I have heard a couple reviews (one from a critic, one from an everyday person) that suggest that while most people go with the film through the end, there are some who can't seem to buy into the last fifteen minutes. I followed it through. It sounds like Howard did. It would be interesting to hear more opinions, as I've found it hard to locate anyone around me who has seen the film.

You're right, I stayed right through from the beginning of the kidnap but I gotta tell you part of me was saying, "Oh come on, does the Doc really have it in him?" but it must have been a small part and I give credit to the makers for not allowing me to end my suspension of disbelief.

Let me digress by saying the flick could have been stretched but I like the way it wasn't. One stretch would have included the story of Tomei and family post-death of Stahl. But what a great piece of storytelling in that one simple shot of her oldest son's clear despondency. Up 'til then he carried nothing but an infectious grin from ear to ear. That shot is devastating and told us all we needed to know, in retrospect.

I have no memory of that shot of the son, no recollection of the band-aid. Slap my hand with a ruler.

Your "imaginary coda" is interesting. We see Spacek acknowledge her bitterness, but we are never told that she has overcome it. And her turning point was with Wilkinson; I'm not convinced she could confront Tomei, especially after their last encounter.

It is required that both of us keep this thread in mind so that we can dig it up after I have seen the film a second time. That may be a long way off, but I don't think I picked up on nearly as many of the subtleties as you.

Re "coda": It makes sense that Spacek would reconcile with Tomei. That scene when she slapped her--wasn't it painful to watch? I mean we sympathize with Tomei and all and on the surface Spacek's anger is wholly misdirected. But her (Spacek's) grief is also overwhelming to the point of irrationality; thus, she can be forgiven, too & hence, our coda.

The coda makes sense if you honestly believe the death of Strout gives Wilkinson & Spacek closure (oh, how I DESPISE that word), which the ending, again, seems to reinforce.

And re the other possible strecth, the impact of Stahl's death on oldest son: I really appreciate how the director "stated" the little boy's growing love for Stahl with just a few shots. Their relationship is almost a film in and of itself, especially in light of Strout's fear of being shut out of his own children's lives , which ultimately had tragic consequences.

Per your earlier comment, I can't recall reading any critic reviews but now want to. Especially David Denby's. He's about the most literate film critic around. And it's funny, you have me now thinking of seeing it a 2nd time. I had no intention of going again, felt sure of it, but...I blame it on YOU

If either of you found a site that would help explain this movie, let me know. I can’t
say the I “got it.” I did love it. What a gut wrenching story of loss, grief and the
destructive power of inertia and misdirected actions. I like what you both have written
and will add some of my rather poorly articulated, off-the-cuff first reactions.

As a parent, I related to the parents and their overwhelming grief as well as their
mistakes. Would I have wanted my l8 year old son who was gifted, a potential
architect, and just leaving for college to fall for a not quite divorced
woman in her 30’s with two kids and an abusive husband? Absolutely not.
(The movie made Tomei sweet and the oldest kid darling, but I struggle with
a woman in her 30’s finding an 18 year old a permanent possibility.) Parents
understand it but also know that in a few years, after the passion wears off, he would
be stuck in a fishing boat with maybe kids of his own and never realize his
potential. I kept wondering why the mother didn’t fully express her feelings to her
son. She always just hedged around the issue to avoid a confrontation with her
son, who would assure her, “it isn’t serious.” Well, he was talking to Tomei about
NOT leaving, so it was serious. Was mother afraid of once again becoming
bitch mom? Did she sense the dad’s attitude towards her that she was too
controlling? I relate to being the bitch mom who tries to teach values and warn
offspring while dad appears to be the good guy by never addressing issues and
remaining neutral. (And maybe, as the mom pointed out, dad was envious
of the boy’s relationship and living vicariously through it.) Mom needed to risk
the son’s further anger by speaking out, and dad needed to also do so rather
than just being a warm fuzzy. Mom kept waiting for dad to do something, when
history always showed her that dad would NOT act to displease the boy. When the
boy was beaten by the husband, mom demanded that dad call the police, but he
went along with his son’s request to not call. Mom said she would but didn’t,
probably not wanting to risk further alienation. Would a call to the police help avoid the
death? Maybe, but inertia didn’t help.

The dad tells Tomei’s boy that if two lobsters enter a trap and go “into the bedroom,”
damage can occur. (A one clawed lobster.) I think the parents had been in the
bedroom too long, tragically destroying their family by not addressing what each
resented about the other’s parenting skills. Neither parent
confronted each other’s weakness as parents until AFTER the death of their son.
(Tomei and Strout also fits into this destructiveness via abuse.)

The symbols of grief and loss were amazing. Once they read together in bed. After
the death, she just smoked and bed, and both watched, like zombies, meaningless
television.

I admit to being surprised by dad’s actions. My, but he did act decisively...finally.
Interesting that he could NOT wait to take him into the woods, which was the
original plan. He shot him as soon as he exited the car. Was this to make up for
all his years of neutrality? Then when he goes home, the wife asks if it is done
and then yells from downstairs, asking if he wants coffee. Duh? This lack of shock
and “lets resume life as usual” evades me. I really don’t understand that and would
like to read some analysis of the ending. Is it possible that by resuming their
everyday lives and rituals, they are once again falling into the trap of not
dealing with or talking about the father’s actions just as they avoided not
dealing with their own inactions?

Howard, you mentioned the incidence where the mom slapped Tomei. I
understand it. Her posterity, her future, her hopes and
dreams etc. were all destroyed because the woman-who admittedly was sweet
and felt terrible-didn’t mind hooking up with a teenager. Sorry, but I would
have probably hit her too. I could not help but associate the son’s death
with being around her. She was the mother of two kids, and maybe she
should have been adult about that relationship and sent the hormonal youngster
on his way, ultimately sparing his senseless death. As a mother, I know I would
have blamed her, even if the blame was misplaced. There would be no reconciliation as I could never buy that Tomei's love could come close to mine.

While I thought Spacek was just fine in her role, I was most impressed
with Tomei and the layered, gut wrenching performance of Tom Wilkinson as
the father. He is most deserving of an Oscar.

Okay, I’ll quit rambling.

And yet without any reconciliation we're left with "it's all Tomei's fault; if she hadn't fallen in love with my son then he wouldn't have fallen in love with her and he'd still be alive." But you have a valid point: Real love or passion waiting to wear off? But is it also a case of Wilkinson knowing there is a time to parent, a time to let go--something Spacek couldn't come to grips with? Oh my, if the situation in their household isn't classic All-American parental saga i.e. the struggle between doing what's right vs. knowing what's best!

Wilkinson's semi-dispassionate attitude served his role as physician well and as executioner even better. I think that's what gives credence to the kidnap/murder scenario. But oh, does this ever open up another can of worms. I mean Strout deep-down felt he had to get rid of Stahl in order to save his marriage/relationship with his wife & kids. Wilkinson felt he had to get rid of Strout in order to save same. Which was the greater evil, the lesser noble?

Joan, your "rambling" as well as ours is probably why this is a real-honest-to-gosh film vs. movie and is indicative of why it has garnered the praise it has. Like you, I want to explore more from the literary side. Denby, as it turns out, named it his #1 film of the year. His original review isn't on-line so when I get off here (I'm at the library) I hope to find the 11/26/01 isssue of The New Yorker. Interesting, wouldn't it be, if we're talking about the same things they are?

********************************************************************

I guess I feel that the only reconciliation possible for the parents is not with Tomei; it just
won’t happen. They can only reconcile themselves to the injustice of the possibility of
Strout getting away with murder via the husband’s revenge, and that ‘s about the only
reconciliation possible. I never saw the husband as the good guy who knew when to
parent and when to let go and Spacek as NOT understanding this; after all, she wanted her
son to leave and go to college to be all he could be. She didn’t want him to stay home and
marry Tomei. I think the father did live vicariously through the rather highly charged
sexuality of the boy’s affair. He was rather pleased when he came home for lunch, and the
couple came down the stairs. In his silent way, I think he supported the affair.

You raise such a good question about Strout’s and the father’s actions to save a
marriage.. “ which is the greater evil, the lesser noble?” I’d add to this another bit of
irony. The actor who played Strout was very wicked; yet we the audience, just like
Tomei, never saw the shooting. Was it a deliberate murder as the parents believed it to
be or was it manslaughter? Does that possibility affect the ethics of the father’s actions? Ugh, I don't want to think about it.

Still haven't found any sites that really explore the issues raised in the movie.

The one thing the review leaves me confused on is related to a reply of yours. Denby writes, "In any case, Natalie's young lover doesn't take Richard very seriously. Frank isn't dumb, but he's twenty-one years old, and a good-looking older woman adores him. He feels invulnerable." Denby also states that Frank is heading away to graduate school.

Like you, I thought Frank was only 18 and heading to college. And the more I've thought about all this the more I've tended deep-down to agree with your assessments. The far-sighted young man at that age is the exception, no doubt, and Frank's love seemed more of the young-man's-fancy type. At this juncture he is not clear of his mother's apron strings and rightfully so.

But all this changes, in my mind, if he's 21. Mind you I still find his mother's reactions wholly believable from film's beginning to end--and the father's, too--but in the context of the younger age.

Oh well, guess it's even more of an incentive to give the film a second viewing.

Hmm, I missed the 21 year old thing too. Like you I must revist the movie for a second viewing. Also, I'm searching my local libraries for the Andre Dubus' short story call KILLINGS. The screenplay is based upon this story, and I'd like to see the author's perspective and what license was taken by the movie.

The auditorium in which Spacek rehearses with the chorus is in the former Rockland Middle School. It was built in 1865 and later renovated and expanded in 1925. In 2000, it was finally shut down, a couple of years after I had been forced to get my education there. I was hoping I would never see the interior of that place again, but now it's etched in film forever.

I really enjoyed Tom Wilkinson's performance in this film. I thought his presence just fit his character really well. The story was obviously a depressing one... but what can you do? Like Joan brought up earlier, I can't imagine why the Tomei character would be attracted to a kid in his late teens or early twenties... It was especially reckless of her to draw him in while that abusive nut was still around. That nut guy (named Richard, played by William Mapother) was so well cast, too.

This might come across cheesy, but as an only child about the age that Frank was, it really struck a note to see two parents grieving after the loss of their son... I just hope my parents never have to go through that.

In the end, we thought "good for him" when Wilkinson solved the problem. I didn't think the bandaid meant anything -- I figured that since it was pouring rain that night, any sort of forensic evidence was probably lost (unless some of it stuck to all of that duct tape they used...)

Anyway... I guess this was a fine film, it's just that I'm not a fan of depressing movies.