Movie Review: Misunderstood (1983)
Well, I don’t know what to say about this one. Not much happens in it, like a European film (which I guess after looking it up, it is a remake of), and it was apparently based on a 19th-century novel by Florence Montgomery. Never heard of the author or story, but I ran into the VHS for a dollar some years ago and got it because it has Henry Thomas in it (from around the time of E.T., Huckleberry Fox and Gene Hackman, so I thought it might have a chance.
The film has great cinematography…sometimes characters will be on top one building, the camera is looking down below, people moving around, and the sky too. There’s usually something interesting in the background to look at, including an interesting house set. The film summary states that after the death of the mother, the father treats the youngest boy Miles (Huckleberry Fox) like the child he is (around 4-5) and the oldest boy Andrew (age 10-11) (Henry Thomas) like an adult.
Well, that’s putting mildly. It’s not that he treats him like an adult…he treats him like an adult he doesn’t give a damn about. Even though the character in general seems to be reasonable enough, other characters like the uncle and a second nanny also try to provide support or comment that he treats Andrew too coldly. It’s not that he leaves the kid to his own decisions — though in one scene he declares that he basically doesn’t care what Andrew does, to his face no less — and even though he admits that Andrew isn’t bad only careless, he constantly does something underhanded to him, in a way that you can believe. He doesn’t hit him (well, just once), barely yells at him, (and he apologizes when he does) but there’s this mean undertone to it. He takes Miles away, ignores Andrew’s eventual lies to get his attention, reneges on promises without explanation…and Andrew gets doors slammed in his face about twice…as if all the adults are forbidding him to play with his brother, like it’s something catching. In fact, there are two seperate conversations in this that are very strange. If I can paraphrase: “You treat that kid like he’s got a cold you don’t want to catch,” says the uncle. “[The nanny] won’t let Andrew play with me,” says Miles, a situation their father ignores. An especially chilling comment occurs while the children are in Andrew’s boat (and the scenery is great, as always): “To see Mommy, you’d have to be dead,” explains Andrew to his brother.
Aside from the fact that there’s something really sad that Andrew has to become the family storyteller, that’s a comment that really belongs in a horror movie. That’s why it works here.
First off, when the mother dies he tells Andrew that he and Mommy didn’t go away on a trip together but that Mommy actually died. Andrew becomes rather angry at this. Okay, maybe this is understandable…once, in grief…but the story builds on it. Andrew is forbidden to explain to his little brother why Mommy isn’t coming home or where she went, and when he makes up a rather nice story about what Mommy’s doing on her trip, and Miles understands immediately that his mother has died, without the words ever being said, his father takes Miles away and disregards Andrew’s attempts to explain.
Now that’s downright cruel.
In fact, people guard the youngest kid in this like you wouldn’t believe. In the context of the 19th-century tubercolisis-prone childhood that I suspect this story comes from, this makes sense. But the father and an awful early nanny, who pretends Miles is sick, swoop up to take him away everytime he sets foot outside, downtown, or gets wet and they live in fear of him ever developing a cold. Since Miles tags along and is shown playing with Andrew every chance he gets, this means everyone blames Andrew when Miles happens to plot an escape.
The first nanny is downright creepy and along with a few scenes such as a trip to the market, playing war under a bed etc. the scene that works really well is when Andrew succeeds in mowing her down in her tracks with a bicycle…a scene the movie takes a certain amount of glee in. There are quite a few happy scenes in this…subtly happy, as Andrew’s father undoubtedly comes up with a crummy way to behave toward him. In fact, Gene Hackman does this so well that I find the ending hard to believe…I don’t believe the off-handed neglect here is a new thing.
There are a few sympathetic adults in this: a man at the cemetary, the father’s co-worker, the second nanny, and that and the children playing together and having fun at odd moments actually kept my interest for the entire film. It’s a European style film done in English, and I mean that.
If the film started with melodramatic though good music it occasionally returns to throughout, the rest of it is pretty downplayed. Characters don’t simutanously burst into tears at this…at least, not often…to the film’s credit, though that’s what it’s about.
The good-old-fashioned 19th-century ending was left intact, and in a way that’s great, but it doesn’t work for me — and I love 19th century books. I don’t believe anything Andrew says in the last scene.
I guessed part of the ending early on. The rest of the movie was great to watch for the scenery, but Gene Hackman’s role kept pissing me off just becuase he played things so causally.
Andrew requests repeatedly to be sent away to school toward the end and I agree that that would have worked better. Not really, because he would have been away from home and his brother, and the scenes between the two kids work, but in this type of story, if it was done in a modern style — it would be better to have him placed in a different family altogether. Hopefully with his brother, of course.
It’s interesting to see the 19th-century ending, except they didn’t complete it. Usually that’s about the midway point where this leaves off.