Charles wants to be with Helen. But, by then, it was too little too late. She didn't want to be with him anymore. I can't believe that there are some idiots that would condemn her for that. Helen was no angel but she certainly deserved better then him for a husband.
Money isn't the root of all evil. Love of money is.
Even if he could become the world's best husband I wouldn't take him back after everything that had happened. I would be happy that he got saved and be his friend but that is it even if I never remarried.
shareShe shouldn't have led him on like that and treated him so badly when he was handicapped.
shareShe didn't lead him on. I don't think she had really made up her mind to leave him until shortly before the Sunday lunch. If she had been seeing Orlando while she was with Charles, that would be leading him on. And after the way Charles treated her, I wouldn't have blamed her.
You reap what you sow. She was a lot kinder to Charles than I would have been.
So, you would have killed Charles. Nice to know. And yeah, she did lead him on letting him get close to her again and acting in every way as a devoted wife.
shareWell, I wouldn't have gone to the hospital or the house after he was released *if* he lived.
I wouldn't have had any contact with him at all.
And if he died, he died.
It wasn't her job to keep him alive or take care of him. He divorced her. Her responsibility for him was OVER.
Her choice. What I would have liked to see was them team up as the "friends" she said they were at the end of the film while he pressed charges against the tramp who stole from him.
shareExactly, if he dies, he dies! I wouldn't have taken care of that bastard for one minute. Guess he would have had to go to a state run facilty or something.
Anyone who would talk down on her for not helping him should take care of him themselves. He had NO redeeming qualities that deserved one ounce of pity from her.
Precisely. In the original stage play, Helen and Charles reunite...but apparently, lots of people felt that wasn't right after all the hell he'd put her through, so Tyler changed it for the movie. Personally, I'm a little conflicted, since there's been couples in reality whose marriages were healed by God when they trusted Him over themselves. Then again, everyone has a limit on how much crap they feel they can (or should) put up with. Abuse is a Biblically valid reason for divorce, since it breaks the marital covenant of faithfulness and selfless respect. God hates divorce, but He allows it under certain circumstances to protect the victims of abuse or infidelity. That's one of many reasons why He sets certain rules for a Godly marriage, like not being yoked with unbelievers.
shareMoviefan - this movie is entertainment with a few philosophical messages thrown in. Like "forgive for YOU not for the other person." Charles has tons of money, he would have never lost it over the floozy - he is a lawyer after all AND they weren't married yet. He would have never given her access to all his bank accounts. He could have sold the mansion and moved into a smaller place and had plenty of money for care. Helen had Christian obligation to take care of him after he was shot. And she certainly didn't clean THAT house all by herself! I think it is very rare that people like Charles ever change. If anything, (without a lot of effort - I know!) flaws magnify as you get older.
shareNever in a million years.
I might forgive him, but we don't need to speak.
Bless her for doing what I guess is the Christian thing, but I am going to hell because I would have let Charles rot.