MovieChat Forums > Marvin's Room (1997) Discussion > The Other Brother

The Other Brother

posted 14 years ago by kiya12309
6 replies | jump to latest

The other brother confused me. I can't even remember his name. I know it's based on the play and he was a character in that, but seriously he did NOTHING. I fail to understand why they made the trouble of finding someone for this part in the movie when he had virtually no lines and nothing to do. He's not even mentioned on the back cover of the movie or any sort of blurbs about the film as far as I've seen. On the back cover of the movie they acted like Lee only even HAD one son. The only plausible reason I can think to put him there is as a foil for Hank, but it he was meant to be a foil he certaily wasn't a very effective one. I was just sitting there thinking "Is this kid every going to DO something?" I mean, that part where Hank touched Marvin and he FREAKED out could have easily been done by the younger brother, but no. they gave that to Leo too. I found the whole thing strange.

[–] et18 14 years ago

Hal Scardino needed a role so they gave it to him. and he later gave up acting.

[–] dwarol 13 years ago

Hey, somebody had to light Hank's cigarette in that scene in the car!-)

[–] randy-welch-1 12 years ago

I think his role was significant. Yes, he was a foil for Hank, showing that both sons don't have to be angry and rebellious. His reaction to Lee's not-very-good-mothering was to hide in his books. In the play, he's not a brainy bookworm, he's a kid hiding in books all the time who does poorly at school. He's the obedient son where Hank is the rebel: in the potato chip scene, he takes the chip, then crams it in his mouth so he won't get any crumbs on the floor. That scene is always funny to me: he complies with Lee's long list of rules even when they're silly.

I agree that he should have played a larger role; I'm always a little disappointed when I re-watch the movie and see how little he does. But he's not a zero. He bonds with Ruth, the other family outcast. He initially screams when Marvin touches him, then later helps entertain him by moving the mirror around in the room to entertain Marvin with the reflections.

[–] geoffrey-jackson 11 years ago

by kiya12309 (Thu Aug 12 2010 13:21:32)

The other brother confused me. I can't even remember his name. I know it's based on the play and he was a character in that, but seriously he did NOTHING. I fail to understand why they made the trouble of finding someone for this part in the movie when he had virtually no lines and nothing to do. He's not even mentioned on the back cover of the movie or any sort of blurbs about the film as far as I've seen. On the back cover of the movie they acted like Lee only even HAD one son. The only plausible reason I can think to put him there is as a foil for Hank, but it he was meant to be a foil he certaily wasn't a very effective one. I was just sitting there thinking "Is this kid every going to DO something?" I mean, that part where Hank touched Marvin and he FREAKED out could have easily been done by the younger brother, but no. they gave that to Leo too. I found the whole thing strange.

by randy-welch-1 (Fri Feb 24 2012 06:30:15)

I think his role was significant. Yes, he was a foil for Hank, showing that both sons don't have to be angry and rebellious. His reaction to Lee's not-very-good-mothering was to hide in his books. In the play, he's not a brainy bookworm, he's a kid hiding in books all the time who does poorly at school. He's the obedient son where Hank is the rebel: in the potato chip scene, he takes the chip, then crams it in his mouth so he won't get any crumbs on the floor. That scene is always funny to me: he complies with Lee's long list of rules even when they're silly.

I agree that he should have played a larger role; I'm always a little disappointed when I re-watch the movie and see how little he does. But he's not a zero. He bonds with Ruth, the other family outcast. He initially screams when Marvin touches him, then later helps entertain him by moving the mirror around in the room to entertain Marvin with the reflections.

I would have to agree with Randy on this. Charlie was someone to compare Hank with. He also tied parts of the story together.

If fact, I thought all the characters played fairly even roles. I mean, there were no shining stars.

For the record, I'm rating this film 7/10 (good).

[–] Anaheim92807 9 years ago

The only thing that I could figure was that Charlie, the name of the younger brother, proved to be the only NORMAL person in the family with all the others being physically and/or emotionally scarred. It showed that even in a topsy turvey family, a bit of normality was possible, although he did use his books to escape the real world around him.

[–] cpoet 9 years ago

I don't really find Charlie "normal." He's a shy, introverted little kid who hides in his books, knocks himself out trying to eat a potato chip the way his mother insists and finally comes out of his shell to bond with his crazy old great-aunt Ruth.

But he's important for (at least) two reasons. He shows that Lee's bad parenting doesn't necessarily turn out rebellious pyromaniacs, so we have to assign Hank some personal accountability for his actions besides his mom is mean and doesn't hug him enough.

Second, Charlie's relationship with Ruth is sweet and good for both of them, so it supports Bessie's themes that giving can be more reward than sacrifice and that the standard path isn't the best route for everyone.