It does seem to me many people go wit what the character's say, rather than what is shown - it's as if people have little ability in reading media now. I am happy to notice that there seems to be many who do still pay attention to what is said with expression and tone, between the lines, and who noticed that they still clearly regret not having been able to have children. Of course they deny this, that is perfectly normal, you do not dwell on past disappointments but try to live on the best you can - even if it means lying to yourself and your partner at times. In real life people settle, things are left open, people go on and maybe sometimes wonder 'what if'... but it is a movie, a story, and so the adoption is one way of bringing some closure to the narrative. It is a logical end as well, I half feared Cornelia would get magically pregnant towards the end.
It is also clear that he has more wrong with his career than having to cut the film. It is like a variant of writer's block, he can't finish the film because he has somehow lost the thread, and we never know if he then finally did. The other almost unsaid thing is that Jamie is not that evil: Josh paints his fiction as monstrous fraud in his mind, but as the others point outat the dinner, Kent's story is still real. Many documentaries mix fiction and fact after all, it's practically a genre now. So yes, what he did was wrong but hardly the shattering horror Josh thinks it is. Neither is it uncommon for young, ambitious but a little insecure people to hide their ambition, fearing ridicule if they do not succeed. He asks the help of older people, who freely give it - again is that so bad? Both show a dark side of their character in the end, not just Jamie. Josh even does say it in the end - he isn't the devil, he's just young, or somethig like that.
I do wonder if the low rating is because most people just read the surface of the film. I thought it was good, at least. I liked the many subtle touches of humour, and the way all characters were flawed.
reply
share