MovieChat Forums > Rudderless (2015) Discussion > Let's blame the parents (spoiler alert)

Let's blame the parents (spoiler alert)

posted 10 years ago by dinerfood-901-211557
25 replies | jump to latest

The message I get: the parents are responsible for everything the kid does, even at college age. What manure. Let's go after the parents of Jeffrey Dalmer and the Columbine kids, we'll show those dead murderers a thing or two. Some of these characters were whiny entitled post-adolescent kids, especially wimp Quentin and the Selena Gomez b*t*h character. Quentin the nozzle blames his (probably single) mother for going through hard times (as a child would) then swings at the other adult in his life. When I was playing the emo bands were called "those not working." Granted good musicians have a sort of empathy but to the degree this band expressed it was sans scrotal and that was reflected in their instrumental rendition. On the positive they had good harmonies for a fake band.

[–] beecee101 10 years ago

Another way to look at it is that Josh was messed up since birth and the parents were blaming themselves. It is amazing (in jest) how many young adults attack others because their parents are ephed up! Great movie. Crudup was awesome.

[–] IfOnlyItWereTrue 10 years ago

Of course the parents are to blame. Who else is responsible for bring up their children to be mature well balanced individuals?

[–] LAtoSEA 10 years ago

It's more complicated than that. There are wonderfully accomplished adults who came from horrible childhoods. And there are parents who do everything right but something goes haywire despite their best efforts. If we can accept genetic disorders and chromosomal problems and children being born without limbs through no fault of the parents, then why is it so difficult to accept chemical issues within the brain? You can't automatically blame the parents.

[–] IfOnlyItWereTrue 10 years ago

Maybe because the parents don't just supply the nurture aspect but also the DNA.

I don't know how you think genetic and chromosomal problems occur but I think you'll find that in the main it comes down to the dna from their parents ... and much damage to the passed on dna comes down to the lifestyle of both parents before conception and the mother during pregnancy.

At the very best you can claim that perhaps the parents were ignorant of the results of passing on their dna ... but ignorance does not negate responsibility.

[–] LAtoSEA 10 years ago

This is contrary to what I've learned after a recent and lengthy meeting with a genetic counselor. But whatever you have to tell yourself.

[–] IfOnlyItWereTrue 10 years ago

That you've spoken to a genetic counsellor it would seem that it's really whatever you have to tell yourself.

Correct me if I'm wrong - and perhaps I'll learn something new - but are you suggesting that such 'behaviour' comes down to 'random' mutation? and that such mutations have nothing whatsoever to do with either the parents(dna), lifestyle or environment?

[–] Wowcolton191 10 years ago

Chemicals in the brain can do a lot and it isn't ALWAYS the parents fault in these situations. I saw a video a doctor did on a presentation about scanning the brain for tumors or anything else that might affect someone's attitude and how they act. He had a boy in his tweens that randomly went out on a field of a softball game and beat up a young girl right there in front of everyone plus many other horrible scenarios. They found a tumor in his brain from a scan and took it out. After taking it out he has grown up into his 20's no issues and is a happy guy, at least that's what was shown. So it goes to show how dysfunctional the brain can be and result in irrational behavior because of it.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[–] askebisgaard 9 years ago

I've never heard of anyone seriously blaming parents for having given bad genes to their kid (even for parents who are told they have an overwhelming chance of getting severely disabled kids). Is that really a thing?

I feel like this is the time to remind ourselves that blame is a social construct, not a law of nature.

Besides that, parents aren't likely to ever become omniscient beings who know how even the smallest and subtle actions will affect their kid. Most parents try their best, and I thought these parents seemed to be such parents - even though we almost didn't get any cover about their relationship to the kid. But they still didn't seem bad, because Josh adored his dad (according to Kate).

But I didn't feel like Josh was very believable killer-material anyway, so maybe the writers just didn't care enough about that aspect.

[–] mamporrero 9 years ago

I've never heard of anyone seriously blaming parents for having given bad genes to their kid (even for parents who are told they have an overwhelming chance of getting severely disabled kids). Is that really a thing?

What are anti-incest laws then?

Passing on hereditary diseases knowingly or having disabled kids when it can be prevented is highly immoral (i.e. contrary to the greater good) and should always, always be frowned upon. The only reason there aren't more strict laws against this is the demonization of eugenics during the second half of the last century and religious pressure.

In any case it doesn't concern the parents in this movie. Other than having a broken family, they were healthy, intelligent individuals and good providers. How could they know that their baby would grow up to be a moping hipster?

[–] askebisgaard 9 years ago

Anti-incest is good point. Although I know that most complex animals have developed instincts to prevent it, so I don't think it's far off to assume that we have as well. It's even in religious literature I believe, so it's definitely old.

So besides incest, is it really "highly immoral" to pass on "hereditary diseases knowingly, or having disabled kids when it can be prevented"?
I don't think it is in Denmark, where I'm from.

I can buy your argument about anti-eugenics, but I don't believe that's the full story.

Yes, how could they know? Well, we don't have sophisticated enough technology to know the probabilities for everything to happen, just by genes. Since we know of epigenetics it's also unlikely to happen, unless we know how to account for environment and chance, which is extremely complex.

I notice you call him a "moping hipster". Is that your way of explaining his behavior? I know it's probably a joke, but I'm guessing there's some truth to it, for you. I know he looked like a hipster, and was moping, but I don't see how it explains why he did it. Especially not the hipster part.

Most parents would love their kid just as much, if they were a "moping hipster" anyway. They'd usually have to be fundamentalists or far-rightwing to reject something that innocent.

[–] denise1234 10 years ago

LAtoSEA^

Agree.

And there is also the fall into an infinite regression argument: if the parents are to 'blame', then their parents are to blame, then their parents, and so on...

Anyone who has had more than one child knows how totally different siblings can be, even if raised in similar environments.

We are all a pretty complex cocktail of genetics and environmental influences, influences that don't stop when we leave our parents' home, genetic influences that sometimes don't play out until later down the line, and there are multitudes of ways we can be...from moment to moment...throughout our lives.

"Shake your hair girl with your ponytail"

[–] zooymtoo 10 years ago

Of course parents can't be responsible for everything their kid does. Both environment and genetics do play a huge part in what a person does become but everyone is also an individual with their own specific vulnerabilities and flaws that can't always be within the control of anyone else.
.
I don't know if the movie meant to say that everyone blamed the parents but the sad part is really that the parents aren't exactly allowed to grieve in any normal kind of way. They're so blindsided by the shock of the act that the loss gets kind of lost. And no one will approach them in the typical empathetic way when one loses a son that shot and killed 6 other people. At least the victims parents were empathized with and expected to grieve for a terrible loss.
What does anyone do to the parents of the perpetrator but blame them as if they are somehow at fault? Not only do they lose a son but they also have to lose their memory of him. Can you imagine even feeling like you can't leave pictures of him hanging on a wall? What a horrible position to be in.

Obviously the father did grieve in his own way by becoming reclusive and shucking his successful career and ignoring the world. And the movie was his way of coming to terms with it all.

[–] juxtapose70 10 years ago

The only person who is ever to blame for pulling the trigger is the person who makes that choice willfully. Josh alludes to choices at the very beginning - then he made his. Mitigaters were made up for lawyers. The math isn't that difficult.

"I have nipples, Greg. Could you milk me?"

[–] jondoe888 10 years ago

I would imagine the parent's of killers will never again have normal lives. And Sam was a big-buck sales guy. He may have always been a drinker. The deaths pushed him over the edge. That, and the burden of guilt.

[–] AgentBlue 9 years ago

Most likely yes.

Lose the Game!!!!!!!

[–] mr_bickle_the_pickle 10 years ago

I don't the message was saying that the parents were to blame. I think the movie showed that they were just as shocked by it. Granted we dont see much of the kid in general so its kind of hard to judge what his familial relationships were really like, but from the movie it seems like he at least has a good relationship with his father (Kate mentions that Josh spoke fondly of him), the framed picture of the two of them, Sam showing up to invite Josh out to lunch.

Quentin's mother was probably more than just poor. He said that "she has problems". Maybe she's a junkie or alcoholic. Perhaps her choices are what made them so poor. Maybe thats also why Quentin took so much pity on Sam when they first met.

Selena's character Kate/Anne might be portrayed as a bitch, but think about it...the way the media/society treated her, made her bitter. She couldn't handle the harassment over being labeled a psychopath's girlfriend.

We accept the love we think we deserve
http://mrsantonyelchin.tumblr.com/

[–] shoutingagain 10 years ago

yeah, rightfully it would be horrible to be former girlfriend of a shooter.
One can expect that person to be logically angry, maybe not make total sense all the time. Hostility & disappointment can do tricks to ones mind.

I'm sure many also point fingers there thinking they might've known or should rightfully have suspected something.
And that has to be hard to live with.
Right or wrong, there's no escaping public perception, it always flies in your face.

And while granted, it's totally unfair & unjust to point any fingers anywhere, the reality is there are many reasons why someone does horrible crimes, it's not just one.

Given there are many causes (and to argue there isn't is foolish), parents--who largely have the BIGGEST influence & responsibility in the lives & final outcomes of their kids (they often sure LOVE to boast when all goes well!)--WILL, I imagine, be viewed with some suspicion & at least, curiosity.
I know I look at Gacy's wife & think HOW could she not have known (seriously ALL the bodies buried under her house! Was she in a coma or WHAT?!!)

There are in fact, some members of our society that turn out poorly totally due to parental care. Since others can't know when that applies or not, they will look at the families with confusion. I know it's wrong & feel I'd be above such but honestly deep down, privately, no lie...I'd be wondering IF/WHAT hand they had, if any, in creating this person that wreaked havoc on society.
And yes, it's a shame but sometimes they do.
Realize it's fact some persons react VERY differently to stimuli than others.

But I am not saying it's right to judge anyone, ever, but it IS logical reflex.

[–] drtagnjr 10 years ago

I did not take away the message that the parents are responsible as a message from the movie at all. Certainly one or more characters might have implied it (actually only Q acting out near the end I think actually vocalizes about him being a bad parent; Kate had more issue with him playing the music I got the impression and was further angered that Sam appeared to be dealing with the situation better than she had been able to) primarily from the graffiti on the gravestone.

I found myself more wondering about just how to feel about the music and Sam playing it for his and others enjoyment. I could understand Kate being resentful over the music being played, although I wasn't entirely sure if it was her desire or need to have anything of Josh removed from this world due to what he did, or more likely her feeling it in some way should not be celebrated because to do so gave positive recognition to someone she felt (in the end) did not deserve such. I personally would feel that Josh is clearly not getting anything out of that music being played or well received, it seemed to help Sam emotionally, and the band and the fans really enjoyed it and recognized it as great art. That all says it should be played, enjoyed and without any guilt although people personally affected by the shooting probably would not find the music enjoyable knowing the source, but that would depend on how they took it eventually I suppose.

I really loved the way the movie ended with Sam giving the background of the song that he sang at the end, the clear emotional but not negative per se reaction, and how it left the final 'reaction' to the movie audience as it didn't imply applause, jeers, anything for when he finished. Listening to the lyrics of some of the songs conveyed Josh's thoughts and emotions, which I don't consider a bad thing, and may or may not give different people insight into what happened although I doubt enough to give any type of explanation, as by definition those types of events are inexplicable usually.

[–] doggie_rodriguez 10 years ago

The message I get: the parents are responsible for everything the kid does, even at college age.

That's not the message at all. However, most parents that are worth a damn will feel guilt if their child hurt (or kills) someone else.

Some of these characters were whiny entitled post-adolescent kids, especially wimp Quentin..

How was he "entitled"? The kid came from nothing. At this point I am wondering if you actually saw the film or not.

When I was playing the emo bands.....

Ah, I think this is where that dislike of Quentin comes from. You used to play. Now you don't.

On the positive they had good harmonies for a fake band.

That "fake" band consisted of some actual musicians. People who actually put the time and effort into becoming good musicians, instead of quitting and becoming a little bitter.

[–] mccollum26 9 years ago

It's the parents! 100%!!!!!! No question about it. If you spit out seeds, it's your responsibility and no one elses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[–] hgnhouse 9 years ago

These situations are very complex, and the movie treats this depiction of one as such. Even though the ultimate fault is that of the shooter, it is very much within the realm of possibility for a community to blame the parents, or at least for some in the community to, and also to be curious. It is probably also extremely normal for the parents to question their every move as a parent. This film is one I'll watch over and over again, not because it is a subject I want to revisit, but because it is handled well.