Who was right?

SPOILERS:

A complicated question -- which is why Alexander Payne movies, most of the time, are very good. They raise very painful issues.

The mother and stepfather -- a good looking woman and a good looking man, you can tell they likely have egos and a lustful interest in each other -- make THEIR point. Because Angus visited his institutionalized father, the father attacked a worker with the snow globe gift and now another faciility must be found for him and "it was so hard to find the other place." You feel their pain. They are "stuck" with care of the first husband.

But still we end up on Angus' side, don't we? I can't remember the details, but as I recall the mother doesn't want her son to be with her on CHRISTMAS and worse, she and her lover-boy new husband have selected Christmas for a HONEYMOON. They perhaps could have honeymooned say, any other time of the year? (It doesn't have to be right after the wedding.)

Many mothers, and many stepfathers, treat the child of an earlier marriage with more care and consideration than Angus' mom and stepdad do. They just strike us as arrogant self-absorbed people even WITH the burden of Husband Number One.

A more compassionate routine could have been developed among the mother, stepdad and Angus about how and when to see the father, or if the father should be visited at all.

And this: all the other young men got to chopper off to ski, but ONLY Angus' parents were "unavailable by phone." What if there had been an accident?

And of course, the parents heartily agree with dooming Giamatti's "Paul Hunham" to a firing over this incident. Heartless -- the teacher(not a professor) is sacrificed instead of the son, but the parents and school WOULD have sacrificed the son.

CONT

He touched ‘em though

Can't it be that they're both right, in that they both have valid and legitimate claims that just happen to be in conflict with each other (because different people at different ages and with different responsibilities want and need different things)?

Clearly, none is right, because neither one is the problem.

The problem is the shit house where the father is kept: they should certainly have ZERO rights to refuse to keep him on the basis of any of these "problems". Isn't that their job? Arent' they an institution with their OBLIGATIONS?

They should get sued just for even mentioning anything about it.

I read it as more of an indictment of the 70s and the way people with mental problems were treated in those days.

Angus was right. His self-absorbed, self-righteous mother and her new husband are only pissed off because they've been inconvenienced, and now have to deal with Angus's father's situation. Angus has a right to visit his dad.

The best conclusion I can say is: nobody.

Angus’ mother should have been there for her son on Christmas.

But Hunham should not have taken Angus off campus or to the mental health facility. He didn’t know the circumstances.

At the same time, I understand where he comes from. You have a child that has been dumped by his mother and now wants to see his father. It’s really hard to say no to that.

So, in the end, is who you liked less.

I really hated Angus’ mother. Like he said, they have been married since July. The stepfather is rich. They could’ve gone anytime. Plus, her divorcing her mentally incompetent husband? So much for “in sickness and in health”. She was a gold digger and it shows.