Director: Jodie Foster
Cast: Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster, Anton Yelchin, Jannifer Lawrence
Certificate: 12A
Running Time: 91 minutes
Synopsis: When manic-depressive Walter Black (Mel Gibson) moves away from his wife (Jodie Foster) and children, he becomes suicidal. But Walter’s life begins to piece back together when he finds he can communicate and live through a beaver hand puppet. But will Walter be able to leave the beaver behind and reconnect with his family himself, or has it taken over whatever is left of him?
It’s easy to see how both Jodie Foster and Mel Gibson arrived at THE BEAVER – it’s a well-meaning little picture, one that hopes to convey a positive but realist message. Unfortunately, what attempts to be an intriguing and heartfelt experience fails considerably, becoming a tiresome affair. For both Foster and Gibson, THE BEAVER will prove to be a colossal disappointment. Instead of being known as a unique dissection of sensitive subject matter, it will be remembered as the film in which Gibbo stuck his hand up the arse of a beaver puppet.
For a film that attempts to deal with its inherent issues in such a creative way, it’s astonishing how formulaic THE BEAVER is. From it’s plodding narrative (in which every familiar plot point is clearly telegraphed) to the trite characterization (What’s that? The distant and troublesome son will learn to love others? No way!), the film reads as an A-Z of every lightweight sentimental snooze-fest we’ve ever seen before. Additionally, Foster takes some hefty shortcuts, opting for a voice-over and quick back-story rush job in the opening minutes. Some actual events and interaction might have been good here – maybe then viewers might be able to engage with the characters’ emotions that are supposedly the focus of this story.
This connection – or lack of it – is a serious problem for THE BEAVER. The fault doesn’t appear to lie with the actors (Gibson’s performance is relatively solid), but with Foster’s direction. Instead of presenting Walter and the titular Beaver as separate entities, which is surely the point of his condition and the film’s concept, Foster’s approach constantly presents them as one. This roughly translates as shots of Gibson with a puppet, and not even having the decency to talk out of the side of his mouth (good to hear his old Aussie accent though), which just looks plain ridiculous.
However, it’s not all doom and gloom. X-MEN: FIRST CLASS’ Jennifer Lawrence shows promise here, despite the stale material she has to contend with, and Anton Yelchin enters a fair performance, which bodes well for FRIGHT NIGHT.
But these are small mercies. THE BEAVER is not as funny as it thinks it is (no, Gibbo brushing a puppets teeth is not amusing), it is not as inspirational as it hopes to be, and though there is a well-intended thematic core (shit happens but we’re not alone), by the time you get to it, the mundane and formulaic pap you’ve been forced to suffer will have you reaching for a puppet of your own, just so you can do an imaginary vomit out of its mouth. If you feel the need for a mental-illness comedy (which is probably not often), stick to WHAT ABOUT BOB? And let’s hope that both Foster and Gibson choose more wisely next time. If they get a choice, that is.
Dan B
Jun 13, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Interesting points and she’s not exactly known for fire in her directional work, that – in itself – was a strange selection.
I think a straight-to-DVD affair for the majority us and it sounds disappointing that she’s also gone for the ‘same entity’ approach.
Still, maybe this was a cathartic role for Gibson or maybe it was actually supposed to be a documentary?
Richard Hansson
Jun 13, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Tom Foedy how can you be so ignorant of simple facts and not evren have had the decency to check the most basic part before writting this??
Like looking at the end of the movie when it was actualy shooted or make the efort to go onb IMDB to see, post mortem, when that movie was done??
You must have been greatly sleeping over time for not have realised that this movie’s scripot was chosen in may june 2009 by jodie foster and that script was highly talk about all summer of 2009 in all medias.. And for not knowing htis: Mel Gibson signed for The Beaver in july 2009, at a time when his gf was alledgedly pregnant, and the shooting of the movie begin in august.septemebr 2009 in New York, where they hold thre wrap up of the movie in November 22, 2009!! At which time Mle Gibson had already came back home, on November 18 2009..
Jodie foster made some adjustement to the last part of te movie in May and first day of july 2010, but onbly because the movie release was already deleayed at that time.
Mel Gibson was doing in nov dec 2009 the next movie , “Where I spedn my Sommer Vacations” as well as preparign for the release of Edge of Darkness, whos interviews for the relaease spawned form janaury 2010 to march 2010, in paralel with Mle Gibson filming in Mexico the next movie where i spend my sommer vacation, who ended in june 2010, with last shooting in Texas, who were done as Mle gibson was filed a restrianing order and charges of DV by his lying gf.
So between summer 2009 and summer 2010 Mel Gibson shooted 2 movie, and launched the reelease of one, while dealign wiht a divorce and a crazy gf and her extortion that spawned form february 19, 2010 to june 26, 2010.
He never made that movie to sell himself back, that movie was done before hell broke lose. Well for us, but for him it had broken lose a log time ago.. since that russian arriviste had pretneded being pregnat of him after he had throw her oput of shermna oaks where she had been alowed ot stay ofr a mnonth, form janaury 29 2009 to february 28 2009.. after which she came runing to his ressort at guancaste, where he was spending holyday with his family in march 6, 2009, trying to convince him to let her stay, he said no, and hse had pics of them on the beach taken and published a week later on radar online, through her ocntact and owner there, Perel, who she knew form his prevous work as chief editor for the national enquier..
The pics of htem on the beach were published on march 13, and she had left sherman oaks residency the previous day, on march 12, 2009, to go bakc to where she lived before, on one of the home of David foster in Santa Monica..
less than 3 weeks later, on april 9, 2009, Robyn Gibson was filing a divorce at Mel Gibosn, who didnt knew why.. and filed back on april 13. And 12 days alter was told by oksana that she was pregnat of him.
Mle Gibson assumed that she was 2½ months pregnant, showing that their last sex intercourse was long ago, back in febraury 2009, forgeting that if it had been true she wil have nown so in march 209, and will have used it to can stay in the shermna oaks home..
She then ofrce dhiom to come to the red carpet with her for the wolverime premiere, and 2 weks later to get a contract with icon record for mel to finance her CD..
and hell had started for Mle Gibson.He very quicly foudn ot that osmething was wrong with her alledged pregnacy but there was no way back and he couldnt say it loud as the contract she signed forbiden iconaka mel gibson form saying anything derogatory about her.
he escaped the nightmare first in july by traveling in latin america lal month htne in vegas to see firends, with his youingest son, and then jumping on that jodie fosters beaver project. staying away form malibo for months. He came back afet that baby was born in novmeebr 18, 2009, after he had already taken a DNA test provign that he wasnt the father. already in novemebr 15, 2009 he had ot make a cohabitation agreement withthat woman, in order to protect his fortune and hsi childrens form being ripped off with himslef. Only to discover in ealry janaury 2010, and while making interviews for edge of darkness in paralel wihthtat to journalists allover the world, that oksana was not the mother of that child either and that the bebayhad been bought.
But it is firt in february 2010, that he found out that the child had bene bouhgt and comnvey o the united states by ludmilla the mother of his gf, who came to califpornia in opcotber 15, 2009, alomst a mot before her offical arival there, and 2 weeks before the staged birth of that child., and without mel gibson knowledge that her motgher was coming and was there.
it was all a scam.
because he was doing the movie promotion of edgeof darkness mel gibso waited with coming pulic wiht all that but wasnt living wth oksana since january 2010.
they lived otgether less than a month, about 3 weeks in november 2009.. and he met her first time in septemebr 2008, on the movie set of edge of darkness in boston, where she had came directly to his trialer wiht no previous presentations. with the sole puprose to hook him up. seh saw him twice in spet 20+08 and 2 tiems in ocvotober and 3 tiems in novmebr 2008 and it was over until janaury 2009 when she came back after Mle had throw her out. asking ofr aplace ot stay, and got sehrmena okas for a monjt, but didnt gave up that easily. So for mel it was soem innocent side kick until she oput of the blue stated that she was prengant of him and tried via radar online ot presnet her visit to him ot guanacastge as if she was spending vacation with mel gibson at his ranch in coasta rica with his family an dlal his children when she wasnt even staying there!!
from that time line oyu can see that she presneted herslef as prengat of mel gibson 5 months after meeting him!!! and when they didnt evne had a solid relationship nor even a regular affair but a sporadic one. and less than a year after meeting mel gibson geting pregnsat ahveing a nbaby and movieing wiht him.. really fast! and geting 4 videos and a cd and a music contract wiht icon ion that sapwn of time too (!!) they were no longer together. whihc speaks volumes ot what that womans plans were form day one. she couldnt get the house? she fart a fake baby! she cant get hm? she farts edited tampered tapes! how can oyu be so naive and ignorant of life facts to dont realise that oyu were play by tabloids mass brainwash in the hands of a goldiger who just played oyu like a fool as she played mel gibson!!?? so who are oyu to judge him now whne you fall for the tablæoid version of what she did to him huh?
oh and thre dayh hse recorded him was all planed, cause she had given an interview ot “extra” on febnruary 6, 2010, who was first published on february 18 in th evening, yeah same day as the recordings took palce..
whats special aboput it? well on february 06, 2010 mel had ot finance for okana a charity concert at the Romanov restaurant in LA, for the tchernobyl childrens, that oksa had all the suden fancy, thus she never did a thing for them all her life.. but she needed that as platform to suport her case nd her face for her upcoming extortion agaisnt mel gibson.
That day, and before goign to that charity event, oksana gave an interviw to a journalist form extra who was alsoher facebook friend and that she met very often, without Mel Gibson knowing it.
In that interview she pretend that she is to score the music of Mel Gibsons next movie, “where i spend my summer vacation”, and say it lkike a sloperyslop of the tongue allunintended like an ooops did i said that?? . and the joinralist is cleary with it form the get go and she made that interview to get that pece of fake info out so to present it as a faitr accompli to mel gibson, and force his hands ot put her in that movie as music writer as she had doen on severla occasion in 2009 wiht different matters ot ofrce the hands on melmgibbson, like that htey had moved otgether or that they were going to get maried that christmas, and that she was doping th music of the movie edge of darkness.. well she certainly wasnt, but after she had anounced t in 2 official interview they had (gfk) to put her song at the end of the movie, right beofe the officiail intended msuic when they show the names of the people in the movie. that workled befoe so she tried it again!!!
This time Mle Gibson didnt like it.
And she had that video interview forst aired on fernuary 18, 2010, thus the interview was doen on february 06, 2010, so Extra waited 12 days to air it, why is that???
and durign the week proor opt airing it Extra adveritsed it as being an interview of mleGibson and oksanma sthus Mle gibson never appeared in that interview!!!
Mle Gibson had ot promote her cd form the contract he signd for her at icon, but her cd had been released and floped long ago and several times form octoebr to decmeebr 2009.. none th eless in that video she beign by tlaing abouther new C which mad osme wonfre if she had already made a new one.. but it was about her old CD the only one she ever made, who floped totaly, and that she tlak about as if ot was all new never heard of and about to be released (!!!) and then opla thats where she inserted that she was to scvore mel gibsons next movie..
No doubnt that the release of thsa tinterview on february 18, 2010 was planed.
Mel Gibson hear of it and must have been choked and so mad! as his next movie was agian wiht the same director as for edge of darkness who were so mad of her having her song at the end of the movie. but this time it was icon producing it and no doubt hse expected ot cahs ina lot of mnoney for a long itme ot come and do an endless stram of lawsuites agaisnt icon in the futtr to can press even more money out of it.
He certianly told her that seh could just shove it up there and that she wasnot goingto score thr emusic of that movie. she left as she laned and then came th phone clals andher not answerign the phone and palying phone tags wiht him. what hse said ot him we wil never know as she removed her part form al tapes and inserted some fake super cool quietly speaking idiotic part all faked and bad acitng. so bad acitng that its ot vomit.
but in those tapes he does say that she is nbale ot score a movie and he do not thinkshe is abe ot do such a thing. and her answer even on the fakeedited tapes is clear, she is arorgant, proud and didnt klike to hear it canto admit that she never scored a movie do not evne know what its about and is unable ot do such a thing.
thats what the fight was about: tha tMle gibson told her that she couldnt score the nect movie, oksaas ego totaly aoroused and amd as hell..and nothing ot od wiht some jacuzzi bs tghat was nsertted in it. oyu can hear mel gibson yileling “waht jacuzi?? i dont goive a fc about jacuzzi what are oyu talking about??”
but everybody just swallowed the subject matter of those tapoes like if mel gbson was totaly mad at her for not doing hima bj in time.. huhhh scuse me but isnt it a bit naive and supsoicious of oyu to beleive that?
so hse asked and ased and aksed fo more and more, even after mel knew he was nt the father and she wasnt even the mother of that baby, and when he say no ot her ofr firsttime, she jsut explode and leave so whois crazy narcissixc efocentred arrogant b.itch here?
the accused or the accuser??
thatwas a long answer, but i ahd the feelig that some specific ponts and dates of events had to be mentned and put back in their chronological order.
and n s isde ot most people and men. you included, put in the same sitaution as mel gibson wil have probably end it up a long time ago or end up not as Mle in the BEAVER but as the beaver in the trash can,.
and no i od not think he “put this onto himslef” you dont foresse to be drag into such misery by some goldiging whore knowing at yoru trialer door, one eve in bstonm, and presneting herslef as classicla trianed pianst and ex of timothy dalton..
and who then pursue the whoring dance wiht a bj and later on wit sob me sotry of being a DV victim of Mle Gibson..
and yes Mle tried ot help her and even paid for oolksa lawyer in november 2008, when she needed a cosnultation woht a family lawyer to get mroe money form timothy dalton and acuse him f having beating her..
which is the actual cause of a dissention playing out right now betwen oksa and mel gibosn, as oksana wants mel gibsons family attorney, kolodny to beremoved of the case because she used one of his firms attorney, Arteau, as lawyer in novemer 2008, in a custody case with timothy dalton..
Th emotion was denied by judge Scott Grodon in may but she appealed and isnsit for kolodny toberemoved form the case and for her docs in possesion of arteau to be presented to the appeal court.. well thos eodvs INCLUDE A SERIES OF EMAILS AND LETTERS FROMN OKSA OT DALTON AND DALTON OKSA REGRADING THE CHILD CUSTODY CASE BETWEEN AOKSA AND TIMOTHY DALTGOIN, AND CONTIANING THE SMAE MODUS OPERANDI OF EXTORTION AS THE OEN DISCOVERED BY THE LA INVESITGATORS IN EMAILS FORM OKSAA TO MEL GIBSON LAST YEAR!!
so she want it removed form the case, not custudy case but the upcoming criminal civil lawsujite case mel is going to do on oksana, so that because olodny was removed those documents will be removed ofrm any upcoming case agaisnt her and mels lawyer wont be able ot use them!
oh and why kolodny? well the guy has been trying since last year, novemer to gai acess to oksanas laptop inofrmation, the files recovered by th invesitgators last ear on oksas aptop and specificlay the audio files of the phone recordings to can analyse them. Kolodny has not been able ot access those gfiles yet whihc is incvredible and its alos why oksa removed the taped phone cals as a matter of disention in the custody case, so to take away the right to cna acces tghose audio fiels form kolodny, in the custody case.’
smart huh? wel not if oyu are suposedly innocent and if oyur crimninal evidences are suposedly true.
in conclusion Tom Fordy, never beleive what oyu rea don the front page of tabloid and leanr to dig a bit deeper than what is served ot oyu on a golden platter.
A friend
Jun 13, 2011 at 2:26 pm
i dont se how t could be a documentary sinc it features a state who was doen a year before thign acutaly occurd so oyu can clal it a prophetic movie.
i agree tho withhte short cuts at the begining and th voice over.. to many of them. in tlegraph ofrm yeah
we wil ahve better like to se what actusaly ahpened before th beaver stage and what type of relationshi he had with his wife and fmaily and at work isntead of that trialer like junk of images with a voice over, liekif we were listenign ot a radio show and not watching a movie. That alone totaly sabotaged the movie and i sdont get why jodie sabotaged her movie so much jsut to make it shorter!!?? she wil have made it mre intrresting and understandable by letig the acotrs andacting talk ofritself befoe thr beaver. it was stupid of her ot have doen that and i ma sure and certin that it was in the original shotins but that seh cut it off later on. big mistake! like whe he was runing in jogging the scen was an acutal scene and much longer. wrong to have it off. its like seeing a resume of th emovie and thats annoying.
ans tom, he wasnt tlakig wiht an aussie accent oyu dork but with a boston accent! huge difference!
go see edge of darlkness and listen to windsleys accent in that movie.,
its more a scottich accent like Mc cain than it is a aussie accentat all.
i mena since th eitme its been tlak about you dont even know it now??
and you coldnt hear it??
I will say tha tmel loks more depress in Edge of Darkness than he does in the beaver.
Tom Fordy
Jun 13, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Like the man in the orthapedic shoes, I stand corrected
Tom Fordy
Jun 13, 2011 at 3:02 pm
There we go, changed it. Apologies for the clear offence I have caused by not investigating Jodie Foster’s Beaver properly.
A friend
Jun 14, 2011 at 1:34 pm
wow you deleted it all, wasnt needed.. soem of it was good.
Oh and btw ANOTHER CORRECTION, THAT MOVIE is not a comedy but registered under “drama” it was NOT supposed ot be funny.. Jodie forster insited in her interviews that she did all for it to odnt be funny cause it was so easy to fall into the easy span to have it tuned into a comedy, by focusing on the pupet and make it do eyes and so on.. So she used a lot of time and energy to take care ot avoid that kind of situatuons.
it was very easy for her ot turn it in something comic specialy wiht Mle Gibson!!! who wanted it that way too!
So she had to work on it and expalin that she didnt wanted that. she said it in her interviews alos those doen befroe the release of th emovie.
For instance Mle had to be wihtthe ppet al the time and she didnt wanted for th puppet face to be seen wihtout his. it was doen voluntarily.
There is even an interview wiht Mle Gibson where he declared that it was os tirering he wanted to can use the pupet wihtout having to be on th linse at the same time and he siad “please”.. but no. that was doen ot conect the 2 always same fgoes wiht him tlaking and vidibly tlaking for the pupet. The vicitm of depression, walter, is not a vntriloquist, he know he is using a pupet, he doenst try to fool himlef into ths nor to fool anyone else. he says it form the get go: this is a therapy puppet.
but it doesn tmena that the sick person can change the desease jsut becvause they know whats what.
The movie is about DEPRESSION not comedy.
like oyu i missed more depth and less voice over.
that was my impresion too hta tjodie sabotaged her own mlovie by not letign images speak and mel gibson act for himslef, at the beginging so we could see them intrereact together, pre-beaver puppet, and see what that family relationships was made off how its members intgreacted before the therapy came about and how he was thrown out.
cause for me it made no sense ot hear bla bla bla and opla he is out. I go ot the movie theater to watcvh a movie, not to listen to the radio while looking on a book wiht picturres..
i alos didn tlike that nothig more was said about wlaters father and what exactly ocred as it semed otbe the cause of hs depression, and morre abot how depression in fact runed in the family also wththe son begiing to go that way..
it was also too short, and the end is missing as the begining. no head no tail.
how is life after the beaver?
this too is missing at no time we see that family funcitoning togehter beign together, its a bit unreal. I loved that movie, but found sad to see that jodie didnt realy dared do it, didn tdared to go too deep, maybe because of the audience???
it was ofr me a superficial way to tel about depressiona nd how it affect peoples life.
I think that jodie cuted off a lot of that movie later on. csuse the part where he run and do joging withthe puppet was longer nd he met people but in the movie oyu dot see it you barely see that he hold a pujpet and opla no more jogging.. i reckon in 2009, spetemebr, they made a scene wiht it, so its weird that its only 4 secodns in the movie. waht i regreted the most was the trialer who show far too much of the movie essential parts and leave not much ot the genuate experience in the theater. and i hate that sooo much!!
its wore than telling the ned of a book or a movie.
i didnt get the cuting the arm part at all. i mena since he coudl drop the beav to have dinner wiht his wife, he cold do that here too.
or since he was aware he didn twante dit any more he could remove it and burn it.
maybe a tendency to use too many metaphores. it was genial in many ways, but hse shoudl ahve let mel tel th story more. My predominat feelig whle watchig the movie and after, is that it went too fast and was far too short.
jodie codl have cut a part of the teen sons love story, and use that mroe on solving that voice over problem. the moive is 1½ hr, so wasnt cause she had to make it shorter.
I dont know i am confused, its missing, its like watchign the summary of th emovie, lie we were stolen for the movie someone cut it fof and apart and we werent alowed to watch it in its full version.
like a censor had been there and we were living in china or a censor didnt wanted us to be subjected to certian scen or to know certain things of that movie. Thats a pity, why spare us? I wanted to see it hapening, not hidding.
its like jodie had sseen it so many time and it was so obvios that she made cuts too many of them and at the end not much was left. :/ Does that make sense?
its worth watching, but something weird hapen. mayeb that was thr emaning of that movie to leave you this felign that osemtihng is missing oyu by, that time open and close, and that wat i experievned, like walters life is a deleetion of his past, we like wlater dont know what ocred before, it is jsut now , deprersion and the beavr and it sart now in its beavrs univers.
and walter refuse to remmeber the good old days, e only want ot focus on the new walter the beaver walter. prible is when he get off of it he can reckon his past, while we dont lol
maybe it was a perfect view into the mind of a seriosuly depress guy, where th epupet is divrsion, but what realy hapen in tha tmovie is “the missing part” liek the missing part of walters life. I think that i have just begin to undestand that movie.
thats walter interupted. 😀
ok lets fac it its an intelectualised movie. mayeb i shold have watch a sci fi first and teh beaver after. The contrast wil have bene perfect, with stil the surealistic part form sci fi.
One thing is sure, at no time in that movie you get bored. and its not because of action liek in action movies nor becaise of tensjon like a crime movie, its because oy are tlken by it form A to Z. form beiging to th end you waiot for what hapens next. and thats the sign of a very intrresting movie. its coatic, tge line is missing and thats because the line is missing in walters life, now i got it! 🙂
waht oyu see reflects wlaters psycjhe whats in his head.
or more how the world is ofr walter. its special, very special and ctainly worth to see.
one thing is sure, since i saw it i ahve bene thinking f one thing: to go back to the theater and watch it one more time. 😀 and that has ever hapend to me before with another movie specialy 1 day after seeing it.
i just wasnt ot see it agian its a movie that grow in you.
it makes yo cujrious to want to see more. 🙂
Tom Fordy
Jun 15, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Christ, I can’t win can I? I’ll stick to superheroes in future.
Clipper Smith
Jun 17, 2011 at 1:30 pm
I disagree that the problem was Ms Foster’s direction. I think she saw and felt more in her own mind about the story than was actually presented in the script. If so, she should have seen that and then should have asked the writer to add the moments she was seeing in her mind that weren’t in the script. The story problem begins when Walter finds the puppet and puts it on. The climax is when he cuts off his arm to free himself from the puppet. The problem with the movie is that the sequence of events that take you from Walter putting on the puppet to Walter cutting off his arm don’t lead inevitably to the decision Walter faces before cutting off his arm. Fixing that requires a lot of hard thought about depression, but there are a lot of things you could do. For example, you could show Walter getting up in the morning and trying to leave his apartment without putting on the puppet. He can’t. In a later scene he does leave without putting on the puppet, but he still puts it in his briefcase. Then he tries to have a phone conversation without it at his office, but he still has to put the puppet on before he can talk on the phone, even though no one can see whether he has the puppet on or not.
Patmcsnoo
Jun 18, 2011 at 12:27 pm
I agree with some of the points Clipper Smith made but still think a lot of the blame for the film’s failure rests on Fosters shoulders and only because she decided not to highlight any element as comedic which was a big mistake. Once that decision was made a lot of the script fell flat because it was a script that was meant to be comical as well as making a serious point about depression. My main point of contention is seeing Gibson’s mouth move while the puppet is talking. Its is obvious that the puppet is not alive but in his mind it. Also Gibson is just not good enough as an actor to switch character from the beaver to walter like he does at the beginning and is just embarrassing to watch.
All in all it was a film that should of been funny with an emotional core but centring purely on the mental illness angle made the film unbalanced. The highs make the lows even more bittersweet so without the highs the lows were hollow.
Clipper Smith
Jun 18, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Pat, if she made the film comedic, she couldn’t also make a serious point about depression. A depressed person has no sense of humor. A depressed person would not try to be funny. That’s one of the hallmarks of depression. I think Mel Gibson did a yeoman’s job. I think he did give a good performance here. Here’s another example of what seemed wrong with the script. Walter and the Beaver saved the toy company. The elation from this success would have been enough to lift Walter out of the depth of his depression, and he would have begun to think he no longer needed the puppet. And he really should have taken it off at that point. Consider what could have been done then. At the height of the company’s success, Walter takes off the puppet, convincing himself he no longer needs it. But he falls back into depression and his own mind makes him think the puppet is forcing him to put the puppet back on. So he puts it back on and then, Walter, through the puppet, begins to self-destruct the company. So the puppet goes from having a positive effect to a negative effect, and soon the puppet is destroying his family worse than his depression was alone. Then you can see Walter really would be forced to the decision of whether to cut off his arm or not.
Patmcsnoo
Jun 19, 2011 at 11:14 pm
I doubt saving the company would be the story element that lifts the character out of his depression as he doesn’t care much for the company and doesn’t consider it all that important to his life except for a pay check which he basically says when he introduces the beaver to his staff. And the comment about not being able to get a serious point across through comedy or having comedic elements in a film is silly, there are lots of different types of media that use comedy to deliver a serious message or at least raise the topic for debate, look at the whole idea of satire or films like Good Morning Vietnam, Four Lions, The Dictator, Dr Strangelove, Sullivan’s Travels, What About Bob? or As Good As It Gets.I wasn’t saying that the film should of been a balls to the wall comedy a la Dumb and Dumber but the film does contain a man with a puppet on his hand which should lend towards some comedic moments and as the film progresses becomes more and more serious as his dependence and uncontrollable nature spiral out of control. And anyway I haven’t read the script yet which all your’s, mine and everyone else’s problems with the film could be addressed and satisfy in but the handling and possible changes during the production would of changed to whatever the director’s intentions, agenda or perception of the material is. So as I do agree with you about some of your elements, the addition of some laughs (which would of been the writer’s intention otherwise the cure then decline of Walter’s mental health would not of taken the shape of a puppet, no matter what animal it was), would only of helped with the viewers enjoyment of the film and still of been able to effectively deliver whatever ‘serious’ message about mental illness the filmmakers wished to communicate.I would be more cautious when offering broad brush strokes to the ins and outs of a depressive illness. Millions of people suffer from the condition, one in four from a mental illness over all. Do you really believe that a depressive person has no sense of humour? I bet you deal with at least one person in your everyday life that suffers from this condition who still laughs when watching the TV or films. It’s a rather offensive statement and large assumption to make. Many people function their entire lives with this illness, and stereotypes like these only feed into a society of ignorance about mental illness. A person with depression is not an emotionless robot, they can laugh along with the rest of us – and at their condition at times. ‘A depressive person would not try to be funny’ I think Stephen Fry, Ruby Wax, John Cleese and many other wonderful comedians who suffer from depression and/or manic depression may have something to say about that.
Clipper Smith
Jun 20, 2011 at 11:26 am
“I doubt saving the company would be the story element that lifts the character out of his depression as he doesn’t care much for the company and doesn’t consider it all that important to his life…”
As a person who has been through major depression more than once, I can tell you that the swift success Walter achieves for his company would very likely have lifted him out of depression. There would have to be reasons for his depression, and since the company collapsed under his leadership, it is likely that would have been one of his causes. Otherwise it has no purpose in the story.
“And the comment about not being able to get a serious point across through comedy or having comedic elements in a film is silly, there are lots of different types of media that use comedy to deliver a serious message or at least raise the topic for debate…”
That wasn’t my point. Certainly comedy can be used to make a serious point, but there is no comedy in depression. A person in major depression has no sense of humor. It means that when Walter put the puppet on he had zero intent to be funny. If it had not been portrayed as a deadly serious attempt to get well, it would have been phony. The other characters could have tried to use humor with Walter, but he would have gotten no relief from it.
“‘A depressive person would not try to be funny’ I think Stephen Fry, RubyWax, John Cleese and many other wonderful comedians who suffer fromdepression and/or manic depression may have something to say aboutthat.”No, those comedians are not suffering from major depression when they are doing comedy. When they are working productively as comedians, they aren’t depressed. When they are depressed, they are incapacitated and out of sight. That’s another problem with the movie. Walter is full of energy, which a depressed person would not be. The way he would gain energy would be with the sudden success of the toy company.
“Millions of people suffer from the condition, one in four from a mental illness over all. Do you really believe that a depressive person has no sense of humour?”
Yes. I’ve been there. There is nothing worse.