who would actually give it to the police? I mean I understand, they want Edward to learn morals and ethics, but even in normal societies the ''Finders keepers'' rule is ok. Afterall, cops would probably keep the money themselves so what's the point?
shareActually, it is the proper thing to do; when you turn it over, you give your name, address and phone; if it's not claimed after a certain time, they give it to you. If the police keep it for themselves, that's wrong, but it's not like you lost anything - the money wasn't yours to begin with.
To fix IMDB's display https://secure.imdb.com/register-imdb/siteprefs last option (ref)
I think maybe we are just from two separate social standings, where I come from, I know for a fact , the cops would keep the money, no doubt about it, if it was in a wallet with id and credit cards, they probably would hold onto it for the owner, but all fair when it comes to loose notes. there's no real law.
I'm not saying that Giving it to the authority's is bad, far from it, it's just where i'm from it's not seen as very smart.
there's no real law.
I'm pretty sure in most cases that law applies to property which can be identified back to the owner. Loose cash is a different story. Also, as far as I know no such law exists in Ireland.
shareExcept for things like cell phones or monogrammed items, very few items could ever be identified back to the owner, other than the owner being able to say how much cash was in a box, for instance - loose cash is no different from other lost property.
Also, as far as I know no such law exists in Ireland.
Oh.....ok didn't know that, my bad XD
shareI know - we grow up with the adage "finders keepers losers weepers"; then when we grow up we're told that it's the "right" thing to do, but people don't talk about the law.
To fix IMDB's display https://secure.imdb.com/register-imdb/siteprefs last option (ref)
Money isn't a property.
____
"Your punishment must be more severe." -- Bane (TDKR)
[deleted]
Edwards' ethics are fairly subtly dealt with. We see a scene where The Inventor starts teaching Edward about ethics before he doesn't finish and puts the book away (symbolic - in my opinion - that The Inventor wasn't finished with Edward not only physically, but emotionally/ethically/personally).
This is another scene that alludes to Edwards' ethics; I think it shows his heart and desire for companionship is more natural to him......he has yet to fully learn and understand the ethics that are accepted by society (i.e. you're give it to the police).
Even the end of the film, I feel like Edward is very quick to kill Jim. Jim didn't have a gun at this point and didn't pose an immediate danger to Edward or Kim's life. Edward acts more out of passion when he kills Jim. And that's why he has to live the rest of his life in the mansion....if Edward could have just resolved the situation without killing Jim, he still would have had a chance to be apart of society.
I agree with everything you said up until the 3rd paragraph.
Jim is the quintessential bully. The embodiment of hate towards anything different. Like it or not, there would never have been any reasoning with a character like Jim, his natural instinct is to hate people like Edward.
Also, I believe Edwards actions to kill Jim are Justice in the fact that, Jim is not a civil individual.
Although I agree his death at the hands of Edward was quite unexpected and a little rushed to judgement, the fact remains, What else could a person in Edward's position who see's something bad happen to the person he loves do?
What did Edward ever do to upset Jim? Nothing, therefore Jim's hate is purely based on Edward as an individual. Nothing Edward could ever do would ever make Jim show compassion to Edward.
I don't think Edward could ever truly be part of this society. He is too unique and in a way challenges the norms of this environment, which to the people around him is frowned upon. And you are right, without Ethics and morals, Edward could never properly engage with any society.
I agree with what you say about Jim.....he hates what is different and ultimately forces Edward to retreat and puts Edward in a position where he has to defend himself.
It's a tough one....I suppose Edward isn't completely unjust in the killing (Edward did have a gun at one point) but still can't help but feel Edwards decision to kill was more out of passion than necessity. It's only after Jim hits Kim that Edward kills Jim and the look on Edwards face is malevolent, even a little frightening. Not even any words.
What else could Edward had done? I suppose he could have threatened, used words, attack (but not kill) to get Jim out of there.
Edward needed to be nurtured, cared for, and understood by society to be accepted.....essentially finish what The Inventor started. I think the Cobbs are really the only ones to accept him and try to nurture him.......everyone else was intrigued by Edward at first because he was different and exciting but then they also kind of shun him due to a misunderstanding. You get a disdain for the housewives because they are so interested in everybody else's business and then they are quick to judge and turn on Edward. Kind of sounds like society right?
*Jim had the gun
shareWell I really can't argue why Edward Killed Jim outside of what I've already stated. Really you raise a fair (and most likely true) claim that is was heat of the moment and out of passion. To be honest, the justification of Edward killing Jim debate is actually one of the most argued points of the movie from my experience on this board. I guess really it's ambiguous, but taking Edward's simple and caring nature and very basic understanding of right and wrong are probably the key factors in why Jim was killed.
I also agree with your 4th paragraph, but when you look at Eward and the society as a whole, Edward really is any teenager who feels misunderstood and longs for understanding about things he can't understand. The nosy neighbours are a beautiful touch to contrast Edward. So I agree, that is society, nothing ever really changes.
I wouldn't keep it. It's happened to me before and I've always handed it in.
shareFor me, the scene in the movie is not only well written, but it's also very thought provoking. It forces the audience to put themselves in the place of Edward and ask: "What would you do?"
While taking it to the police is the morally "right" thing to do, I feel sympathetic towards Kim's argument. "It's the nicer thing to do. That's what I would do." I myself would probably end up giving it to charity. And with all of the unfortunate people suffering in other countries nowadays, that to me seems like the most righteous decision. But as you see in the film, there's a huge difference between the right choice and the nice choice.
As for the ending, I believe Edward was justified in killing Jim if only out of self defense. Because Jim looked as though he was prepared to kill them both if that's what it came down too. Jim had plenty of chances to stop what he was doing and listen to reason, but he refused. And then paid the price for it.
Real is good. Interesting is better.
wow! great answer! I never took a minute to see the question from Edward's perspective and you're absolutely right, the entire scene takes on a whole new meaning in that sense. Thanks for the reply!
share