The Patrick conundrum


This film would have been better off without Patrick. Patrick made both Will and Lou look like much worse people. There's no acknowledgement of this in the film, but the rational viewer is forced to this conclusion anyway.

The first important thing to acknowledge is that hypergamy is the natural female state. Evolutionarily speaking, it has a lot of advantages. Practically speaking, it lands women in a lot of bad relationships and is the bane of average looking but good hearted/reliable men everywhere. But it is what it is.

They were careful in casting an average looking guy for the role of Patrick. If there were any ever films where the female lead leaves a more attractive guy for a less attractive one, the boards are full of female outrage. There are even posts on this forum that say Will should have lived simply because he was handsome.

Let's analyse and then sum up.

The relationship.

Their relationship is very non-intimate, acquaintance like for people who have supposedly been together for 7 years. Perhaps it's because he's complacent and she's flighty, but generally people who have been together for 7 years have much stronger emotional ties than depicted in the film - where the relationship ends on a simple walk out. It's also odd that someone who is Christian from a Christian family has not insisted on marriage yet. This is obviously for plot convenience as it's a little easier if there's no marriage breakup involved. We are seeing a trend of films though where women unapologetically end long term relationships after meeting someone new (I saw Take This Waltz recently too which is similar).

Patrick's choices.

In one way, the writer is brave to not go too far in justifying her infidelity by making him turn total creep. Normally the convenient thing is to have him cheating and her find out, but this would have rang false for the character - who seems fairly devoted to Lou even though preoccupied with his fitness pursuits. So instead they made him distracted and selfish seeming - although it was pretty ham fisted. There's nothing inherently wrong around planning a holiday around some event one partner or both want to attend. However, this also makes it more troubling in a way - the message being that if you're not constantly working to keep your girlfriend or wife deliriously happy, she has justification to cheat (by pursing other relationships) at any time.

Ultimately at least they have him walk out after realising she's no longer in love with him. But this is convenient for her too, as it let's Lou completely off the hook without having to seem too much like the villain - waiting for him to figure out she's fallen out of love rather than doing the brave and assertive thing and breaking it off herself. Anyone who watches the scene and thinks it's unreasonable for him to have problems with Lou taking Will on a romantic resort holiday, even under the circumstances, and to not know full well that it will further progress the feelings he knows his girlfriend has for another man is kidding themselves.

Patrick actually comes off looking pretty good, although he is the film's biggest loser. There's no happy ending for him.

Will's choices.

Good looking men, especially those who also have wealth, know they have power over women. That's ultimately why so many of them are creeps - power corrupts. Not only do they tend to cheat, they tend to entice a lot of women to cheat, to "play the Hottery". It's a game.

It was wrong of Will to entertain romantic feelings with Lou. He later states in the film he didn't want to because he wasn't able to give her the life she deserved, but hang on - what about because she's already in a long term relationship? No qualms about that, William?

That's because parts of "old Will" are still there. He sees it as challenge, to see if he's still "got it", the ability to charm a woman out of her existing relationship. And he succeeds with very little effort - even knowing it will last at most a few months. He even taunts Patrick after meeting him, knowing that despite being in a wheelchair, has effectively emasculated him.

Will is a predatory creep. The fact his previous gold digging girlfriend left him when he became paralysed doesn't give him moral justification to seduce someone else's girlfriend and break up their relationship too.

Of course he dies at the end, so it's not exactly like he is rewarded long term, although he gets to make his last few months a lot more enjoyable.

Lou's choices.

It's clear early on that Lou is infatuated by Will's looks and wealth. Part of her determination to "crack his shell" is her disbelief someone so handsome could be so dour. Lou allows herself to fall in love with Will. True, she has to spend time around him as that's what she's employed to do - but the level of intimacy she chooses prior to the breakup with Patrick is already infidelity. Before people cheat physically, they cheat mentally and emotionally. This is why she is dishonest by omission with Patrick about her "job".

She has no regard for Patrick's feelings, her boyfriend supposedly of 7 years, consumed instead by this interesting new man. Feeling perhaps he's losing her, he buys her a necklace with his name on it - but she is completely underwhelmed and shows it. She then ostentatiously squeals with delight in front of him at the gift of another man. Are we really meant to believe she does not understand how this is going to make him feel?

She then lets him walk rather than doing the decent thing and ending it after she has clearly fallen in love with Will. Almost like she was keeping her boyfriend of 7 years a backup just in case.

Lou comes off looking pretty bad, but has the happiest ending - with a big cash payoff so she can travel the world.

Now, I understand this is a film written by a woman for a female audience. A lot of women view being "trapped" in a boring (ie. stable) relationship with an average looking but perfectly nice man as a fate worse than death - at least until their youthful good looks are gone. Women make these calculations when they view this kind of film based on what they would want for themselves and most would view a fling with a handsome guy, wheelchair or no, plus a cash windfall at the end of it and thus the freedom to pursue handsome but unreliable men as more than a worthwhile trade.

But objectively, Will and Lou are ultimately selfish people and Patrick's feelings and life are a case of "if you're not good looking, your feelings aren't important". Remember, he also invested 7 years of his life in that relationship. That's 7 years he could have spent doing other things or finding a woman who would actually stick around and not leave him for the first handsome man to distract her with his dimples and trust fund.

Obviously there are mitigating factors in this love triangle. I don't personally believe people should remain in loveless relationships, even if they aren't abusive, but such relationships usually become that way because one or both people have given up trying - and this can happen rapidly. If you open yourself up to new feelings with new people, you can't help but weaken your existing relationship. It doesn't mean there was something wrong with it to begin with. The brain chemistry is different. New relationships are kind of like a drug - they release many of the same substances in the brain. And like a drug, you can get to the point where each "fix" lasts for a shorter and shorter time before you need a new one.

Let me know what you think. It's just interesting to me to see how the writer and filmmakers treat the character of Patrick and how easily dismissed are his feelings.

reply

[deleted]

I agree with almost everything you point out here. I loved the book, as it was different, and really makes you think. At its core, this really is a funky love story. As with most film adaptations, quite a few items were left out if the film that rounds out the character development better. That being said, I've always felt bad for Patrick. He is, as you said, a loser in this situation. Inherently, there's really nothing wrong with him. In the film he's a little more over baring in the fitness stuff, in the book, he's just not that interesting - and still a Heath and fitness buff. Patrick is a throw away character. It makes you wonder why he's even around in the first place because, as you've pointed out, his existence really makes Lou look like a bit of a cod in the movie. I'm sure the die hard "Will and Lou forever" crowd will disagree, but no rationale women would cheat on their stable man of 7 years with a rude, sometimes downright mean, quadriplegic. I suppose compared to the challenge that is Will Traynor, Patrick is really nothing at all except normal. But, that's what sells films and novels. The romantics like a challenge, even if that challenge treats them like crap the first 100 pages. I think Patrick had every right to be angry, and walk out on her. That's not what happened in the book. In the book, Lou and Patrick live together, and Lou moves out. Patrick, out of jealously, does pull one arse move, and contacts the media about Will's assisted suicide. That was basically his entire purpose in the novel, and his contacting of the media was again a throw away move in my opinion to shunt him to the background, have us go, "oh I hate him", and not care that he never returns. That was his downfall in the novel. They left that out here, and really dumb downed their relationship and made it super simple. They resemble a couple of 7 months instead of 7 years.

Only one point I disagree with. I disagree that the actor who played Will is cuter than the actor that played Patrick. I think Neville Longbottom has come quite a long way, and is very handsome.

reply

Do the book and the movie end pretty much the same? How does the book end?

Any other major differences between them?

Thanks alot!

reply

I didn't read the book, but in the movie it was very difficult for me to empathize with Patrick, because he came off like a very very self centered person.

Perhaps Lou didn't help by not opening up to him, but I saw him talking about himself or his passions (running, cycling, fitness) 24/7. And yes, you can join 2 activities into 1 (like a conference + vacations in the same place), but if you're planning your vacations with your girlfriend, either you decide together where you both want to go, or you tell her about your prearranged plans, and then see if you can work something out to spend sometime together.

It's also hard to imagine that having been with someone for 7 years, I wouldn't know about her bumblebee tights story when she was a kid. I'd have searched for those until I found them, birthday or no birthday. Patrick didn't even know what those were, so it feels like they were not connected at all.

And giving your girlfriend a necklace with your name on it... not the best of ideas, dude. Feels like a dog marking territory :D

reply

I'll say I agree with you but only on one matter.

You are right in that Lou should have told Patrick much sooner that she no longer wanted to be with him. The reason for this I think, is the same reason that she stayed at that dead-end job for so long. What I got from their relationship was that they liked each other just enough to stick around but there was no real love there. Just comfort. I think Lou would rather have been with Patrick than alone. Which is unfair to Patrick but in the novel (just started reading) Patrick is just as disinterested with Lou.

Here are things I disagree with...

Lou's mother was Catholic, I don't recall hearing anywhere that Lou was Christian. You should leave this out of your argument.

To me, there is ONE type of cheating and that is the the choice TO cheat, choosing to have intimate contact and I mean really intimate contact with someone. I don't consider emotional and mental feelings for someone cheating. Those feelings happen most times, without our control. (The heart wants what it wants.) Its only cheating if you act out those feelings. As stated earlier, it was indecent of Lou to wait so long to break it off with Patrick. But in my eyes, she did not cheat. She just developed feelings (against her will I might add) for someone else over the course of six months. I also attribute Lou and Will's "romance" to the Florence Nightingale effect.

You brought up Will's money quite a bit in all of your other rants about this particular subject. Lets get one thing clear. Lou did NOT care about the damn money. I mean she needed the money for her family so they could eat, have clothes and have a roof over their heads. But that was all. I truly believe that Lou's feelings for Will had no part to do with how much Money Will had. And even if it did...it would be minimal to say the least. Yeah, she got to experience some nice things that she wouldn't have otherwise. But her main goal though all that was to try and change Will's mind about Switzerland.

Remember, Patrick was going to pay for their trip to Norway. Money was not that important to Lou, other than necessities. Yes, there are people who value other things more than money.

You also stated that Lou left Patrick for Will because of looks. I don't recall this at all. What is you basis for this claim? Beauty/attraction is in the eye of the beholder.

As far as I can tell and what I believe, is that Lou really fell for who Will was as a person, (when he wasn't in a bad mood, can't blame him either).

I want to throw in the titles of 3 movies off the top of my head where the girl chooses the less wealthy guy as opposed to the richer, just as handsome other guy that they are already with. "Titanic" (to be fair Rose did not really want to be with Cal, still just the same) "The Notebook" (also a movie based off a novel for women, only with a male author). And More recently "The Choice" (same as "The Notebook").

Ultimately, what I am saying is that your basis for Lou choosing Will over Patrick based off wealth and looks is complete bull. Every romantic movie that I've seen, has the girl choosing (when they actually have a choice) the guy who most makes them happy. Money had nothing to do with their choices and looks are so very very subjective.

Being with and caring for Will gave Lou a purpose like she never experienced before. She realized that that propose did not need or include Patrick. Much too late, I might add.

It sucks for him, but you should let it go and not worry about Patrick so. He'll be fine. He'll go on to Norway, find a Norwegian fitness goddess and live happily ever after. You could write his story and call it "After Lou". Since you care about him so much.

As for me, I am much more worried about Nathan and Karen...It's so unfair that we don't know if they're together or not...why does no one care about Nathan. ;)

reply


..why does no one care about Nathan. ;)

Lol
I do!

.

"Please, if you are trying to convert me, this isn't a good time"

reply

This issue for me was that they made Partick into a douche so we wouldn't care what happens to him. He was a egotistical, self serving dick, and Lou wouldn't have stayed with him for a minute let alone 7 years. What did she like about him? The movie never showed us. So it was purely unbelievable, and therefore, the audience couldn't care less she was cheating on him.

The birthday scene was so painful to watch out of embarrassment, like it was over the top spelling it out for us one guy gets you the other doesn't. OMG, I get it. It just added to the already bad movie.

reply

That was really insightful and well-written. I agree with pretty much everything you've said. Other people have said it wasn't about money, and on the surface that's probably true. But subconsciously, I'm sure the appeal of a wealthy man with his own castle and unlimited budget for vacations gave her a glimpse into a better life than providing for her whole family while working in a cafe.

That said, that's not always the case with these infidelity movies. If you look up the disposable fiancé on TV tropes you'll see a long list of movies with this cliche. Quite often it's the rich guy that's shown to be the jerk while the girl falls for the every-man character. Titanic, The Wedding Singer, Wedding Crashers, & Sweet Home Alabama are a few examples.

reply

I can't really agree with most of your points, especially the wealth part. I agree with a post by Esoteric86, that in this particular case the girl doesn't give a shit about the fact that the guy is this wealthy person. The whole point of her character was that she's a loopy, dippy-do, happy go lucky gal who isn't into that stuff beyond basic need to have a job that keeps her family afloat. She even had qualms about the fact that he got her dad a job at his castle, as she clearly felt uncomfortable with the slightly nepotistic position that put her in.

I'm sorry but even though it's true there is a natural element to a woman "marrying up," there ARE also women out there who that is not what's on their mind. It's only men who are cynical enough to believe that every female on the planet is mindlessly following an instinct to gold-dig. It's very sad that you guys honestly believe this of every woman.

reply