MovieChat Forums > Fathers & Daughters (2016) Discussion > what a horrible "love" example from a fa...

what a horrible "love" example from a father !

posted 8 years ago by usa-mike
16 replies | jump to latest

hi,

during, the movie i always think of this solution, and i didn't know why the heel nthe father did not choose it !?

1.The father is sicked
2.he trully loves his daughters.
3.he will need money
4. he likes (too many maybe) writing book.

so, why did he not propose to move in at her wife-sister both (he, and his daughter) ?

if i was him, i hope i will see this best solution to :
- take car of his daughter and anticipate the helath problem
- have less need of money (no home, but couching at sister home)
- no problem with lawers or trials
- childrens will be happy !

So the problem of that kind of father is that is "blinded" by his "self-loved" to his daughter and he can't think of the best way for the future.

When you love someone, you need to prepare and anticipate the brutal-lost of the other love.

That father was very very very very selfish !!! and his bad attitude cost problem to his daughter's future !!

Maybe i am hard, maybe the helth-mental problem smoked his mind, but at least (his entrouge - lawyer, producer, social care) should have propose this solution !!

damn father to make suffur his daughter like that !
Poor girl !

[–] JoeyBagOfDonuts 8 years ago

Was he blinded by love, or pride?

Brains are good, especially when sauteed with carmelized onions.

[–] ALWrite 8 years ago

I think you should watch the film again to pick up more information. The situation is not quite what you describe:

1.The father is sicked

He is discharged from the hospital after having been there more than a year. The doctors (and the spectator) must assume he is healed.

4. he likes (too many maybe) writing book.

He does not "like" to write books; he is a writer. That's his job, that's how he makes money.

so, why did he not propose to move in at her wife-sister both (he, and his daughter) ?

Are you being serious? The wife's sister and her husband did NOT offer to house him. Instead, they wanted to adopt his daughter. There is no bed for him in their house!

have less need of money (no home, but couching at sister home)

Let's for a moment forget that he was not offered to stay at their house. What should he do with the home he has? His furniture, his books, all his personal belongings (including lots of things that will remind him of his beloved late wife)? Should he just throw all this away? And how is this "caring for his daughter" when he can be thrown out of the house at any time? Do you have a family that lets you bunk on their sofa for months? Or years? And while you sleep with your in-laws... do you support a daughter at the same time? Or do your in-laws support both of you?

- no problem with lawers or trials

How so? Do you really think a hot-shot lawyer (his brother-in-law) would not pull all the stops in order to get custody for his daughter? If the father (i.e. the writer Jake Davis) bunks on their couch for months on end, this would be the perfect proof for a judge that the father could not take proper care of his daughter.

- childrens will be happy !

But t he daughter is perfectly happy with having her father back. So there is no problem.

When you love someone, you need to prepare and anticipate the brutal-lost of the other love.

I am with you on this. The father (knowing about his poor health) does not take sufficient care for the daughter. It was done brilliantly in the script but, alas, the information was NOT used in the film. Instead, the film really gives the impression that the father lost his battle big-time. A pity they couldn't stick to the original script.

(his entrouge - lawyer, producer, social care) should have propose this solution !!

Which solution?

damn father to make suffur his daughter like that !

He did not expect to die so soon. The daughter suffered from the death of her father. (She would have done that no matter where they lived at the time!) You sound as if the father was deliberately making his daughter suffer.

On second thoughts and as far as the "suffering" is concerned: That's the message of the film, isn't it? One day you are here, the next day you are gone. None of us control our fates in such a way that we can prevent those who love us from suffering.
Katie phrases that explicitly when she says good-bye to her charge (the child Lucy).

[–] usa-mike 8 years ago

no no no, ALWrite you are too kind with the father.

The Father was sick again, ok he seems fine after the hospital, but his problem came back. He should inform the hostpital the maladie was back !!!! he was responsable for not doing doing !

The father should have think of a win-win solution, what is the best for his daughter before the best for himself.

Yes you are right in the fact the couple did not propose to move in at home with al lthe family, they wanted only the girl.... but it would have be a better solution.

We do not really know if the daughter was gone wrong :
-because of the death of her father
-or because of the (discover of her father dead on the floor with all the blood - we do not know that but we could imagine how she was terribly SHOCKED to see her father in this situation)
-or because the young girst is missing (is lacking) of "male lead" around her own education. It is not good to have one "male" in the education circle of a daughter, it should have be also ohter man with high caracter like a godfather, a grandpa.

As i saif, the father make him to dependand from her daughter.
He knew his ill sutaution, he SHOULD have prepared her to such important problem.
At least, he could employ a nurse at home, a babysitter, it is cheaper than a hospital or cheper than lawyer. What was his problem : As a male, he prefer to fight (the lawyer option) instend chose the assistance (hospital, nurse, nanny,babysitter) options.

Do not forget the beginning of the movie before the hospital, the doctor alerted him of what he could have (the sudden death break), that is why he was aggred to go in hospital first.

ps : sorry for my english expression, i am not english/american.

[–] fcmjr55 8 years ago

Mike,

I believe you are mistaken about the father being sick again, at least if you are talking about his mental illness. The guy suffered neurological injury in the car accident, that was causing him to experience seizures. The seizures were not symptomatic of his mental illness, they were a separate issue. Just my opinion.

[–] usa-mike 8 years ago

i think i pretty understood that.

The father knews he was going to have a serious & fatal & ramdom event in the next years/months.

As he was knowing that, he should have prepare the situation of his daughter.

[–] IL_Maestro 8 years ago

and who said that if she lived with her aunt she would be better?
she did actually after he died and turned out to be disturbed, if i was a kid i would always choose to live with my real parents no matter what
she was good with him
the lawsuits were not his fault, can't blame him just because Elizabeth wanted to get back at him because she thought he killed her sister or because she wanted to take his daughter from him.

"It is never about what happened, it is only how you look at it!"

[–] usa-mike 8 years ago

no you're wrong.

if you was a kid, you can't decide yourself. you woulkd choose the most sweety solution like a candy !

The main role of a FATHER is to prepare his children to be independante.

in this movie, the father condemn his daughter to be dependant to him !

Even an animal is not so selfish, a animal always prepose is puppy to be self-active to no depend on his mother/father.

In the movie, i feel the father always drug his daughter to be addict to him.
He drug her with too many love.

[–] IL_Maestro 8 years ago

so you think she wouldn't have chosen him? think it was clear she would always choose him and i would choose my real parents no matter what
and even if i was tricked to choose someone else, i would regret that choice when i get older
and she was 6 or 8 years old, how could he prepare her to be independent at that young age?

"It is never about what happened, it is only how you look at it!"

[–] usa-mike 8 years ago

and she was 6 or 8 years old, how could he prepare her to be independent at that young age?

he should hava introduce a new people into his family, like a nurse, a social-help person.

the father was so much selfish , he forced his daughter to be "contained" in his duo.

it is like taking the road with a car when you know there is bomb in it. You cannot take your child into the car with you !!! you have to search a way to save your daughter from next sad event.

Really, that kind of father is really really upset !

[–] emz_09 8 years ago

I think what everyone is missing is he didn't die from the seizures, he died from the head injurie when hitting it off the radiator. As soon as he hit his head he was out cold and when it panned back to him you could see the blood under his head. That was something he couldn't prepare for. His seizures were never to kill him.
Thus meaning as far as he was aware he would live to see his daughter grow. That's like saying that anyone who has epilepsy should give up their children or have full time nurses which is ridiculous because 99% of people with them live through them, he was just unfortunate.
So why should he give in and allow his daughter to go love with his sister in law. He was fit to look after Katie. What would that have done to Katie? Having one parent die on her then another abandoning her? Yes he wouldn't have abandoned her but how would an 8 year old understand the situation? She grew up the way she did out of loosing so much love. Everyone who has loved her has died. They weren't 'trust issues' they were her afraid to allow someone in incase they died too, there's only so much love loss one person can take.
The father was not being selfish, a father would do anything for their child, as would a mother. After loosing his wife, Katie loosing her mother, the best and only thing for that child would be to have her father show her unconditional love. Which as you see when she was talking to Lucy (the child she was helping), stuck with her. She explained to her that the book was about how much he loved her and saying goodbye. A child knowing love is much better than a child without love.

[–] tomholland2016 8 years ago

You should replay the movie again. You missed most of the points and tons of significant expressions. This is what we called drama, expression rules an important part in it. Take a big look how much Elizabeth and her husband hatred him so much, their eyes pointed like eagles. It's the fact that they thought the father has caused the death of his wife. Of course they're not letting any ground rules to make him plead for any money, they just wanted his daughter.

[–] signlady 8 years ago

USA-Mike - your typing English IS rotten - but it's ok - lol understandable -

Meanwhile - I just have to ask - or at least feel confident to note - you don't have any kids do you ...?

If you did, you would completely understand not giving up your child. Even people who give up new-born babies for adoption wrestle with it and - especially mothers think about that child everyday of their lives.

It was obvious the character Jake loved his child and did the things we all do to survive.

I have raised two daughters alone - struggling & often broke. I divorced two no-good men to ease my daughters distress only slightly.
Was I selfish to Keep my children???
You think I should've found some rich people to adopt them?

They would both tell you different!!

Your comments speak to many many people in hard circumstances who love their children and would never abandon them to anyone.

And some parents do make that choice - but the character Jake didn't need to make that choice.

Also - even if he had chosen to engage in the adoption he still wouldve been a huge part of Kate's life and his death would still have been extremely traumatic to the child and not changed her problems in adulthood..

Also - the brother & sister-in-law did not really have a happy home. Only the appearance of one.They could have been a lot more compassionate and worked WITH Jake to help him keep Kate rather than pushing & demanding their own way and causing undue stress in his life.
You see Mike, it was the brother & sister-n-law who portrayed selfishness in this movie.

Also note - his seizures were often brought on by stress. While the initial cause was injury from the wreck - stress could affect him.
I have seen this in a friend of mine who had seizures all her life beginning with a head injury as a child -throughout her life stress, fatigue, or strong emotion often activated her brain system and induced a seizure which was like Jake, also recognizable by hand-twitching or shaking -

[–] usa-mike 8 years ago

(sorry for my poor english expression, i am not born american neither english, also my keyboard is a mess).

you know, all medical people and scientists are agreed about one thing : most of child "mind-troubles" come from their parents.

You have to look the situation from the view point of the child, not from the selfish point of the parent.

no i haven't any chil but i have one, i would prefer my daughter leave 50 years in good health alone (or with other people) than 2 years with me and my problems.

My daughter happiness would be more important than my parent's one.

Yesterday i watched "me before you" which a nearly the opposite situation of this movie :

a died child choose to die (health problem) against the will of his parents (which wanted him to go on and hurt to live).

i stay on my position : parents'role is to make their child free & indenpendent from them.

[–] signlady 8 years ago

Well - you're right about one thing - a lot of our issues come from our parents - but what you are somehow missing is - there is no childhood utopia.
It does not exist.

No matter WHAT reason - name any reason you can think of, if one or both of a kids parent
is absent, it's an issue to the kid throughout life, to some degree.

And it doesn't matter who steps in to help or many step in to help 'round out' the child's life - even a seemingly well-adjusted child will always 'pine' a little for the parent.

Unfortunately - most abandonment issues come from repetitive problems - in this case the mom died, then the father died, then the child probably went to the aunt who was in the middle of a divorce with the uncle who probably left and by the way, someone can be there and love a child but so wrapped up in their own chaos they are unavailable emotionally to a child and therefore 'absent'.

In fact Mike, it COULD be argued that any stabilty the character Kate had (able to go to college, keep a job and do well in her job) came from her father!

I'm never seen the other movie you mentioned, but this movie definitely garnered some extremely strong opinions from you to say the father exhibited 'horrible selfish love' and he 'drugged the child with love' - Damn the father' . . . ?

That's a little bit insane reasoning, Mike.

What is your diagnosis for really screwed up adults who were ignored or abused as children?

Just what is the perfect level of love that forms the well-rounded adult who has no childhood issues?

Every adult on the planet has something going on - from a little issue they may overcome in adulthood and everything in between all the way to
people who have really severe issues they either handle or don't - but the issues still exist.

If you ever discover this childhood utopia that creates well-functioning adults in say, at least 35% of adults it fosters, by all means, please tell the world so the example can be followed.

Meanwhile, 'stay on' your position there, but do me a favor . . . start looking at every adult you know and have some conversations with your friends about their childhood - and while movies are great - start also observing the real world too.

Utopia only exists in the afterlife.

Humanity is a mess.

[–] pypsqweek 8 years ago

I think that option would have been a great one if Jake had that good trusting and friendly family dynamic. You know, where the in laws were actually friendly, caring, emotionally involved people whom you could tust to help you get back on his feet. Or even listen to you and give emotional support even if he didnt live with them. Basically people you can live with and that will help you out. His laws just werent that kind of people. While they werent horrible people, they were very selfish, self involved and controlling people who never really offered any type of emotional or physical support where it mattered. Never did they go and visit him or Katie or ask how him or Katie were doing or how they could help them. Really, the only time they did offer support was the private school and even that was about them. It was never about Katie or Jake. It was about what they wanted and it was done on their time table which would make it hard for people to cohabitate with. Also no sane parent is going to stay with people who blames them for their spouse death and makes them feel like theyre going to try to take away their kid when youre at a disadvantage in life. For me Jake did the best he could. He seemed to do well because his daughter remembered that she was loved and happy.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5954) 2 years ago

One thing that was wrong is that for more of the duration the movie hides from us the fact that he's a Pulitzer Prize winner for fiction. Given that status, when he needed money he could have made a lot via public speaking tours, corporate gigs, master classes and so on. He could have charged top dollar.