cathryngoodman-13956 The affliction referred to in the title of this film is clearly intended to be interpreted as violence. Wade's brother makes this clear when he tells him that he has not been affected by Wade's "affliction." And yes, we see extreme verbal abuse along with "mild" physical violence in their father, Ben. And yes, we see a pent-up violence in Wade. Without condoning or encouraging murder, consider an alternate interpretation...As an alternative, is Wade's passivity and his refusal to fight back against his abusive father truly admirable or healthy? Is passivity the sane condition from which Wade falls into madness? Or is his continued acceptance of abuse a mental illness? Consider the scenes when Ben abuses young Wade and his mother; don't we want to stop Ben? Don't we want Wade to stand up to his father? And later, when Wade is a grown man, don't we want him to protect himself and Margie and his mother from Ben's continued abuse? Instead he takes it; he still acts like a child who is under the control of a parent.An alternative interpretation would be that Wade's character flaw is not that he is drawn to violence but that he can't stand up against violence. His unhealthy desire for his father's love keeps him trapped in an abusive relationship. Perhaps it is not an affliction to want to fight back against Ben's sickness. Ben is cruel and enjoys being cruel. That is an illness that deserves to be stopped, preferably without violence, but still it deserves to be stopped.If Wade hadn't stuffed his anger so far down his entire life, if he hadn't let himself be a victim for so long, perhaps he could have found a non-violent response to his father's abuse. Perhaps he could have followed the more healthy path his brother did - he could have left his father and lived his own life.As a comparison, consider abuse in a marital relationship.We would call the Wade-type partner an enabler of the abusive Ben-type partner. We would counsel the enabler/victim Wde to develop a sense of self-worth and self-actualization in order to leave the abusive relationship. Right? We would not encourage the enabler to continue to accept the abuse endlessly. Perhaps it is Wade's inability to stand up to his father in a healthy way that is his true affliction.After a lifetime of struggle, it would seem that the only way for the abusive relationship to end is for one of them to die. The two are locked in a metaphorical fight-to-the-death as Ben abuses Wade and Wade stays around to take it. If Wade continued in the path of an enabler, if he continued on the same path without character growth, he would kill himself to allow his father to win. Instead Wade finally finds the strength within himself to react to the abuse. Isn't that a logical, i.e. sane, response? Again, without condoning murder, don't we think the old bastard deserved it? Isn't it possible that by finally reacting to Ben's abuse, Wade has discovered his true self rather than losing it? For example, consider two interpretations of the murder scene. As Wade aims the rifle at his fallen father, we see a flicker of emotion in his face when he suspects his father is already dead. Then, when he discovers that his father is in fact dead, his expression relaxes into something else. One interpretation would be that the first expression is disappointment that he has already killed his father and doesn't get to shoot him in a more intentionally violent way. Then. the reaction after realizing his father is dead could be the joy of having embraced his innate violence.But Wade's initial blow to Ben's head is more reflexive than premeditated. And he doesn't actually shoot the gun even though he is still in a rage. He looks through the site but he doesn't shoot. He hesitates. Shooting the gun would be an act of intentional violence and symbolic of a descent into violence. But he doesn't do it. Perhaps the first reaction is not one of disappointment but of concern for what he has done. Although he hates his father, he could be appalled and frightened to find that he has killed him. It is possible that the second expression is one of peace. Not the peace of being violent but the peace of being free of his tormentor. Peace at being free to move on from the childish state his father has kept him in into a state of self-actualization and growth; of adulthood.Consider also the sub-plot of Twombly. The murder of Jack is also represented as a descent of the rationality of Wade and his descent into madness. And yet the writers have set up the story so neatly and the evidence so clearly that it seems that Wade's "hallucinations" about Twombly's death are rational. The characters look and speak as if they are guilty, too. Again, without condoning murder, isn't it possible to interpret Wade's murder of Jack as a rational action in the face of the evidence? Of course murder is inexcusable in real life but as an artistic device isn't it possible that Wade's self-actualization allows him to finally stand up to the namby-pamby Gordon figure? To stand up to the actual and real conspiracy? In the final voice-over, we learn that Twombly's son-in-law does, in fact, destroy the town for his own financial gain. Isn't it possible that this supports Wade's conspiracy theory? Again, while not condoning violence, instead of thinking that Wade slinks off in disgrace after his violent behavior, it is possible to envision a stronger, healthier, and self-actualized Wade who leaves town with a sense of his own worth; that despite his guilt over his violent actions that he becomes more in tune with his true emotions and is able to enter into healthy relationships.Just food for thought...

jeff-90 I read the novel a couple weeks ago and thought it was a masterpiece, couldn't put it down. The character of Wade Whitehouse and how he progressed from childhood to his 40s was masterfully related. So I just got the movie on Netflix. Ugh. The movie is SO rushed, with almost no back story whatsoever, that there is no logic behind how anyone acts. Nothing about his youth and how his high school sweetheart and he supported each other through their family issues, nothing about the 2 older brothers who died in the war, totally sugar coated the violent father (one smack in one flashback!), cut major plot points altogether. Basically where everything flowed and you could understand how he got to a point and you felt bad for him in the book, the movie he just seems nutty.Read the book, it is a rewarding, haunting experience that will stay with you. The movie is good actors trying their best but it is a mere shell of the source material.

Sindre Kaspersen American screenwriter and director Paul Schrader's eleventh feature film which he wrote, is an adaptation of a somewhat autobiographical novel from 1989 by American writer Russell Banks. It premiered at the 54th Venice Film Festival in 1997, was shot on location in Quebec, Canada and is an American production which was produced by American producer Linda Reisman. It tells the story about a middle-aged policeman named Wade Whitehouse who lives in his father's house with his girlfriend Margie Frogg in a rural town. Wade is in a dispute with his former wife Lillian Whitehouse Horner about the custody of their daughter Jill, but when a fatal and questionable hunting accident occurs he becomes absorbed with the case.Finely and engagingly directed by American filmmaker Paul Schrader, this finely tuned fictional tale which is narrated by one of the main characters and from multiple viewpoints, draws a literally afflicting and instantly involving portrayal of a domineering and abusive father's relationship with his two contrary sons who has differing views on their upbringing and a crime which one son embraces as it temporarily takes his mind away from his horrible childhood memories. While notable for it's naturalistic milieu depictions and sterling cinematography by Canadian cinematographer and director Paul Sarrosy, this character-driven and narrative-driven story about family relations and a man's strive to break free from his father's shadow depicts some pervasive studies of character and contains a great score by Canadian composer Michael Brook.This conversational, throughout dramatic and literary psychological drama which is set in the state of New Hampshire during a deer hunting season, is impelled and reinforced by it's cogent narrative structure, substantial character development, poignant flashback scenes, conflicted characters, emotional substance, distinct acting performances by American actors Nick Nolte and James Coburn (1928-2002) and the fine acting performances by American actresses Sissy Spacek, Mary Beth Hurt and American actor Willem Dafoe. An unsentimental and heartfelt indie from the late 1990s which gained, among numerous other awards, the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor James Coburn at the 71st Academy Awards in 1999.

kenjha The sheriff of a frigid New Hampshire town investigates a shooting. The apple does not fall far from the tree. That is what the title refers to. Raised by an abusive father, a man turns out to be a lousy husband and father. The script is sloppy and disjointed, with too many secondary characters crammed in. It moves in fits and starts, but never really settles in and finishes with a whimper. Nolte has some good moments but too often seems to be sleepwalking, delivering his lines in a barely intelligible low growl. Spacek and Dafoe are fine, but neither gets much screen time. Coburn is interesting if a bit too cartoonish in his Oscar-winning role of the father from hell.