Loved movie except the scene . . .

Yeah, that's really the only thing I would've changed in this film; unlike Ross' slap-fight with one of the cousins, this just felt out-of-place.

I wonder if the punch was there because the screenwriter wanted David to have his own moment of catharsis -- sorta on the order of his mother's GFY to his father's money-grubbing family (which, for me, was a real fist-in-the-air "YEAH!!!" moment) -- or simply because he couldn't think of anything better for the character to say or do.

I think an icy glare and/or a comment along the lines of Romy & Michele's "You're a bad person with an ugly heart, and we don't give a flying f--- what you think" would've been more appropriate.


"I know I'm not normal -- but I'm trying to change!" ~ Muriel's Wedding

Thought you were going to say the scene where the brothers are watching a five year old Bears Lions game on television to the radio broadcasters. Joniak and Thayer are the best in the business, but come on Alexander did you think I wouldn't notice! Hope those guys saw the movie and loved it.

I see your point that even though Pegram was in his 70's, he appeared to be healthy. Though that doesn't make the action of assaulting him seem that different (I guess if you compare to assaulting someone in a wheelchair).

But it wasn't that I "hoped" David to stay likeable, it was that I thought the script, otherwise perfect, was weak at that point by having a character engage in an extreme action (hitting someone, not in self-defense) that was so, well, out of character. I didn't offer an alternative. But now that I think about how it could have been done differently, I think that whole scene doesn't add anything to the story. I think it has a little bit of a quality (absent otherwise in this great movie) of pandering to the audience, i.e., the slimy bad guy gets his comeuppance. Thought this movie too good for that.

"David responded with physical violence. But for your alternative of words to work, they must effectively do violence as well, attacking not someone's skin but their psyche. Is that a better option when the old man is an old bear, who would surely mock the choice to use sharp words for being gutless?"

I hadn't considered that, but yeah, I could see that sort of response from Ed. Now that I think about it, David did cuss at him (albeit mildly) in a couple of earlier scenes -- his "statute of limitations on bulls---" line in the restroom, and his "get the hell away from me" in the booth when Ed brings up Woody's affair with the "half-breed" -- and Ed just seemed to disregard him. I suppose stronger language wouldn't made much of a difference.

Still, I wonder if it would've made for a more satisfying scene if David had yet again used words as his first instinct, and then resorted to a punch when Ed laughs at him or whatever...


"I know I'm not normal -- but I'm trying to change!" ~ Muriel's Wedding

Interestingly enough it is Woody who in the end comes up with a great nonviolent reaction to the people in the bar making fun of him. What a great end to a great movie.

I personally did not find David's violent reaction very out of character. Yes, he comes across as a pacifist. However, I would say most sons would react in this way after seeing their weak and slightly dementing old father being ridiculed in a bar full of dad's old "friends". Woody is unable to do anything about it, he looks so tiny and humble in the way he approaches the old man to grab the pamphlet and shambling away. I found the scene very heart wrenching. At least the bar falls into silence as this happens; nobody feels comfortable. And I bet most folks in the attending crowd would say the old man had it coming.
Additionally, viewers of the movie know it was the old man who started threatening David and Woody twice before in the first place.

I believe the whole point of that scene was to break David's consistency. The whole movie there are plenty of instances when David has to force himself to abandon his instinctive consistency and just go with the flow for once. Plus Ed didn't seem too old to take a punch to me. Anyone who is old enough to come up with a plan to steal money from a senile old man and then ridicule him in front of people is young enough to take a punch. Think about David's life from what we know. He probably never had a relationship with his father. He was probably a very shy kid. For once in his life he got to know his father in a more personal way right before he was sure to pass away, and here comes this jerk who used to be a close friend of his father who makes a mockery out of it because of his own greed. For once David stuck up for his family and himself. I think a theme of the movie was breaking tradition. Yeah, obviously the letter was a scam. But look at what David gained from the trip.

Me too, I totally agree. But what if in the script (and man I really hated those cousins) the probation officer of the one who was a rape (Ah hemmmm..."sexual assault"...sorry) convict was called? Golden opportunity for legitimate revenge/justice. Really, I felt like killing those two during the entire movie. And while murder is illegal (and hitting an old man) false imprisonment is as well and that loser cousin -- it seems one was on probation(?) -- would have gone away for a long time while the other would have also been busted as well.

Guy was as neutral and passive as you can be. Growing up in that household, with parents like his, you can see how that happened. For me it was the first time I saw him make a break with his cool-headed detachment from things and make an (admittedly rash and non-commendable) decision to actually do something.

...And besides which, it was awesome!