MovieChat Forums > The Deep End (2001) Discussion > So why didn't the mom just.....

So why didn't the mom just.....

posted 19 years ago by Paella747
20 replies | jump to latest

Uh.... just watched this movie.... eh.... yeah....
So I couldn't figure out why mom didn't avoid the whole scenerio in the first place by talking to her son and then calling the police when she found the body on the beach.... And don't tell me she was afraid her son would be accused of murder... Who gets murdered with an anchor???? The whole time I was watching this movie, I was waiting for the moment when something would happen, and as a result I would understand why she was so adamant about digging her hole deeper and deeper..... It just never seemed that realistic.... not a horrible film, just kind of... like an unfunny episode of "Three's Company" where the whole misunderstanding would be solved with a little communication...

[–] Irreparable_Harm 19 years ago

You answered your own question, Paella.

A little communication would've been enough.....

The problem with a lot of families is that they don't communicate.

And each member of the family prefers to solve their problems on their own.

The last person they would trust would be a parent, a sibling, a spouse or a child.

You see this in Tilda Swinton's character.

She's a problem solver who can't rely on anyone. Not her husband, not her child.

The agony of foreknowledge combined with the impotence to do anything about it

[–] Paella747 19 years ago

Yeah.... but that was not a reaction that many people can relate too. It seemed quite unrealistic... She could have seen the dead body laying there on the beach, and then (totally random) cook the family pet. One then could say "that's how she chose to deal with the problem". But in reality, not a lot of people are going to go "oh yeah! I see how this could happen!" A drama of this type needs to have some connection to reality to maintain interest....
Her response in covering up the accident was indeed a reaction based on her circumstances, just not a very likely one... One that was so random and unlikely that my interest waned a little... No biggie...

[–] PipeAllSummerLong 19 years ago

Not sure what connection with reality there could be - because the situation where you find the dead body of your teenage son's lover isn't that usual. So I don't think that there is any reaction in particular anyone could say "that wouldn't happen". How do we know until it happens.

When I was watching I thought of those stories about mothers moving buses to save their children. She did something that seemed out of the ordinary or extreme because she wanted to protect her son.

And I think that's realistic. Especially since her son would have been in trouble with the police. There was a struggle, the dead body would show signs of violence. I doubt very much that the police would immediately chalk it up to "accident". At the very least, her son's private life would be exposed to all. I found that part of the movie totally believeable.

[–] jsluvsds-2 19 years ago

I agree with Paella - there is no way she would not have asked her son about what happened. She went to tell the guy to stay away from her son! She's that kind of mother. It didn't make sense for the whole rest of the movie.

[–] Irreparable_Harm 18 years ago

Yes, she went to tell the guy to stay away from her son...

But he was a stranger, not her son.

It was easier for Tilda Swinton to talk to a complete stranger than her own son.

This movie is a lesson for families:

Confront your parents and/or children before relying on complete strangers.

Quoting an earlier post:

"The problem with a lot of families is that they don't communicate.

And each member of the family prefers to solve their problems on their own.

The last person they would trust would be a parent, a sibling, a spouse or a child.

Tilda Swinton's character is a problem solver who can't rely on anyone. Not her husband, not her child"

The agony of foreknowledge combined with the impotence to do anything about it

[–] Paella747 18 years ago

Quote:
"This movie is a lesson for families:
Confront your parents and/or children before relying on complete strangers."

....and here i was thinking the lessons for families were:
Don't fall on an anchor, learn to swim better, and NEVER videotape yourself doin' the nasty.....

[–] Gus-69 10 years ago

What a literalist.

----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/

[–] Axiom22 18 years ago

In response to the original poster, I asked that same question as well. But when I realized that her son isn't much of a talker, I found my answer. Her son doesn't really communicate with her. That's pretty much there is to it. Also, when she tries to communicate with her son, he avoids her and changes the topic. That given, I'm not at all surprised that Tilda's character did what she did..

[–] BB-15 18 years ago

I find the defense of the mom trying to hide the dead body pretty funny. Please tell me of one instance where a dead body shows up on someone's lawn or backyard by accident and a completely innocent person who sees the body, doesn't call the police. It's absurd to think that someone who knows nothing about how a person was killed would then go through all the trouble to hide a dead body. I've done a google search and can't find one example where an innocent person who just happens to find a dead body and goes through all the trouble to hide it. But I found lots of examples where the police were contacted when a dead body was found.

That is another reason why this film doesn't make sense. IMHO at least.

Have a good one, BB ;-)

it's just in my humble opinion - IMHO -

[–] Axiom22 18 years ago

BB-15, the mom thought that it was her son who killed the guy. The night before, she asked her son where has he been and he was all bruised up. So, when the mom saw the dead body the next morning, she immediately assumed (can't blame her) that it was her son who killed him.

[–] bstranger_02 18 years ago

i agree with all of u guys. a lot of families can identify themselves with that movie beacuse of the lack of coumunication, and in my contry (peru) mom saves the day all the time, without telling anybody. when i saw the movie my dad was on a business trip and i realy feel that what happened in the movie could happen to anyone, dads often are away and moms are heros. well thats how i think.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] speedo58 12 years ago

The directors on the Special Features say they were trying to portray the closeness of the mother/son relationship in the film.I found the son to be so repugnant in his anger and lack of communication that I kept thinking, why would she go to the trouble, he wouldn't appreciate it anyway.

[–] Demarates 17 years ago

She assumed her son killed him (possibly accidental). Which makes sense, he snuck out and got caught sneaking back in all bruised and upset. Add to that a piece of hi shirt in the victims hand and it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to come up with what happened.

It looked as if her son had pushed the guy, causing him to fall and die.

Calling the cops would

a) risk her son being charged with manslaughter.

b) reveal the fact that he had a gay lover. In a small town like that, word would get around fast and as she says in the film, she is not ready to have her husband find out.

So she took the easy way out, by hiding the body. If she had done a better job at it, that would have pretty much made things go away (at least for a while).

The only thing I found hard to believe was the "romantic" side to the blackmailer. Falling in love with a married woman (3 kids) he just met, giving up on 25.000 $ and turning on his business partner.

I am not a complete idiot. Some parts are missing.

[–] lakealice 10 years ago

Why would she assume her son had killed the man? It very clearly looked like an accident-it might have looked like there had been a fight, but he fell through a railing onto an anchor. That could have been explained to the police and that Beau hadn't known about it-the police wouldn't have publicly revealed the relationship between the two. Besides, if Beau had killed the man, even accidently, would he have just left the body on their beach all night in plain sight and gone to bed? This jumping to conclusions (the basis for the whole plot) ruined what was otherwise a good movie--I just couldn't get past it.

[–] HumanFundRecipient 10 years ago

For all those questioning the mother's actions, consider this: sometime while Beau and Darby fight, Darby is able to grab a piece of Beau's shirt. When Margaret finds Darby the next morning, a piece of her son's shirt is in his hand. With her son not telling her everything, her drastic actions aren't that all surprising.

Are we beginning to see the possibilities here?

[–] a_duck_named_fup 18 years ago

I've done a google search and can't find one example where an innocent person who just happens to find a dead body and goes through all the trouble to hide it.

Well duh. People who find dead bodies and hide them aren't gonna "blog" about it on the Internets. That would spoil the fun!
___________________________________
You quack me up

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kdy_9 15 years ago

^ It's clearly indicated in the movie that her husband was indeed a homophobic.

That's one reason why she hid the body and later on got blackmailed because she didn't want anybody specially her husband to know about her son's sexual preference.

A good communication in the family and there wouldn't be any movie to discuss in the first place. Period.

"With great Power. . comes . . . great Responsibility".

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]