MovieChat Forums > Felony (2014) Discussion > Question that kept nagging at me during ...

Question that kept nagging at me during the whole movie


WTF was a 9 year old kid doing on his own in the street so early in the morning that the sun hasn't even come up yet?
Was he delivering papers or something? Do they still do that? And even if they do, aren't there laws against child labor to prevent that?
We're supposed to feel all sorry for the mother but f... her for letting her child just wander like that.
I enjoyed the movie. The story was compelling but that one detail about the kid was a major flaw in the screenplay, in my opinion.

reply

He was delivering papers (we see them in the bicycle basket). I was wondering the same thing, though. In my area, a car drives around and throws the papers out. I've never seen a kid on a bicycle. You see kids delivering catologues, but they're on foot (with a push cart) and they do it during the daytime.

reply

Thanks!
Loved you in The Shield! ;p

reply

reply

In America, a 9 year old is "younger" than 9 year old kids in other countries. For example, in Ireland, kids start school - real school, on their 3rd birthdays or soon after. They graduate at 16, are legal and independent citizens at 16 and are expected to comport themselves as adults. It's like 18 in America, but way more mature in terms of self-reliance, being a community asset and acceptance of responsibility.

In countries where crimes against children don't run rampant, kids are given freedom to run and play and explore the landscape, urban or rural. So, that kid having a paper route is in keeping with the freedom/responsibility equation for that age and in that culture. It's also a place where all adults look out for and keep tabs on, the local kids. They will tell the parents everything and they do that so efficiently, a parent can hear about what is going on before the kids even return home. LOL Twitter has nothing on that system!

It's not like America where adults don't get involved for fear of violence or retaliation or lawsuits. It's the way America used to be. There may be some pockets left where this is still true, but over here, we have a major crime problem, so kids here have to be watched more closely and apparently, until much older ages. So, the Mom in this film was being a good Mom.

All else aside, I went a bit nuts because the kid wasn't wearing a helmet!

Debate my points. Challenge my perspective. Prove me wrong. Only, do it with a smile.[cooldance]

reply

I'm Australian and I missed seeing the spilt papers and couldn't believe the kid wasn't wearing a helmet.

reply

As an Australian, can you add to the discussion by answering these questions, please? If you know...

Is there widespread knowledge on the dangers of bike-riding without a helmet or is it more fair to say that only some pockets of the country are aware?

Is there a helmet law there and if so, when long ago did it become a law?

Is it considered bad parenting to allow a 9-yr. old to have a paper route?

Debate my points. Challenge my perspective. Prove me wrong. Only, do it with a smile.[cooldance]

reply

Sorry I don't know if kids are allowed to deliver papers early in the mornings now. Australia has turned into a nanny state so I wouldn't be surprised if it's against the law.

It is compulsory to wear helmets all across Australia and has been in Melbourne since 1990 and everyone knows this. Every now and then there is some lobbying against them. So I wonder whether a kid riding the streets early morning was an oversight by the producers/director/writer?

Wikipedia - bike helmets in Australia.

Cheers :)

reply

Thanks, that adds some context.

I can't recall exactly, but for some reason, I thought the story was set in the 1970's. If that's the case, then it would have been pre-helmet law times.

Debate my points. Challenge my perspective. Prove me wrong. Only, do it with a smile.[cooldance]

reply

Not clear when the film is set, so if it is the 70s then a boy delivering papers early in the morning and not wearing a helmet makes sense. My only doubt is that the family appeared to be Indian and they are a fairly recent immigrant group in Australia.

reply

Thanks, aysen! :)

I read the film page, here, and the setting isn't stated. I found no cause for blaming the Mom for anything. They depicted her as quite loving, not only towards her son, but towards everyone, and especially towards the cop who killed her little boy.

Debate my points. Challenge my perspective. Prove me wrong. Only, do it with a smile.[cooldance]

reply

Spoke with a friend today who has also seen the film and she thought it was contemporary and mainly because the mother was Indian. So I think it was an oversight or made for the American market where wearing helmets isn't compulsory.

reply

aysen,

Thank you! You're so very kind.

Bike helmets ARE compulsory in America for anyone under the age of 18, and it's been law since around 1995. Adults may do as they wish, as far as I know, but most wear them how.

Have a great day!

The EYES see only what the HEART can comprehend. [cooldance]

reply

Bike helmets ARE compulsory in America for anyone under the age of 18, and it's been law since around 1995.


Wrong! (Just sayin'...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_the_United_States

reply

daddieO -

Bike helmets ARE compulsory in America for anyone under the age of 18, and it's been law since around 1995.

Wrong! (Just sayin'...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_the_United_States


Thank You!!! daddieO 😄 YOU are my absolute, favorite kind of poster.

That's more than "just sayin'...), you've corrected an important mistake and shared updated information with everyone here. You rock! 😄

LOL, while I'm well experienced in making mistakes, this one was important to correct. I'd hate to think that there was still work to be done to get children's helmet laws passed and anyone think the matter is already dealt with because of my mistake. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/helmet_laws.html

For U.S. bike and motorcycle laws by state, ^^^ updated Feb. 2015.

http://cyclehelmets.org/

^^^ For a world view on the topic.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Debate. Not hate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

reply

There is no Federal Law, so it varies from state to state. Same for motorcycle helmet laws.

reply

Not clear when the film is set, so if it is the 70s


They had some mighty fancy technology for the 70s: smart cell phones, built in GPS with Ford boot screens, LED police indicator lights....

reply

That's what I was going to say! The tv's were pretty flat too!

Oh, nice socks, man. Nice socks. Nice socks.

reply

My only doubt is that the family appeared to be Indian and they are a fairly recent immigrant group in Australia.

I couldn't let that one go. You are obviously not aware that Indians have been coming to Australia for well over 150 years. Many came using their expertise as camel riders and kept the communications with central Australia open. They also came to work in banana plantations in Queensland, They were also here for the Victorian Gold Rush era. I guess your statement could be correct if we consider recent relatively speaking to the Aboriginal population, in which case European settlement is also only a recent immigrant group. But I guess you subscribe to the Tony Abbott school of Australian History.


I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

reply

Yes that got me too. Indians have a long history in Australia. When I was a kid at school in western Sydney in the early 1970s, I had numerous Indian heritage friends whose families had been in Australia for generations.

reply

It is also kind of interesting there are no "bike lanes" or anything. The kid was basically in the middle of the road in a car traffic lane. Also interesting is that the cop did not actually hit him, rather he brushed along side of him, but it was enough to knock the kid over and lead to a terrible fall. Not sure it makes any difference, other than it being an interesting nuance.

It's a flawed but interesting film.


reply

kuntext, you comport yourself as if you have vast knowledge of both the United States and Australian culture. You imply that you know much about everyday life including how close knit neighborhoods are in each and how in Australia EVERY ADULT looks out for neighborhood kids. So I think it's interesting how little you know about the legality of kids delivering newspapers 5 or 6 am and how you also have no clue about the helmet laws. I'm not smiling by the way but you did strike me as quite pretentious.

I see Stupid People...

reply

Hey Rage -

Apparently you are experiencing confusion of some unknown origin. You pouted:

kuntext, you comport yourself as if you have vast knowledge of both the United States and Australian culture. You imply that you know much about everyday life including how close knit neighborhoods are in each and how in Australia EVERY ADULT looks out for neighborhood kids.


And, you expressed this pouting long after I'd posted this just a few messages above:

As an Australian, can you add to the discussion by answering these questions, please? If you know...

Is there widespread knowledge on the dangers of bike-riding without a helmet or is it more fair to say that only some pockets of the country are aware?

Is there a helmet law there and if so, when long ago did it become a law?

Is it considered bad parenting to allow a 9-yr. old to have a paper route?

Debate my points. Challenge my perspective. Prove me wrong. Only, do it with a smile.


That ^^^ post reflects curiosity and an openness to learning, yet what you perceive is this:

So I think it's interesting how little you know about the legality of kids delivering newspapers 5 or 6 am and how you also have no clue about the helmet laws.


I'm trying to think of what kind of person sees anything noteworthy in that set of perceptions. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that most people reading that sentence can say, "Same for me... I don't know, either. And, hey, buddy... what are you saying that means about me?" What an unrealistic expectation that we all know children's helmet laws in all countries at all times! If that isn't your expectation then what is so interesting in anyone not knowing?

My kindest thoughts bring me to suspect you are someone who has never taken responsibility for the safety of children who ride bikes. I say that because from that experience alone, adults know that the laws and regulations change, adapt and evolve. To "know" what is going on means to check for the most recent information. I chose to ask Australians or others who would know, if they could offer that update.

I'm not smiling by the way but you did strike me as quite pretentious.


Merriam-Webster:
pre·ten·tious adjective \pri-ˈten(t)-shəs\
: having or showing the unpleasant quality of people who want to be regarded as more impressive, successful, or important than they really are


Okay, what did I write that you can connect to that? Without that information, I'm left wondering if the person making the negative assumption has an inferiority complex, power and control issues or simply suffers from profound stupidity.

Stop using words that are too big for you.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Debate. Not hate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

reply

[deleted]

Ed -

Technical question first, for the sake of context.
You've been an IMDb member for 9 years and THIS is your only post?
(For new people, this almost always means it's a sock account used to put out a view that the poster lacks the courage, or has the good sense, NOT to associate themselves with because of some deceitful or hateful agenda.) But, let's give this poster a moment to distinguish themselves from that group, if possible.

You're wrong on just about every point


"My view and experience differs from yours on just about every point."

There, ^^^ I fixed it for you. :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Debate. Not hate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

reply

[deleted]

EdD5 wrote:

Re: kuntext

I'm American and have lived in Ireland (with two teenagers) for the past eight years. You're wrong on just about every point. No one graduates at 16, unless you're talking about dropping out of school with a junior cert. Those staying for leaving certs (the equivalent of a high school diploma) are generally 18 and sometimes even 19. Your idea of "real" school is also funny. Most start at around that age in junior infants, but to pretend a three- or four-year-old in Ireland is learning anything more rigorous than an American kid in nursery school is preposterous. A four-year-old is a four-year-old.

While the drinking age in Ireland is 18, you're quite deluded if you think the average 18-year-old is markedly more mature than the typical American kid of the same age. While there is a range of maturity at that age, as in any country, the typical 18-year-old is listening to the same music, watching the same movies and as likely (or unlikely) to clean their room or have a part-time job as their American counterparts.

Overall, Ireland is an incredibly PC country with a good deal of nanny-state strictures. If you think that breeds an early sense of responsibility and self-reliance, I'd beg to differ. While it's illegal to carry a small pocket knife or use one to eat an apple on your doorstep, the amount of teenage binge drinking and consequent accidents and violence is alarming. While it's against the law to deride someone's religious views, the rate of teen pregnancy and single mothers continue to rise.

While psychiatric care and counseling services are woefully insufficient, suicide rates and depression-linked self-harm continue to present as serious societal problems.

Try to put a peanut butter sandwich in your kid's lunch or take a picture at a swim meet and see if you're not scolded and apprised of the regulations banning such invasive and suspect behavior.

If you think the average Irish child and teen aren't as coddled and deluded as anywhere else in the western world, you are simply misinformed.


To which I replied:

Ed -

Technical question first, for the sake of context.
You've been an IMDb member for 9 years and THIS is your only post?
(For new people, this almost always means it's a sock account used to put out a view that the poster lacks the courage, or has the good sense, NOT to associate themselves with because of some deceitful or hateful agenda.) But, let's give this poster a moment to distinguish themselves from that group, if possible.

You're wrong on just about every point

"My view and experience differs from yours on just about every point."

There, ^^^ I fixed it for you. :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Debate. Not hate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Which devolved into this:

I don't leave posts up for posterity. And the age kids graduate secondary school in Ireland is not a matter of my or your "experience", but a fact and that fact is 18, not 16.

Your safeguards about whom you'll "associate with" on a movie message board should be posted on every fridge.


Ah, now we're getting somewhere. It's a reading comprehension problem. You thought I was stating who I associate with. No, look again. I am saying that people who use sock accounts do so because they do not want to be associated with their own view.

As a person who does sometimes post an unpopular view, I wonder at why anyone would not stand behind their own assertions.

Seriously, what is your problem? Your tone is nasty. You obviously feel offended, yet fail to specify what is so threatening to you in the fact that my experience differs from your own. You do realize that your experience also differs from mine, yet I am not upset that this is true.

I'm considering these things:
1) Things may have changed over time. It appears you are far younger than me.
2) The differences between urban and rural areas.
3) The way The Troubles affected education and laws.
4) One, or both of us, are mistaken.

But, in none of that do I find cause for anything beyond curiosity and perhaps further clarification on why the differences exist.

Your initial reply reads like a rant against Irish culture (as you see it) by someone who appears to have issues with their social services, which is why I asked that you clarify your sock status before discussing anything with you.

On a related note: Posterity - every keystroke is recorded, and stored - legally, for 5 years by the NSA. You can erase your posts, but that only makes them inaccessible to you... the government has them forever. As the world knows, that means our information is vulnerable to leakage, exposure or sale. Say you delete your post to me. It's now in my post, and that remains. The internet is not a place of temporary communication, privacy nor anonymity.

Also, for best results in seeking uniformity of experience and POV, try a mirror - not a public forum.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Debate. Not hate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

reply

[deleted]

Absolutely correct. As soon as I realized That He had knocked down a little boy on a bicycle,I had The same question? What's a little boy doing on the streets at that hour?

reply

Hi Kuntext, it is law across Australia to wear a bike helmet, has been before it was law in America. Also, a bike has to have a front light and rear red reflector, also not on the bike. He was doing his paper-round, something kids do, but more usually done with a Mini Moke or with an adult throwing the papers from a car. I've seen cars driving without headlights on empty streets, bikes with no lights and riders with no helmets, so it was in keeping with reality. In addition, bike helmets are just foam under the cover, which is meant to absorb the energy when a head hits the road. It can't stop a serious head injury if the head strikes in a particular spot.

Papers are normally dropped at 5-6am at newsagents, sometimes earlier, and rounds are often done in early morning darkness.

The cars, the computers, uniforms, weapons, settings, the roads and procedures were present day. It wasn't set in the 1970's, it is meant for present-day consumption as the real story was supposed to be the tension, mostly missed because of Joel Edgerton's stony faced attempts at acting.

reply

As a born and bred Sydney-sider I can confirm earlier comments:
Bike helmets ARE compulsory in NSW (and have been since the 1990s), the capital of which is Sydney, where the film is shot;
Similarly, lights are required. There was a rear light in use here;
Paper runs are much less common now than they used to be, as newspaper hard copy subscriptions decrease. However, plenty are still home delivered;
Delivery time varies according to location, but 5am wouldn't be unrealistic;
Nine years old is a bit young by current standards, and a lot of the leaflet companies prefer kids to be 10+ &/or accompanied, but that usually only happens to start with. Likewise, I can imagine my sons doing this. I started my first paper run early in the morning when I was seven (in Sydney), so not unrealistic. Similarly, newsagents, which deliver the newspapers, are often owner-operated/family owned, so they would be happy to use local kids for deliveries;
Definitely contemporary - the cars, the phones, the guns, the computers, the locations.

I think that covers it - any other questions?

reply

You had to be 12 to have a paper route when I had mine 40 years ago. I'm sure it's the same even now in the States. The kid was more at fault than the cop. He was in the middle of the street at night with no light on his bike and no helmet. Pretty hard to see when it's dark and raining outside. That's yet another reason not to drink and drive. You might be doing everything right but someone hits you or something happens like in the movie. You are going to be blamed and in serious trouble even if it wasn't your fault. Don't drink and drive and you'll never have to worry about it!

reply

Yep in the US the MOM would have been brought up on charges for neglect and child endangerment regardless of whether they ever found the hit and run culprit. As a matter of fact, the cop that hit the kid would more likely end up being the arresting officer

reply

Times looked tough. She seemed to bringing two kids up by herself. Maybe him selling papers in the morning was a necessity.

I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe

reply

Going back and watching the beginning, both the cop and the kid were in the wrong. Apart from the police officer being drunk, he wasn't swerving all over the place. He was driving "fine" although not paying attention. The kid on the bike was also in the wrong. He should be keeping as far to the left as possible. In the scene, he was too far on the right and that's why the car clipped him.

Both were wrong but more-so the police officer for obvious reasons. Apart from that we could pick apart road rules and what-not in Australia.

8-)

reply

There was a shot where the camera focuses on newspapers in a basket after he is hit. How did you miss that? The child should have been wearing a helmet though, as it is against the law not to.

reply

no one knows what a newspaper looks like anymore, old-timer

reply