*** spoiler *** im really confused about Ben's son...
Ben pulled the brake, so how or why did the car still move backwards? Am i missing something here?
shareYou seem to be getting caught up in a detail that doesn't matter. As I watched the movie and saw they showed "glimpses" several times of the accident that killed the young boy it seemed to me they didn't want to focus too much on that incident, only let the viewing audience know it happened in a way that the dad could feel guilty about it. So exactly how it happened is not important, only that it did.
..*.. TxMike ..*..
Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes not.
but the fact that they focused on him putting the car brake on shows something went wrong. otherwise they would have just had him get hit by any car.
shareI agree.
Plus him using the brake makes the wife's reaction to him seem a bit off. Felt like she was blaming him and that led to their divorce.
You seem to be getting caught up in a detail that doesn't matter.
Why do you get to decide which details matter to other people?
It obviously matters to her otherwise she wouldn't have asked the question.
only let the viewing audience know it happened in a way that the dad could feel guilty about it.
But if he did pull the brake (which I believe he did, so does the OP) then there was nothing to feel guilty about. Plus, they could have probably sued. I got the feeling that the wife blamed him for this. If he pulled the break, then her blaming him makes no sense. share
"doggie", since you seem to be a bit slow catching onto to general concepts, let me be more specific.
It doesn't matter what you, I, or the OP think about its importance. The filmmaker(s) decide whether it is important for the viewers to know all the exact details of how the child died. He/they decided that it wasn't important, probably because they wanted us to focus on the aftermath, the impact it had on the mom and dad, which led (most likely) to their split and to the dad's funk he was in, rather than focusing on how exactly the child died.
Alas you are not the only one, I see this over and over on the discussion boards for different movies, viewers get hung up on some detail which ultimately has no relevance on the main themes of the story. It is failure to ask and answer the question, "What did the filmmaker have in mind by not showing more exact details of what caused the child to die?"
..*.. TxMike ..*..
Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes not.
"doggie", since you seem to be a bit slow catching onto to general concepts, let me be more specific.
Wow, you are really insecure.
It doesn't matter what you, I, or the OP think about its importance.
Since it's our viewing experience, it kinda sorta does matter to us. Sorry, but you don't get to decide what's important to other people. How narcissistic are you?
He did pull the break. They showed it. The OP and I are curious about this. If you're not, that's great. Run along to a different thread instead of telling us that we're wrong for being curious about this.
A functioning adult would be able to grasp that concept. Perhaps I am not the slow one?
Best of luck, Mike. You can count this as a "win" if you need to.
share
I don't want to belabor this point, but, to be fair: You wrote:
The filmmaker(s) decide whether it is important for the viewers to know all the exact details of how the child died.
Going on your premise (which is a pretty sound one, I think) that the filmmaker decides which details are important, by what he or she decides to show, then the brief shot of Rudd's character pulling the hand brake has some particular import to it. I can't help but wonder whether we are not meant to take that sequence literally; perhaps that's a sequence in his mind, an image of what he wishes he had done, or what he believes he did, but he may be wrong about it. If it is, indeed, a literal showing of what actually happened, then the director has invited the many queries over the apparent discrepancy (well--he's done that in any case, by including the sequence). I don't think it's so terrible for viewers to question this detail. For me, in any case, it doesn't create enough of a problem to take away my enjoyment of this movie.
Just make a movie that makes me care, one way or another. I'm open. share
All good points. To me the overriding points are (1) if the filmmaker had wanted the audience to know exactly what happened to cause the child's death he could have and would have presented it more clearly, and (2) knowing the details in no way contributes to the overall story of the caregiver and his dealing with both a divorce and the loss of a child. The loss of the child on his watch is the important factor, those who feel a need to know more details of the accident are giving in to their failure to recognize the main themes at work here. And failing to give due credit to the filmmaker for the choices he made.
I find it much more instructive to think about why the filmmaker chose to present it the way he did rather than complain that the details are not clear enough.
..*.. TxMike ..*..
Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes not.
I don't think it's so terrible for viewers to question this detail.
It's not. But what is terrible is when txmike thinks he gets to decide what is important for people when watching a movie. share
[deleted]
I think your analysis is very sound.
Another scenario that occurs to me is that pulling the brake is what Ben actually did, but although we know because we see the video, he doesn't remember so lives in guilt.
I'm having a discussion with Stovepipe99 below about our respective views of the wife's reaction. I feel she was not very compassionate toward her husband. Stovepipe argues that she was patient but probably just couldn't stand being with the person who was the architect or at least the catalyst for her child's demise. We both agree that there is no way of telling what else may have led up to the divorce.
I probably should watch that scene again, but what I seem to remember, too, is that he somehow jostled the gear shift when lifting out the groceries which may have put the vehicle into some gear other than park. Maybe there was something actionably wrong with the vehicle. I also know though that, for many a vehicle I have had, after a time the parking brake is virtually nonexistent. This usually comes after I have driven the car several times forgetting to take the brake off!
At least in old cars, the vehicle would often drive with the brake on. It was sort of as if the brake was saying, I'm a failsafe for you, but if you insist on driving, I'm not going to get in your way.
At any rate, who knows ... maybe the wife drove the vehicle several times forgetting to take the brake off. In which case, she might be just as culpable! Or, at least ... lol ... that is one scenario that the filmmaker again, as you, doggie and Mike agree, has left up to viewers to fill in the blanks. Certainly stuff for post-movie over-coffee discussion.