MovieChat Forums > Win Win (2011) Discussion > Easy Solution?

Easy Solution?

posted 13 years ago by lornek-1
5 replies | jump to latest

This kind of bothered me towards the end. Mike could have pretty easily explained everything I felt with a small lie:

"I took care of Leo in his house for a while, but it became clear to me as we went that things just weren't safe enough...what if he felt like cooking when I wasn't there, etc? I moved him into Oaks where I could make sure he was doing well and not worry about accidents or his health when I'm not there with him."

I think if he'd have just gone with something like that, everything could have wrapped up nicely and with no hard feelings from anyone. No one gets hurt with this scenario as Leo on his own in that house really is a danger to himself...and the retirement home really did look damn nice to me far as those places go.

Leo is suffering dementia let's not forget and can seem with-it at times and other times he won't be. Dementia doesn't get better in time, only worse...these poor folks that contract it later in life really are not safe anymore on their own. No matter how fine they seem and how able bodied.

So just tell everyone that you tried with him living at home for a bit, it didn't work out, so you moved him into Oaks. He still visits Leo several times a week so he really isn't a bad guy all in all.

And certainly no one is hurt by him being given $1,500 per month either, the guy left it all to the parks department anyway. At least this way, Leo's $1,500/mo would help his only grandson...since he now lives with Mike and all (who will need to pay for college with the money).

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Manowar2010 13 years ago

"I took care of Leo in his house for a while, but it became clear to me as we went that things just weren't safe enough...what if he felt like cooking when I wasn't there, etc? I moved him into Oaks where I could make sure he was doing well and not worry about accidents or his health when I'm not there with him."

The only problem with that is that the movie implied that he remained at the Oak Hill retirement home immediately after the court date, and they probably keep records of when the residents are there/not there, and he'd have to explain why he was never absent from the home for any substantial amount of time.

Manowar2010

[–] blaircam 12 years ago

Good one Man - this is what I assumed. If you are going to make something up, make sure it is not easily verifiable by a quick check with the date of admission at the retirement home.

"They who... give up... liberty to obtain... safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[–] omfgitsrohit 12 years ago

You seem to have forgotten that the reason he gets panic attack is because of Stress. And in most cases, Stress comes from withholding information/lying to someone. His wife was unaware of his financial situation and it wrung him out. After all of that, he would've wanted to put a complete stop to it all and come clean. Remember the last line of the film when Bobby Cannavale asks him at the bar?

"How're you doing buddy?" "I'm good."

http://premiercritic.blogspot.com

[–] hal-9010 12 years ago

I agree. But I would go even further and say “why lie”? If he is the guardian, it is his job to evaluate what is best and to do accordingly. The world we live in is dynamic and so are the solutions and the rationale behind the solutions.

Bending the truth: Perhaps, he simply realized that Leo would be happier at the nursing home (which he might very well be) and if so, it is his DUTY to put him there. When he would decide matters not. Another “game plan" could be to test the nursing home for a while - perhaps Leo would actually prefer it there, and it is certainly more safe... if not, then later put him back in his own home. No faux can be proved and such strategy makes sense.

Being a legal guardian is not to brainlessly do what is initially discussed, but to continuously evaluate the situation. Hi is not a "professional" caretaker and one (a judge) cannot and should not expect him to be able to evaluate prior what is best; it is a learning effect and his duty to adjust... I can’t see, how explaining this would be so hard... of course, the truth was founded in greed or perhaps laziness. But who knew? Now one! That being said, Mike seemed not to be a very successful lawyer, and this conundrum kinds of tells us why ;-)

___________
• I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman •