.what was he so disturbed about? maybe did his perception change, and now he sees it as a seductive, "trouble-maker" ty
-
pillfeast — 10 years ago(May 26, 2015 04:59 PM)
Evidence for the second interpretation: The case against Richard starts to fall apart when Natalie changes her testimony. We know she was telling the truth on the stand, she only heard the shot, but Matt and Ruth do not. I was a little surprised that they didn't make more out of this, it could easily appear that she was trying to mitigate Richard's guilt and reduce the time her kids' father spent in prison.
But ultimately I agree with the first interpretation. I think that taking the band-aid off and looking at his healed finger was meaningful. I doubt he'd be feeling too healed if he'd just come to the conclusion that Natalie was more to blame than he'd previously thought.
Also, I couldn't help but notice that, in either case, there were still things he couldn't possibly express to Ruth. -
bornwriter17 — 16 years ago(May 20, 2009 04:14 PM)
He was disturbed by it because her ex-husband once made her happy. He's disturbed by the fact that as sick and awful her ex-husband was, he must have had a little good in him. It's like when I saw a photo of Hitler when he was a baby, I was really disturbed by it. It was freaky seeing the incarnation of evil as an innocent little baby. I would prefer to see bad people as just bad without a single feeling of love, innocence, or remorse. If all killers were just 100% evil without a single good deed or kind moment it would be easier. The most painful thing in the world to do is to admit that even bad people have some good in them.
-
akari_pup — 15 years ago(May 09, 2010 01:44 AM)
Jesus Christ, dude. Total misogynist. Did your mother molest you or something? What you just did right there is, you shifted the blame from Richard, the abusive murderer, to Natalie, the victimized wife who apparently caused the whole ordeal because she "should have known better."
Are all rape victims just asking for it, Collin? Do you want to be the one to rape and show those women what they're good for? Oh, Collin. They're all just dumb skanks, aren't they? Just dumb skanks that you want to strangle and sodomize.
ANYWHO, it's pretty clear that he was disturbed by the smile because it humanized Richard. I mean, the movie plastered the guy's walls with drawings from his kids during that scene. Pretty obvious they're trying to humanize him. -
horatiohornblower — 15 years ago(June 06, 2010 03:51 PM)
That may be part of it but the bigger reason is still going back to the lobster scene in the beginning of the film: She may not have intended any of this, but she is still the reason, yet gets to walk away, just as the female lobster is released that males will fight over. It disturbs Matt because he is becoming aware of this cycle in usand heres the kickerbecoming aware of it only after killing FOR another woman, his wife.
Basically this film is saying that in a passive way, gender affects our decisions and in this film they just show how women direct mens actionsusually not through direct means, but moreso as an influence on the way men think and behave. Her smile, in that picture, begins to wake this realization in himand he is reflecting on that, as his wife "rewards" him with a nice breakfast for taking care of what was disturbing her so badly. Matt may have wanted to do it anyways, but he only acted on it after his wife tells him how badly seeing him disturbs her. Again, the fault is still his own, but his actions and behavior are influenced by a woman.
That smile in the photo must almost seem wicked when realizing this, almostexcept its nothing intentional, just human nature on both sides, thus the "humanizing" pictures from the kids as a secondary thought to reinforce the idea. The movie is not trying to lay blame at the foot of women, rather its saying that we as humans definitely do, very often, behave out of gender-based concerns and do some extreme things for the opposite sex sometimes without even realizing it. Just think of how many people are stuck in loops in that way, perhaps in smaller ways, but acting as if powerless to the cycle because they dont realize what theyre doing over and over again. Great film!!
"Start over. Exchange this false light for a true one.""The New World"
-
grrrdevin — 15 years ago(July 07, 2010 05:50 PM)
Jesus Christ, dude. Total misogynist. Did your mother molest you or something? What you just did right there is, you shifted the blame from Richard, the abusive murderer, to Natalie, the victimized wife who apparently caused the whole ordeal because she "should have known better."
Are all rape victims just asking for it, Collin? Do you want to be the one to rape and show those women what they're good for? Oh, Collin. They're all just dumb skanks, aren't they? Just dumb skanks that you want to strangle and sodomize.
Dear God, I've never seen such long-winded and self-righteous pontification in my life. Collin was empathizing with Dr. Fowler, the way I see it. Women can be just as selfish, manipulative and abusive as men, and are far from intrinsically innocent.
"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm
fine.
Just ask my other heads!" -
grrrdevin — 12 years ago(November 23, 2013 03:58 PM)
Ahh yes, typical feminist, raising hyperbole-laced non sequitur arguments to make a point. Which is a shame because I actually agree with you that it's absurd to blame Natalie for what happened (although not to interpret that it's what Matt was thinking).
"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm
fine.
Just ask my other heads!" -
grrrdevin — 15 years ago(July 07, 2010 05:39 PM)
It's like when I saw a photo of Hitler when he was a baby, I was really disturbed by it. It was freaky seeing the incarnation of evil as an innocent little baby.
Ever seen that Russian movie
Come and See
, about WWII? There's a scene at the end dealing with Hitler's baby picture in the manner you described.
"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm
fine.
Just ask my other heads!" -
PotassiumMan — 12 years ago(September 07, 2013 11:07 PM)
I didn't quite understand the importance of the picture either. Perhaps once he saw the picture, Fowler wondered where her loyalties would lie if push came to shove. It's reasonable to wonder because the dead man was after all, the father of her own children.
-
MalibuBohemian — 12 years ago(January 19, 2014 07:45 AM)
Just saw this film, despite its release over a decade ago; probably one of the best films I have ever seen - just remarkable in terms of capturing interpersonal relationships, reactions to grief, love, anger, betrayal. Loved it.
I also wondered about that line and then realized a few hours later that it tied right back to the "lesson" we're given at the beginning of the film when Frank, Matt, and Jason are pulling in the lobster traps. Frank points out to little Jason that the lobster which lost an arm/claw had crawled into "the bedroom" and, whenever there are 2 or male lobsters in a bedroom "something like that is going to happen." At this stage, Frank pulls in an "older female". In the words of Matt Fowler: "now, the older females, like this old gal, they're the most dangerous, especially when they're growing berries." Jason responds, "Berries?" And Matt says, "Yeah, eggs. You see, she could take out two males - no problemBut this fine lady, she has it easy; cuz the state says we have to let her go." And with that he throws her back in the water.
To me, Matt's reference to Natalie's smile is not only a realization that she is not so innocent as she appears and is indeed the root cause of his son's death, but also an allusion to what transpires in the film. Just as the lobsters crawl into the bedroom, Matt's son literally crawled into Natalie's bedroom, where another lobster (Richard) still effectively was. And, just as Matt tells young Jason when 2 or more male lobsters are in a bedroom - one of these lobsters/men is going to get hurt. In this case, it is Frank (and later Richard). But the real clincher is the fact that the "older female" is "the most dangerous." This, quite clearly, is an allusion to Natalie - the older woman whom Frank so desires - that is (albeit unintentionally) the most dangerous. She is the one, fertile and capable of "growing berries", who can lure the men into the bedroom. It is in that bedroom that the subsequent fighting, disputes, and loss of limbs (for lobsters) and life (for Frank and later Richard) occur. Thus, in essence, Natalie, like the female lobster, has "taken out two males" (both Frank and Richard).
That's my assumption; it has nothing to do with her being once happy with Richard or Richard's other, human side. This isn't about Richard. It's all about how Natalie, coyly, perhaps unintentionally, is the real root of the issue and the reason that the various tragedies in the film have unfolded. As a side note - it's also very clear early in the movie when Frank says something like, "We're in trouble with Duncan when he's older" and Natalie's hesitant smile that suggests "There isn't a future here; don't you get that?", that Natalie knows full well what she's doing - which is having a fling with a younger guy, without much regard for his feelings or, ultimately, safety. -
katiekeene — 10 years ago(May 24, 2015 11:25 PM)
MalibuBohemian
explanation (below) of smiling Natalie lays bare the metaphor of the title
In the Bedroom
" tied right back to the "lesson" we're given at the beginning of the film when Frank, Matt, and Jason are pulling in the lobster traps. Frank points out to little Jason that the lobster which lost an arm/claw had crawled into "the bedroom" and, whenever there are 2 or male lobsters in a bedroom "something like that is going to happen." At this stage, Frank pulls in an "older female". In the words of Matt Fowler: "now, the older females, like this old gal, they're the most dangerous, especially when they're growing berries." Jason responds, "Berries?" And Matt says, "Yeah, eggs. You see, she could take out two males - no problemBut this fine lady, she has it easy; cuz the state says we have to let her go." And with that he throws her back in the water.
To me, Matt's reference to Natalie's smile is not only a realization that she is not so innocent as she appears and is indeed the root cause of his son's death, but also an allusion to what transpires in the film. Just as the lobsters crawl into the bedroom, Matt's son literally crawled into Natalie's bedroom, where another lobster (Richard) still effectively was. And, just as Matt tells young Jason when 2 or more male lobsters are in a bedroom - one of these lobsters/men is going to get hurt. In this case, it is Frank (and later Richard). But the real clincher is the fact that the "older female" is "the most dangerous." This, quite clearly, is an allusion to Natalie - the older woman whom Frank so desires - that is (albeit unintentionally) the most dangerous. She is the one, fertile and capable of "growing berries", who can lure the men into the bedroom. It is in that bedroom that the subsequent fighting, disputes, and loss of limbs (for lobsters) and life (for Frank and later Richard) occur. Thus, in essence, Natalie, like the female lobster, has "taken out two males" (both Frank and Richard).
That's my assumption; it has nothing to do with her being once happy with Richard or Richard's other, human side. This isn't about Richard. It's all about how Natalie, coyly, perhaps unintentionally, is the real root of the issue and the reason that the various tragedies in the film have unfolded. As a side note - it's also very clear early in the movie when Frank says something like, "We're in trouble with Duncan when he's older" and Natalie's hesitant smile that suggests "There isn't a future here; don't you get that?", that Natalie knows full well what she's doing - which is having a fling with a younger guy, without much regard for his feelings or, ultimately, safety. -
Melissaslist — 10 years ago(May 18, 2015 10:14 AM)
I realize this post is extremely old, but just re-watched this last night on netflix.
That is definitely a haunting scene. You know he's there to kill this guy, but when he sees the photo of her smiling a big smile he has doubts over whether or not he has the whole story right. Maybe they DID have a loving marriage and his son came between that, or if not that perhaps he sabotaged any chance he'd have of getting her back and being a family with his kids. Maybe he wasn't such a monster and that's the reason she left him in the first place. It seems the dad was convinced that vigilante justice was in the right because this guy was just total scum, but seeing that photo showed him a side he did not know of which makes you wonder what ELSE did he not know? -
jmichael3387 — 10 years ago(January 22, 2016 06:22 AM)
1st interpretation: The photo humanized Richard.
2nd interpretation: The photo showed that maybe Natalie was a femme fatale.
But don't forget the 3rd interpretation: Perhaps Matt really did have a crush on Natalie. So he let his testosterone take over and did the 'macho' thing.maybe partially to impress Natalie or to protect her. -
PotassiumMan — 9 years ago(August 26, 2016 08:22 PM)
Here are my thoughts. The question about the picture that unsettled him was whether or not it was a
recent
picture. As in, would Natalie bring herself to smile in a picture with her ex-husband after he killed someone? That's my guess on what was bothering Dr. Fowler in the film's ending.