MovieChat Forums > Mr. Pip (2013) Discussion > Just a couple questions about the movie/...

Just a couple questions about the movie/story

posted 10 years ago by falconefans
13 replies | jump to latest

I just saw this movie last night and have a couple questions. I didnt read the book so maybe it was explained better there.

About halfway through when the soldiers show up for the first or second time, we see the helicopter, there's some commotion/confusion, then you hear a shot, you hear/see someone crying over what looks like a small body on the ground. Is it the dog? or one of the pigs? or did the soldiers kill someone in the vilage?

At the end we find out that Mr Watts has named Matilda in his will. How was he able to update his will while on the island? It seemed that by the time he started teaching the children the civil war had started and the island was cut off from everyone. They burned all his possessions. So when the lawyer comes to visit i was surprised by this news and thought i had missed something. Had Mr Watts written his will before the conflict started and if so, why did he single out Matilda in his will if he hadn't started teaching the children and didnt even know their names.

This is probably one of the best movies i've ever seen. The story/writing was really emotional and compelling and the acting was nothing less than superb especially considering most of the cast were not professional actors. Hugh Laurie is nothing short of amazing.

"Fraaaank. FRANK! Get my jean bin. Susie wants my jeans."
"No she doesn't."

[–] b_raekson 10 years ago

This is really one film where I'd highly recommend reading the book first. Don't get me wrong, I loved the film. Maybe I should use capitals for that. LOVED. There.
They stuck pretty closely with the book for the most part. The ending was different, though. Not radically different, they just got there by different means, so to speak.

To answer your questions:
1 - Yes, the soldiers shot the dog.
2 - This was different from the book, where Mr Watts doesn't leave a will, or anything to Matilda. Matilda goes looking for Tom's past and his wife anyway. I won't tell you why or how, since this is a film discussion board and you should read the book ;)

The ending, with Tom making a will to include Matilda is really hard to explain. It's essentially impossible (for the reasons you've mentioned), unless you want to say he wrote a will after the soldiers came for the first time and gave a copy to Gilbert's dad to take with him on the boat, just in case he himself didn't make it out alive. And even then the lawyer would still have to find Matilda because Tom Watts had no way of knowing where she might end up. All very improbable. Personally, I think they wanted a shortcut to explain why Matilda goes looking for June Watts (in the book, this is a longer 'road' and not easy to put into visuals).

And now, go read the book! :D

[–] MunchieP 10 years ago

This is really one film where I'd highly recommend reading the book first.

I found this to be the only issue with the film. As a viewer who hasn't read the book I felt out of the loop a bit, like whoever read the book belonged to a secret club who will "get" the film while I didn't.
Just like you said, don't get me wrong- I LOVED the film. The scenery was gorgeous, one of the best film locations I've ever seen. Hugh Laurie wore his heart on his sleeve for this performance no doubt and the actors who played beside him were natural and believable.
Where it lacked though was in taking liberties as an adaptation for the big screen. I felt it was trying to stay too loyal to the book almost, Whereas it should've payed homage to it. They should've focused more on the relationship between Matilda and Mr. Watts as that would make the viewer understand how the relationship ran deeper as it proved to in the end. Some writing, and perhaps directing and editing choices could've been better. Also knowing Hugh Laurie's acting capabilities I did feel that though great, he was held back.

The film was written and directed by Andrew Adamson who also worked on The Chronicles Of Narnia which in my opinion suffered from the same problem. If you read the book it was great but if you haven't it was lackluster.

To Stupidity.

[–] mrcibubur 10 years ago

I begged the same question about Matilda being named in Mr Watts Will. There is no probability whatsoever which makes it possible for Mr Watts to have done this. The Will was apparently legal if with the lawyer and in which case must have been made by Mr Watts before he came to Bouganville or if the lawyer had come to the island. Neither seems likely.

There is one other improbability in the storyline. When Matilda visits the London home of the first wife, she views a family tree on the wall which makes reference to her, Dolores, Sarah and the 'flying fish', I have watched the DVD five times and I still do not get this part. I know its significance in relation to the story explained by the film but as much as I loved this film, and I truly did, my point stands.

What is also great about this film (compared perhaps with 'Life is Beautiful' which went close to the knuckle in bringing comedy in the world of the holecaust)is that there was no bad language, no visual violence, no blood, nothing despite the shooting and rape towards the end which would make this film hard to watch.

I have yet to read the book (or find it here in Indonesia) but the film is a real find. Hugh Lawrie originated as a British comedian and I wonder if he was trying to make some point of his own in the film about that with the red nose thing, notwithstanding Mr Pip.

[–] falconefans 10 years ago

The family tree was written by his wife. She told the whole history of her village there on the wall. What i thought was odd is that the first wife kept it. I would think she'd be bitter about losing her husband to this woman and would want to wipe out their existance from her life.

The red nose was explained in that same scene when they show the theater poster hanging on the wall. He's wearing the red nose in the poster and pulling her in that cart. I think when he did this in the village he was trying whatever he could to bring her back to some form of reality by reminding her of a happier time when they were in the play.

"Fraaaank. FRANK! Get my jean bin. Susie wants my jeans."
"No she doesn't."

[–] smcbee27 9 years ago

That wasn't her flat to paint over the wall. It was his. Remember, it was locked and separate from her own living space. Legally and morally she would've had no right to paint over it until Matilda gave her the flat to make the home a full house once again, not a division of properties in a settlement.

[–] timlin-4 10 years ago

I don't remember much about Great Expectations, but these types of books tend to have some sort of inheritance playing a role, so the screenwriter was probably referencing that

The main improbability is that these people just sit around being bullied and killed by force of a handful of men. These aren't urbanites, you'd think they'd take more of an interest in surviving. Even if white slavery was legal, slavers would pay extra for these people

[–] BoingFwip 9 years ago

The main improbability is that these people just sit around being bullied and killed by force of a handful of men. These aren't urbanites, you'd think they'd take more of an interest in surviving.

Um...what? These people were simple farmers who had nothing but their families and village. They slept on mats on the floor. If a handful of soldiers fly into their village in helicopters and stick guns in their face, they're going to do whatever the soldiers want.

Even if white slavery was legal, slavers would pay extra for these people

I don't even know what you mean by that. What difference does it make if the slaves are white (which did happen, read some history books) or black? Slavery is slavery. And it didn't really play a part in this movie. No one was a slave. They were poor islanders who were forced to give up boys to the soldiers to join their army.

Were we even watching the same movie?

I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.

[–] smcbee27 9 years ago

You do understand this took place in 1990, right? It is based on a real civil war. Your observations make no sense to the story at all.

[–] smcbee27 9 years ago

SPOILERS
Great Expectations centers around inheritance but it plays no part in the telling of this story. It was merely used as a means to an end. The screenwriter needed Matilda to meet his first wife in as little time possible. In the book Matilda goes searching for her. Running time excluded that from happening in the movie.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] smcbee27 9 years ago

She obviously wanted HIS copy of the book. Why she didn't want a London flat or education is left to the viewer's imagination if it wasn't covered in the book. Perhaps she felt no right to it or was uncomfortable with the situation or was simply very happy with her present journey. Having Pip's copy of GE however left her with her strongest ties to him. It was a keepsake to be treasured, not just a book to read.

[–] smcbee27 9 years ago

A will does not have to be written by or in front of a lawyer. You may,today, write out your will in ling hand put it in a desk drawer to be found when you die and it will be your legal will. That's not what makes it so hard to believe. The believability of it comes from how the will made it off the islands to be mailed or delivered to his lawyer. Sometimes, okay, many times, movies need us to suspend our disbelief or logic for the sake of the story. I believe this story is beautiful enough to ask of us that one favor and we just accept there was no other way for the screenwriter to include her to meet his wife.

[–] smcbee27 9 years ago

SPOILERS
The family tree on the wall references back to Mr. PIP telling the class about his daughter's bedroom and how Grace told the story of how Stella, their baby, came from island. It also shows how every life on the island was interconnected and that he "knew" the villagers before ever coming there to live.

The red nose was from the play The Queen of Sheeba and from a time when Grace "laughed and laughed". June believed all Grace could do was laugh. So in the village, using the imagination that he touched on as being important, he and Grace would re-enact this scene from the play. He was hoping to hear her "laugh and laugh as though she couldn't stop" once more, imo.