ending
Almost perfect until then. The way they talked round Gia amounted to emotional blackmail.
sharemarktayloruk says > Almost perfect until then. The way they talked round Gia amounted to emotional blackmail.The end was the natural extension to everything that had come before. How else was it going to end? The entire movie, I thought, was a mess.
Carla, aka Mrs. Campbell, never had her daughter's interest in mind. She was just in it for the money. After stealing money all those years from the men, she did not want the gravy train to stop.
According to her, one of the men had to be Gia's father. Since she didn't know which one she should have picked one and only accepted money from him. She could have given Gia an actual father instead of a ghost. The man would have had the belief he had a daughter and, if he ever decided to meet her, it would have been fine.
Even after years of lying and collecting from all three men, Carla could have still come clean and told the men what happened but she still wanted the money so she tried to runaway. When that didn't work she kept right on lying. It was never about Gia or the men, just the money.
The ending was stupid but what other ending could there be? They may think it was cute for the girl to go on never knowing who her father actually was but I thought it was pathetic. The men all playing a fatherly role was highly unrealistic and I'm sure very annoying for Gia and each of the spouses. I'm not a fan of the movie.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate] share
Be fair - she had given Gia a "good education " although I'm opposed to boarding schools.
I'm going to politely disagree with a couple of your conclusions.
For instance, I see no need to pick one father, if there's no way to tell which man is the father and they're willing, why the hell shouldn't all three accept a paternal role?
And no, the mother taking money from three men wasn't highly ethical, but life in postwar Italy was so dire that ethics were a luxury few could afford. Is letting your kid starve or die of curable diseases ethical, when you could get the money to feed and clothe and educate the kid from people who could afford it? Yes, her actions were "all about the money", but that's what people *do* when faced with the ugly realities of near-starvation poverty, you'd do dubious things yourself it there were no ethical or legal ways to get enough money to keep yourself and your kid alive. And in postwar Italy, a hell of a lot of people had no ethical or legal way to stay alive.
And if you want to criticize the ethics of characters, how about the three guys who had sex without a condom, with a girl who lived in a war zone and who would be raising a kid in poverty in a devastated country if she got pregnant?