What happened to the kid (spoilers) - The Great New Wonderful (2005) Discussion

[–] BeatUpCake 19 years ago

I was a bit confused by that too but I'm thinking that his parents probably sent him to a home or an institution where he can get real help and maybe that were happy that they weren't ignoring his problem anymore.

I think it's just something you have to make up on your own.

reply

[–] n-sparrowe 18 years ago

The principal says to David and Allison what they've been thinking but can't abide to hear spoken. When we see them alone again in their apartment, having sex like they used to, we don't know if what we're seeing is the result of a legal or a criminal solution, a flashback, or just a fantasy of an alternative, no-longer-possible life. There's something deliciously guilty about it, however.

The fact that the room was completely empty (except for one chair) and they are using the closet to store blankets indicate that Charlie doesn't live here anymore. The serial killer in the making is gone for good.

reply

[–] moore2772 18 years ago

They're trying to make us use our imaginations ;)
The problem was really all that white sugar and white flour they were constantly feeding him.

reply

[–] zephyr-123 18 years ago

"The problem was really all that white sugar and white flour they were constantly feeding him."

The "problem" is the way thin people regard fat people.

Grrrrrr!!Aaargh!!

reply

[–] Lizard51867 18 years ago

I assumed that they sent him to a home and were happy that they were no longer burdened with him. You can see that the other times they were going to have sex, the woman's preoccupation with the kid stopped them. They felt like they had their lives back.

I don't think the kid's problem has anything to do with the fact that he's fat or eats too much sugar. The kid is violent, plays with fire, and is bigoted despite no evidence to it existing at home. That doesn't sound like ADD or low self-esteem. He was in an expensive school, one which was supposedly equipped to deal with kids with issues. The problem is not only him, but that his parents were vacillating and felt content to throw up their hands in defeat. At some point, you take the sugar jar away so that he loses weight, and you take a firm stand so that he isn't such a monster.

reply

[–] Quiksilver78 18 years ago

No kidding, a couple of well-placed beatings and the kid is fixed. At least feed him Splenda or something

reply

[–] pennstatepenny 18 years ago

This part of the film disturbed me. Maybe I misread the film, but I didn't see the parents as being all that unusual? Maybe I wasn't getting the plot, or the acting wasn't convincing, or the storyline wasn't clear.... I found it to be interesting, but the weakest part of the film.

What freaked me out was how two "seemingly normal parents", who didn't abuse or ignore their kid....would have a child that was so wicked and disturbed. And I generally believe all kids are good from the core, but this kid was a nightmare.

In looking back, you do see that the kid really was in charge and not the parents and poorly behaved kids can defintely come out of that. That's what freaked me out too...because I'm not a fan of the "because I said so", "I make the rules", "SWAT" kind of child rearing.

There were a lot of missing pieces, and I generally like to fill in the gaps myself, but it didn't work in this segment. For instance, what was the kid like before 9/11? At times I thought the father wasn't his biological father but maybe a step father etc. She hints that she was an actress with a career and that the kid might have been unplanned? But you aren't really sure. And how did this manifest itself in his behavior and self worth etc? Too many things that were too vague for me.

reply

[–] njcactus 18 years ago

"What freaked me out was how two "seemingly normal parents", who didn't abuse or ignore their kid....would have a child that was so wicked and disturbed. And I generally believe all kids are good from the core, but this kid was a nightmare"

For 6 years, I taught kids with emotional and behavioral problems. I would say that 90% of the time, their issues were mostly due to environmental causes (horrible parents, history of abuse, etc.)... but many kids with serious issues come from biological causes with no seemingly apparent influence from their environment. It happens. Your statement that you believe all kids are good from the core.... I say is mostly true. From what I've seen, it is not true in all cases.
Regardless of the cause of Charlie's problems... I also have no idea how this fits into the film.

reply

[–] bfrozen89 18 years ago

i really can't say anything on the child because the film somewhat confused me with certain details, but as for his behavior prior to 9/11 i think it would be the same. Remeber Colbert pulled out a fat folder after he said "It's been the last two or three years that's been frustrating." I'm probably wrong but i think its the parents that broke down. After 9/11 they probably lost the last bit of control they had over him (the child)

ican model nude for u.But this time you need a canvas there's no such thing as a finger paint model

reply

[–] loburns 18 years ago

You can see how the wife realizes the truth about what the principal is saying, ie, Charlie is a selfish incorrigible monster.

While I assumed that he had been institutionalized, my wife went back and played the segments with just Charlie and his parents to confirm her belief that they killed Charlie. I disagreed, Charlie was a monster, not them, and they were not able to deal with him and got the principal to help "get rid of him" in a non-fatal way, ie, institutionalize him. She looked at the hot dog scene and came to the conclusion they were either poisoning him with the mustard or perhaps triggerring an asthma attack which he would not survive.

From my point of view, society would be better off without that little guy getting better at killing his pets and his toys, how long before he graduated to people? But I don't think that his parents were the monsters so they did not kill him.

reply

[–] beckmen 18 years ago

Maybe he was adopted and came from some insane family.

[email protected]

reply

[–] movedout 18 years ago

How come nobody's mentioning the bloodstain on the cupboard door when the father went in to get the blanket?

reply

[–] gsboo77 18 years ago

It wasn't a bloodstain, it was a sticker.

reply

[–] sleepdeprived377 18 years ago

I didn't notice a bloodstain or sticker. Did anyone else think the sex scene was somewhat abrupt and unexpected? I thought the placing was very strange.

reply

[–] SexySedai 18 years ago

The answer is really quite simple and honestly I'm laughing at how much alot of you over-thought this. The principal said he could help them send Charlie "away". They took him up on it. Going "away" means you're going to an institution. I went away once, dpression issues, so I instantly knew what he meant by "away". It means that they decided to put Charlie in a hospital institution so he can't be "a danger" anymore, and where he can be watched day and night. Make no mistake about it people, the character of Charlie was an evil sadistic sociopath. He probably would have killed them in their sleep after a couple more years.
If you don't try to overthink it, the ending makes sense, and you can be happy for the parents who did what they needed to do.

*There's a difference between women and girls, and it's not age*

reply

[–] Emmerloulou 18 years ago

Tell me this though...when you were sent "away" was your room turned completely empty?

Wouldn't parents normally pack a suitcase but keep the room as is, with the hope that he will return someday. Sometimes institutionalized people come home for holidays. Hmmm?

I'm totally baffled. Either that was the director's mistake (the room's near emptiness) OR they totally killed him OR turned him over to the state.

Crazy.

reply

[–] divinemadness7 17 years ago

It was just symbolism. A way to resolve the plot without coming out and saying "well, we sent Charlie away to an institution..."

reply

[–] uncletupelo1 17 years ago

Maybe no one was really connecting with him? His parents were not awful- but there was no real realationship there. He was existing on his own. The parents not having sex is very parallel. No one was truly intimate with the other and they were all alone.

reply

[–] humansare 18 years ago

i don't think it was about the kid, per se. i feel like what we were supposed to see was the way that the parents were coping with the kids behavior before 9/11, then a year later, when the principal goes through the kids files, the parents realize that they've been doing a great job at ignoring the kids issues. it's only when they're broken down that they can't 'cover up' the kids issues anymore. eh maybe i'm wrong, but i do agree with the fact that that segment was missing a little bit of important plot development.

reply

[–] Larry-115 17 years ago

What freaked me out was how two "seemingly normal parents", who didn't abuse or ignore their kid....would have a child that was so wicked and disturbed.

You're obviously not a parent. I could tell as soon as I saw the parents with the kid that the kid was going to be seriously mental.

It's drearily common, here in NYC, to see these parents who have kids they can't spend too much time with, or whose "creativity" and "individuality" they don't want to "suppress," to basically let their kids run wild as a result, doing whatever they want.

Kids crave the control of a parent, they crave boundaries. It lets them know they are being looked out for, and safe. Meaning, not cruel control, but guidance and a firm hand to show them the way. They do not crave gentle suggestions.

The result of this total lack of real guidance, all too often, is a spoiled monster of a child, a willful brat who is abusive to all around him. Yup ... cowboy boots. Check. Wearing a cape wherever he goes. Check. Physical violence against schoolmates. Check.

When a child misbehaves, slap the parent. The behavior of the child was the parents' fault. They ruined him, then on top of that they bailed on him (obviously taking the principal's advice and sending him to some boarding school for troubled kids).

reply

[–] bertrambunter 17 years ago

I would have dumped him in an institution in a heart beat - what a horrible kid, dangerous, vicious and possible at some time in the future acting out and involving the parents in some sort of extremely ruinous lawsuit. I think they did they right thing by sending him away - and I don't blame them for emptying out his room, either. The parents deserved a better life without him - it's not as if he was auttistic or something he couldn't help - he knew what he was doing. Sometimes kids are just lousy, and he was one of them, IMHO.

reply

[–] parks8321 13 years ago

If only it were just that easy.

reply

[–] Gdub33 13 years ago

They murdered him, chopped him up in a million pieces and then stuffed his bits n stuff in a number of large duffel bags since he was such a pigly looking mother f*C*er. They then proceed to dump him in the Hudson river. Either the waste from that nasty river dissolved his body or a Killer Whale ate his carcass because them killer whales love lard and blubbery things.

And that's what happened to Charlie.

-
S you in your A's Don't wear a C and J all over your B's

reply

[–] benrub 13 years ago

I originally posted this question in 2006. It is now 2012 and I have absolutely no recollection of ever seeing this movie.

reply

[–] TiLuLu 12 years ago

Says a lot about the movie!

reply

[–] TiLuLu 12 years ago

I was DEVASTATED near the end of the movie when the parents were fooling around & you see that Charlie's room is almost empty! It was sadder than any other part of the movie for me. I read it as if they were now completely happy because they completely rid themselves of their problem child. Charlie had not only moved to an institution (which I can understand), but he will never be back to his home - not even for holidays. I would have liked to have seem either some sadness that he had to go away, or that they still had a place for him in their lives. The empty room meant he was out of their lives completely, to me.

reply

[–] melholden (96) 6 years ago

I wouldn't have been surprised to learn they'd sent him to a 'home' or school or treatment center. But that they didn't leave his bedroom intact just didn't seem right. They had their struggles with him, but they sure didn't come across like people who'd just cut their son out of their life!

reply