It seems to be implied that the bank is responsible for the kid's death, but I don't understand why. In fact, I don't understand how the kid died. One day he's talking to the landlord, the next time we see him he's dead. Did I miss something?
shareI missed the part of the movie when the kid's body was found (ugh, Comcast digital cable), but here are my thoughts:
SPOILERS...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
When the Anthony LaPaglia character mentioned the kid's death to his henchmen at the bank I originally thought the bank was involved. But now I think he was just saying this is really going to play to the public's sympathies during the trial...poor couple lost all their money, their business, and their son. Also, I think the writer had the kid die as a parallel to the death of Jim's (Paul's) father. The bank screwed both families, someone died, and now they want revenge.
The kid drowned himself rather than give his parents the eviction notice!
share
I didnt think of that before, but it makes perfect sense!
Perhaps because the boy thought it would look like as somebody else would have drowned him. Then the parents could sue them and get a lot of money. Remember that the boy asked his father if he could help them.
shareThat part didn't seem too real, melodrama to the max. He was just a kid, & it was just a piece of paper. At most he'd prolly throw it away. Besides, at least in the USA, you can't serve a minor with papers, so the notice is null.
shareIn the deleted scenes, you see two blokes talking to the landlord about him, implying he killed him.
I saw it as more of a notice from the bank that they could do what they wanted. They already screwed the family over with the dodgy loan, and you hear them speaking about how they were gonna sell crown land because they repossessed it due to an unpaid loan. Their attitude to everyone around them shown heavily during the movie also gives some push behind it.
the part with the bankrupt parents and kid was the most stupid part of this generally unrealistic plot.
rather pathetic story as well as execution:
2/10
i didn't like the oversimplified moralization either: people should accept banks for what they are or not deal with them. you learn that lesson quickly. it's also careless people like fat loser father who are the ones giving banks too much power.
------------
23
Very silly to talk about fictional films as unrealistic. Anachronistic, really.
I thought the story was simple and fantastically executed - better than its (much more expensive, shiny) Hollywood equivalent.
And although you are basically right about people themselves being to blame, (I live in a nice apt. and have never had debt in my life - I also live without the wasted cost of a mobile, have not had a car for much more than half my adult life, cycle, and walk A LOT, etc, etc, etc - people should live within their limits to avoid almost any financial pain)- however you are projecting upon the importance of the moral posturing of the film. Remember, he did it and justified not even that it was revenge for his father (particularly), but that he simply "hates banks". Perfect. He has to flee, he probably won't get he girl - simple, "realistic", Aussie touches to differentiate from Hollywoodian, yes, over moralising. Good ole Aussies and our ability to hate. Doesn't the national anthem have the chorus, "I'm not racist. I just hate everyone equally". :)
That really threw me off too. I didn't understand how the kid ended up in the water or why the bank was blamed for it. They seem to be implying someone from the bank killed him because of the documents found on his body but that would be pretty absurd. I don't think the kid would kill himself because of the eviction notice either.
shareThe kid killed himself because he felt he failed to his parents because he was the one that received the notification.
share