Let's be reasonable unlike him. - Falling Down (1993) Discussion

[–] stevekaczynski 8 years ago

He seemed to have a brief moment of clarity watching the home movie, but mostly he has no insight into his own character. He appears genuinely amazed that people think he is threatening, even though he spends much of the film pulling guns out when faced with trivial frustrations and sometimes firing them.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

reply

[–] Noufa (378) 2 years ago

He wasn't confused. Watch the scene at the plastic surgeon's pool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaCcPZ8GIP4

"We'd all go to sleep together in the dark."

He was definitely planning to murder his wife & daughter before committing suicide.

reply

[–] jptf2 7 years ago

He's not crazy. He knows exactly what he's doing. He's done with a world that made him a victim of the family court system and the economy. This is his last day to live and he knows it - his goal is to see his daughter on her birthday and then kill himself.

He's choosing to some degree of a break with morality for a selfish motive, and he doesn't think of it as anything other than that, as he made clear to the neo Nazi when he said, "I am not a vigilante."

reply

[–] stevekaczynski 7 years ago

Killing his wife, perhaps his daughter and then himself is also mixed in there. I also doubt whether someone really focused on his goals would have carried out so much random mayhem.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

reply

[–] jptf2 7 years ago

Killing his wife would have gone against everything he showed he stood for in the film. He also bought his daughter the snow globe for a birthday present (which the neo-Nazi broke). Why bother getting her a gift if he's going to kill her?

reply

[–] stevekaczynski 7 years ago

Telling your estranged ex-wife over the phone (incidentally, just after you have killed someone, even if it is in self-defence) that in some countries it is perfectly legal for husbands to kill wives who "insult" them sounds like an expression of severe anger blending into threatening behaviour. On another thread you respond to this with an ad hominem attack on "feminist crap". Sure. When your arguments are weak, go ad hominem.
As to the snow globe, at the time he bought it he was also equipped with a baseball bat after the price discussion with the Korean shopkeeper, and he also had a flick knife he picked up after the encounter with the Latino thugs. After that he acquires an arsenal in their gym bag after they crash the car following the drive-by. Whether he had a definite intention at this point to commit violence when he got to his ex-wife's residence is hard to prove, but assuming he never had the arsenal he would still have been going over there armed and capable of doing violence to wife and daughter if they had looked at him the wrong way.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

reply

[–] jptf2 7 years ago

Just re-watched the scene. It seems to me he said that to call her bluff about the police being there:

Beth: The police are here.

D-Fens: Did you know, Beth, that in certain South American countries it's still legal to kill your wife if she insults you?

Beth: They're here right now. I'm looking at one right now.

D-Fens: Put him on the phone.

reply

[–] Stevicus-2 7 years ago

It's hard to discern that much from the video itself, although my sense of it was that their marriage was already in trouble by the time the video was made. It wasn't so much about the kid crying over sitting on the horsey. There are moments like that when a kid might be apprehensive about something. I remember having a fear of getting a merry-go-round when I was a kid, but I got over it quickly.

It wasn't really his fault that the daughter was afraid of a toy horsey, but it seemed that the wife was immediately blaming him for that. Sure, he could have handled it better, but it's not like he's the only parent to lose his cool in a situation like that. But the tension in their marriage was already evident at that point.

I agree that he was a crazy guy, but it's not clear whether he was always crazy or whether he became crazy only after getting married. Maybe his wife drove him crazy.

reply

[–] Crentapa 7 years ago

I don't understand the people who are completely oblivious to those scenes... and I'm not even a woman damn it.

He kept telling his wife to put the kid on the horse, but the kid throws a fuss everytime the wife tries. He KEEPS telling his wife to put the kid on the horse despite clearly being able to see that the kid doesn't want to be put on the horse. Finally, he starts throwing a fit about having bought the horse and how his daughter is going to enjoy it cause he paid for it.

To quote the scene directly

"Happy Birthday to you"
"Happy Birthday to you"
"Happy Birthday to you"
"no cake?"
*keeps trying to feed it to her when she isn't cooperating*
Beth "if she doesn't want it don't force it
Okay honey, you can have the teddy
Time to go horsey!
(Beth attempts to put her on the horse)
*cry*
(Beth draws her back because she obviously doesn't want to)
Time to go horsey!
(Beth attempts to put her on the horse, again)
*cry*
Time to go horsey!
(Beth attempts to put her on the horse, yet again)
*cry*
Beth, damn it! Just take her and put her on the horse!

His wife blamed him, not for his daughters behavior, but for not accepting that his daughter doesn't want to go on the horse.

What he exhibits then is a controlling attitude, which was SIGNIFICANTLY different from when he first got the puppy. He appears to be trying to recreate that scene from his past, with love and affection instead of progressing forth and creating new memories. The CONTRAST between the two birthdays is what is meant to be seen here.

The pier video displays the classic "controlling attitude" that we saw him doing with his daughter. His wife was not enjoying herself, but rather than acknowledge that he said stuff like "but you love the pier." This is actually a thin veiled deflection, he is faulting HER for not enjoying an activity she use to love and it is HER fault the evening is ruined.

reply

[–] Stevicus-2 7 years ago

I don't remember the scene that way. As I recall, she was immediately getting mad at Bill even when the daughter was only slightly upset. Of course, the horsey was a new thing and she was a bit apprehensive, but rather than trying to console her daughter and help her through the new experience, she just gave up and started spewing venom at Bill. That's when he started to get angry back. At least, that's how I remember the video as it was shown in the movie.

reply

[–] The LA Baker (799) 7 years ago

Yup. The wife was sheltering her daughter from anything and everything. A perfect way to raise a really stupid worthless human. She should have just put her on the horse and let her cry it out. There was nothing to protect her child from. There was no danger, no abuse, only a loving father trying to show her the nice toy he bought for her. Then the wife starts the shrill screaming and he gets really snippy.
God I hate the wives in this film so much. I would suspect the writer/director hated women if it wasn't for the most admirable and likable character being Sandra(Prendergast is nice too, but he lets his loony wife get away with too much).

reply

[–] avortac4 (3458) 2 years ago

Exactly.

Coddled children grow up to be weak, confused and scared - probably traumatized and scared for life. Emotionally imbalanced, possibly psychos.

Parents know better than the kid, they should NEVER let kid's tears control their behaviour. When parents have decided something, kid's tears, tantrums, etc. should be either irrelevant and thus not change anything, or punished, and then still not change anything.

It's not about having paid for the horse (not that animal torture is ever OK, but I'll try to ignore that part for now), it's about having the guts, determination and stability, confidence and calmness to make the daughter CONFRONT her fears, and guide her THROUGH the tears and difficulties.

Nothing is hurting her physically, so the tears come from the psychological side. The only way the child learns that hey, nothing bad happened, and she DOES have the power to confront this fear and go through it, is if the parent is a stable guide that pushes her forward until she stops feeling fear and realizes to stop crying. Then she may or may not enjoy it, but she'll be stronger, she will have an experience of succeeding in something, she will grow as human being and feel that the parents are STRONG, so she can trust them to protect them.

She can also trust that the parents are WISE, because even though she panicked, the parents stayed there and still pushed her through the experience, all the while convincing her that nothing bad will happen, everything will be all right. It's ok to be scared and cry, but we're going through this together in any case.

It's very similar to dog psychology - dogs can throw temper tantrums as well, and be coddled and grow emotionally imbalanced. Dog Whisperer and Cesar 911 are good places to start to learn this kind of basic psychology.

You can't avoid everything in life, you have to sometimes walk on the streets and do 'scary things'. The mom's tactic would've made her fear horses for the rest of her life.

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1232) 2 years ago

He could have put the camera down and tried to do some practice with his daughter on the horse or do it later. He clearly doesn't think about the appropriate steps to take in these kind of problems and acts on impulse. I'd say the wife was not being completely unreasonable in telling him that she didn't want to get on it. He was just stupid about it and acted as if she said nothing or that he couldn't hear her.

reply

[–] The LA Baker (799) 2 years ago

What did the father do wrong? Nothing.
What did the mother do wrong? Everything.
A child struggling with a new thing that poses absolutely no threat to them, and is in fact a benefit to them, is not a reason to protect your child. The exact opposite is the reality.
The wife was a horrible parent and created a bad situation.

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1232) 2 years ago

What did he do wrong? He got pissed over nothing. They are better ways to handle it if your wife is complaining that she doesn't want to get on it. Just put the camera down for a minute and test ride it.
I think you also missed the part where the wife complies not once, but TWICE, and tries to put her on as her husband requested. The wife was just trying to make her daughter feel better and less scared by telling him she doesn't want to go on it, like any responsible parent would do.

He has no justification whatsoever to develop a demanding attitude and freak out his daughter anymore than she already is. Just because he was enough of a loving father to buy her a present doesn't mean she has to owe up to him. A simple thank you is enough. He wasn't willing to give her any time to actually take her time and confront her fears. He was making her birthday party all about him and refusing to accept that she didn't like what he gave her. That makes it clear he has impaired empathy and is more entitled and selfish than the average sane person. The wife may not have been perfect in complaining so much as she might have figured he would fly into a rage over it, but she was being quite responsible for their child, while he wasn't.

Based on your posts about the wife, I am suspecting you are one of the many on here who think women are the root of all evil and men are innocent of all crimes.

reply

[–] The LA Baker (799) 2 years ago

I sure hope you have not and never procreate.

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1232) 2 years ago

Ok troll. Let's have all the women serve all men and cook and clean while the guys watch tv and drunk beer.

reply

[–] The LA Baker (799) a year ago

Troll?
Is that how you cope with being insane, call everyone who points out your insanity a "troll" and write it off?
You are wrong on every conceivable level and I absolutely and truly mean it when I say I hope you have not yet and never procreate.
People like you are destroying society.

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1232) a year ago

Why don't you just admit you either hate women or want to be a sociopath like D-Fens to justify your position on the wife?

reply

[–] The LA Baker (799) a year ago

You must have forgotten my OP already.
I will quote the pertinent section;
"God I hate the wives in this film so much. I would suspect the writer/director hated women if it wasn't for the most admirable and likeable character being Sandra(Prendergast is nice too, but he lets his loony wife get away with too much)."

No surprise there, since you are clearly retarded.

reply

[–] Druff (1447) a year ago

We wish your parents had never procreated. What a ghastly mistake!

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9348) a year ago

You're right: D-Fens was being horrible and needlessly aggressive, and all towards not just a person, not just a child, but his own child. That's scary and nasty.

I understand why people relate to certain aspects of D-Fens/William's story because we've all felt helpless, frustrated, and angry and being able to take real action against problems in our lives is admirable. But the way William goes about it, his abuse of his family, and his seething bile being unhelpful are all clear reasons why he's let himself be evil.

What really baffles me is why people insist William is the hero or is heroic. Prendergast point-blank tells William he's the villain and even William realizes it, for crying out loud!

So, you're right, Patman. I really hope The LA Baker is just trolling (I kinda think he is) because believing William did nothing wrong while is wife did everything wrong is frighteningly far off the mark.

reply

[–] jacotodd47 (997) 2 years ago

What he did, meaning DFens - certainly was wrong. But he wasn't, at his core, a bad person. This happens to some people - I've seen it. They get into a spot where every single thing in their life has gone wrong. Some people suck it in and move forward, others lose it. DFens lost it. I maintain though, he was not a bad guy - just a guy at the end of his wits.

reply

[–] JosephQCat (706) 2 years ago

Exactly.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2747) a year ago

I believe reasonable minds can differ, but I personally think he WAS a bad guy

We identify with him at first because he's acting on frustrations we've all felt and/or only hurting "bad people"

But at the pool, when it becomes clear he's going to kill his wife and daughter (and himself), he very clearly becomes a "bad guy"

Note that all the things we've perhaps wished we could do, e.g. rag on a guy for not giving us change, fast food breakfast arbitrarily stopping, road non-construction, golf course douchebags and, of course, the neo-Nazi ... they ALL come BEFORE the pool scene

I think we're meant to identify with him at first, then gradually pull away as he gets more extreme and unhinged

In the end, he IS a bad guy, and Prendergast calls him out on it. And however much we might identify w/ D-Fens, we're meant to TRUST Prendergast

But again, reasonable minds can differ

reply

[–] jacotodd47 (997) a year ago

Well, yeah, maybe by the very end - on the ocean boardwalk, maybe by then he IS a bad guy. This is after a day of walking thru downtown. He is so disgusted and sickened by what he sees. He DOES become a bad guy. But the argument I was making was that he was not born, or built that way. Every single thing in his life had gone wrong. And the X-wife didn't help by essentially rubbing it in. Making it very clear her and their daughter were better off without him. Put it all together and this guy just couldn't take it. So, he goes postal ( for lack of a better word). It had to be a combination of everything going wrong for him. In other words - the wife leaves him. But lets say she allows him to see his kid (she made it impossible for him). And lets say he doesn't lose his job. In either of these scenarios, he'd have been fine.

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1232) 10 months ago

I'm not so sure about that. He always had an explosive temper over trivial things prior to his life falling apart. The simple answer would be that he's just obsessed with being made redundant by anyone whom he considers himself involved with and can't face his own mishandlings, and can't take no for an answer. He can only see the world in black and white.

Except the instances for when he was actually threatened with harm (shooting, golfer), he wasn't actually mistreated at all, that's just people being annoying at best, and he acted like these people were stepping all over him when they were simply managing their business by the book. Not to mention he chose violence rather than thinking of any backup plans that could end peacefully.
He was like that in horse video with his wife and daughter, too. He kept telling his wife to put the daughter on the horse, rather than comforting his daughter or trying it himself. He cared far more about himself than he did others, including his family. It probably would have been a mistake for the wife to let him see the daughter, that just might make him more determined to see his family in an unorderly fashion, or cause even more problems. He was always like that prior to his breakdown. The mental breakdown just made him even more deluded.

reply

[–] The LA Baker (799) 6 months ago

Your mind is anything but reasonable if you think the wives weren't awful.

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1232) 4 months ago

How was Beth awful? She's not perfect, but at the end of the day her actions aren't responsible for the way he reacted. I found it really hard to empathize with him when he said all that verbally threatening crap to her after killing the Nazi, and I feel that was enough to justify her suspicions about his mental instability.
That's why we have a comparison with Duvall's wife. She's always irritating him, but he learns to abide by it and fully accepts that while his wife isn't perfect, she's not a bad person, whereas DFENS couldn't and actively tries to fight against his wife's wishes.

reply

[–] The LA Baker (799) 4 months ago

Beth was sheltering her daughter from anything and everything. A perfect way to raise a really stupid worthless human. She should have just put her on the horse and let her cry it out. There was nothing to protect her child from. There was no danger, no abuse, only a loving father trying to show her the nice toy he bought for her. Then the wife starts the shrill screaming and he gets really snippy.

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1232) 3 months ago

You are not a loving father if you try to demand your daughter is put on a horse and ignore the fact she's freaking out. Any rational person would try to comfort the child. He was making her birthday present all about him. The wife is trying to talk some sense into him by pointing out how unnerved their kid is, but he doesn't listen to her either. He's entitled and doesn't have much empathy when he's not in control of the situation. That's not her fault.

reply

[–] The LA Baker (799) 3 months ago

You are part of the problem with society today.
Kids cry for no reason some times. By no reason, I mean no rational reason. The best course of action is to do nothing. They need to learn about life and reality, not be sheltered at every moment from any and everything that might cause them any amount of discomfort.
Do not childproof the world. Worldproof the child.

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1232) 3 months ago

Sure, just get pissed because your kid is crying and not doing what you want and taking it out on your wife who is simply complaining and trying to reason with her husband, instead of trying to properly talk it over with your wife or comforting your daughter.
I guess you think that's a loving father and husband as opposed to a man who's controlling and self-focused, as well as never considers alternative solutions to problems with other people (go find change in a nearby story or buy something else if you want to make an important phone call, switch places with your wife in the scene with the horse as a test). Sounds like a truly innocent and reasonable guy.

reply

[–] The LA Baker (799) 3 months ago

Sure, just get pissed because your kid is crying and not doing what you want and taking it out on your wife who is simply complaining and trying to reason with her husband, instead of trying to properly talk it over with your wife or comforting your daughter.

The wife is the one who got upset. He reacted to his wife's negativity. Stop trying to alter reality to conform to your contention.

I guess you think that's a loving father and husband as opposed to a man who's controlling and self-focused, as well as never considers alternative solutions to problems with other people (go find change in a nearby story or buy something else if you want to make an important phone call, switch places with your wife in the scene with the horse as a test). Sounds like a truly innocent and reasonable guy.

The scene shows the mother being negative and the father reacting to her negativity.
Beth should find some alternative solutions to her overbearing and neurotic reactions.
You are blaming the man for the sins of the woman. His reactions to her poor behavior are subsequent of her poor behavior.

Are you daft?

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1232) 3 months ago

Why are you trying to make D-Fens sound completely justified in his reaction though? She's just trying to point out to him that his daughter is freaking out and doesn't want to get on, and that him being snippy isn't helping. Any husband or wife has a right to complain if she doesn't feel it's a good idea to continue because of that. You talk any concerns over with your partner, not fight it.

He didn't listen to her at all. You make it sound like he's entitled to force his daughter on the horse against his wife and daughter's wishes, all he has to do is wait 15-30 minutes to see if she's calm to try again. It's not his decision to decide for her if she likes a birthday present he got her or not, and most people wouldn't be upset like him if she didn't. That's selfish.

Why don't you just admit that you believe women are scumbags? You probably believe she's responsible for his decision to choose become violent to everyone in the film, and was probably cheering for him when he said it was okay to kill wives if they insult their husbands over the phone.

reply

[–] The LA Baker (799) 3 months ago

He was completely justified.
Tell me what he did wrong.
He was a loving father who bought his daughter a nice toy. She started crying for zero good reason so he attempted to ignore that and put her on the horse anyways(the right move). Then the wife starts her b!tching, mostly in a shrill screech. He tells her she is wrong, because she is wrong, and stupid, and annoying.
Somehow the man is the bad guy. It is almost as though it doesn't matter who is actually bad. The media will blame the man and pretend the woman is innocent of any wrong doing, almost no matter what.

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1232) 3 months ago

So are you saying that you believe in the whole "woman screw over men" movement, or that he was justified in everything he did in the film? I'd like to hear your thoughts on why you believe the movie is intending to portray a "women is evil against men" theme, when it's clear she's just another one of the many characters in this film who is not completely good, but not completely evil. You definitely seem to be taking black and white stance like D-Fens.

Did you also even see his reaction in the video where he was cringing? It looked like to me he realized back then he was going too far on his daughter. His "love" for his daughter and wife was actually emotional obsession and entitlement due to his Borderline Personality. The movie obviously makes it clear that his angry mood swings were a daily/weekly thing, and not just this once time incident, hence his petty entitlement and impulsive demands for change and breakfast Do you really think that he wasn't a threat to his family when he was already slowing losing his composure? Because if not then, he probably would have.

reply