awkwardness through silence and lack of action, extremely funny. And, to be fair, I just love Bruce Willis. That dude is like the white Morgan Freeman in terms of actor wisdom.

Finally, consider the depiction of that little douchebag kid. I forget his name now. It begins with a W. Anyway, Reiner was aiming at some sort of odd satire in which he inverted children and adults in order to imply that they are, in essence, the exact same thing. This is supported by the ruthlessness with which the little bastard seeks power through means of psychological and physical violence. And treats Lovitz' character like a child. This kid is a serious goddamn psychopath, and I think meant to imply simultaneously that kids are just as capable of being as ruthless as adults and indictment of those adults which set such a terrible precedent by remaining childish their entire lives. If this kid is not meant to symbolize how cruel and violent kids are truly capable of being, then I'll have to concede that this movie is just pure garbage. But remember the last shot of the "dream world" which North and W.-named nerd hair-slick kid inhabit: as North dives for the loving, redeeming embrace of his guilt stricken, terrified parents, the little tyke decides to pull a Matrix style flying gunshot maneuver in a last ditch effort to, I don't know, spitefully ruin his one-time good friend's life by ending it a moment before he achieves true happiness.

Rob Reiner explored similar territory, in terms of childrens' culture and morality, in "Stand By Me", albeit much more subtly, authentically, and grittily. Here though, he does not want us to love the children, but to be suspicious of them at best, and downright hopeless about them at worst. This movie is a pretty functional, often enjoyable black comedy; I think it's sort of bearing an unfair burden of being taken far, far too seriously.

Anyway, that's about it for me. Let me know what you think.