MovieChat Forums > The Education of Charlie Banks (2007) Discussion > Good, but where's the story?

Good, but where's the story?

posted 15 years ago by Supaflyx
26 replies | jump to latest

This film is severely underdeveloped. Thematically, I understand there isn't supposed to be some kind of startling revelation that completely takes the audience by surprise. The well placed reference to The Great Gatsby hints at the film's inherent symbolism: we are supposed to know exactly how the film is going to end, and that's what ultimately makes it tragic.

My problem is with the character development. There are some really great performances here, but where is it all leading to? I can't find a single story arch in the entire film worth mentioning. I might have completely read the scene wrong, but from what I remember, it's subtly indicated that Mick is - more or less - a repressed homosexual. He's by himself in the dorm room, sniffing Charlie's clothes soon after he arrives. Also, during the weekend getaway, he says something to the effect of, "Polo is gay." His delivery is forced, and it hints at the insecurities below the surface of his alpha male persona. Why isn't stuff like this elaborated on further in the story?

By the end of the film, I didn't really care one way or another about these characters. It just felt like a succession of well-acted scenes that had no particular intent or direction of where they were supposed to go.

[–] kajoen 15 years ago

A movie like this doesn't need grand story archs, just like real life for kids their age doesn't have them. And the development of the characters was brilliant imho. Subtle and realistic, without the movie spelling anything out for you.

If you have ever been a little insecure kid with a "Mick" in your life, you would feel right at home in the movie, story and characters.

Only thing I thought was poor was the ending, which got a little out of hand.

[–] bloodofmyenemies 15 years ago

I know what you mean. I was expecting a 'gay' theme to be brought up but it never did and left me a little disapointed.

Judas Priest Cult #2
let the mass begin....
Your wife died from cyanide in the scotch

[–] Buttons12 15 years ago

Yes, from almost the beginning I was expecting a confrontation between Mick and Charlie re: a sexual advance. It was painfully clear that part of Mick's anger was due to his repression of his homosexual urges. And yet, it never materialized. Ritter played this part extremely well; kudos to him.

[–] sisterdebmac 15 years ago

I saw nothing of the sort. I'm glad it's painfully clear to some though. I think that's called projecting.
______________________
Palin/Nugent 2012! Smell that? Mmmmm... sarcasm.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Supaflyx 15 years ago

I don't think you understand the meaning of "repressed homosexuality." This is the behavioral pattern of closeted men who exhibit a rampant alpha-male, heterosexually-driven attitude.

Mick is the very definition of this, exemplified in the scenes mentioned in my original post. You don't find it at all suspicious that he is compelled to force other men to submit to him? He viciously assaults numerous males throughout the film, and then in a well placed scene, sniffs the main characters clothing, and panics as he's almost caught by said character. Why do you think he wanted to hid the act? Because it would reveal his feelings towards Charlie. His relations with women were purely a defense mechanism.

Why else do you think he reacted so violently when he was rejected by a woman at the end of the film? Because it reinforces the insecurities he feels towards his sexual identity.

Did you even watch the movie?

[–] sisterdebmac 15 years ago

Hey, if that's the way you want to see it, fine. But don't insult everyone else by saying that if they don't see it your way, they must not have watched the movie. Arrogance is no way to win an argument.

Some guys are just azzholes, you know. They enjoy hurting people. Doesn't always have to mean they're closet cases.
______________________
Palin/Nugent 2012! Smell that? Mmmmm... sarcasm.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sisterdebmac 15 years ago

LOL! Mmmmkay. BTW, someone confirmed for me that (as I thought) Mick was not sniffing Charlie's clothes, he was sniffing the clothes Leo gave him. So most likely, as dudes often do, he sniffed to make sure they were clean enough to wear. And he rubbed them against his face because they were probably the nicest clothes he'd ever had in his life.
______________________
Palin/Nugent 2012! Smell that? Mmmmm... sarcasm.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DustyCortez 15 years ago

Hmm, I kinda get the homosexual theme you mention. Like the scene when he's with mary in bed, I thought he was gonna say something because he looked bored. All the other scenes just kept you feeling edgy because you can tell that he knew charlie was the rat and was just waiting to do something. Yeah the clothes were his and maybe he just really appreciated them and didn't want to seem "less macho" (it was the 70's). But that's just how I took all the stuff in, pretty good observation on your part though. I didn't even think of it that way.

[–] Buttons12 15 years ago

Thanks to Supaflyx.

I found it extremely clear he was homosexual. The anger and rage he was releasing when constantly beating other men was a sure sign that he had incredible inner turmoil, and his actions proved it was due to his inability to accept his true sexual nature.

And DustyCortez, you're correct about the sex scene with Mary; didn't you all notice he looked *tortured* having to have sex with her? He was less than enthusiastic about it (her all over him, him avoiding touching her until he absolutely had to), and then when he did finally take the dominant role in that scene, he had to be rough and pin her down; so obviously homosexual.

[–] Agentphantom0 15 years ago

You guys are so off the mark it's sad. He was not a repressed homosexual. First off all, he was sniffing those clothes because they were expensive and high quality, feeling them against his cheek made him feel self-worth. He envied the rich kids.

Second, from the start he is attracted to Mary and asks Charlie about her after he first meets her. The sex scene just showed his nervousness to sleep with a affluent college girl, since most people would consider her "above" him socioeconomically.

Third, his rage and quick temper stemmed from a clearly dysfunctional childhood. He had no father, a neglectful mother and was raised mostly by the state. We even see in his childhood he was physically violent. His life was going nowhere and it was inevitable he'd end up dead or in prison.

The third act of the film clearly shows us how Mick painfully wants to be a part of that world of privilege but can't because of his violent character and circumstance.

[–] sisterdebmac 15 years ago

Well said.
______________________
Palin/Nugent 2012! Smell that? Mmmmm... sarcasm.

[–] ryanoconnor-1 15 years ago

If Mick was just smelling the clothes to see if they were clean, I don't think he would have quickly tried to hide what he was doing when Charlie coughed and entered the room.

But putting aside the issue of the clothes for the moment, there is a lot more than that. There is all the staring that Mick constantly does at Charlie, and the way he is always touching him and putting his arm around him.

Perhaps most significant of all is Mick's line to Charlie at the golf course: "This is so gay". I don't think that line is there accidentally - it was put there for a reason.

[–] cthulhulurks 14 years ago

It's a viable theory. In the bathtub scene he comes and sits right between the woman and Charlie. He wants to put his arm around Charlie, but hugs the woman instead. He wants to keep Charlie away from the woman, in fact he tends to keep the girls to himself because he doesn't want them get to get involved with boys, he wants to have all male attention to himself (one way he can do it is by provoking and beating males). Mick thinks Charlie is somehow different from others and mistakes this difference as homosexuality. While Charlie may be queer, he's not likely to be homosexual. Mick tries to decide whether Charlie's gay until the end of the movie with the beating as the climax. Does he want Charlie to join him in a unifying act of mysogyny, the beating of the woman, the cold-hearted manipulator? Not if Charlie decides to confront him. Charlie does but Mick remains undecided. He also remains confused about his own sexuality - there's too much going on and this leaves him no room for any further contemplation.

my vote history:
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=27424531

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MannyCastro 14 years ago

Whether Mick was gay or not doesn't matter. It wasn't the point of the movie. This was a morality tale. Charlie had the chance to keep Mick in jail, but ruined it. Then, three years later, Mick, kills a man and start's messing with Charlie's life. That's it. That's the whole movie. The message is simple: do the right thing or be prepared to pay the price.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] i_am_kierstin 14 years ago

No, no. Mick is sniffing the clothes Leo gave him. That green shirt is what he wore in the previous scene during the poker game. I never got the feeling that Mick was a repressed homosexual. I got the feeling that Mick was emotionally underdeveloped in all aspects, including sexually.

kierstin-happyphotos.blogspot.com

[–] Guamley 13 years ago

I'm guessing all the people who got some gay vibe from Mick are themselves gay and wish the rest of the world was.
They probably get a gay vibe from John Wayne.

I guess when he was banging Mary's brains out he was imagining it was Charlie.
In fact I'm almost positive I heard him whisper "oh charlie"...you can hear it if you listen real closely with the volume pumped-up to 60.

Also if you slow down the scene with the clothes sniffing, he actually has Charlie's fruit of the looms on his head.

[–] sisterdebmac 13 years ago

Wait, John Wayne wasn't gay? Damn!
________________
there will be snark