Who was right?
Who was right, Angus' mother and stepfather or Angus?
shareSPOILERS:
A complicated question -- which is why Alexander Payne movies, most of the time, are very good. They raise very painful issues.
The mother and stepfather -- a good looking woman and a good looking man, you can tell they likely have egos and a lustful interest in each other -- make THEIR point. Because Angus visited his institutionalized father, the father attacked a worker with the snow globe gift and now another faciility must be found for him and "it was so hard to find the other place." You feel their pain. They are "stuck" with care of the first husband.
But still we end up on Angus' side, don't we? I can't remember the details, but as I recall the mother doesn't want her son to be with her on CHRISTMAS and worse, she and her lover-boy new husband have selected Christmas for a HONEYMOON. They perhaps could have honeymooned say, any other time of the year? (It doesn't have to be right after the wedding.)
Many mothers, and many stepfathers, treat the child of an earlier marriage with more care and consideration than Angus' mom and stepdad do. They just strike us as arrogant self-absorbed people even WITH the burden of Husband Number One.
A more compassionate routine could have been developed among the mother, stepdad and Angus about how and when to see the father, or if the father should be visited at all.
And this: all the other young men got to chopper off to ski, but ONLY Angus' parents were "unavailable by phone." What if there had been an accident?
And of course, the parents heartily agree with dooming Giamatti's "Paul Hunham" to a firing over this incident. Heartless -- the teacher(not a professor) is sacrificed instead of the son, but the parents and school WOULD have sacrificed the son.
CONT
SPOILERS
All said, the movie offers a hopeful future to all. Angus will likely compete school, avoid military school(and Vietnam, unfair to others but there it is.) They show young women CONSTANTLY coming on to him, so there will be a girlfriend/wife in his future, someone to love him, kids of his own. He won't NEED his mother and stepfather.
And he will probably stay in touch with Hunham and eventually help him, too. I hope.
The third major character -- Mary Lamb the cook -- will stay on at the college and perhaps be consoled by Angus as the months roll on.
He touched ‘em though
shareCan't it be that they're both right, in that they both have valid and legitimate claims that just happen to be in conflict with each other (because different people at different ages and with different responsibilities want and need different things)?
shareClearly, none is right, because neither one is the problem.
The problem is the shit house where the father is kept: they should certainly have ZERO rights to refuse to keep him on the basis of any of these "problems". Isn't that their job? Arent' they an institution with their OBLIGATIONS?
They should get sued just for even mentioning anything about it.
I read it as more of an indictment of the 70s and the way people with mental problems were treated in those days.
shareCan't it be that they're both right, in that they both have valid and legitimate claims that just happen to be in conflict with each other (because different people at different ages and with different responsibilities want and need different things)?
---
I feel compelled to respond to this comment -- at odds with my earlier response above -- because I recently re-watched Alexander Payne's "About Schmidt" and found that THAT movie, too(from the same director) took up a "Who is right?" quandry that repeats, I guess, in this Payne movie of 21 years later.
In About Schmidt, the movie opens with Jack Nicholson(looking banal and pudgy and unexceptional) retiring from his insurance executive job and about to take a long RV trip with his equally old wife. But she dies suddenly, leaving Jack a widower and his only child daughter (Hope Davis) without a mother. But the daughter is due to get married very soon. She lives in Colorado now and Jack lives in Nebraska. He takes a road trip to the wedding and -- when there in Colorado tries DESPERATELY to stop his daughter from marrying a dork he finds beneath her. (Later as narrator, he tells the audience he feels the man is "a nincompoop.")
So we are to take Jack's side: these potential in-laws are awful, backwards people and the son is in some ways the worst.
But THEN we are to take the daughter's side: She rages, " I don't remember you ever caring about my life in the years before this!) (A clue that the "unretired" Jack ignored his family when he was a hard working workaholic.)
CONT
As the movie goes on, we see Jack as "the hero" trying to stop his daughter's wedding, AND we see the daughter as the "heroine" trying to STOP her father from ruining her happiness. (Emotionally, she's no prize either -- a bitter complainer -- and probably desperate, with her mother dead, to find a new family.)
So, two Alexander Payne movies, 21 years apart , with a similar approach to the angst of family life: Who is the good guy? Who is the bad guy? Maybe both are. Maybe both aren't. Father versus daughter in About Schmidt becomes Mother(and stepfathter) versus son, in The Holdovers. Plus: none of them are terribly likeable people, anyway.
Yeah, they're all gray and we're left to make up our own minds. That's what's good about this type of film. They're closer to real life. And i would use the term "protagonist" rather than "hero".
shareYeah, they're all gray and we're left to make up our own minds. That's what's good about this type of film. They're closer to real life.
---
Yes..its risky to do that with a movie(you lose an identifiable "hero" -- or protagonist) but I think it is one reason why Alexander Payne's movies are generally good ones and have lasted.
---
And i would use the term "protagonist" rather than "hero".
--
Well that's true, but I think my "broad brush" approach was meant to suggest that when we are to take JACK'S side -- he's our hero --we are supposed to be WITH him. But when we are to take the DAUGHTERs side -- SHE's our hero --we are supposed to be WITH her. And of course, we never get to choose a CLEAR hero. They both have good arguments and they are both flawed people.
Its semantic but its meaningful , I guess. So often as audiences we WANT to know "who is the hero? who should I be rooting for?) and neither of these movies allows for that clarity.
The risk is higher, but the reward is also higher. If you do it right, you might just win a lot of awards.
Protagonist because it avoids putting a value judgement on the heroism level of the character.
Angus was right. His self-absorbed, self-righteous mother and her new husband are only pissed off because they've been inconvenienced, and now have to deal with Angus's father's situation. Angus has a right to visit his dad.
shareExactly. I don't even understand the question - it couldn't be clearer. in their obnoxious sense of entitlement/evasion/self-justification weaponizing/scape-goating the adverse consequence against their son and, ultimately, his teacher.
The larger resonating question was left only subtly stated - the vast difference between the rich & the poor regarding service in Vietnam. The affluent gave their own, safe harbor in college, while leaving to the working class/poor the chore of 'defending democracy'. Not so benign neglect, either.
The best conclusion I can say is: nobody.
Angus’ mother should have been there for her son on Christmas.
But Hunham should not have taken Angus off campus or to the mental health facility. He didn’t know the circumstances.
At the same time, I understand where he comes from. You have a child that has been dumped by his mother and now wants to see his father. It’s really hard to say no to that.
So, in the end, is who you liked less.
I really hated Angus’ mother. Like he said, they have been married since July. The stepfather is rich. They could’ve gone anytime. Plus, her divorcing her mentally incompetent husband? So much for “in sickness and in health”. She was a gold digger and it shows.
The mom essentially abandoned her kid with a shitload of trauma and thought it was okay because she threw pills and therapy at him. And then the threat of military school (i.e. possible violent death). She was 100% in the wrong. He was\is a child. She failed miserably as a parent. The situation with her ex-husband was largely not in her control, but her treatment of her son afterwards was in her control.
shareI have since seen the film a second time and yeah...the mother and the stepfather come off as villainous to me.
Consider that the stepfather is all too willing to ensure that Angus ends up in military school and hence the Draft. He says something like "maybe the military will straghten him out." Nice way to "get rid" of the original father's troublesome son, "if things break right."
As the mother and the stepfather as a unit, one realizes that they COULD have honeymooned at ANY TIME during the school year when Angus was supposed to be AT school, but they chose to move the honeymoon to Christmastime right when he intended to come home. Neither mother nor stepfather wanted to have to deal with a teenager at home for two weeks -- as most other students are WELCOMED..
Plus all of this from saltfat, all of which I agree with:
BEGIN:
The mom essentially abandoned her kid with a shitload of trauma and thought it was okay because she threw pills and therapy at him. And then the threat of military school (i.e. possible violent death). She was 100% in the wrong. He was\is a child. She failed miserably as a parent. The situation with her ex-husband was largely not in her control, but her treatment of her son afterwards was in her control
END
The movie is open-ended enough that perhaps Angus can reconcile with his mother in the future. MAYBE with the stepfather.
But if not...he has Mary the Cook for solace on campus..and will likely re-unite with Mr. Hunam in future years...perhaps to help out(with work) the teacher who sacrified everything for him.