What happened with Jim?
-
shelemm — 9 years ago(June 12, 2016 06:11 AM)
"We are never given any interior look into what drives him,"
Every moment of this film does that. His staying up late to overhear an argument between his mom and her boyfirend, the sudden return of his father, it all adds up. Not in order to develop a single line of though or instance of drama, but every scene is rich in detail often leading Mason to avoid unnecessary drama in his life.
The second his father mentions that having children so young was a mistake (in the bowling alley restaurant), he gets up from the table, saying he has to go to the bathroom. His father responds, knowingly, "you don't have to go to the bathroom." And Mason dutifully sits back down. And after Tammy leaves, Mason gives his father a look "Don't look at me like that," Mason gets this flush, embarrassed look on his face. Here is the scene:
What you seem to prefer is the obvious: Action A leads to Action B which leads to Action C. You so badly want this film to be like other films. All nice and tidy. I realize that avoidance behavior makes for far less obvious drama, but you seem to be taking your opposition to an extreme, completely denying what 100% of the critcs, the industry, and a huge, appreciative public finds so endearing about this film. -
jgroub — 9 years ago(June 12, 2016 09:25 AM)
"Huge appreciate public"? WTF are you talking about?
This movie grossed $24 million in its initial release. It's right there on the front IMDb page of the movie. And even after Arquette won her Oscar, and they rereleased it back into theaters again, that number zoomed all the way on up to
wait for it
wait for it
wait for it
$25 million. Amazing.
It was released to - oh. my. god. - a grand total of 771 screens. WOW! What a smash hit! So much bigger than all the other summer releases. And it was such a huge hit, seen by soooo many people that it must have been in the top 5 movies seen all year, right? No? Gotta be the top 10, then, right? Whoops! Okay, okay, the top 40 for 2014. Drat, wrong again!
This winner, this tremendous, enormous movie seen by a huge, appreciative public was the number 100 top grossing movie of the year. It was beaten out for the coveted 99 spot by that titanic hit, That Awkward Moment. Who can ever forget that one!
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2014
As for your comment itself, my point is, I am utterly uninterested in any interior looks into this character, even if they were provided. He is boring. I don't care about him.
More to the point, I am not made to care about him. Why should I? Why is this kid compelling? Why is this kid worthy of having his life explored? Is he somehow different than other kids? Perhaps he's somehow better than other kids. No?
Look at Doinel in The 400 Blows. At least there is an author of his own life. At least there is a character worthy of study, someone who actually is different, someone who does have a story to tell about himself.
Even in that 4 minute scene you posted, he is the subject of the camera for a grand total of about 10 seconds. What is compelling about Mason here? What makes him worthy of exploration here? We don't even see him! What, because he gets up when his dad is about to give him the sex talk? Wow, that's really pushing new boundaries in film right there.
Even Tammy gets three times more screen time than that in that scene. That scene isn't even about him. And that's my point. If you're going to have a scene in the movie that isn't about the main subject, if you're going to introduce a character into a movie and give that character more screen time than the supposed main subject of the movie, then you have to follow that newly introduced character. Whatever did happen to Tammy? We'll never know. And you could care less.
All this movie is is people floating in and out of this uncompelling kid's life with no resolution, with no discussion of these people. Big whoop. That's not compelling. That's not worthy. And we come right back to the gimmick.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well. -
shelemm — 9 years ago(June 13, 2016 08:36 PM)
I never said it was a smash hit. Obviously a serious Slice of Life movie is never going to garner a lot of box office. But it does get an 81% audience approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which tells me that you are, again, left out in the cold.
-
jgroub — 9 years ago(June 13, 2016 09:21 PM)
Dude, I don't know what your fascination is with me. We already discussed the movie months ago, and now you want to discuss it some more? We've already established our respective positions on the movie. No need to continue to do so.
But you just go right on forming your opinions based on the opinions of others. I'll keep forming my opinions myself, thanks.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well. -
shelemm — 9 years ago(June 14, 2016 07:43 PM)
No fascinaton with you, my opinion is based on the power of this rather unlikely movie which is decidedly different and breaks down the pre-conceived expectations of the audience. For those who are okay with a movie that breaks the mold, it is a rewarding experience.
You keep on wanting it to be like other movies, which it is not. -
the_only_gendo — 9 years ago(August 29, 2016 07:16 AM)
So was it meant to be clear that Jim and the mom got divorced? I was a bit confused by that; aside from the one lecture he gave Mason when he got home late, I hadn't noticed anything bad about him that would put him in the "parade of drunken beep that Mason mentions near the end.
As for what happened to the step-siblings, on one had yeah, it's irritating to not know. On the other hand, I think it makes perfect sense that we don't know, because Mason doesn't know. The film is meant to make us experience what Mason experiences throughout. And often times in life, there are people you are close to as a kid that you lose contact with, and even though they were an important part of your life, you don't keep track of them as you grow older. -
palisade-1 — 9 years ago(August 29, 2016 08:03 AM)
So was it meant to be clear that Jim and the mom got divorced? I was a bit confused by that; aside from the one lecture he gave Mason when he got home late, I hadn't noticed anything bad about him that would put him in the "parade of drunken beep that Mason mentions near the end.
You could easily miss the details in the script the first time through, but the movie makes it clear that Jim and the mom were not married, they were common law partners and bought the house together. Olivia tells Mason in a scene shortly after Jim's disappearance that she is financially straightened due to having had to pay Jim his share of the house. Near the end, she talks about her life milestones, and lists her two marriages and two divorces. She was married to Mason Sr. and Bill the professor, so she did not actually marry Jim.
I found Jim a somewhat sympathetic character, since his psychological struggles were due to his war experiences, but that these led to a failed relationship was quite realistic. Olivia seemed to have a pattern of (probably subconsciously) selecting men who "needed" her to "save" them but this is a sure-fire path to failure. -
Marco4545 — 9 years ago(December 12, 2016 09:35 AM)
obviously things didn't work out with him. The filmmaker makes us believe he was another alcoholic. The movie does not follow up on every little storyline because not every storyline is important. When you are looking back at your life as a whole not every relationship ends up being a big part of your life people just kind of come and go and I believe that is what the film was portraying