There is seen late in the movie, where Stanley meets his wife, bringing his kids with him, and he apologizes for something. One of the kids seems to have green or dark make-up on his face and that doesn't seem to be explained. Does anyone understand what was going on there?
shareI saw that too and thought it was funny. My assumption was that the boy was going to or just came from a costume party, since his sister wasn't dressed up, it probably was just his friends. But then again, it could just be the child was obsessed with the character he's dressed up as. I know plenty of children that have to wear their Batman or Frozen Princess costume. Its a common phase that a lot of young children go through. Hahaha!
share[deleted]
But slightly earlier in the film we see the boy in their home sitting on a couch and his face is green there also. Maybe it's just another eccentric production design choice made by the same people who came up with the idea for the blatantly phony backdrops and the elephant in the hallway.
It ain't easy being green, or anything else, other than to be me
[deleted]
The second scene is a continuation of the first scene, taking place at Halloween (wife and daughter are carving a pumpkin in the first scene; daughter is dressed like a princess, son is dressed like a ghoul). In the first scene, Milgram blows up about the film being made without proper compensation for his work, and threatens to give back the consulting fee he's been paid. In the second scene, later that evening in the diner, he apologizes for the outburst.
shareNice to see another person who actually paid attention.
shareFrankenstein.
shareI just naturally asumed it was Halloween and didn't think more of it.
I'm gonna refuse you an offer you can't make
But even if it is, it distracts from the story. Nothing else in the scene indicated it was Halloween.
Directors put a lot of effort into only putting in what's necessary/moves the story along.
It was a distraction that, imho, took the viewer out of the plot.
Strangely enough, I actually think that was what detracted from the overall value of the movie. There were too many aspects of his life that were just thrown in to show the passage of time, I guess? Nothing about his life really had much to do with the story. I mean, I even though it was bizarre that in the hospital at the end I think he or she said it was his fifth heart attack, when nothing was mentioned of it anywhere in the film up to that point.
Because they had Peter Sarsgaard constantly breaking the third wall by talking to the audience, they didn't reinforce the obvious stress he must have been under, or anything else that showed any inkling that his health was poor. It was more like a half-documentary, and the movie probably would have been a lot more powerful if they had just stuck to that, instead of trying to put in pointless elements of the man's actual life.
My blog about human nature:https://xanderpayne.blogspot.com
My book, about Lucifer's last shot at Yahweh (fictional from an atheist's perspective): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01G6OI7HG
You didn't come here to make the choice, you're here to understand why you made it.
When he's sitting on the couch (with a green face) - his mother and younger sister are carving a pumpkin - I would assume for halloween.
shareIt's Halloween
I just assumed Halloween as well, and the kids green face actually helped connect the two scenes. I wouldn't have known it was the same day if it wasn't for the obvious green face.
shareHaha, some people watch the film, see the kid's green face, assume it's Halloween while others get confused and assume it's the director's post-modernist sensibilities. Gotta love the general movie watching audience with their ADD senility who can't follow a scene a few minutes later.
share