Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

might-be-your-daddy t1_j6lc8lg wrote

Agreed. And not too long ago someone brought up the theory that she was going to leave him anyway before he crashed and was stranded. They brought up several good points to support that theory.

Even so, the last hour is a gut-punch for me and my wife both.

74

PastMiddleAge OP t1_j6lclvv wrote

> the theory that she was going to leave him anyway

Funny because I just watched it for the first time in a long time, and I could totally see that being the case. I had never noticed before. But I definitely picked up on Kelly’s understandable dissatisfaction this time. Maybe it’s the wisdom of years.

43

Keyspam102 t1_j6n1x1j wrote

I always understood it as he was too involved in work/stuff that he didn’t realise her dissatisfaction (same as with the coworker who’s wife was dying, being kind of insensitive or wanting to be personal but not knowing how), not realising how much he loved her until afterwards, and then actually getting a second chance to see her again he was able to accept that she could make a life without him was a testament to how much he changed.

10

Professional_Toe_285 t1_j6lji92 wrote

I've watched a lot of these videos with these fan theories and it's a lot of projecting.

They're kind of toxic and makes me to believe a lot of them have trust issues with women.

38

ERSTF t1_j6lwupw wrote

Yeah. It's projecting. At no moment had I thought that she was about to leave him. There's a lot in the movie to prove otherwise. Giving a family heirloom to someone you are about to dump? Come on. Plus, after 4 years she kept so many things from Chuck. It can't be guilt, because you can feel guilty because someone you were going to dump vanishes, but after a year you kind of forget. But holding on to the Grand Cherokee, the towels and remembering what type of milk he liked with his coffee is not something you hold on to out of guilt.

44

You_Dont_Party t1_j6n8m03 wrote

I think the milk thing was a subtle reference to him being a bit on the heavier side before too.

−2

devnop t1_j6mefba wrote

To put the shoe on the other foot, I'd say calling it projection is to not respect women's needs or see the emotions presented in front of you.

Chuck was a workaholic not present in the relationship. When he called, he would talk about work and about himself. Kelly seemed sad. That slow stare then smile when photocopying seemed like hard work. When together, Chuck fell asleep during the movie. When at the Christmas meal, she again looked really sad. He'd been dragging ass on marrying her and when giving her the "gag" gift of a pager, she didn't seem surprised. When given the "not open in the car" present, she seemed more horrified than happy and her first reaction is to shake her head. Essentially proposing and immediately leaving without an answer is quite the red flag... who would do that?

It's the sort of relationship where when the woman finally says it's over, the man says "but I thought everything was great?!" because he was so self-absorbed. The confounding factor is Hanks, he's just so lovably affable we naturally forgive him anything but if it was a less likeable actor it would be less ambiguous.

edit: if you read the script it's even more overt. Kelly straight up says to Chuck "This isn't working out" and the direction is "This is not a happy woman he is leaving behind.". The last thing she says is "Chuck, you're breaking my heart" .

15

tofudisan t1_j6mu0c1 wrote

People down voting must not have seen the edit

3

staedtler2018 t1_j6mp3f9 wrote

It's projection because it's a movie. It's not real.

The movie is about a guy who does not appreciate life. This lack of appreciation for life almost literally costs him his own life. He survives, and is reborn, but he nonetheless figuratively loses his past life, because people had to move on. That is the tragic element of it.

If Helen Hunt was going to dump him because he was a workaholic then there's no need for the movie at all!

1

tofudisan t1_j6mvhgb wrote

Except for the movie setting up all the stuff about Chuck's life so that he appreciates what he lost.

Also the comment is right. Read the script https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://cemp.ac.uk/scriptzone/script.php%3Ftype%3Ddownload%26id%3D122&ved=2ahUKEwjzvMzw9PH8AhVtPkQIHfZMCAIQFnoECBAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3SgrC9aHhSeTYv5__h4v2_

10

staedtler2018 t1_j6nsjgj wrote

The script is not the movie. The movie is the movie.

The emotional climax of the movie is when Chuck and Kelly declare their love for each other in the rain. Kelly tells him she never truly lost hope that he was alive, that he's the love of her life, that she loves him, but in the end she can't leave her family. In Chuck's words, she "has to go home." It's a heartbreaking scene. And it only works because it's real: they really do love each other.

That scene is not in the script. Neither is the previous scene where Kelly can't bear to meet Chuck and cries by her car, which Chuck is able to see through the window. Instead, Kelly shows up, talks to Chuck with other people around, and is totally fine. The scene is lighthearted, even. They joke around a bunch. Then she goes back to Memphis. She never declares him the love of her life or anything of the sort.

It's clearly not the same relationship as in the movie.

The way it is presented in the movie makes more sense dramatically. All the movie is doing is switching the consequences of the main character's attitudes from real ones (losing out on friends and family because their feelings about you change) to movie ones (losing out on friends and family because you are stuck in a desert island and they think you are dead). It is unnecessary to have both the real and movie consequences, it is redundant.

Yes, of course, in "reality" Chuck would get dumped. That is what happens here, just in "movie" form (he gets dumped into a deserted island).

5

devnop t1_j6pe4jy wrote

> And it only works because it's real: they really do love each other.

Oh Kelly absolutely does love Chuck so it still all fits. Kelly is in pain with pre-crash Chuck's behaviour because she loves him. As adults we learn that love isn't enough for a relationship to work. The theme isn't simply loss but loss of what we have taken for granted. The reason behind the workaholism and the struggling relationship is to establish how he is taking for granted what he loves most.

Some movies just diverge from the themes of the shopped script wholesale but more often scripts state themes explicitly that are treated more subtly in the final movie. The screenwriter communicates by direct dialogue what the final movie shows through performances and direction. Lines that are too on the nose don't make the final cut - directors like ambiguity that tickle a viewer's brain and add depth instead of saying it out loud. They want to puzzle and provoke a viewer.

In the script the message of the story is spelled out explicitly, Chuck's island experience changes him such that he promises to live life better and not be so whipped up in work that he takes people for granted (Kelly). In the movie, there is no grand speech from Chuck about a new enlightened spirit. We can see he is a changed man but it's left up to us to try and understand how. The movie doesn't just paint the message on a sail like the script lol but gives scope for us to find our own meanings.

For me, it's pretty clear it's a similar message as the script. Chuck was living in a self-absorbed bubble and wasn't really connecting with anyone but this bubble is thoroughly popped by his experiences. One particularly nice contrast is how pre-crash Chuck's ebullient ChuckMode attitude misfires with his colleague about his cancer stricken wife (and he doesn't see it) but post-crash, he is more empathetic and connects. The whole Wilson relationship was about the need for connection. The ending is playful mix of Chuck still doing the work (delivering a fedex package) but after he realises who the package is for, stood in the crossroads, I feel confident Chuck is not going to strap on the beeper and chase delivery times again but will now pursue connection.

2

Ceasarsean t1_j6lcgof wrote

I'd like to hear this theory.

5

might-be-your-daddy t1_j6lcvaq wrote

I'll see if I can find it. I read and watch so many different things in the hour or two before bed I can't specifically remember right now. I'll respond to your comment if I can find it.

8

Ceasarsean t1_j6ld54w wrote

Oh that's okay. Thank you though.

36

PastMiddleAge OP t1_j6lfx35 wrote

The things I noticed this time were little things like when they were at that family Christmas dinner Kelly catches Chuck glancing at his pager instead of being present with the family. And then they’re working on scheduling important things like being together for New Year’s Eve and for Kelly’s dissertation. Chuck’s job still seems to be the priority for him, though. Not the relationship. Just subtle facial expressions and timing gave me the idea this time that Kelly might not be down for that.

Edit to add: I just read a couple of the other links in the comments suggesting Kelly was having an affair.

Really interesting how they place the blame on Kelly for betraying Chuck, whereas my read this time was more blaming Chuck for not prioritizing Kelly.

Of course it’s all subtext since none of this is made explicit. I like the ambiguity and complexity. I guess we see what we want to see or what we’re prepared to see.

And it’s a good story either way.

37

Keudn883 t1_j6nxdmp wrote

Sometimes their isn't anyone to blame and the relationship just doesn't work out.

2

might-be-your-daddy t1_j6lhx8g wrote

I appreciate it, but thinking about it was eating at me and I had to try. :)

I found this story that covers several of the points.

I also read someplace that their goodbye kiss just before his fateful flight was more like siblings than lovers. As in, she turns her head to the side so he kisses her cheek instead of her lips.

17

staedtler2018 t1_j6mo757 wrote

These kinds of things are funny to write and think about but they are bad film analysis.

Kelly didn't cheat on Chuck because it makes no thematic sense for this to happen and be kept hidden from the audience.

8

Ceasarsean t1_j6luexv wrote

Thank you so much. I'll read this. Their reunion in the rain always gets me.

5

No-Ad8720 t1_j6mrck4 wrote

Thanks for posting this theory. I have never liked the movie , so giving it that much thought seems unusual. I found both lead characters to be unpleasant to be around. Didn't care what happened to either of them.

−11

ajosefox t1_j6lfdqy wrote

I’m sure this is weird, but what a pleasant and understanding comment to see on reddit.

“That’s okay. Thank you, though.”

Just stumbling upon this, I appreciate it so much. You seem like a lovely and wonderful person.

16

LeastCap t1_j6lgh6o wrote

he hit me with his bike eight times don’t trust this conniving bitch

21

BrownMamba85 t1_j6ldq4e wrote

Include me please. I'm intrigued

2

might-be-your-daddy t1_j6lhq3d wrote

I found this story that covers several of the points.

I also read someplace that their goodbye kiss just before his fateful flight was more like siblings than lovers. As in, she turns her head to the side so he kisses her cheek instead of her lips.

10

not_so_subtle_now t1_j6lxmx1 wrote

That article was just fanfic. There was nothing on the "having an affair" end that the movie showed and the article mentioned.

8

staedtler2018 t1_j6mow77 wrote

It's bad as film analysis but it also doesn't really make sense factually.

>Four months have passed since the crash, and two years pass from the first date to their wedding date. Two years! Two years seems like an awfully short turnaround for a woman to be married when she’s not even sure if her fiancé is still alive or not.

A quick Google search tells me:

>By 25 months after the spouse's death 61% of men and 19% of women were either remarried or involved in a new romance.
>
>Younger age was a predictor of becoming involved in a new romance for women.

This is for all ages and younger people are more likely to be in a relationship so the actual odds of "this woman" (who it needs to be said, is a fictional creation) are at least higher than 20%.

3

might-be-your-daddy t1_j6ldyqs wrote

I'm looking for it now. So frustrating that I cannot remember exactly where I saw it, especially since it was not that long ago.

1

BrownMamba85 t1_j6le5k5 wrote

No worries. I'm the same way. I'll go down a rabbit hole so deep I lose track, and then I can't find my way back until I least expect it lol

2