Zach located Gabriel ONLY because girlfriend Ally recognized the Pumpkin Pine, right? So how had he been able to get a "Stay of Eviction" ;-) for a property he didn't know existed?
What other lawyer-based interaction could Zach have had concerning Gabriel? Some type of custody?
Not a good ending....
Good observation. I was also confused about it, but as I don't live in USA and am not familiar with this terminology, I wasn't sure if this was really a mistake or not.
It seems that the authors tried too much to keep the story within boundaries of reality, but sacrificed some of its charm and magic, and anyway due to mistakes like this didn't manage to achieve complete reality.
Pity, because this movie could have benefited a lot with some of David Lynch's or even more Tum Burton's distance from too scientific-materialistic approach.
You have got to be kidding!
The idea of the movie is that McKellen's character is delusional and everyone is in reality. Lynch and Burton are overblown idiots who have no idea how to represent reality honestly or, gasp, realistically.
The movie was too slow to keep too much interest, but was ok and the scenery was great. Those two would have ruined the little there was to like about the movie.
Probably they would ruin for people with preferences like your, but you don't seem to appreciate it anyway, so why would you care? And for people like me this spice or surreal would make the film even better, so we'd probably love it even more.
Of course Lynch and Burton don't do movies that are too close to the ground. There are too many directors who do them, and don't know any better. I could, however, agree that Lynch has gone too far during last decade and twists in his movies became just a game he plays. I, also, don't imagine Burton's "Neverwas" to be something like Batman or Beetle Juice, but between Edward Scissorhands and Big Fish.
They usually didn't let him stay in his castle, that is the war he was talking about, and what is described in the book. Enemies and villians he is talking about are social workers, policemen, medical personnel, state officials...
However,
Gabriel did actually own the land originally but because of his consistent incarceration in the asylum it became awarded to the state
It is possible he didn't outright own the land, but was making payments on it, which lapsed when he became ill then the land would go to the institution that he had borrowed from such as a bank, or if he had not properly payed his property taxes, or filed for exemptions from them (assuming the social workers didn't do their jobs and he had no family taking care of his estate), the state would sieze the land and auction it. There is also Eminent Domain, where the federal government can buy property without the consent of the owner for public use, although that is a relatively rare occurence in modern day America.
share"how would a democratic state simply take someone's property because he is ill?"
It's called Adult Protective Services. All that has to happen is that someone convinces a judge you're a danger to yourself or others and obtains a court order. The next thing you know your property is in the hands of the county. This is not federal law, but is usually a county thing in my experience.
Also, see what scion9 said.
Don't forget your tsvets!
I don't know the procedure in USA, but as much as it's logical it again decreases the image of American democracy.
Normally one would expect a different order of procedures. If a person becomes unable to live alone and to take care about him/herself, and/or is a danger to him/herself or others, certain services have to take care about the person and the property. Also, if the person needs to be kept in an institution of any kind, I believe that in all countries his/her property would be sold so the money could be used for the treatment of this person.
However, in a democratic society one would expect that the authorities (public services) first take care for the person and check (by professionals - e.g. psychiatrists) if he/she really is unable to handle life and property, and only then (and not just because somebody said something to judge) decide that he/she has no legal abilities to take care about him/herself and the property, and only after the final decision about the person's condition, and final decision what will the society do with the person, the state should be allowed to put hand on the property and use it only for the person's treatment as long as he/she lives.
State laws have various ways of handling this kind of thing, but this is what I have seen happen. First, if neighbors report someone as a "danger to self or others", a judge issues a court order removing the person from his home and committing him to a facility, usually a mental health ward in a hospital. In order to allow a family member or friend to take care of his place, he'd have to sign something granting them "power of attorney".
Over the next few months he would remain in the hospital and have several mental status exams which are standard tests to see if a person is in contact with reality. Treatment might be good, bad, or indifferent. Then there's a court hearing, and the psychiatrists testify whether they think the person does or doesn't have the ability to take care of himself and his property.
This is an excellent way for family members to take control of property that a relative has that they want. All you have to do is get them declared incompetent. If there is no family and no chance of the person regaining his legal sanity, the property can be taken by the state and auctioned off, and there is no law saying that the proceeds have to be used to take care of the person.
You've got me?! Who's got you?!
Again, the laws vary depending on the country, but family members do (or should, depending...) have obligations and choices - they can chose to keep the property but in that case they have to pay the expenses that are not included in patient's medical insurance policy (including the permanent treatment in adequate institution if necessary, after terminating medical procedures), or they can let society (social services) take and sell the property and use the income for these expenses.
share@Molly-31
You have the general idea of it correct, however your timeline and a few other odds and ends are a bit off. An emergency committal, either voluntary or involuntary, which is what you are referring to, is for 72 hours in the vast majority of the states. During that 72 hours, the doctors have to decide whether to request that a judge execute a long term committal or not . It is actually simple to have somebody committed for that 72 hours. All it takes is one doctor or any two other people to go before a judge and say the person is dangerous (to somebody, whether themselves or others) or in some states, to simply sign a committal paper at the courthouse (and pay the fees associated with it). However, if after the 72 hours are up, the doctors have decided that the person is not a danger to themselves or others, those two people could be subject to a civil lawsuit.
"Power of Attorney" is not required for the friend or relative to simply take care of the property as far as maintaining it or paying legal fees associated with it (i.e., taxes, etc.). However, if the person has been judged and declared incompetent by the psychiatrists and judges, the relatives would have to appear before a judge and convince him/her that they have the patient's best interests at heart. And the judge would most likely grant limited Power of Attorney, which basically means they couldn't sell the property or do certain other things with it, without the court's permission, which would most likely include a clause that any monies from such a sale would first be used to pay for the patient's treatment and care.
My interest in the matter is from the point of view of a patient advocate for the mentally ill.
"Everyone in the world is crazy, only the sanest of us admit it!" ~Gig~
I am very glad there are people like you. My friend was royally *beep!*ed by her family on this subject.
Miss Jean Louise? Miss Jean Louise, stand up. Your father's passing.
Hey Molly-31,
Thank you for your kind words . I am sorry about your friend . Simply out of curiosity, may I ask what state or country you live in? I'm in north-central/north east Iowa in the U.S.A. 🇺🇸
~Gig~
Everyone in the world is crazy, only the sanest of us admit it! ~Gig~
I have sent you a private message about this.
Miss Jean Louise? Miss Jean Louise, stand up. Your father's passing.
Before Zach left the Asylum to go after Gabriel he asked the black orderly the name of the company that owned the forested land. Once he knew the company was named "Dominion" he used his heretofore untouched inheritance to purchase the land. All it took then was for Maggie to go retrieve the stay of eviction and probably the land deed from the lawyer.
Bingo! On the money - and they made it a point in the taped news story to mention all the "unclaimed money" Zach had lying around that he hadn't touched from royalties on the book. He bought the land for Gabriel. It all happened kind of quickly and conveniently, but at least it was better than the typical depressing ending rife in film these days! Loved it.
share...but, but, but...Zach didn't believe Gabriel until he actually got to the castle. So, why would he purchase the land ahead of time???
shareMaybe he didn't purchase the land, but at the very least started the process with Dominion, which allowed his attorney to get the stay of eviction order. A stay is not a judgement, it simply means the eviction is put on hold while other legal arguments regarding the issue are made. So he may well have been able to contact Dominion and express an intent to purchase the land, which may have prompted them to agree not to contest the stay? Something like that.
And please accept my apologies up front if my understanding of the American legal system is off-whack - I just work with lawyers, I don't practice. :)
- Is it cold in here, or are you wearing an anatomically-correct bra?
plot question
so teh father took his asylum mates stories and made them into a novel?
and the asylum mate got his stories from wandering in those woods (and in his mind)
I thought that the Dominion reference was more to do with the fact that Gabriel was always afraid of "The Minions" coming to overthrow his kingdom. You know...The Minion...Dominion...???
shareI think whatever everyone is saying is accurate....
could he have also gotten the land to be claimed as a historical site? if the book was as popular to culture as it appeared to be with the whole 25th anniversary thing, then maybe getting it named a historical site protected it from being demolished...i think that he started to think it had to be real when he got the map from the book his father left him, but was surprised that it really was real once he finally saw it. i don't know, just another thought...
[deleted]
Hello
I just watched NeverWas over the weekend. If you do not think it through, you would probably be confused and wonder how did Zach magically get a stay of eviction or buy the land when he did not know the reality of the whole thing? I do not think it is a stay of eviction or that he bought the land - that is not what the papers Britney's character brings to the sheriff.
I believe he must have called his lawyer earlier [not seen in the movie] to make arrangements for Gabriel to receive the royalties of his father's book. That is why he tells Britney's character to call his lawyer concerning Gabriel.
If you recall, Britney's character is orginally going to write a story and she mentions that Zach has never claimed any of the royalty money from his father's book. When he realizes that the story is Gabriel's and that it pre-dates his father's book being written and published, I am sure he realizes the money should go to Gabriel.
Whatever the outcome of his finding Gabriel, he already knows that the land is special to Gabriel and that he was arrested this last time and brought to the hospital when he was trying to shut down bulldozers. He has most likely asked his lawyer to make legal arrangements to have the royalties to go to Gabriel. That would make him probably a millionaire. I believe that is the paperwork that Britney's character brings to the sheriff - which would give Gabriel more legal options I believe. Whether Zach knew about the castle, which he did not, he knew Gabriel was in the mountains and he knew he needed assistance, and he probably assumed that the legal documents would be important no matter what he found. Who knows, maybe he did somehow get guardianship or something but I think more likely he set up a trust fund or did something to make sure Gabriel got the royalties to the book.
I think that is the solution to the "magical" stop to the arresting of the Gabriel character.
jane
According to the dialogue, the paper is really a stay of eviction, but that's what he was able to get while the other legal stuff went through, where he bought the land with his royalty money and gave it to Gabriel. Any money he had left over probably went in a trust fund for Gabriel.
After all, it was Gabriel's story, and he deserved to get credit and get paid for it.
In Zach's office when he is talking to Maggie after she comes back, the black guy from the hospital calls to say that Gabriel escaped and headed for the same mountain Gabriel has told Zach his father used to visit. Zach takes a business card out of his wallet -- obviously from the lawyer -- and says "What is the name of the company that bought up all that land" and the black guy says "Dominion". Then when they're at the River Knight, Zach gives Maggie the card and says "Call my lawyer, he will know what to do."
You've got me?! Who's got you?!
I see some nonbelievers in some of these comments. OK, I wondered the same thing but thought there was probably an explanation. What I didn't quite understand about was not so much about the stay of eviction but the fact it seemed they were actually letting Gabriel stay there. If they thought him delusional, and he was a diagnosed schizophrenic, would they not have gone and gotten him and taken him back to the mental hospital? When I saw they were all hanging those wind chimes or whatever, I figured Gabriel WAS back there, but then they showed him at "Neverwas", so I wasn't sure if that was real or what.
In any case, I still think it was a neat movie. I like "magical" movies. If you don't, then why watch it & then come on here to say it was boring?
Fiction is a lie, and good fiction is the truth inside the lie.--Stephen King
Does it really matter? The movie failed long before that so that little detail at the end is just another example in what by that time was an enormous pile of nonsense.
share