Thought out interpretation of Radio Flyer's mystery ending
Max Fink
Tom Hanks at the very end of Radio Flyer: "History is in the mind of
the
Teller". --- Of which Hanks plays the Adult Mike telling his history
(his story) as
*He saw it as a child.* This is one of the more important keys (of
many) which I used
To break down the ending and to give some good ideas of what most
likely would have happened after the story. This article is mostly
theoretical but I hope many will agree that it's also quite logical.
Here's an example of how the adult Mike's key quote applies to the
movie:
"History is in the mind of the Teller"  The movie comes from
the mind of the Teller—That is, The Adult Mike telling/narrating his
story – recollecting the events he remembers in his mind at that point
in history. The visuals you see in the movie are, in affect, an
absolute interpretation of the vision in "Mike's mind" at these points
in his life.
Simply put, the entire movie is obviously Mike's story read out loud
along with visuals representing the way he saw things at the time.—and
in most every scene which he wasn't around, the way he knew or
remembered them happening. That's quite simply (well, as simple as I
can explain it anyhow) and very factually the way filmmaking worked
for Radio Flyer.
To me the movie was sad, (realistic, with the exception of the
unrealistic looking but misinterpreted ending) and endearing. After
thinking at length, I believe perhaps I've formulated a reasonable and
logical explanation of the ending---Something I believe was
unfortunately missing from the movie itself. My opinion is that the
end the movie lacked the cohesiveness required to pull itself together
to make a meaningful point --- It simply didn't give the audience
answers in a way a movie of this nature should. Instead, they give
you an ending that requires a lot of guesswork of which easily leads
to major misinterpretation and misunderstanding. IMHO, The only clear
message or morale given is the obvious; and that is: (violent assholes
shouldn't drink) --- Well, perhaps some will get a worthwhile message:
(Some people will come out of the movie having more sympathy for
abused Children – maybe a few will get involved in organizations that
deal with the problem.
A movie of this caliber could have really delivered if they had just
added to and changed the ending a bit, which wouldn't have cost them
hardly anything but perhaps would
have made Radio Flyer a commercial success.
Anyway, The worst thing about such a misleading ending is that some
people
Take it for face value, which suggests to some people in the literal
sense: "children are better off escaping by means of building some
mock airplane toy and dangerously riding it down into the oblivion and
somehow magic will save the day." Sure, I doubt many
Go that far, but it's easy to see how very young or similar types
would take the literal interpretation that the movie *seems* to give.
The movie, especially the dramatic ending, is intended to be seen
through
The eyes of an imaginative child -- Mike (Elijah Wood) whom, near the
end,
truly believes that his Little brother will fly.
Just let your imagination go; after all – these are just theoretical
predictions that depend
On you to think of the situations as if it actually took place in
reality. If you let this happen, you may have a better chance of
determining whether or not my theoretical conclusions are valid. If
you disagree, I'd love to hear opposing opinions. Perhaps some
Or even most may end up making more sense than mine. (By the way, I'm
sure other's may have had these ideas---I just haven't any knowledge
as I've read very few reviews and interpretations of the movie) …
Anyway, on with what I read into the ending:
A chaotic mass of confusion takes place during the take off of the
children's flying machine (just imagine the adrenaline rush Mike would
obviously have had when "The King" of abusive alcoholics nearly ruins
the plan of escape coupled with the excitement of Bobby's potential
success. It's likely that a rush of adrenaline and confusion such as
that would alter a child's judgment (whom already has a wild
imagination.)
When Bobby (Joseph Mazzello) hits the ramp and "flies" out of view,
the *last* and only contact Mike has with his little brother is when
Bobby starts plunging down and Mike urgently shouts through the
two-way radio, instructions on what to do – that's the last of any
contact (besides Bobby perhaps saying something of the nature of "I'm
making it" Something similar, not that it's absolutely important ---
but can't remember the exact words as I've only seen the Movie twice,
with a seven year separation between each viewing.
What you actually see on the screen is Bobby actually flying away up
up and away into the dark night sky. This is shown through the eyes of
Mike, whom happened to be the only one around to "see" the beginning
of this great adventure he'd imagined and anticipated for so many
preceding nights.
As mentioned before, the adrenalin rush, the confusing and possibly
scary situation, in
addition to factors such as the flight taking place at night, low
light situation, lights moving way down below at the small airport;
coupled with the fact that when someone truly believes something is
happening the brain will sometimes play tricks that convince
–especially in a situation with the visual attributes that were
present in addition to every other factor mentioned. The detail of
the flying contraption taking off into the sky was clearly intended
to be a daydream or illusion sequence of what Mike imagined at the
time = that is, truly believing his brother succeeded in his attempt
at flight.
Anyway, to make all that short - like I said before – the visuals
represent what was in Mike's mind at the time.
(again, every visual which corresponds to Mike's story/narration
(same thing) and is
a product of "the mind of the teller" …
If only the movie made more of an attempt to clearly indicate that the
flight sequence was merely Mike's "imagination daydream sequence" ---
Perhaps the likes of Roger Ebert, etc wouldn't have made such ignorant
remarks about the movie – Honestly –I've respected Ebert's reviews
until I saw how he handled Flyer's critique. "The entire movie is
repulsive" etc… Jeez, reading such harsh commentary from him makes me
think the movie touched on some sensitive life experience of Ebert's.
(Who knows) It could just be that he doesn't like kids…or cute ones
anyway. ;-)
(((That's all for my interpretation of the end … if you care to read
what logical steps I believe the movie could have progressed to, read
on, if not, have a good day. =))
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, on to explaining what I think (would have) happened in the
aftermath of the ending: Undoubtedly Bobby crashed to his death beyond
the obscured view of the ramp. Once the Mother and Officer realized
what happened, they were obviously not going to project any more shock
treatment on Mike since he had already been through hell in the
preceding months. What logically and likely would have happened: Mike
most definitely would have been escorted home or to a safe place as to
keep him away from
the tragic details of the search and rescue for Bobby… Considering
what his Mother (Lorraine Brocco) put the children through by taking a
child abusing father back after
he went to jail for beating up 7 year old Bobby. She obviously would
have had tremendous guilt and PERHAPS , which is a BIG perhaps – she
could foresee
that telling Mike the truth *could* cause much more irreparable harm
to him
than not telling. The reason being: He would of course be totally
crushed dealing with the tragic truth which would contradict and crush
his far out ideas of what happened. Most of all, however: the
irreparable harm would come from the guilt Mike would suddenly bare.
He would obviously feel responsible for his brother's death.
(The Older Mike (Tom Hanks) who was telling the story-mentioned that
after a certain Point of witnessing the abuse his little brother was
enduring, that he had to claim total responsibility for Bobby.
In this theoretical proposition, One could easily *imagine* that if
Mike were be subjected
To the truth in this particular circumstance, he COULD endure life
altering and potentially personally endangering harm.
*I* believe that his mother (Mary) who would undoubtedly be going
through her own
dreadful Guilt (after all, she would in a way be indirectly but
positively partly to blame for Bobby's death for not only letting the
convicted child abuser back into her family, but not paying close
enough attention to her children in the first place.
Regardless, it would be very logical to assume that Mary doesn't end
up telling Mike the truth given the provided circumstances. She
supports his safe and happy story --- and I believe eventually, even
goes as far as supporting his beliefs by fabricating the postcards
just so he doesn't give up hope—another good side = they actually give
Mike much happiness and comfort believing his brother is ok.
Anyway, life goes on.
Would he eventually accept the truth if he turned out a man who
believes in real science.
Or…would he be the kind who would go through denial, believing it was
magic throughout the rest of his life?
Ok, I'm obsessed…I'll give up. It was fun giving a true representation
of what the end meant though, I just got bored, went whack, and typed
too much…After all, It's just
A movie ;-)
L8r
-Max Fink
NOSPAMa...@comcast.net
Philo D
Another theory sometimes seen is: There was only one child all along,
but the abuse he received caused (either at the time, or in later
years) him to dissociate, to think of the abused one as a separate
person.
Who knows? Why does the movie have to explain everything to us?
Do you wish for a DVD edition, with commentaries, that clears up all
mysteries?