Little Children, directed by Todd Field, provides an insight into modern parenting that some would say hits a little too close to home (especially for those of us directly experiencing this role!). The film thrives on wonderful performances by both a dowdy Kate Winslet and a believably creepy Jackie Earle Haley. Unfortunately for us lovers of fiction, the film fell victim to a little glitch in storytelling right near the end.
MAJOR SPOILER WARNING!!!
First off, even though this analysis will point to some problems I had with the structure of the story, overall I have to say that I really enjoyed this film. In some ways, it reminded me a lot of American Beauty . Although it was nice finally hearing a Thomas Newman soundtrack that didn’t sound like a Thomas Newman soundtrack!
But when it came to the ending, I felt cheated.
Both Brad and Sarah begin the film as absent-minded parents (the You and I are alike connection). Brad spends his nights watching 14-year olds skateboard and remembering how great life was at that age. Sarah sits her daughter in front of the TV and then retreats into her den - a room dedicated to her life before she had a child. Both have issues with their new found responsibilities and both have found ways to escape the mundane reality that often accompanies raising a young child.
The difference comes in their quality of parenting - Brad is good at it, Sarah sucks. More specifically, Brad has found a way to balance the unpleasant nature of parenting without it negatively affecting his child. He does seem to waste an inordinate amount of time watching 14-year olds skateboard and he does join an adult touch football league. But he only does so at night, when his son is presumably asleep (and under the care of his wife).
Sarah, on the other hand, cannot get her act together, day or night. She can’t compare to the other mothers in the neighborhood. She completely forgets her daughter’s “snack” and what’s worse - she doesn’t even seem to care. She puts on a good face, but it’s apparent that she’d rather be somewhere else.
In the end, Brad adopts Sarah’s approach. Agreeing to run away with her, Brad shows that he’s willing to throw everything away for her - his marriage and his relationship with his son. The Author’s Proof of this comes when he agrees to skateboard with the other 14-year olds. Even with a pedophile loose in the neighborhood, Brad decides to put his midnight rendezvous with Sarah on hold. Fully embracing his self-indulgence and tossing away any last remaining semblance of responsibility, he races towards the stairs on the skateboard - jeopardizing Sarah and her child in the process.
Sarah, eagerly awaiting Brad’s arrival at the park has a terrifying run-in with the town pedophile. Creeped out as Ronnie tells her that only “Mommy loves him,” Sarah turns to find her daughter missing.
Distraught, she screams out her daughter’s name, frantically searching for her. We think her daughter has been kidnapped, but soon come to find that the young girl has simply wandered down the street. Sarah picks her up, and, hands shaking, places her daughter back in the car seat. Ashamed of her actions, she breaks down.
This is a wonderful ending - a complete argument that provides an audience with meaning….
..but unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there.
A Quick Change-Up
In the very next scene we see Brad coming to - having been knocked out trying to perform the skateboard stunt. One of the kids produces Brad’s “Dear John” letter that we assumed he left at his house. He looks at it, realizes his big mistake, and tells the kid, “I don’t need that anymore.”
This feels false and completely out of character. It’s confusing for the audience because we’ve seen him grow to this significant change - only to have him revert back to his old ways…no questions asked (well, there’s no time to ask anymore questions because the film is over). We’d need an entirely new story to bring Brad to that place of psychological change!
A story must be clear about who changes and who remains steadfast
To continue the breaking of the storyform, we need to finish that last scene with Sarah and her daughter. On the way to the park, Sarah was so excited to be with Brad that she let her daughter ride in the car on the floor in the backseat…without a seatbelt!
Now, we see her forcing her daughter into the car seat, telling her, “I’m so sorry.” This is the first time she’s ever looked her daughter in the eye and actually spoken to her. “Would you like to go home?” she even asks.
This is a huge change for Sarah. She’s accepted her role as a mother, having realized that her self-indulgence almost led to her daughter’s kidnapping. The closing scene of her in bed with her daughter seems to say that she will now be able to better balance her own wants and desires with those of her child.
So now she’s adopted Brad’s way of seeing things!
This completely confuses the meaning of the film.
Change Compared Against Steadfast Provides Meaning
When all is said and done, it appears that the Author’s Intent was for Sarah to be the Change character and Brad to be the Steadfast character. But the story as it was laid out was heading for just the opposite - with Brad adopting Sarah’s irresponsible self-indulgence. That’s why his sudden “change-of-mind” feels so false.
My guess is that the authors were not comfortable with Brad ending up a complete ass. If he had stayed in that moment, reveling in his skateboard success, I’m not sure the audience would’ve liked him too much…but it would’ve provided a more fulfilling message.
And they didn’t need to do much - just cut the scene with the “Dear John” letter. Have the kids tell Brad how “awesome” it was and have him smile like a complete dope there - completely immobilized. If you want to show what this approach leads to, then show it.
Even cleaner would have been to have Brad wake up already in the hospital, immobilized in a large body cast. His disapproving wife would be there, the Dear John letter clutched in her hand. He’d ask his wife how he did. She’d answer that the doctor said he was lucky, only a few cracked vertebrae. Brad would counter, “No. The jump? How did I land the jump?” Then, the boys would be there telling him how awesome he was and he could still have that dopey pleased smile on his face. This way you could’ve nicely ended the throughline with Brad and his wife (another problem with this story - characters are introduced but not properly dismissed).
Meaning would exist with this ending. We would know that Brad would continue being more like Sarah. This allows us, the audience, to synthesize, “Well, if his actions make him come off as an ass, where does that leave our understanding of Sarah’s actions…?” In this way, we as an audience, the “I” in the story, would fully feel the impact of Sarah’s immature nature. We were into her affair, and thought it completely justified (especially considering the distracted affections of her husband), but now we’ve come to realize what an ass we really were.
The message would’ve been clearer and more fulfilling. I think any time you can get an audience to synthesize the meaning out of the elements instead of providing it to them, you should really go for it. It’s the same idea when you go for subtext in your dialogue. You don’t want the characters to really say what they feel or mean. You want the audience to comprehend that all on their own.
Of course, to complete this argument you would’ve had to have Sarah end the film with a Judgment of Bad. She would still feel unresolved when it came to the issue of being a parent. But again, I think the authors wanted her to have some resolution to her angst.
Another Approach
So what if instead, we try and address the story as it seems the authors were trying to tell - that of Sarah changing and accepting her parental responsibilities. For that story to work, Brad would have had to decide to not go to the park BEFORE Sarah lost her daughter. In this way, you would show that the responsible thing to do would have been to not go to the park at all - to end the affair.
Sarah would’ve realized that it was her silly immature attitude that brought this disaster on, and her subsequent change would’ve felt justified. You could then end it with her in bed comforting her daughter and fulfilling her motherly responsibilities.
The ending narration would’ve fit better as well. Sarah couldn’t change what she had done, but the future “could be a different story. And it had to start somewhere.”
Wrap-Up
Personally, I think allowing Brad to complete his Change and to fully embrace his new found immaturity would’ve led to a more satisfying and emotionally fulfilling ending. The overall feeling wouldn’t have been as “nice” - but it would have made more sense.
As it stands, the movie is still fantastic and one of my favorites from last year. I highly suggest you see it (I even bought it!). As great as it is though, I still think that with a little tweak here or there, it could’ve been an instant classic.
Share This
2 responses so far ↓
1 Chris Huntley // May 14, 2007 at 9:18 am
Excellent analysis, Jim. I think you nailed the structural problems in the story.
I’d like to point out one additional complication in the film. There seems to be a substory between the ex-cop and the child molester. It’s only partially developed, yet delivers some of the most emotionally intense (and uncomfortable) moments in the film. They are both alike in their self-hatred and crimes against children, but different in their means, intent, and the nature of their crimes (accidental shooting vs. predation). In this substory, the cop appears to be the IC and the child molester the MC with the molester’s mom playing guardian.
The child molester remains steadfast. He cannot change his unacceptable desires even though he goes a long way toward limiting his ability to act on his impulses. The child molester’s emotional torment at the loss of his mother and his self-inflicted wounds force the ex-cop to change. The ex-cop is finally able to feel compassion for others again.
(Note: Though the character resolve for each is clear, it is less clear which is supposed to be the main character and which the impact character. The designation could work reversed because there doesn’t appear to be enough of a storyform explored in the substory to make a definitive choice one way or the other.)
2 Ron Seybold // Jun 12, 2007 at 11:07 am
I loved the book of the same name and read it before I saw this movie. While the ending of the film story arrived at the same point as the book’s, the novel left more for the reader to resolve. A literary ending, as they call it.
With a Hollywood treatment, this story took on the “let’s resolve it for you” finish. Not only do we get the Dear John note, but our child molester has now got an act of remorse in the film finale. Todd Field worked with Tom Perotta on the latter’s novel to write this screen story. They claim to have worked to create a different story from the same characters and situations.
This is a case where different was not better. But I enjoyed the compression of the novel’s elements and was fascinated at what was discarded.
Leave a Comment