About Schmidt (spoilers)

I searched. Found nothing. Felt free to post my own.

Read the following only if you have seen the movie.

I liked it, though it’s probably not going to be one of my all-time favorites. It was a little too predictable. Yeah, that’s it.

Anyway, Nicholson is one of my favorite actors and he does a great job in this movie, comparable to his work in As Good As It Gets.
I feel the need to share so here’s my take on it:

At the beginning, Schmidt is retiring. He has some (well, at least one) life-long friends at the party, but, after a beautiful speech by his friend Ray on the significance of aging and retirement, goes out to the bar to have a drink. He’s starting to question what his life has meant.

The sudden (though, as aforementioned, predictable [for me, at least] ) death of his wife works very well for the movie. He was starting to get used to used to retirement and his life was casual and, what’s more, her death is not actually shocking. It made sense. She was old, so it’s not surprising that she died.

He grieves, but does so more because of a forced change in life than the emotional attachment he had to her. (For him, however, only the emotional aspect is apparent.)

When he goes on the road trip and has a conversation with the wife of the Happy Man, he realizes what he has wanted all his life. She truly understands him. But, after a lifetime of keeping his true feelings pent up, he is impatient and kisses her. She is obviously furious and his chance is lost.

Through his nighttime tribute speech to Helen, he understands that he must forgive people because, in the end, that’s all there really is to life–being a good person for others (since that’s how a person lives after physical death). He calls his friend Ray to forgive him for the affair, but is frustrated by the newness of the world. His trip to the site of his former home also evokes this feeling of isolation and the coldness of the world. Later on, in a talk with his daughter, he finds that he has largely ignored her.

But he is brought into it forcefully by his soon-to-be son-in-law’s mother when she tells him of her sex life and, even more importantly, his daughter’s sex life. Their conversation occuring as a consequence of his trying to back out of the wedding in an effort to prevent his daughter from marrying the “nincompoop.”

In the end, however, it’s his adopted child that saves him. The kid that he was telling all his problems to, sends him a picture. Schmidt had searched everywhere for understanding. He had found it and lost it.

Ndegu gives him a picture. It is a simple picture: crayon-drawn stick figures of Schmidt and Ndegu holding hands in a sunlit world. The picture represents all the kid really knew about him–that he had provided him with the (financial) support that had allowed him to survive. That idea and only that idea is expressed in the picture. Other people know more about Schmidt but their vision is obcured by other things that they know about him. But Schmidt’s cherished secret is what allows him to be at peace with the world in the end. Far off somewhere, a new life was taking shape thanks to him. He will not know what will become of the boy, but he will know that he lives because of him. Ndegu had done what he could; a seemingly small gift but one that changed the meaning of Schmidt’s life for him and thus changed what Schmidt really was. Schmidt has separated his life into the emotional/social part and the financial part (considering the kid a financial endeavor), but the Ndegu’s picture shows him that everything he does has an effect on others and life is different, more simple, more difficult, than he had imagined. A fitting conclusion.
So what did you guys think of it?

I haven’t had a chance to see it yet, but I’m hoping to. I’m from Omaha, where much of the film was shot. Naturally everything I’ve seen about the movie here in the Omaha area has been practically glowing, but I’ve read quite a bit of more “neutral” reviews that have been extremely positive as well.

I planned on seeing it yesterday, but it was my wife’s turn to pick our movie and she really wanted to see Gangs of New York. Ironically, I ended up enjoying that one more than I expected to and she ended up not caring for it.

Anyway… I’ll try to post more when I do get to see Schmidt.

I saw the film Sunday and it was excellent. Nicholson gives a fairly understated performance. Kathy Bates is great and shows that she has a lot of courage for her hot tub scene with Nicholson.

As for the wife’s death, I wouldn’t say that she was particularly old. Nicholson’s character speaks of turning 67 and presumably his wife is around the same age. I don’t know about others here, but I would like to live past 67, especially if I were retired.

Has anyone read the book the film is based on? Apparently, the book is set in New York, not Nebraska.

It’s one of those “quiet” movies you watch more as a character study than anything else. There really is a Woodmen of the World insurance company and I was surprised that they would lend their name with the (somewhat) negative impression of the corporation in the film. Or was that big ol’ office building in Omaha just made up?

The other thing I found puzzling was the box of Milk-Bone dog biscuits on the table when he meets his daughter’s in-laws-to-be. Nobody eats one, no mention it made of it; it was just . . . there.

DD

As I said, I haven’t seen the movie yet so I don’t know what impression of Woodmen comes out in the movie. The building, however, is not made up. The Woodmen Tower building was, until this past year, the tallest skyscraper (using that term a bit loosely, mind you) on the Omaha skyline. Now the First National Bank Tower is a bit taller.

[Mr. Bill] OH NOOOO!!![/Mr. Bill] I visualize hoards of book lovers swooping in, bitching about every little change that was made, griping about what a dick Payne is for daring to mess with the sacred text!!

:wink:

Good movie! Great post sleeping, I think you pretty much have it.

I was a bit disapointed. The movie was shot beautifully, and Nicholson and Bates were fabulous, but the story was full of such blatant feel-good Oscar pandering that I left unsatisfied.

The whole time Schmidt was sitting on top of his RV staring at the sky I was thinking, “Don’t throw in a shooting star don’t throw in a shooting star oh dear GOD if there’s a shooting star I’m going to kill the screenwriter with my bare hands - oh crap there it is.”

LOL

I can sort of see what you mean, but it’s still good.

In fact, a surprising number of movies out right now are good–or, at least, I’d expect them to be (Bowling for Columbine, Frida, Adaptation, The 25th Hour, Punch-Drunk Love [ok so maybe it’s old by now], The Quiet American, Far from Heaven, Talk to Her).

I would definitely plan on seeing most of these.

I liked it quite a lot and I didn’t find it “feel-good” . It would have been that if , for instance, Schmidt had gotten to like his son-in-law by the end. The last scene was perhaps a little sentimental but the movie as a whole was not.

Funniest moment: The son-in-law’s “participation” ribbons put up proudly in his mother’s home.

The first letter to the Tanzanian boy was also highly amusing.

A few of the jokes were too dependent on Nicholson making funny faces, though.

And right you were! I was talking to someone about it today, when some kid barged in and exclaimed how poorly the movie represented the book.

Bastards!

I disagree. The shooting star was not a force for good at all – it led to his final confrontation with his daughter, his confrontation with his life, and his realization that he was a total failure. All that he cared about was his daughter, and he had emotionally abandoned her, as he had abandoned everything else in his life. She had no real feelings toward him at all, other than annoyance. The end, in my view, was not sappy or feel good, but tragic – he was crying not for the realization that he had done at least some good in the world, but for the realiziation that he had done so little. He had given nothing to Ndugu. Ndugu had been an outlet for his feelings of hopelessness, but in the end all that did was underscore what a pathetic failure of a life he had lived. Ndugu’s picture at the end didn’t save Schmidt, it killed him.

As to the movie: well acted, well shot, interesting cinematic choices, but slow and depressing as hell.

Hmm…I understand your point. Yeah, I suppose that could be the other interpretation but I feel both are equally justified.
Looking back at my post, I realize I forgot something that relates to what you just said:
During his nighttime speech, he lays out the statuettes (?) on the top of the van. It is his tribute to Helen. In the morning, he says–through narration–that he knew what he was wanted to do and drives off. The statuettes fall off as the RV is in motion, representing his clean slate (since he finally realized what he’s been doing his whole life). However, this was not a completely sudden change. The growth of this realization can be seen during the scene with the wife of the RV owner and, even earlier, when Schmidt leaves the retirement party to go to the bar to have a drink.