MovieChat Forums > The Brood (1979) Discussion > something wrong about the film! did u no...

something wrong about the film! did u notice?



I like Cronenberg's style and i like this film. But i just can't understand something : At final scene, Nola gets angry at Frank and blames him. After that, the creatures attack to Dr. Raglan! But the one they attack would be FRANK,wouldnt? ! ( they attack to the people who Nola is angry at and Nola is angry at Frank at that moment! ) So why are they attacking to Raglan? It's a mistake about the film i think.

reply

...Tard.

reply

I believe they attacked the doc because Nola is angry at the fact that Frank is trying to take Candy away. The creatures attack him because they know Nola does not want Candy to leave the facility.

reply

Nola says she'd rather kill Candy then give her to Frank. As she is saying that, the doctor is trying to get Candy out of there. That's why they went after him and then after Candy.

reply

Raglan was pretty stupid to send Frank in to try to reason with Nola while he went upstairs to rescue Candy!

I mean, since Frank and Nola were estranged and bitterly fighting for custody of their daughter and Nola was a psychotic liable to fly into incandescent rage. It would have been wiser if Raglan - in his role of authorative, impartial and patient psychiatrist - had gone in to reason with her.

Frank could have meanwhile tip-toed upstairs and grabbed Candy before giving Raglan a quick secret sign to get him to meet them back at the car. Raglan could then have given Nola a quick sedative before torching the place and making his get away with the other two.

Raglan would be alive and well today and the brood issue solved forever!

Proof that genius and idiocy go hand-in-hand!



I bet your driving license is clean, mine's diiiirrrty!!!

reply

I just watched this movie. Found the DVD in a bargain bin for $2. And I actually liked it. Was very creepy. I read about THE BROOD in a "Cult Movie" book a long time ago and was curious.

Dirty Daisy, I think you have a good point -- but maybe Raglan felt he could handle "the children" better because he obviously had dealt with them before and Frank, while not on the best of terms with Nola, was still a husband she loved and with whom she had a child with. Guess he felt, in Nola's current state, her husband's presence might calm and reassure her. He was wrong, of course, Nola being too far gone and thinking the worst of everyone by this time, but at least Frank rescued the little girl before it was too late.

Unfortunately, she'll be forever traumatized, but maybe the next psychiatrist will know what their doing.

reply

Yeah, I don't think Nola wanted Frank dead. I think she still loves Frank. That's why she's jealous of the school teacher.

But she said she'd kill Candice before letting him take her away, after Nola feels he rejects her.

reply

Yeah I suppose that's true on reflection.

The last time I saw this I remember being quite freaked out when Nola screamed you bi"ch down the phone at the school teacher (Samantha Eggar was very well cast for that part). It was REALLY hateful.

If you consider that The Brood is about the physical and bodily manifestations of hatred and abuse the emotional 'force of character' of the Nola character is critical in making it work.

On a similar note I though Olly Reed played Raglan really well - very calm and self-controled (I couldn't imagine anyone better). Frank annoyed me but I thought the actor was ok. Candy really irritated me. I hope all little American kids aren't like that cos if they are then it would explain a lot in today's world (- sorry if I offend anyone).

"I bet your driving license is clean, mine's diiiirrrty!" - Alan Partridge

reply

Ollie Reed and Eggar are both fabulous here. Art Hindle plays Frank, and I think he's going through a lot, but isn't the type to wear his feelings on his sleeve.

As for Candice, I think the little girl simply wasn't that great of an actress. Also, Cronenberg and company may have done a great deal to try and protect her on the set, so she may not hve known what a lot of the story was about.

reply

She's playing a frightened, repressed five year old little girl who does not really show emotion. Remember she shows her anger and fear through those sores popping out on her arm (we saw them at the end)? I thought she did a fine job considering what the part called for. Has she ever been in anything else?

reply

The only other time I ever saw her was in another Cronenberg film, several years later.

She has a bit part in "The Dead Zone", as one of Walken's home tutoring students. It shows her reading to Walken, then a horn blows, then she says, "That's my mom.", and leaves. I've never seen her in anything else that I can remember.

Frank, Art Hindle, is still around.

reply

Was she ever in anything else? This may shock you, but you wrote that comment and question on the very website that catalogues all the movies an actor or actress has EVER been in. How stupid can you be?

reply

Probably would have been better if NO-ONE went in there to "reason" with Nora. She was calm at that point, and in deep meditation (or whatever) so Doc and Frank could have just leave her be and get the kid. But hey, in some cases film characters need to do stupid things in order to move the story along.

reply

...yeah!!! why didn't he do that??? she didn't seem to be pissed with the doctor, and he probably could have kept her more calm, especially with all of his "psychological insight"

reply

Well, Rangnal could have definitely prepared Frank for what to expect between Nola's legs..


------------
23

reply

[deleted]

They explained it in the movie. Clearly. Come on people.

reply

Oliver Reed whispered the explanation to Frank, maybe these guys just need to clean the wax out of their ears.

reply

You are actually correct but by the time the film is wrapping up, didn't seem to matter.

reply

I think the mutant kids eyesight is poor - watch the autopsy scene and maybe they just attack big things as the daughter seemed safe until there was specific anger about her

also when people are angry they just lash out at anyone so by extension of that the mutant kids are just attacking the nearest person

reply

They would have attacked anyone who was there to take Candy away.

reply

No, see, you misunderstood. Nola's brood doesn't just lash out at who she's mad at, they lash out at whoever is 'in the way', so to speak. For instance, she was mad at Frank when she thought he was shacking up with the school teacher, but the brood didn't lash out at Frank in that instance, they lashed out at the teacher. At the end, it was the simple fact that Candy was being taken away that made her angry, so the Brood lashed out at the person who was physically taking her away.

reply