MovieChat Forums > Rudderless (2015) Discussion > I don't get "the twist"

I don't get "the twist"

posted 9 years ago by askebisgaard
18 replies | jump to latest

First of all, I didn't realize that the son being the killer was a twist, before I read it here. I did wonder why the grave was such a dramatic setting though.
But I had it guessed early from how the movie portrayed the scenes with journalists covering Sam, mixed with other small details like Josh's depression song scene in his dorm, or whatever that was.
It was the subtle details in the way the movie was structured I guess.

I thought it was oddly covered all along though, especially because of how numb (and even slightly playful) Josh seemed when he decided to go through with it, rather than go celebrate with his dad.

So that brings me to the title of this topic. I don't get the reactions to his son being a killer. Why is there so much blame and hatred towards people related to a school-shooter? It seems so unmotivated to me. Is it a cultural thing or something?

I especially thought Kate's reactions were very extreme and odd. I know she went through some harassment because she was Josh' girlfriend, and seemingly didn't have enough support in her life that she could be protected from that. But her feeling of justice from telling the band seemed portrayed as if it should be obviously relatable (because all characters immediately agreed that this wrong), while to me it was very unusual. It wasn't a shock for me either, since I thought it was inevitable that it'd be a conflict in need of a resolution from the moment Sam started lying about the source of his music.

But why would it be so extreme for the band to hear? Perhaps I get the song-thing a bit, since the source of the songs are often personal to musicians, but Quentin had no seeming relationship with shootings or killings, so I didn't get why he was the one who got so emotional about it, while the others quickly calmed down about it.

And why is it really so wrong to play sincere and deep songs from someone who's been judged as a criminal? Is it wrong in the US to do anything else than demonize a killer?

I hope any of you guys can help me out here.

---

Other than that, I thought the topic was interesting, and the music was good. But I felt like it could have covered the life around being a parent to such a thing better. It was apparently the twist, so I guess that'd be hard, but then again, to me it wasn't really a twist, so I can't seem to relate too much to being attached to there being a twist.

[–] Lao_Che 9 years ago

i thought i'd missed something, from the news report when the killings are first broadcast, i supposed i'd missed mention of the son being the killer. it was a surprise to me but i didn't think "twist". it was unnecessary in my opinion, to have him be the killer rather than victim. i suppose he went on to kill himself, or was killed by police, it's not really clear is it?

meh, your questions are valid, i felt the same way. just didn't mind too much, i was still willing to get involved in the movie. the girlfriend thing was also unnecessary.
as for the band, i believe they felt that they were gonna hit the big time, but without their main songwriter they didn't feel confident enough in the rest of their catalogue, i.e that one song, which was quite good though. so they were pissed that their ticket was disingenuous,i suppose.

[–] askebisgaard 9 years ago

1) I don't think they ever mentioned him being the killer, besides at the grave. I thought it was an interesting take, because we rarely hear about this. I found this article on this topic btw:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/15/opinion/columbine-parents-of-a-killer.html

2) I guessed that he killed himself, but no, it's not really clear. It seemed to me though, that the thing was over before the police was there. But maybe I just thought that because we didn't see the police coming to the parents to say what happened. Or because it's common for school shooters to kill themselves because they can't take it.

3) Yeah I didn't mind either, I'm just wondering about the nature of the harsh reactions.

4) Hmm, I don't understand what you mean by "without their main songwriter". I didn't think it was a question of whether they had a songwriter or not. Nobody asked how many songs he had, or whether he could write songs himself. It was all very focused on that what he did was immoral, as I saw it.

[–] Lao_Che 9 years ago

yeah you are right, the emphasis was on it being "wrong" to play those songs. dunno what the point is of that.
i felt that it was wrong because they had given the impression that the band had created the music. it was wrong to claim it as their own and not give credit, that's why i thought selena gomez was pissed, too. they were claiming somebody else's work as their own

it isn't clear though. badly edited film, i think. i expect there is more on the cutting room floor, so to speak

[–] askebisgaard 9 years ago

Yeah I thought it was badly edited at times as well. But I thought it was very intentional about the demonizing of him because of the songs belonging to a killer.

In the article I linked, they were also demonized as parents, and their lawyer explained that because the killer was dead, the public would blame the parents, just to have someone to blame. So I figured it was something weird like that.

I'm curious, are you from the US? If you are, then I wonder if holding those opinions are state-specific or even subculture specific. In that article the hatred towards school shooters and their family seems "obvious", so I'm guessing you'd know from your network that your opinion was controversial if it is that common.

[–] Lao_Che 9 years ago

TBH i didn't read the article .......... i'm not from the US, so i suppose my reference points for interpreting the movie's point of view are a little different. before this thread i'd assumed my point of view was "right".

can anyone else shed some light on this?

[–] AnonymousBoy 9 years ago

There's been documentaries about the families of mass murderers. It's an understatement to say there's hatred towards them. They get harassed like you would not believe.

[–] askebisgaard 9 years ago

Oh, can you recommend any of those documentaries?

And if you're from the US, do you have a hypothesis why smart people would hate the family of a murderer? If you know people who would harass and/or hate, at least.

I understand how emotional and non-reflective people could do it, but I have difficulty understanding it otherwise.

The only thing I can think of, is another documentary about a man who set fire to himself in desperation for his family's survival (sounds counter-intuitive, I know) and a woman who was almost hit by him as he ran and screamed. She seemed like a well-educated person who was traumatized by the experience, and started to deeply hate him for years, until these journalists in the documentary crew shared with her, how he wasn't a psycho at all, and how he had kids and a family who loved him, and had had a really difficult life.

She didn't harass the family because of it, but the irrational logic of making him a psycho in her mind, and hating him, without ever being able to forgive him, is something that I think could be a factor in this.

[–] towilmusic 9 years ago

I think the writer/studio used the "twist' just to throw in a very topical subject to possibly get folks talking about this film more than we would, say, if Josh had just passed away after a car accident or something.

I think it was bery well wrotten and gpr a ratjer simple story, it does spice up tHe overall picture. Seeing these issues from the viewpoint of the father of a killer really made this simple film, very original and extraordinary IMO...

[–] towilmusic 9 years ago

PS apologies for my horrid spelling/errors. New phone...too small keyboard and several too many cocktails tonight;)

Is thete a way to edit previous posts here???

[–] askebisgaard 9 years ago

Yes there is a way to edit posts. But I'm not sure there is one on phone, since I don't have a smartphone, and have never been to imdb on one.

[–] davidhowe6328 9 years ago

It would have been a much more compelling movie if the father simply paid tribute to his son through music. Career change for a middle aged man into a cult rocker. That's a pretty interesting story. Too bad they had to be so tasteless about it.

[–] AgentBlue 9 years ago

LOL Tasteless.

Lose the Game!!!!!!!

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

It would have been a much more compelling movie if the father simply paid tribute to his son through music. Career change for a middle aged man into a cult rocker. That's a pretty interesting story.

That's what I thought it was going to be about. Which I thought was a cool concept. Then the shooter stuff happened, which I could have lived without.

I would have given it a 10 without that. I think I ended up giving it an 8.

[–] hanit1992 9 years ago

Well, like you, i didn't get it untill the graveyard scene also. I actually watched it again, and then it all maked more sense, you know, like the time he looked merderly on the guy who interappted him to record the song, or tge reason the press had so much interest in the parents - i just thought it was Because their son was one of the victems. But, i think that this part made the movie even more great. You may understood it in the beggining or not - thats actually pretty informative about how you grasp situations like that. The boy seemed perfectly normal, he had this cool dad and wrote those beautiful songs, so it didnt make a lot of sense... (While afterwards i red a lot about the shooting in schools events, and relized his discription was actually the common one above the shooters). But you may also understand it from the beggining - and thats just real. But if you didn't, i think it is just becomming more powerfull. It was interesting to think about my thoughts before and after... The thing is, i started crying when i relized he was the killer, and i felt a lot of mercy for all the characters, and some anger for the society reaction and classifiying the parents as the one to blame. Even though i don't think you can reasonably think that a normal parent can do something to make someone do something like that.

[–] lorrigirl 9 years ago

People hate the families of mass murderers, especially the parents because they need someone to blame. The thought is that the parents are responsible for either creating the monster or not seeing the signs of mental illness. Not saying it's right.

I thought it was wrong if Sam to pass the songs off as his before I even knew the twist - I kept waiting for Kate to show up and be angry, but for a different reason.

I loved that I was surprised to find out what Josh did, towards the end of the film. It made everything that happened earlier make sense.

The only thing I didn't get is why Q acted the way he did, to an extent. We didn't know enough about his backstory and I think it may have something to do with his dad.

I think Kate didn't want the band to succeed because she knows the songs and she doesn't want to hear them on the radio dredging up old pain. That is why she stopped them. If they had played that day, they may have been signed.

I think the song at the end was beautifully done, a case if artistic expression moving the observer to the point of understanding the pain of the artist, in this case - 2 artists; the tortured soul of a boy that felt like he didn't belong in this world and a father that mourns his child in a world that won't allow him to express his pain.

They audience was captivated and visibly moved, applause would be inappropriate, silence and reflection was the only correct way to go - it was a eulogy that he never was able to give.

[–] asherp 8 years ago

Quentin is so put out by Sam's lack of transparency because it's just one more betrayal in a life of betrayals....He thought he found out that Sam was a kind gentle soul in a world that dumped on him only to find out that his role model was the father of a serial killer

[–] gudalben 8 years ago

10 minutes into the movie the reporter asks the father if he feels responsible for what happened... it was obvious that the son was the killer

[–] ExTechOp (2770) a year ago

10 minutes into the movie the reporter asks the father if he feels responsible for what happened... it was obvious that the son was the killer

If the filmmakers wanted it to be obvious, they'd have included something more explicit, along the lines of "We Need to Talk About Kevin"

I think the reporter's question was meant to be ambiguous, but they (the filmmakers) oversold it.

Dramatically, the story doesn't "come together" fully until the graveside visit.

In other words, I think it was an overly telegraphed and therefore weak "twist," but a twist nonetheless.