MovieChat Forums > Sitting Pretty Discussion > 'Uncle Lynn' scene

'Uncle Lynn' scene

posted 14 years ago by holdencopywriting
15 replies | jump to latest

At one point in the movie the older child begs Mr. Belvedere not to leave, and tries to plead by calling him Uncle Lynn instead of Mr. Belvedere.

Now I can understand why Mr. Belvedere tells the boy not to call him Uncle Lynn. After all, he's not the boy's uncle and he's household staff. If he were an old family friend, that might be different.

But what gets me is how harsh Mr. Belvedere is when he reproofs the boy. He doesn't just say don't call me that. He raises his voice, looks into the boy's eyes very directly and says something like I am not your uncle--I am in no way related to you in any shape or form--do you understand me?

The boy looks hurt and afraid. And then Mr. Belvedere does give him the merest of smiles and a slight touch to his chin. And the boy stands with his head down as if he's been beaten.

It just seemed an unnecessarily harsh way to treat the child.

I enjoy this film every time I see it, but not this one scene.

TY

[–] knight1192a 14 years ago

Why not, it's one of the scenes that clearly demonstrates Mr. Belvedere's own personal claim of not caring for children.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] talshiarr 14 years ago

Here, here.

[–] joystar5879 13 years ago

Maybe Mr. Belvedere cared about someone other than himself for the first time in his life. It scared the stew out of him, and I think he was yelling at himself as much as at the child...

JS

[–] skiddoo 13 years ago

Obviously kids of that era did NOT normally grow up with rigorous discipline or there would be no movie. :)

[–] aciolino 13 years ago

Since the "womyn's" movement of the '50's and '60's has transformed our society to a Matriarchal rather than Patriarchal one, we are terrified of disciplining our children. (Hence, the androgynous/mess of pre-adult 40 year olds you see before you everywhere)

Mr. B was being stern, not cruel, in correcting the child, note the child did not cry and if he had, it would not have been for being reprimanded but for being told he wasn't his uncle.

Being stern with children is tantamount to child abuse these days.

[–] Filmmaker Mr. K 12 years ago

Any kind of public display of parental discipline is almost akin to mistreatment and that's the result of liberal meddlers trying to influence their point-of-view on everyone else's lives. I used to give people the benefit of the doubt and had tried to assume people are generally good natured.

That was shattered when my 4-year old special needs son started to throw a tantrum in the grocery store and after my wife's best attempt to calm him, I naturally walked him out to the car. While we waited for my wife to finish shopping, the sherrif's dept. came out in force. They tried to take my son from my arms. Someone in the store saw me taking my crying boy out and decided I was a kidnapper- even though I'm full-blooded Native American and my son is my spitting image. If it weren't for the timely arrival of my wife to set everything straight, our son would have been in the hands of social services for no other reason then the intrusion of someone else who needed to mind their own business.

[–] HeartOfSky 9 years ago

How can you draw the conclusion that all meddlers are liberal? Do you know the leanings of the moron who called the sheriff? Try... if you're able... to not politicize an apolitical issue.

[–] HeartOfSky 9 years ago

You make a completely silly comparison. Being stern is not tantamount to child abuse. You're ridiculous to even state that. Also, how did women wanting to be free of their kitchen-shaped cages feed into people being terrified of disciplining their children. That's a remarkable leap of logic.

[–] BigWhiskers 12 years ago

Mr Belvedere was a mean arrogant old queen. Probably gay and just rude , while others thought witty. More spiteful and the way he treated the kid in that scene was mean to the core

"So, a thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey"

[–] MycroftHolmes 12 years ago

Yet they adored him. Children look up to a strong male figure.

What we have here is failure to communicate!

[–] lnoft97 11 years ago

Oh, for heavens sakes! Kids in that era WERE raised with discipline, their every tender feeling wasn't indulged. Mr. B wasn't being mean, he was being stern, establishing boundaries, he expected the children to stay in those boundaries. But he did soften ever so slightly after he said it, didn't he? the faintest smile. He wasn't being mean to poor widdle kid, he was properly setting him straight. That kid is going to grow up with fond, wry memories of his babysitter, and he's going to grow up to be a well-disciplined adult. Not a big huge baby like some people here, who have been spoiled from birth by anxious helicopter parents!

[–] smurky 9 years ago

I agree with you, BigWhiskers ! I hated this guy not only for this scene, but from the beginning of the movie till the end. I'm glad his character was changed for the TV Series starring Christopher Hewitt.

[–] marktayloruk (2383) 2 years ago

Basically agree. I'd have been content to say - "Look , son, I'm not your uncle. Just.stick to Mr Belvedere."

[–] chiibiprincess 11 years ago

Honestly, I found it to be pretty amusing. The children still loved him regardless. XD

"But it's a ROCK!"
"I KNOW IT'S A ROCK!"