Hunter's mom undoubtedly loved her son but she isn't exactly mother material.
shareHow so? Maybe she lost her way. But I remember Travis talking to Anne outside of the house (at night) how she stopped being a proper mother to him a long time.
The dust has come to stay. You may stay or pass on through or whatever.share
I thought the same thing. I really think Travis had terrible judgment. Anne and Walt were raising Hunter like their son, with a stable home and a good school and loved him like their own kid, which at that point, he kinda was. Travis basically kidnapped Hunter without letting him say goodbye. That was awful.
Hunter's mom was a 25-year-old peepshow girl living in a crap neighborhood with really uneven income ("Sometimes she sends $300 a month, sometimes $5.") Not all about money and living conditions either, but she knew where Hunter was for four years and never went to see him. I have sympathy for her, but I didn't think it felt like good closure to reunite then. I didn't think it was heroic. I thought it was irresponsible and cruel of Travis.
And I really liked the movie up until the ending, too.
likely she would eventually return the kid to Walt and go back to where she was before the same as Travis
shareNot just likely, I don't see what other realistic option she had. Not without Travis' support. If he really wanted to help, he needed to man-up. Otherwise he should have left her alone.
shareAgree with the OP's proposition that leaving Hunter with Jane in Houston in her current living state isn't the best thing for his son.
I think maybe we're to infer that Travis came to the conclusion that he can't be around Jane again. I.e., to put himself and Jane into proximity again is opening the door to recreating the same disastrous ending they went through already. So the four of them (Travis, Jane, Anne, and Walt) raising Hunter together in some arrangement isn't going to work. At the same time, Travis believes that he had robbed his son of a relationship with Jane through the sins of his former life. And he believes that Hunter needs to be with Jane. So perhaps he is counting on Jane to do the right thing and make her way to L.A. to start over, get some support from Anne/Walt, and at least have three of them raising Hunter. OK, maybe that's a stretch. But short of kidnapping Jane and bringing her back to L.A., Travis tried to set the first domino in motion by reuniting mother and son.
He had other options besides kidnapping or otherwise trying to get other people to do right by his son. The main one was simply to do right himself. Short of that, my opinion is that he doesn't deserve any say in the matter.
shareHe had other options besides kidnapping or otherwise trying to get other people to do right by his son. The main one was simply to do right himself. Short of that, my opinion is that he doesn't deserve any say in the matter.
The more I think about it, the angrier I get at Travis's character. From said character motivation stand point I'm upset that I did go to like him. Okay man I get it, you effed up in the past and a lot of what went wrong was indeed your fault and it's been eating at you for so long, BUT you were able to get yourself back together and redeem yourself and re-establish a bond with your son. You were able to get it off your chest and confess your sins to your face (well kinda). You're not that guy anymore. It's unnecessary to keep beating yourself up like that and acting like you don't deserve Hunter or that walking out on him will do either one of you any favors. Anne seemed like she was ready to forgive you, so you all could've re-united and been a closer family than ever before. Heck if you wanted to, all of ya'll could've moved back to L.A. with Anne and Walt and everything would be fine. You're older and wiser and you could try again to make it worth. A great story of redemption for the both of you. What was still going on in his head that motivated him to do what he did even after he had that talk with her?
Speaking of Walt and Anne, like another user said, taking Hunter from Anne and Walt (who are just unceremoniously gone from the film after Hunter calls them) and just LEAVING him in Houston like that was WAAAAAAAAAY unfair to the two of them after everything they did for Travis. Sure Walt kinda seemed uptight, but he still genuinely cared for his brother, and HE was the one pushing for him and Hunter to bond again. And Anne was as nice as she coulda been to guy. To up and just leave like that and THEN just dump him off with Jane...yeah that just makes him look like a gigantic d*ck, when he wasn't before.
I just feel like it betrayed everything the story and his character were heading toward, and not in that "oh but that's the point artistically" kind of way. All the great build up just doesn't pay off emotionally or thematically, and that's disappointing. I just don't see anything to indicate THAT being the inevitable conclusion this movie would have. it almost feels like a forced downer ended as if Wim Wenders tried to avoid having a "happy ending" because it'd be "too Hollywood" or something...which backfires and feels like a cliched Hollywood "ambiguous ending when there's such a loose-ended resolution to what otherwise was a pretty grounded and realistic film.
I agree - there was no reason all 4 of them couldn't have been involved in raising Hunter.. It definitely wouldn't have been traditional but they obviously all loved him and that seems like what would have happened in real life - I didn't get the feeling that Travis or Jane had anything really stopping them from moving to wherever it was that Walt and Anne lived! Disappointing ending to an otherwise great film
shareMaybe this movie wasn't made to end "happily ever after." Travis and Jane are troubled individuals. We know this about Travis from the beginning. And we learn this about Jane when we meet her. Hunter was born to troubled parents.
And it is fiction, not a documentary. Was it realistic to find Travis wandering the desert? Was it realistic for Travis to think he could walk all the way to Paris, TX? Was it realistic for Walt to lose Travis at the motel and find him again on the railroad tracks? Was it realistic for Travis to refuse to speak for so long? Was it realistic for Travis, a full grown adult, to exhibit child-like naïveté when he began to speak? Was it realistic for Travis to never slumber? These are just a few examples of many things that might seem "unrealistic" about this movie. If the audience can accept all these things, then why treat the end differently?
And all of this is ok because it is fiction. Though unrealistic, these elements are more important to the movie's themes and messages than what might be "realistic."
So it doesn't matter what a court would do. It also means the themes and symbolism are more important than a "realistic" plot. Although Travis was the father, in the context of the relationship Travis was the child and Hunter was the adult. After telling Hunter he had to go alone to Texas, he changed his mind at Hunter's mere suggestion. When they got to the bank, Travis knew it would be a month if they missed Jane. Even so, he fell asleep. And they would have missed Jane completely if Hunter hadn't succeeded in waking Travis. Travis had considered the walkie-talkies to be toys, but Hunter understood and proved they would have a practical use.
Having said all that, I also winced many times about Travis' road trip with Hunter. But there is more to this story than the plot. In a story about damaged people, we probably shouldn't expect it to end "happily ever after" for anyone.
Yes, it was a mistake. No matter how much she might love him, she is some kind of prostitute/stripper and the kid would have been better off with his uncle and aunt.
shareTravis tested her in the first encounter and she passed.If she agrees to go home with him, it would be a different ending.
Hunter is still young enough to "re-bond" Generally the courts defer to child being with their mother than a relative.
Also being a mother with all the responsibilities it brings can also change a person, and she was only 25.
However psychologically, first three years of a child's development is of cruical importance, so it may be too late for Hunter.