MovieChat Forums > Joshua (2007) Discussion > Joshua explained (spoilers!!)

Joshua explained (spoilers!!)

posted 16 years ago by santera9
61 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

OK here is my interpretation of the movie after watching and browsing through reviews and other posts:

1: Joshua is a sociopath. My theory is his sociopathic tendencies may have been exacerbated about from attachment disorder at his birth with his mother Abby. We are given clues about this when Joshua asks his parents how he was as a baby and receives some stilted and smoothed over responses that indicate he was a very difficult baby indeed. Also, when he watches the video of himself at 8 days old and sees how his mother is falling apart and is being driven nuts by his constant crying, it would seem that Joshua was a very difficult child to bond to and this probably continued through his childhood. His relationship with his parents seems to be distant and "polite", with Abby barely acknowledging him at all. My guess is his parents also knew something was
"different" about Joshua all along as well which completed the circle of no bonding or affection between them. So why did Joshua not start "acting out" until Lilly was born? See 2

2) Joshua probably had no frame of reference to judge the relationship between himself and his parents. Being a sociopath with no "real" emotions he may have accepted the situation as it brought him no disadvantages. Remember, sociopaths strive for a semblance of normality to hide their true natures. And this worked.. until Lilly.. Right away we see the difference between his parents' behavior towards Lilly and the way they act towards him, in the scene where they visit Abby and Lilly in the hospital. Joshua is left standing in the doorway while his parents and baby cuddle on the bed and coo at each other. The parents don't even invite big brother to meet his new little sister.. odd behavior indeed for most families but indicative of the relationship they and Joshua had.. Joshua on the outside always. Then when they get home with the baby, Joshua again sees the differences: Abby is happy and content with the new baby, and his parents and Lilly form the seemingly happy family..without him.. He is again on the outside, playing a (quite lovely) song on the piano all but ignored by all except the nice uncle who comes to play with him...until Abby tells him to stop. Then they proceed to sing Twinkle Star to the baby.. and Joshua expresses his disgust (resentment?) by throwing up.. and then later on playing a dirge-like version of Twinkle Star at his recital. He is unable to explain the difference in attitudes though, until he asks his parents about how he was like as a baby, and gets the stilted answers.. and sees the video tape.. so now he knows.. in his mind his parents don't like him because he was a screaming, difficult baby and now he has to live with an in-his-face demonstration of Joshua vs Lilly in his parents eyes. So I think at this point Joshua's plan to recreate Lilly baby into Joshua baby begins, see 3

3) Joshua begins a campaign of antagonizing Lilly to make her scream like he did, to drive away his mom from Lilly. We don't know exactly how he did this but we do see the abrupt change in Lilly and then Abby (when she is in the doctor's office, she says "Not again" and right away needs to hand the baby to the doc). I think at this point, this is the sole point of his plan. Make his parents not love Lilly like they don't love him (when he says exactly that on the recorded video of him in Lilly's room). He then tries to "provoke" response or love? in parents by a few things: the giving away of ALL his toys, he says he asked Abby who told him it was OK (most mothers/parents would think something was totally wrong with their 9 year old child wanting to get rid of every single one of their toys, but we are left with the impression Abby barely questioned this action of his). Dad makes a token attempt dissuade Joshua from doing this but after a brief conversation throws in the towel and leaves the room.. and this characterizes most of Dad's interactions with Joshua: he makes token efforts at the Dad and Son thing but never spends too much time or really tries delving too deeply with Joshua.. and Abby who ignores him all together. The other scene where he tells Abby he's going out to take his toys to Goodwill and she just lets him out to walk the streets of NYC by himself.. something the good uncle questioned but she blew off because "Joshua's not a normal 9 year old". Another scene, when Abby is deep in depression (but pre-medication) is when her and Dad are in the bedroom and she's trying to pump milk.... Joshua stands in the doorway (again in the doorway but not in the room with them) and leaves saying "I love you Mommy and Daddy" and they just stare in silence.. not a word of "I love you" back. I think at this point Joshua starts to see his plan to make his parents not love Lilly and love him instead backfires and he moves on to 4)

4) Joshua decides Mom is the problem.. after all she is colder and Dad at least tries.. So he starts tampering with Mom's meds.. keeps provoking Lilly into crying fits.. with the intent of sending Mom away.. culminating with the bizarre glass cutting incident and finally with the hide and seek game. I think Josh hopes now he and Dad can be together so he begins on part 5)

5) Get rid of Lilly.. I think he calculated the scene at the museum to get an opportunity to get rid of Lilly in a way that can appear accidental.. pushing her down the stairs. He almost does it but gets interrupted by grandma and Dad (who is now on to Joshua by watching the video). The point where Dad races up the stairs and grabs the baby stroller changes Josh's plans: he knows from that silent glance between them and the way Dad grabs the stroller that Dad knows about him and his plan to stay with Dad is over. He also knows if he gets rid of Dad, Grandma is an unacceptable alternative so he pushes her when Dad turns his back.. maybe also in a power play with Dad to let him know he knows.. And from that point, see 6)

6) Now that Dad's not a viable option, grandma's out of the picture, Joshua begins his campaign to end up with his uncle.. and they way he does that is set up the ruse that Joshua's been physically abused and then to provoke his Dad into the beating at the park.

7) Finally with uncle.. there's still Lilly.. some posters have stated their idea that Joshua wanted to save him AND Lilly but I disagree.. Lilly was never in his picture and I think she's still in danger. Notice his stony silence when uncle exclaims how cute his baby sister is.. and in the song he sings, he explicitly says "you and I together", not "us 3 together". And I think if there is a Joshua 2 : ) he will try to devise ways to get rid of Lilly.. and if uncle makes it known that he now suspects, if not knows.. he will be gotten rid of as well..

[–] santera9 16 years ago

BTW I really dug this movie if you can't tell : )

I really liked how during the first half of the movie you are almost drawn into sympathy for Joshua.. the ignored child acting out.. then you start seeing evidence of his "bad seed".. the scene where he tells the homeless guy he'll give him 5 bucks if he can throw a rock at him.. I thought that was one of the more disturbing scenes actually.. And his cruelty to animals (inferred by the classroom animals all dying at once..maybe some classmates picked on him for being smart so he retaliated?) and of course his poor guinea pig that we found out at the end had been "mummified".. all points to a sociopath kid who was hiding behind normality until Lilly was born and then it became evident that he was "different".. and thus started his various plots to eliminate the problem and go back under cover. A later scene between he and his Dad, after Dad has "found him out" and tells him he's sick.. and he does a sniff and says "no I feel fine".. and then knocks down the elaborate block building he made stating "this (the knocking down) is the best part".. illustrates Joshua is one bad kiddo..

I still think, though, that his plots emerged dynamically, all with the intent of recreating normality for him to continue to hide behind. I don't think he started off with the original intent of removing his parents to be with his uncle (I haven't seen the DVD commentary so I don't know if that's true or not).. I think it was more of a progression of plans to remove his "problems" to get to a "safe" situation that he can manipulate at his well and remain in control. Sociopaths have no feeling for anyone but themselves and will manipulate and control as needed to form the situation to their advantage. I think this movie demonstrated exactly that.. for a real life example see Casey Anthony..

[–] dicaling 16 years ago

I think your review of the movie is spot on. Very interesting look at the movie, especially since I haven't seen it in a while. Brings back all the little details I was puzzled over, especially the scene when he says "No one loves you" (or something like that) to the baby in the video.

In my opinion though, I think he will leave Lilly alone because of that part when his uncle tells him how sisters end up being helpful in a way (forgot which part that was, he was referring to his own sister, I think Joshua inquired about it also).
So instead, I think Joshua will end up making her a team or some sort of his.

I still sympathize with the kid, because he is just a kid after all... even though he was a very difficult baby.

[–] santera9 16 years ago

Thank you.. I did sympathize with him as well.. which is why I liked this movie, Joshua wasn't a 2D character all bad like The Omen.. I think there were plenty of little "turning points" presented in the movie that could have changed the outcome.. As far as Lilly, that's an interesting point as well, I do remember that line.. so who knows.. maybe we end up with Joshua and Lilly in the next movie.. haha..

[–] santera9 16 years ago

another point that I totally missed the first time but just got on the 2nd watch of this movie:

the movie makes a subtle commentary that SOCIETY itself has some sociopathic "germs"

1) at the school recital: the Manhattenite parents of a student in Joshua's recital make the following statements when asked about their trip to South Africa: the woman replies when asked about their trip: "My mother FINALLY died" and her husband talks about some great fishing expedition they went on while there.. not a comment about sorrow or loss about a close family member's death, instead they express relief and vacationing opportunities! Seems sociopathism (my term) is endemic in some circles.. also, the same father denigrates his own son's soon to be performance in the recital with the trumpet, stating "this is why a trumpet should not be played". Again, a total "sociopath" comment, no feeling of pride in son, or warmth to his endeavor.. Abby (interestingly) recognizes sociopath characteristics in THESE people ("I *beep* hate these people, are we these people??".. but not in her.. or her own son..

2) At the parent-teacher meeting.. the teacher talks about the dead animals.. and then states flippantly "we are using this as a consumer rights study".. OK this could be valid.. or.. by translating a sad death of beloved classroom pets into a "learning exercise" (for young children) that all could benefit from.. kind of producing a line of thought that death and pain in others leads to knowledge and gain(see animal experimentation for cosmetics, food, drugs.. and the ethical arguments for/against such).. a "sociopathic" ideal indeed..

so on further analysis of this movie.. i really think the writers and directors.. were making a commentary about society.. and the ambiguous nature of humans period: we are not all 100% good/evil, even Adolf Hitler had a girlfriend and a dog that we presume (upon reading history) that he treated well.. and that we have many opportunities to change.. but given circumstances.. may not..

I think Joshua, in a different environment, would have turned out different. What he ended up doing was bad, and yes I think he could also have "controlled" his impulses.. but I think in a clever way, the authors of the film also demonstrated the overall tendency in society towards cruelty and callousness.. that produces a "Joshua" in the extreme.

I still sympathize with the little boy.. and the family in a way.. again.. I like this film for the "ambiguous" drawing it gives of the characters and situations. Kind of like the Showtime drama "Dexter": he's a serial killer, but likeable.. and he kills bad guys.. so is he bad or good.. or neither? Social conservatives hate these kinds of films and shows as they do not present a Manichean boundary of good/evil, but I believe they more closely represent the world and human condition as is: some of both.. with no good, there is no evil, and with no evil, there is no good.. have to have both sides of the coin to see both sides of it...

[–] santera9 16 years ago

hey another example of society "sociopathism":

Dad's boss! Throughout the movie (while providing at some points some comedic statements), this guy is totally anti-human: in several scenes he completely dismisses, even mocks, Dad's family problems. Dad even commentates towards the end, when he's packing up his desk, "are you really my friend?". His concern is business period. He shows no sympathy or concern for his co-worker (underling?) or (friend's?) problems. Even at the end, he states "if you beat up your kid on the weekend it's harder to get bail (or something to that effect)", without expressing any kind of human value judgment on the fact <i>Dad beat up his kid in public<i>!

Also.. when the dog died.. Abby's expression is "Brad! He was an old dog.. every dog has it's day... and Buster had a *beep* day".. No remorse, sorrow or compassion for Dad (Brad) or his dog.. more sociopathic expression.. not just in Joshua but just about in every character of this movie..

More subtlety from the writers/directors here I think to make their point.. this is definitely not just a "bad seed" movie about the kid but about upper class society in general.. spot on guys!

[–] DisturbedPixie 16 years ago

It appeared to me that the only person that was likable in the whole film is the uncle. Everyone else seemed like a total jerk, The grandma was inconsiderate, and thought that Jesus saves everything. She pissed me off. The mother was completely uncaring to her son since he was born. She is a horrible excuse for a mother. If I was Joshua, I would want to mess with her too, because she never loved him.
The dad was fairly cool, but he has a funny way of coping with every issue that came up. He didn't notice the need for change.
Why would they have a second child if they royally f-ed up the first kid? what is wrong with these people?
Joshua needed help, and nobody helped him. It is sickening. Why was he walking the streets alone? Like if he got kidnapped, would everything have been all good? what is wrong with these people?

If you are Anti-American: Admit you are doing it just to be cool. Does it feel good to hate?

[–] przgzr 16 years ago

the only person that was likable in the whole film is the uncle

There is a small hint throughout the movie that the uncle might (though we don't realize the motive) induce or at least encourage Joshua's behaving. Never completely clear though.

Why would they have a second child if they royally f-ed up the first kid

Many people decide to have second (or any "next") child for strange, often selfish reasons. Extreme ones can go up to using baby's organ (like bone marrow) to save a life of an older sibling, or - more common but not less ridiculous - to "save" a marriage when somebody (usually husband) has an affair.

But people also decide to have another child when they think they are able to avoid the mistakes they have done with the first one. They think that they are more "mature", more "ready", especially if the first pregnancy happened too early (not necessary "early" meaning too young, but at too early point of relationship leading to marriage they didn't plan yet), but they don't realize that they usually just use the same pattern so the result must be the same.

[–] meredith_37 15 years ago

"the only person that was likable in the film was the uncle"

I believe the uncle had been sexually abusing Joshua for quite a while. If you remember at the end when the movers are packing up Joshua's room, there are many drawings of abuse...also, when Joshua was singing to his uncle, he sang "all I want to be is with you". Not to mention the fact that Joshua and Lily were left with the uncle many times while the mother was going through her postpartum psychosis. I mean, really, this movie is not that deep and I think many posters are taking it too seriously. Did anyone else see this??

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] przgzr 15 years ago

Joshua was drawing pictures that lead to suspicion he was abused long before the end of the movie, as an highly intelligent boy he made it as a part of his plan to remove his father. And in the world so obsessed with abuses, molesting, torturing etc it was easy for him to get idea what to do and how to perform it, and to raise suspicion as well.

And I really don't know what should people do with their children? Maybe all parents should kill their offspring, that would be the least objectionable thing they could do. (If you kill a child you are a killer, if you are suspected for an abuse you are a monster; once when you are released from prison you are a respected citizen who had payed for his crime if you are a killer, but you'll be an outcast, a free game for the rest of your life as a suspected abuser even if your crime hasn't been proved and you haven't spend a day in jail. So there was no better method for removing Joshua's father.) If children would have been left with psychotic mother, that would be considered dangerous and irresponsible. If they would have been left alone it would be considered neglecting. And when uncle came to help his sister and brother-in-law he is automatically suspect for abuse.

It seems that in very near future the question won't be if abortion is legal or not, but if it is obliged or not.

[–] loranbruno 16 years ago

Wonderful analysis of the film, very thought provoking. I enjoyed this film as well and it stuck with me after the credits rolled (along with his little song at the end for his uncle). I thought the nature vs. nurture debate played out in the movie. The kid probably had bad tendancies to begin with, but being born to an emotionally fragile mother caused them to grow. Who knows, maybe he was a sociopath and no matter who he was born to he'd have issues, but made me wonder if he would have turned out differntly in another environment.

[–] Zando777 14 years ago

"Social conservatives hate these kinds of films and shows as they do not present a Manichean boundary of good/evil, but I believe they more closely represent the world and human condition as is: some of both.. with no good, there is no evil, and with no evil, there is no good.. have to have both sides of the coin to see both sides of it..."

I think you're confused. What social conservatives hate are when people don't recognize/admit that there is in fact good and evil in the world. You at least appear to recognize that both do exist. But it's important to remember that simply because both exist, and theoretically must exist to give definition to the other -- that doesn't mean that we shouldn't follow the good, and avoid the evil. It certainly doesn't mean that both are equally valid/acceptable. (An appparent viewpoint of the left.

Social conservatives also, of course, hate the fact that parents aren't always adequately loving to their children today, and put themselves, money, etc., ahead of their kids -- one of the social "pathologies" you note.

[–] cheneys 16 years ago

excellent observations!

[–] przgzr 16 years ago

This is one of the best analyzes I've ever read about any movie! Congratulations!

[–] Jezzababe 16 years ago

Whoa Santera9, thankyou for your time and effort to post this analysis of the movie! i just finished watching this movie about 3 hours ago, and after reading your explanation i totally agree 100% with you! you are very thorough with what you wrote and straight to the point, thanks, i enjoyed reading it, just know your efforts didnt go unnoticed.

[–] prenzie-1 16 years ago

All very intelligent and observant commentary. I just wanted to add another point about another upper class lady's comment to Abby "So,you FINALLY had another one." -like Joshua wasn't enough or good enough. There is an attitude in some people that one child can't grow up healthy and normal without siblings which is untrue but in this case it seems pointed at Joshua. I think a lot of angry sibling rivalry would've been caused in Joshua even if he'd been normal given these parents' behavior. Thanks especially to Santera9 for helping me understand the movie better.

[–] mauwong 16 years ago

santera9, I love your explanation and it seems to explain everything.

One thing doesn't make sense though. After all his efforts to get rid of mom, dad and grandma because they are not good "alternatives", why spill the beans to uncle with the final song when he has successfully covered up his sociopath tendency?

With the ending song, the uncle who didn't suspect a thing is now on to him. Then how could he start anew with his uncle? Or is this the director's not to subtle effort to enlighten the audience that he's evil?

[–] BlackDog123 16 years ago

I think he thought the uncle would understand and would have wanted Joshua to be with him as well, since he was always so encouraging of his artistic side. Joshua probably felt he had the closest bond with his uncle. Part of the problem sociopaths (or actually it's called antisocial personality disorder) have is an inability to feel empathy or put themselves in anyone else's shoes. Therefore he probably assumed his uncle was just peachy with the whole situation and never considered he (the uncle) might be horrified.

I feel bad that Joshua's parents were distant, but honestly, I think he would have grown up to be something like Patrick Bateman (American Psycho). Maybe not as a hatchet-wielding psychopath or serial killer, but definitely not a nice guy. I don't think he's evil, just a very sick little boy. Doesn't mean he isn't dangerous, though, as the movie showed.

Anyways, great discussion and analysis. I just watched this movie and really liked it!

[–] docoftheworld 16 years ago

Hey guys, this is really a great analysis, the thing i liked most is the reference towards society being the embodiment of sociopathy (society --> sociopathy) in a subtle way.

The last lines in the movie, where the uncle says (nobody calls me daddy..maybe NOT) ... or something like this, i dont know, but i had a feeling that this line might be indicating towards incest between the mother and the uncle. I also remember when the mother was feeling bad, and the uncle was hugging her, and they were interrupted by Josh (the caught-in-it look in his/and her eyes kind of, just kind of, indicated that there's more to their relationship than a sibling's relationship. also, the uncle mentioned something about siblings being for there to help each others (in weird times!!) what was that ?!. I would also like to mention the fact that Psychoaffective disorders are strongly genetically associated, so the mom -being a psychiatric patient- had she conceived joshua by incest with her own brother would really elevate the chances of him getting the disorder as well.

I know it might be twisted, but that is what first came to mind (Thanks to movies like chinatown, and the unsaid, who really did a good job at twisting it lol)

Hope to hear your opinions guys.
Cheers

[–] Mr-Awesome 16 years ago

^ or not

[–] rachelpi-1 16 years ago

When the uncle referred to his sister helping him during weird times, he presumably meant during his coming out process. At least that is how I read it.

[–] right311 16 years ago

Incest? I don't see that even being the case - makes no sense.

[–] AntoineMDevine 15 years ago

Not to mention the close resemblance to uncle. Were they thinking about that during casting?

[–] Zando777 14 years ago

I find this idea far more satisfying than the idea of two parent's legitimate kid randomly being a pyscho. (I initially assumed a "switched at birth" scenario would be revealed.)

Given that the purpose of a film (at least this kind of film) is to entertain/satisfy, that would lend support to this interpretation.

Also, for the son to say "this is the way it's supposed to be -- this feels right." That indicates there's something connecting the boy and uncle -- perhaps a shared sociopathy.

But at the end, the uncle looks completely freaked out, realizing what the boy did, and why.

Disturbing film.

[–] syndic_calls05 16 years ago

Kudos Santera, everything you've said is exactly what I took from the movie. Glad someone has posted a great analysis such as this. I'm sure you've helped many a person who's read this to appreciate the film further. Once again, kudos.

Effect without a cause, sub-atomic laws, scientific pause - synchronicity

[–] re_incarnate 16 years ago

Joshua was one hell of a kid, this film reminded me a lot of The Omen movies, it has a similar feel to it, but I would say that Joshua as more 'evil' especially when it comes to the helplessness of everyone around

[–] yfguitarist 16 years ago

Excellent, insightful posts.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mr-Awesome 16 years ago

"I think Dr. Fateh was onto something with the incest subplot. There is something going on there, but the film leaves that ambiguous. Think about the bizarre scene where the mother cuts herself and spreads the blood onto her legs, saying "Oh, yeah". Doesn't anybody else think that was very weird?"

I just don't see the incest. At least I don't see the intentions of their being incest. With the mother spreading blood on her legs I think it had more to do that she was a bit um not right in the head. Didn't she have a mental illness? I don't see how that connects with incest.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mr-Awesome 16 years ago

and that connects with incest how? She didn't say Oh yeah (whatever the uncle's name was)

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mr-Awesome 16 years ago

in the english version she didn't. She just said that it felt prickly and she used to have a pair of red boots and that she looked sexy in them. And again even if she did say oh yeah how does that connect with incest. She didn't say oh yeah (name of brother) did she?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mr-Awesome 16 years ago

Seemed she was losing touch with reality and didn't pay much attention to Joshua being there. I doubt she was actually trying to seduce her son.

[–] docoftheworld 16 years ago

Ummm I don't know. I might have been trying (to pull words out of the script's mouth lol) but i mean, in the end, think about it, both the uncle and Joshua are so much alike. There is even some kind of resemblance. And, again, i want to remind you that the mom was obviously neurotic, and the there was this scene where she was sitting next to her brother well in some kind of an intimate posture (when Joshua comes in, you can see there was i kind of gotcha look on his face).

Oh well, or maybe i am wrong :)

Cheers to all friends

[–] dorisblake 15 years ago

well i thought it was kinda funny the way the sister and brother behaved with each other too. and was he talking about being called daddy? haha

but also when she was acting crazy with her red boots wasn't her medication being tampered with? cause she went from pretty okay to really losing it. i thought the kid was messing with her pills and the baby's formula somehow.

[–] the_zookeeper 16 years ago

The Cronenberg movie - are you talking about The Brood? That was a crazy movie.

I just wanted to say that at first I liked the dad, but as the movie ran, I found myself more and more getting disgusted with his happy-go-lucky, non-intimate behavior.

All in all, I'd say Lilly had something to cry about. Had her family stayed the way it was, family renunions were going to be for sh$t for her during the teen years.

Oh, and this has made me give my dog extra kisses today.

The gene pool could use a little chlorine......