Did the kid with emotional problems get sent away by his parents for good? They panned to his empty room at the end of the film. Did the parents put him in an institution?
That was the only part I didn't really get. Thanks!
Obviously they "got rid of him" somehow. Probably they sent him to a military school or a mental institution or somewhere (since he seemed to display the characteristics of a serial killer). Or maybe they put him up for adoption. Either way, the kid is out of their lives, which is probably for their own good (and the kid's own good as well, since they didn't seem to be terribly good parents in the first place).
shareThanks for your input. As psycho as that kid was, his parents come off looking much worse for their crappy parenting.
shareCrappy parenting? Seems like they tried there hardest. The kid was sick! They can't help that. Its not all nurture. Genes come into play as well, and sometimes they get *beep* up.
shareYeah, but what about that scene where the dad kept telling his kid to "shut up", and the kid had that bad asthma attack?
The parents seemed like typical competitive city parents who were more into Status (of themselves and their kid) than really paying attention to what was wrong with the kid.
You're right. They weren't paying attention to what was wrong with the kid. They assumed it was an asthma attack. It really might've been. But he was also clearly disturbed. If he was interested in harming animals, it's not too much of a stretch that he might manipulate his parents.
Watch the couple throughout the movie. The dad wants a promotion- to cover the medical bills. The mom gets another job- to pay medical bills. They send him to private school, in hopes that the individual attention will help. There might be some selfishness in the dad's desire for a promotion, but if they are so worried about status, how come the mother gets a job? Also, how does sending your child off to an institution or a military academy advance or maintain your social status? Sorry if the facts aren't exactly accurate; I saw the film in July.
Anyway, it takes no stretch of the imagination to think a child, even a normal child, would manipulate his parents. If the kid realized his parents would drop any issue to care for his asthma, he could easily fake an asthma attack. I'm not saying that is what happened, just that it might have been what was going on.
I was also wondering why the title of the film was "Great New Wonderful."
shareI don't think it was bad parenting. If I had a child like that, I pray to God Shut Up is the worst thing that escapes my lips. It might sound mean, but he was impossible.
shareIf your child is heaping sugar on his breakfast and all you do is watch and pathetically threaten him - you get a confused, overweight child. The parents of Charlie were blatantly bad at parenting, they treated the kid like a 3 year old and had no boundaries or sense of discipline whatsoever. I cringed everytime they appeared because I've seen real parents like them - and their kids are spoiled and insecure. The way Charlie was turning out should hardly have been a surprise. I hope in the real world couples like this are given some parenting classes before being convinced to send their children 'away'.
Have you ever seen or heard of parents cleaning out a childs room after sending them to boarding school? They returned the kid to the orphanage.
shareIt may be best not to be too judgmental of the parents. I heard a segment of "This American Life" and the story was about a child that had decided mental challenges. He was autistic and he was also violent and combative. Their other son lived in fear of his brother and without going into detail, some of the things that their child did makes Charlie look good. The parents weren't bad, as best as I could tell; they just couldn't supply an environment in which their son could flourish. After much soul-searching they sent their child away to an institution and not only was their child doing better in a structured environment (it's the only time in the story that he is portrayed as happy), mother, father and son could heal as well.
I am not a parent and I cannot speak to each situation. Are there bad parents? Certainly. Are there days when good parents make bad choices? You bet. In the context of the film, I think these were basically good parents that had a child that needed attention they didn't know how to supply. Love is essential, but it can create blind spots. It may not have been the best storytelling technique, but I believe that the ending implies that they were doing better as a couple, because they dealt with the child and what is missing is the soul searching and arguments about what needed to be done. For me, I appreciate filling in the gaps myself, sometimes. My only issue could be that Charlie has almost no sympathetic traits whatsoever, but this is a movie, not a series.
If the child has been institutionalized, there is no need to keep the room as it was. Could you imagine this couple looking nostalgically at a book on how to skin animals or keeping his burned toy soldiers? There is nothing to imply that the parents did anything horrible to the child.
On another note, I think the title, "The Great New Wonderful" is quite apt. It implies happiness yet doesn't specify anything. This film seems to be about awful situations and denial:
- One of the bodyguards is not dealing with the side of himself that wishes to stray from his marriage and the other is angry with him for not being honest with himself and also for having such feelings and potentially acting on them.
- One woman's fortune is based on extreme competition, tense politics and it all results in the loss of a job and even a suicide...over exclusive cake design.
- One man has seen some unseen tragedy and he is trying to suppress that everything is A-OK, even though his girlfriend has left him and he seems to be a bit of an outcast at work. Even a complete stranger susses that something is wrong with him, even though he sees him for less than a minute (Lou on the elevator, if you wish to see what I'm talking about).
- A couple's love for a child blinds them to the fact that, in his on twisted and sad way, he is crying out to them that he isn't happy and that they aren't happy as a family.
- A woman suppresses her feelings of loneliness and rage and even stifles her artistic side. Nice touch at the end to go from collages and back to drawing.
Each situation has an odd healing or deciding moment:
- The affair "heals" the bodyguard. When the bodyguard breaks down and cries about his affair, the other can finally deal with him.
- The suicide "heals" the cake designer. She may be the most callous person in the movie; she asks to use the bathroom, rather unemotionally, upon hearing about the death of her rival, fires an employee with foul and homophobic language and strands him, but perhaps, and JUST perhaps, she realizes that her profession isn't worth taking her life.
- Clocking a therapist with a chair "heals" the office worker. Through unorthodox and questionable methods, the office worker realizes that he must deal with himself and his feelings.
- A vivacious and happy man "heals" the lonely woman. His intentions, it turns out, are benevolent, and she sees in him a person of her generation happily married and it stops her from straying. It frees her artistic side and even though her husband is still not talking at least they are watching TV together.
All of the above has the pall of 9/11 over it. Each character in crisis has a reaction that somehow relates to the tragedy of that day and it's aftermath, with almost no mention of it.
Best film I've ever seen? No. Worst? No. It's a very good one, though. It is not for all tastes and it does take a bit of work to get into it.
Very well put. Look at the deleted scene in the dvd where the baby sitter is clearly freaked out, has locked herself in the tv room in fear of the son and the parents are just oblivious. By the end they are just happy now that the child is out of their lives as if he never existed.
Perhaps the boy was lucky to have been sent away. Maybe he would find the love and care he needs. He wasn't going to get it from them.
"You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, or drive a car. Hell, you need a license to catch a fish! But they'll let any butt-reaming *beep* be a father."
Tod in "Parenthood"
I agree. I found myself sort of creeped out the empty bedroom. In the last scenes, just like you said, it's really as if the kid never existed. At least in the parents' world. They didn't even really make any effort to help him.
I also came to this realization about Justin the assistant: Dressed like he was, acting like he does, and having been stranded in an unfamiliar and (from the looks of it) bad part of town, what are the chances he even made it home alive? Slim to none.
It's the name of Maggie Gyllenhaal's cake company.
shareWe were much more cynical... Recall the principle saying, "He would go... away." The father responded, "I don't like the sound of it." (so he picked up on the meaning) At which point Charlie was described as a "selfish monster with a heart of *beep* and splinters." If a child was sent away, or even "lost", parents typically keep the room as it is/was, not clear it out. Hence we concluded the parents, with the principle's help, really did "get rid" of Charlie, in the very macabre sense.
share"The parents seemed like typical competitive city parents who were more into Status (of themselves and their kid) than really paying attention to what was wrong with the kid."
That's what I thought. The parents and the school they sent him too did everything except talk to the kid. He was fighting with and attacking other kids but none of the adults even tried to engage in a conversation with him. The father yells at him "No hitting!" over and over like the kid is three and doesn't even ask what happened at the park, how the fight started, etc. The principal (who seemed like a moron to me) just kept suspending him.
At the very least, they should have tried some kind of therapy for him before considering sending him "away". The parents and the principal were incompetent.
I personally felt that one of the things that might have been happening with the kid is that he was overweight. Because of that, other kids at school and at the park were probably insulting and harassing him all the time. I think that's why he was getting in fights--but it's just my opinion.
Grrrrrr!!Aaargh!!
The kid was already in therapy three times a week. He was killing his pets although that line was so early in the movie that it was easy to miss. He was burning and maiming his toys and acting out bizarre fantasies. He was hitting other kids. Why was the principal the only one who could see he was a future serial killer?
My wife figures that the parents got rid of him in some macabre way, I assumed they had him institutionalized. At any rate he was gone and his replacement(s) was probably being conceived at the end of the movie.