My thoughts on Carl, and the generalized, artificial movie

You clearly seem to view things under absolutes, op. A person can be loving even if they're not accessible to everyone. And why is it selfish to love just one thing or person?

That being said, I actually relate to Carl. I lost my older brother to suicide a couple of years ago and I fell into a deep depression. I know that he struggled with anxiety, but I never knew it was that bad and he didn't wrote a letter or anything before he killed himself. I started to isolate myself from people and wasn't particularly an accessible person. I was pretty much known for being a loving and caring person towards others, but I couldn't care less when I was depressed. But I've started to get myself together. Does it makes me a bad person? No. Not at all. Just because you're not so-called loving, doesn't make you a bad person.

The portrayal of Carl is pretty much a realistic portrayal of a character. There are certain archetypes in animated films and otherwise that pretty much have one trait and although Carl is one of them, he's still a quite realistic and human character. Besides, Carl definitively seemed as a person that could be loving when he lived with Ellie.

after seeing this other reply, op, you seem more and more as an idiot with no understandment of how humanity works or how to construct a thread.

He lived with someone he clearly deeply loved for 70 years. It looked like the type of relationship where they basically did everything together, even working in the same business.To go from having someone around you for 95% of the day for 70 years to not having them would be devastating. I don't blame him for being bitter.

This is even more so for someone like Carl who is clearly shy and introverted (at least in his younger days) so maybe even only had his wife as a friend as well as a lover.

Man, your point of view is so... shallow and... just not my favorite.

Men love in haste but detest at leisure. Hatred is by far the longest pleasure.

A curious post.

Firstly - that anyone would hold a family movie to account because it doesn't conform to the lofty ideals of Kierkegaard and Nietsche (the latter incidentally never married and died being cared for by his sister and mother).

How much have you experienced bereavement?

Whilst it's true that a loved one, after death, continues to exist in one's thoughts and memories - this cannot fully overcome their absence. At first the pain is unbearable - eventually it becomes manageable - and thoughts of that loved one do not inevitably lead to tears. For most (but not all) people - the sad thoughts are eventually outnumbered by happy memories of deceased individual. But no matter how long - sometimes the pain and the tears will resurface - often taking one by surprise. Of course - if you're a person of religious conviction you may find additional solace in the thought of meeting them again in an afterlife (I'm not. Neither was Frederick 'God is dead' Nietsche).

In a very real sense a space is left by the absence of the loved one. All the philosophical, theoretical text in the world will not fill that space. They are gone - and will never return. The memories are all that's left. Some people cling to them. It may not always be healthy - but it I understandable - and very common. Frankly, people should be sympathetic to that. And that's what this movie tries to do. It tries to emphasise to those outside the world of the sad and lonely that there may be more to the curmudgeonly old person they see. That they have lived a full life - and that maybe - just maybe - they are sad because they are convinced that those happy times may never return. So, as I said - they cling to old memories.

And the point of the movie is: if they can be persuaded to let you in - maybe, just maybe, they will begin to see the value in life again. And maybe, just maybe - they'll also recognise that the loved one they cling to would also want them to be able to do that. Alternatively you could write them off as selfish and ignore them.

As for the corporate part. Really? You think that because the corporate offered him lots of money he should just shut up and put up with it? They wanted to take away the final symbol of the happy life he and Ellie had built together. The world changes. Progress occurs - and sadly - it has no respect for history and heritage. Was he wrong to cling to the house? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But is it so surprising? Absolutely not! Or are you saying that the will of progress has the inalienable right to steamroll everyone if it offers enough cash? Is that how it works? The more money you have the more you have the right to ignore an individual's wants and wishes? Highest bidder gets to trample on the little people. I would reverse your assertion and say that corporate behaviour too often unjustly curtails the wants and wishes of anyone who stands in its way - often because it has the financial power to 'buy' the allegiance of the appropriate local councillors etc. So your house: bulldozed.

No doubt you'll quote philosophers - or perhaps Buddhism on the subject of over attachment to material things - but that's not really my point. I have no particular material attachment (other than to my musical instruments - and I think I would go crazy if I no longer had access to them - because the music I create gives my life a sense of purpose. It's an illusion of course - but such illusions are necessary. We all need to define for ourselves a reason to live). My point is the security, the sense of a rooted position (materially or spiritually) every individual tries to establish during their lives can be completely overturned if the commercial and political wind shifts in a different direction. If you think about it, it's not the material things as such that people cling to - it's the fear of their lives being made uncertain and insecure. Uprooted.

The dexterity of youth to cope with change is often far greater than for many old people. For young people life seems long - anything can happen. A feeling of invincibility is apparent amongst younger people. But with every death experienced - and every catastrophe which occurs along the course of an individual's life - one's mortality is further and further emphasised. Older people may have long grown accustomed to a way of living, a routine - from which they gain solace and a sense of security (illusory or not). As such - when making changes which affect these people we should be sympathetic - not rushed. Progress is an interesting thing. For some reason it seems to need to occur as rapidly as possible. But think about it: where ultimately is it progressing to? Is there a destination? No. Of course not. Progress is infinite. Therefore - what's the rush? And why, therefore, can't the wishes of older generations be accommodated? Personally I don't want to live in your world where the inconvenient individual can be so easily brushed aside.

And again - that's what the movie tries to parallel. The life of the, at face value, cantankerous older person in the face of rapid change. Often people withdraw into the sanctuary of the life they know when they feel threatened - and try to shield themselves from the changing, unsympathetic world outside. Understand - it's not always easy for older people (or indeed for many younger people - for example people who live with mental health problems). Some are naturally dynamic - go getters who embrace change. But many - perhaps most - eventually tire of the endless progress for progress's sake whereby it can seem quite pointless and futile.

Instead of regarding such people as selfish - far better to incorporate their worlds into our......no? And if the wider world isn't too threatening - maybe they'll willingly give up their security blankets and embrace the change which is occurring all around them. If they don't - fair enough!

I think Carl's reaction is not in any way strange or 'proving that he was a sadist all along'. On the contrary, his reaction is so normal that people who stay happy and optimistic all throughout suffering tend to be viewed with suspicion by society ('you clearly did not really love your wife if you can laugh this soon after her death'), which isn't really fair either because we all deal with grief in a different way.

Shutting yourself of from the world and becomming a misantropic pessimist is a perfectly normal reaction for anyone who has suffered the loss of a spouse or child. The grieving person does not want to see that 'the world goes on without my beloved in it' and pushes friends away. Something that is only problematic if the shut-in behavior keeps persisting in full force after a few years.

I would sympathise if you had a dissenting opinion based on 'i did not react that way when my wife died' or some such, but babbling about some filosofers makes you come of as immature and selfish. You are merely looking for a chance to show of that you can quote cool one-liners, and an opportunity to show that you are 'not impressed by commercialized emotions' by disliking a movie most people like.

many times when people are trying to reconcile their grief over the loss of somebody close to them, they do become bitter and angry and i think that is part of the grieving process, and this film actually has given the best emotional treatment of a character that disney has ever done, i saw the same thing with my grandmother after my grandfather died in 2007, she was miserable, her husband and companion of 50 years was gone, and she just wanted to die so that she could be with him. Carl was never a bad person in the film, he was actually a good man who was grieving

many times when people are trying to reconcile their grief over the loss of somebody close to them, they do become bitter and angry and i think that is part of the grieving process, and this film actually has given the best emotional treatment of a character that disney has ever done, i saw the same thing with my grandmother after my grandfather died in 2007, she was miserable, her husband and companion of 50 years was gone, and she just wanted to die so that she could be with him. Carl was never a bad person in the film, he was actually a good man who was grieving