MovieChat Forums > Disconnect (2013) Discussion > frank covering up Jason's prank

frank covering up Jason's prank


I am guessing that frank covered up the prank that Jason pulled with fry in order to prevent him from going to juvie despite Ben ended up in a coma.

reply

That's the way I saw it.

Also, when Jason Bateman comes to the door and confronts the father and son, Dixon (Frank Grillo) justifies the fact that the son Bateman's son tried to hang himself. He does not try to reason with Frank or admit his son's guilt.

I liked it when Bateman decked Frank. He really won that fight in many ways.

reply

..this is what makes this movie realistic and scarey in many ways. When people find out their kids or a friend they know did something bad, they want to cover it up for them naturally. Coz they don't want to be the ones to rat them out or turn them in.

..plus his dad was in such a tough spot, he tried to teach his kid right from wrong and obviously lectured and chewed him out, but he knew he could try to make it go away on the lap top. And that was his first mistake, he compromised what he stood for as an ex cop, and what he did at his job.


...

reply

But remember, he tried to cover what his son did AFTER reading what the messages between his kid and Bateman's character. I think he felt a little bit of guilt too for not being a great father to his son. He might have even felt partially responsible.

reply

This is the only thing that didn't sit right with me. I thought the cop/detective was a decent, honorable guy until that point (he even defends Bateman's kid when confronting his own son). I can't believe he would just try to cover up his tracks like that, and then lash out at Bateman when he's caught (I suppose out of sheer embarrassment). It really makes me interested in what happens after that confrontation, and if anything ever really gets "resolved" to a satisfying degree -- after all, nothing really matters unless the kid wakes up.

Great use of "On The Nature Of Daylight" when Bateman clocks the kid with the hockey stick, though. Those slow-mo sequences really hit home.

reply

I'm right with you on that! I thought the detective was a great guy until he covered up his sons tracks. I can't say I totally blame him though. What made it worse for me was when he says to Bateman "your kid tried to kill himself." I was like HELL YEAH when Bateman punched through the door. I thought the detective turnee into a total arse but I guess he was just sticking up for his own blood. He slightly made up for it by helping Bateman up after the fight when everyone kinda realized that fighting wasn't helping anything.

And the slomo scenes you mentioned were just fantastic!! Loved the ending to this amazimg movie! I gave it 9/10.

reply

This is a slightly silly point to make for such a profound film, but I think more films should find ways to use scenes of people punching other people out through screen doors. It always rocks.

reply

blood is thicker than water after all. it may be the right thing to do but if it's your offspring on the line you're gonna do whatever it takes to protect them. am just glad he didnt decoy Boyd's dad when he told the other guy to stand down at their target's doorstep.

reply

Well I thought that the father was a pretty terrible person himself. Other than when he gave the guy back his money he was a pretty awful character in my opinion. From telling his son how stupid people are online to get deceived and robbed to just how he treated his son.

It's no surprise that he would defend and protect his evil spawn. Most parents have crappy kids because they are crappy people themselves so it would be an automatic response to help cover it up.

reply

I saw it as realistic. A father would do anything to protect their kids. Part of me even expected that he'd try to frame himself so that he would take his son's place so that his son wouldn't go to jail. I also wouldn't call Jason the evil one - his friend was. Jason was just a kid who started a prank, found someone that he connected with, tried to cover it up, and was manipulated by his friend. Jason's friend is the one who had him send the picture to everyone, wanted to delete all evidence without anyone caring about it, and never showed any sense of remorse about it. Whereas Jason already learned his lesson by the time his dad yelled at him.

reply

I totally agree with Wolverine. As a father he was horrified by what his son had done but still wanted to protect him as most parents would do. I think the son knew what he had done wrong, hence him going to the hospital. I think it's realistic and sad and tragic and probably happens more often that we would think. Kids don't think and a stupid mistake could turn tragic. I don't think the son meant for things to get to that level in any way.

reply

I think that Jason's remark about his dad being a bad father had to do something with the cover up. The cop might have been a good person in general, but he lacked one thing that almost every person in the movie lacked: connection with the people that are close to us. He seemed kind enough to his customers (who were complete strangers until they hired him), but observe his behavior towards his own son. When Jason confessed that he doesn't like him as a father, guilt kicked in. Because of guilt of being a bad parent he wanted to make it up to his son and at that moment the best choice in his opinion was to shield him with whatever was in his power.

He didn't strike me as the person who would abuse that kind of power (the various data recovery and deletion programs), but any power can be abused if there is motivation strong enough behind it.

B.

reply

Yeah honestly I think this was a bit typical. The cop was a sterotype "tough guy" who tells his son that if you want to "*beep* with somebody you do it to their face".
Then he covers his son's back and insults the father right to his face, claiming his own kid "had a problem".

I suppose all the characters are meant to be relatable in some way, but this guy really lost me...

reply

It would have been an incredibly tough decision for the father. He stands for justices and helps people find justice, yet he is presented a problem that will severely hinder his own sons life prospects. The man is torn but ultimately chose the path of defending his son.

He did come accross as a dick when Boyd confronted him, but at this stage he had decided to defend his son, he is not going to baulk at the first oppourtunity. My wife and I discussed what would we do in that situation and she said easy she would turn our son in, however, it is easy to say that when you don't have to make that decision for real. Think about it you hold a key to your kids future one phone call could ruin his life. Though granted even if the kid did "get away with it" there is no telling what the guilty feeling would do to him?

reply

Wait a sec, there is no crime in posting a picture of someone on the web, nasty, horrid, but no law broken. The kid and father that covered up the 'evidence' didnt actually break a law.
No law was broken, kid is unhappy, tries to kill himself, then end.

reply

I think the crime part of it would be considered the fabrication of a person to manipulate someone else.

I'm not au fait with law so I don't know if creating a fake facebook profile and then your actions lead to a boy trying to kill himself is a crime, even if it is I can see it being a very messy trial. However, as part of the film Frank ( a former officer of the law) was concerned enough that he wanted to destroy evidence.

From a personal point of view the act of the children who set up the page was very wrong. It's not much of leap to say it was very likely that the actions throughout this probably lead to the suicide attempt.

Even though he was a bit of a loner there was no evidence that he wanted to take his life before. I'm sure a good lawyer however, would argue tooth and nail that the two boys did not break a law.

reply

It was cyber bullying, or just bullying without a doubt, but that's not actually a crime, its just called being mean to someone which everyone in this world does to one another.
In order to prosecute someone for bullying a significant act has to have occurred such as a physical punch thrown etc. No one forced the kid to strip, he did it all by himself and HE hit 'send' not them.
The dad covered it up because the film makers decided it was a prosecutable crime, I however am not convinced.

At the end of the day the kid was STUPID. I mean, c'mon.. taking a picture of yer dick and putting it on the web?! Then he tries to kill himself... The parents clearly failed in providing an emotionally stable kid, a loving home whereby the children can disclose what's going on in their lives, seek help or advice etc, or at the very least can work together as a family to move on past this embarrassing event. Imo the parents and kid are to blame WAY MORE than the two kids mucking around (who didn't even break a law).

The most powerful scene in this movie was when the sister spits in her friends face. That was classic, and so appropriate and realistic.

reply

In the Case of Megan Taylor Meier who commented suicide the accused was taken to court, however, she was acquitted. Granted this was deemed a campaign of cyber bullying. Police and prosecution services believe that a crime had been committed, there are cyber bullying laws around. Like I said the case in the film would have been very difficult to make stick even more so with the evidence destroyed.

I too loved the scene where the sister spits in her friends face, it's like she realises what idiots her friends are and how she's been a bit of a douche in the past.

reply

I don't know if Cyber Bullying is a crime, but child pornography definitely is a crime. Even if children are exchanging photos of themselves it is still child pornography and a felony. I work in a school district and have heard of several stories of students exchanging photos of themselves, and somehow they get out and spread throughout the school. If you are in possession of such photos they consider it child pornography, and depending on the age of the student (under 17), they're usually tried as an adult.

reply

@dunker56.Your post is basically saying that no one can make another person do anything they don't want to do.Like taking nude pictures of yourself and sending the nude picture of yourself to someone else.It also seems like you include suicide in the list of things people AREN'T forced to do to themselves.It's almost like you seem to think everyone who isn't mentally challenged are responsible for their own decisions. I didn't even read the replys to your post because I have a strong feeling more than one person sent you the memo already that you aren't suppose to think that way about suicide or people who take nude pictures of themselves and send that picture to someone else anymore.Once someone takes a nude picture of themselves with a cell phone anyone can do really hurtful and illegal things with it.Obviously NOT everyone cares about breaking the law and being cruel to other people.Some people know this and other people either know it and don't care or they were taught things like this don't happen to people.

reply

Hang on, I'll reread what i wrote ages ok cuz my memory ain't what it used to be.

reply

Ok i reread what I wrote, tbh I barely recall this film it clearly didn't have much of a long lasting impact on me.

I meant to say that I don't think that any actual laws were broken here (from the kids who pretended and baited the low self esteem kid). The truth of the matter is that we are all working as the sum collective experience of our past (along with genetic influences), the kid had low self esteem due to perhaps family neglect amongst other things etc.

The kids that baited were cruel for sure, but the real crime was the lack of leadership by the father of the low self esteem kid (neglect etc), conjecture here etc. The kids stupidity, naivety and low self esteem would have been created and nurtured over years, yet because of what occurred the finger is directly pointed at the 'mean kids'.

Think of it like this;

If I tell someone to jump off a roof basically two things can occur;

1) The person says 'stfu dunker!' and walks away. This person has self esteem, is not suffering from depression etc. More often than not you will find this the most likely response.

2) A rare situation arises whereby the person actually jumps to their death. Now why did they jump? It might be concluded afterwards that the person was schizophrenic (mentally ill), or severely depressed (low self esteem/mentally ill). Do we ignore the past that led this person to be neglected to such a degree that this state of mind and lack of care existed? Do we simply pin the crime on the last interaction that poor soul had with?
For sure to tell anyone to jump is a terrible thing to do, cruel etc, but my point is that last time I checked speaking words to another individual (no matter how bad taste they are) isn't actually a prosecutable crime (I might be wrong here tho, and if so I would actually like to know, because that would be quite interesting).
If the person did jump then the real crime (if there is one) is the circumstances that led the person to being so vulnerable in the first place, not necessarily the last interaction they had before their death.

I hope this clarifies my view, please challenge it by all means.

reply

There are actually laws now to stop people from uploading someone else picture online without their consent, though there are loopholes in them. Also depending on the kids age it could very well have fallen under child pornography. In that case though the kid in the coma would also get in trouble for it. But if those kids knew how old he was and he was underage (which seems more than likely) then they could actually get in a lot of trouble for sending out that picture. Also there are online impersonation laws in some american states, but I think that may just be if you are using a real persons details. But yeah more than likely this kid actually broke a few laws in what he was doing and defs broke them when he sent that picture around.

reply

Interesting stuff actually. It's been awhile since I watched the movie and I guess my initial response was that the kids prank wasn't that bad and that they shouldn't be held wholey responsible. I guess it's naive of me to think that such things as impersonation laws don't exist (and therefore some kind of crime has been committed) it's just I get the feeling that more and more the law protects the dumb and stupid.

reply

It did start off pretty harmless, and if they had got caught at the start, the worst they would have got was groundings from their parents. As soon as they got that picture though and sent it throughout the school, that's when they messed up real bad. Especially when you add in the fact it's the reason the kid tried to kill himself.

reply

Wouldn't it be illegal to post a naked picture of someone else without their consent? I have no idea, I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I would guess it was. Especially since he was a minor.

reply

Yeah, to bad it wouldn't work. Fry's now fried Ipad is evidence of attempts to destroy evidence, the IP address from the account can still be tracked ot various wi fi, data networks liked to the kids, the other kids actions are suspicious and Grillos character has the capacity to wipe that physical evidence. Grilo may be able to scramble the Ipad, but he can;t get rid of all the online evidence- that stuff is permanent- he may be an expert in the field, but he doesnt have enough time to successfully cover it up. Easy beyond reasonable doubt for criminal charges, and at the very least an extremely lucrative civil suit. It would work up until the point Bateman identified his son.

"World needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."

reply

I know it's a horrible decision but what father wouldn't?

"I do what I say and I say what I mean"

reply

If you're serious about that question, please dont reproduce. This is what is wrong with society. We're raising generations who think they can be acquitted of anything. Not only that, they cant take criticism, cant handle consequences and believe they have a divine right to things they want by just pointing at them.

I loathe people like you who arent fit to have kids. Get a puppy or something. Raising a kid isnt about granting his wishes or never exposing him to action and reaction.



I have no sig.

reply

I guess I worded that wrong, I don't have children but I can say with almost certainty that I do not currently know a father who would choose to turn his son in.

I'm sorry you "loathe people like me" must be a really fun existence sitting atop your throne in the clouds looking down on all of us sinners...

"I do what I say and I say what I mean"

reply

Ben is kinda a dumbass though. Pretentious with his music and being so foolish as to send his real photo.

I realise that he is a kid, and that while people may be hard on him too if he was an adult, it may not feel that right when he is a minor. But god damn, he comes off as unlikeable to me. And stupid.

reply

being so foolish as to send his real photo.


The two pranksters calculatedly created intimacy (i.e. - telling Ben about his father), and they closely watched Ben's reactions all along. They knew (or reasonably should have known) that he was enamored with the Jessica persona, so its no surprise that Ben sent his real photo.

You can't blame Ben here.

reply

Yes, I can. I was a reasonably wise kid, as were millions of others. The standard of behaviour asked here is not particularly high.

I am not asking for the impossible. Merely the sensible.

reply