MovieChat Forums > Win Win (2011) Discussion > A few thing ruined it for me

A few thing ruined it for me

posted 13 years ago by Jebus_Saves
13 replies | jump to latest

1) It really wouldn't have required much time or effort for him to have kept Leo at his house. Leo could afford 24/hour care, so all he had to do was cut the checks, check in with him now and then, and make sure the caretakers are showing up and doing their jobs. Most bills can be autopay/paid online, etc. Not hard at all. He risks losing his license to avoid a couple extra hours of work a week at most? Didn't ring true at all, especially since he wasn't a bastard.

2) Why didn't that freaking wife get a job? How is she so oblivious that she doesn't know their financial situation? Husband wants to cut the tree down himself and she never asks herself why he is willing to do that just to avoid spending a couple of bucks. WAKE UP! Then at the end, he gets a THIRD JOB rather than her get ONE JOB. Even part time? God forbid! They only had one kid not in school 8 hours a day and supposedly his mom was nearby and could help out.

[–] pking-2 13 years ago

Well, the premise is that it would have taken too much time in Mike's mind. Not to mention, being fiction, its trivial to author it so that the demands could/would overwhelm Mike, at the writer's whim.

Though, if you want to write a story where its easy to take care of Leo in his home, that would work too I suppose. Just would be a different story.

Meanwhile...the wife didn't get another job because she was already busy. In their situation, she had her responsibilities and Mike had his. Only you read into it that she was underutilized or leading some sort of leisurely life compared to Mike. But that's nowhere to be found in the story.

Of course, if you want to write a story where Jackie is slothing around and instead should contribute more, that would work too I suppose. Just would be a different story.

[–] Jebus_Saves 13 years ago

In other words, it is what the writer wants it to be, whether it makes any logical sense or not. That is called bad, contrived writing.

[–] pking-2 13 years ago

Well, 100% of all writing is whatever the writer(s) want it to be, whether it makes sense to you or not. But no, that doesn't make 100% of all writing bad/contrived.

Meanwhile, don't miss the point...it's a story about an irrational midlife crisis. Mike did the wrong thing, a bit nonsensically.

So, why argue that its a bad story because Mike was nonsensical. He was supposed to be foolish. He (mildly tragically) chose to compromise his entire honor/integrity...in order to avoid getting someone in his household to work a second job.

When...really, that's a "losing" proposition that only appears to be "win/win" on the surface. He figures that all out by the time the credits roll.

Now...you might prefer that he somehow force his wife to work in a bar or whatever instead of doing so himself.

But that's just you. That's not Mike/Jackie. Different strokes.

Your priorities are apparently to financially benefit by exploiting the earnings potential of the mom. Whereas Mike and Jackie prioritized "stay at home parenting" more highly than you.

So how much does 24 hour in-home care cost compared to nursing home? You must know that (and also how much Leo had to spare) to make your claims there.

But if it costs more (and I suppose it does; otherwise more people would eschew nursing homes and bring in the stay at home 24-hour help) then there's your explanation. At home care apprently costs too much. It only has to cost $1 more than Leo's stipend for Mike to not be able to afford it since Mike was broke already and was not going to pitch in.

[–] Jebus_Saves 13 years ago

Calm down. You seem upset bro.

They already said Leo could afford 24 hour care. Mike's commission was a separate fee, one didn't impact the other. It is just bad writing. There was little to no work in it for him to keep Leo at home, certainly not enough for him to risk his license.

The mom refusing to get a job (or it not even being brought up as an option) is just ludicrous. I watched the movie with women and they went nuts about this point.

You aren't giving any logical explanations for anything, you are just saying "well, that's how it was written!" Obviously. That is my issue.

[–] pking-2 13 years ago

Calm down. You seem upset bro.

LOL. No. Reread. We merely have two different opinions. Happens all the time. Get used to it. (Do you typically leap to this tactic? Pretending calm folks are upset to discredit whatever they think if it differs from you? Hmmm...how's that work for you?)

They already said Leo could afford 24 hour care. Mike's commission was a separate fee, one didn't impact the other.

So...Leo could afford it but didn't want to pay for it, right?

You are saying...Mike should have taken Leo's assets beyond the stipend, even more deeply against the rules? Hmmm...even more ethically dubious...but yeah, he could have done that instead I suppose. He wasn't supposed to though. He was trying to play in an ethical grey area instead of overtly stealing from Leo against Leo's wishes.

The mom refusing to get a job (or it not even being brought up as an option) is just ludicrous. I watched the movie with women and they went nuts about this point.

Big deal. Watch it with different women and you'd get a different reaction, would be the the counterpoint. For example, watch it with a woman like Jackie.

You aren't giving any logical explanations for anything, you are just saying "well, that's how it was written!" Obviously. That is my issue.

No I'm saying more than that. Reread.

It's a story about different people than you. People who probably have the situation where the has lower earning potential than the husband.

So sending Jackie out to the workforce might be an even worse choice for Mike+Jackie.

Choosing the most efficient way to make ends meet isn't necessarily ludicrous.

Besides, if she works her earning potential might be really low since they then have to pay for childcare...

Not to mention...if they want Jackie to do the parenting instead of a childcare provider...then the only things open to Jackie would be opposite hours of Mike...

[–] Jebus_Saves 13 years ago

Agree different opinions are fine. You seem angry about mine for some reason though. Glad to hear that isn't the case.

"So...Leo could afford it but didn't want to pay for it, right?

You are saying...Mike should have taken Leo's assets beyond the stipend, even more deeply against the rules? Hmmm...even more ethically dubious...but yeah, he could have done that instead I suppose. He wasn't supposed to though. He was trying to play in an ethical grey area instead of overtly stealing from Leo against Leo's wishes."

You are missing something completely. They said several times Leo had the money to pay for whatever care. At the beginning of the movie, he is already paying for 24 hour care. There is no "stipend." As guardian, Mike could use whatever assets Leo had to take care of Leo as per Leo's wishes. Mike's commission for taking on the role is the only hard number given in the film and is not impacted at all by whether Mike takes care of Leo or puts him in the home. Mile admits he only puts Leo in the home because it would be "too much work." However, it simply would not have been. Certainly not enough to risk your license.

I don't know where you are getting any sort of money issue on Leo staying at home. That is never said or implied in the movie. Quit the opposite--they make is perfectly clear that Leo could afford it and Mike didn't do it simply to avoid any extra work for himself.

"People who probably have the situation where the has lower earning potential than the husband. "

She couldn't be a bartender?

"Besides, if she works her earning potential might be really low since they then have to pay for childcare... "

She couldn't be a bartender at night while he is at home after his job? They only have one kid who isn't in school 8 hours a day, they don't have any family that can help? There is no neighborhood day care that is reasonable? Unlikely. How does everyone else do it? What families do you know where the man works two jobs, day and night, and the woman doesn't even work part time? It is unrealistic plain and simple.

"Not to mention...if they want Jackie to do the parenting instead of a childcare provider...then the only things open to Jackie would be opposite hours of Mike..."

You mean like the bartending job he took that she just as easily could have?

[–] pking-2 13 years ago

It's been a while (admittedly I only watched the movie upon theatrical release)...so I guess I just don't recall then. So Leo already had/wanted 24-hour care, therefore I have no idea why Mike would cancel this and choose a nursing home instead. I think you have a point. (Though honestly I just don't remember 24-hour care whatsoever :-)

She couldn't be a bartender?

Well, she COULD, somehow, eventually, of course. The question is, why SHOULD she? Mike's the one who has some form of interest in both breadwinning and bartending...

They only have one kid who isn't in school 8 hours a day, they don't have any family that can help?

Well, yeah, no family, apparently. Was there family in the story trying to help? (Again, I might have forgotten.)

You mean like the bartending job he took that she just as easily could have?

Exactly...what is your basis that it was ludicrous that Mike take that job instead of Jackie? I don't get it...please help me comprehend your basis.

Basically...it seems like Mike prefers two jobs, no homemaking. Whereas, you (who are not Mike) would prefer one job and parenting/homemaking so your wife take a night job after parenting/homemaking during the day.

My point is: neither you nor Mike seem particularly ludicrous, in such choices. Just, two different options based on two different personalities. What is ludicrous about Mike's vs. yours, if I have desribed the two paths accurately?

Now if Jackie was some form of hotshot three-figure an hour attorney choosing not to work or whatever...then I could understand why its weird they don't take advantage of her earning potential...but I just didn't see that lucrativeness from Jackie...I think she was a stay-at-home-mom, for all we know. (Maybe couldn't even get a job as lucrative as bartending, like Mike...though, realistically a fairly hot milf like Jackie would probably clean up on tips compared to Mike in a bar :-)

This is the story about Mike (who can earn whaever he can earn and appraently is a trooper about jobs and has some form of passing interest in bartending) and Jackie (who can earn whatever it is she can earn and seems to do all the stay at home work) and no pending offers to help from extended family. That's the premise.

It's not about how you (who doesn't intend to work at jobs as much as Mike does) and your professionally lucrative wife (who would be far better at bringing in bucks compared to jackie but, unlike Jackie, your wife is not intent on being primary caregiver to children) and would have handled it...that would be a different story.

[–] Jebus_Saves 13 years ago

"It's been a while (admittedly I only watched the movie upon theatrical release)...so I guess I just don't recall then. So Leo already had/wanted 24-hour care, therefore I have no idea why Mike would cancel this and choose a nursing home instead. I think you have a point. (Though honestly I just don't remember 24-hour care whatsoever :-) "

Well good enough then.

I'll leave the second point at you don't think it is ridiculous for a woman to sit at home while her husband works 2 jobs before she even tries to work part time. You are entitled to your opinion.

[–] pking-2 13 years ago

I guess what I was asking about is, what makes it ridiculous for Jackie not Mike to be at home? To me its an either/or.

Is it that you think Jackie has extra time or energy that Mike doesn't posess or something like that?

[–] HIMcDonough 13 years ago

It seems that the wife was not aware or was trusting with her husband that ends were being met. The wife was not explicitly made aware of the tight financial situation until that night the grandpa was found at home.
Regarding the tree thing, it is not out of question for men to act masculine by saying they will take care of hard physical tasks at home. It is also not unusual for husbands to put off household tasks (especially with all the repairs that are being done in the office).
In any case, the amount of pride Mike had in his provider for the family status probably would prevent a solution where the wife were to work. This pride was what led to his anxiety attacks so I credit the writer for creating this dimension for the character as to possibly explain why it was unlikely the wife would get a job as a possible solution to the financial situation.
At the end, when Mike gets the bar tending job, I think this was appropriate because I see it as Mike taking responsibility for his bad choice and taking advantage of a second chance to do so. The bottom-line consequence would have him lose his ability to practice law and continuing to support his family, and I think Mike realizes that it didn't have to come to that so the sentence of having to work at the bar to solve their problems would seem a blessing compared to what worse could have happened.
In my opinion, it would have been weak writing to have the wife work because not only would I have seen it as the politically correct solution, but it would go against the principles and motivations of one of the characters. When I get a sense of what the value system of the characters in the story are without it being overtly in my face, I consider it pretty decent writing.

[–] harveyblunts 12 years ago

No. Leo was entering into dementia. The whole point of the movie is that Mike is actually a really good guy, but he made a mistake. Mike knows that a dementia patient has to actually be taken care of. There wouldn't be "caretakers showing up"; Mike would be the caretaker. Dementia patients have to be watched. It's not just bills; you have to make sure they don't leave the stove on. Or leave the door/windows open. Or try to light the dining room table on fire. Not only would Mike be morally obligated to spend a lot of time taking care of Leo, but failing to do so as his legal guardian would put him in serious jeopardy, legally.

[–] hka-3 12 years ago

You're exactly right, Leo needed non-stop care since in that state of mind he could be a danger to himself. There wasn't any way of knowing how advanced his dementia could become or of knowing how soon it would be more severe. When Kyle took Leo back to his house and then Kyle took off, I was relieved that Mike took Leo back to Oak Knoll and also stayed with him -- even if falling asleep on his couch was unintentional.

Cheese fries...next time.

[–] michaelingp 11 years ago

My guess is the OP has never actually been in this situation. I can tell you from experience that in-home care is NOT easy. We tried to keep my Mom out of assisted living for a few months. It was essentially like we were trying to run our own nursing home for one person. We had to interview caregivers, make payroll, fire them if my Mom (or we) didn't like them, monitor that they showed up, find backups when they didn't arrive, arrange for home visits for health care professionals, buy and rent equipment, etc. Even cutting the checks got tedious very quickly. And you can't easily buy entertainment and social interactions, so family members still had those duties.

And all for what? In-home care costs more than assisted living and its not good for the elderly person to be so isolated, lonely and so dependent. Where Leo went was NOT a nursing home. It looked like he had his own kitchen, so it was assisted living for pretty functional people.

Elderly patients with dementia who want to remain in their own homes, and well-meaning caregivers who feel they would be better off in assisted living is the stuff of poignant drama that many of us will live through ourselves. I thought the movie was great.