It is rare that subplots alone severely impact the quality of a story, but such is the case in 'The Whale.'
The performances in this film (especially Brendan Fraser) are superb, as is the direction. The fact that they can make an engaging film set in a single location is rare and inspiring.
The main plot focuses on a morbidly obese man named Charlie who is dying (no spoiler yet!), which is well crafted and executed. It would be nice if Charlie explained why he would not seek help (even if it is a lie), but the writer leaves that part up to the audience, which is his prerogative.
Then, we come to the subplots. Here is where things start to go downhill.
All the subplots in this film involve people coming into Charlie's life, constantly knocking on his unlocked door because he cannot leave his house due to his obesity. In the first scene, Charlie is visited by Thomas, a young man who says he is part of the New Life Church. It is never said what denomination New Life Church is (if any), but Thomas carries a Bible that he quotes. Thomas comes across as a typical Bible-thumper, fanatical and holier than thou. He is judgmental and chastises Charlie for being gay. Being a bigoted, judgmental hypocrite is terrible, no matter what religion a person claims to represent, but this trope has been overused: lazy writing with no fresh take. And a white Christian (or Catholic) male always seems to be the evil hypocrite. Why not have someone affiliated with a different religion and race represent this character? Isn't that what real diversity is about? Representing the good and the bad. After all, every religion (or cult) has judgmental fanatics and hypocrites. The answer is simple: it is too risky and not politically correct.
Thomas's subplot gets very thin when it is revealed that he is a former pothead who stole money from the church and ran away from home. His motivation and backstory suddenly become muddled, as it is unclear why he did anything up to this point. Perhaps it is an ill-fated attempt to show his hypocrisy. Again, lazy writing.
Then there is Charlie's daughter, Ellie, one of the most annoying, evil teenagers to be put on film. But, having a heart of gold, Charlie never loses faith in her very well-hidden good nature. I understand she is a hormonal teenager (a bit of cliché) whom her father abandoned, but Ellie is over the top. She nearly kills her father by spiking his food with sleeping pills. She also takes pictures of Thomas smoking pot and secretly records a conversation where he admits he ran away from an old mission in Iowa and stole money from his youth group. (why are these Bible-thumping hypocrites always from middle America? For once, I'd like to see one from a big city like New York-they also exist there, trust me!). Ellie then sends Thomas's confession to his former youth group and family. In a reversal of expectation, his family dismisses the incident and welcomes Thomas home. But it is very unclear why Ellie sent the confession: was it to out Thomas or to save him? Yes, in the end, Ellie shows a little compassion. But it is too little too late. Her sudden change feels forced.
Then there is Liz, the sister of Charlie's deceased partner. This subplot is in a grey area at best. Despite Liz's best intentions, she is not a good nurse. She gives Charlie junk food, and even though she knows he is dying from the very beginning of the film, she does not call a doctor or get more help. If you know someone is eating themselves to death, wouldn't you feel responsible for getting this person professional help even if they do not want it? The same would go for an alcoholic. Liz and Charlie's interactions are not 'protected' like that of a priest in a confession or a lawyer with a client.
Then there is Dan the Pizza Man. Why is this guy in the film? Just to remind the audience one last time that Charlie is fat and repulsive by giving him a judgmental stare before running away?
The best subplot in the film is Charlie's ex-wife.
The performances in this film (especially Brendan Fraser) are superb, as is the direction. The fact that they can make an engaging film set in a single location is rare and inspiring.
The main plot focuses on a morbidly obese man named Charlie who is dying (no spoiler yet!), which is well crafted and executed. It would be nice if Charlie explained why he would not seek help (even if it is a lie), but the writer leaves that part up to the audience, which is his prerogative.
Then, we come to the subplots. Here is where things start to go downhill.
All the subplots in this film involve people coming into Charlie's life, constantly knocking on his unlocked door because he cannot leave his house due to his obesity. In the first scene, Charlie is visited by Thomas, a young man who says he is part of the New Life Church. It is never said what denomination New Life Church is (if any), but Thomas carries a Bible that he quotes. Thomas comes across as a typical Bible-thumper, fanatical and holier than thou. He is judgmental and chastises Charlie for being gay. Being a bigoted, judgmental hypocrite is terrible, no matter what religion a person claims to represent, but this trope has been overused: lazy writing with no fresh take. And a white Christian (or Catholic) male always seems to be the evil hypocrite. Why not have someone affiliated with a different religion and race represent this character? Isn't that what real diversity is about? Representing the good and the bad. After all, every religion (or cult) has judgmental fanatics and hypocrites. The answer is simple: it is too risky and not politically correct.
Thomas's subplot gets very thin when it is revealed that he is a former pothead who stole money from the church and ran away from home. His motivation and backstory suddenly become muddled, as it is unclear why he did anything up to this point. Perhaps it is an ill-fated attempt to show his hypocrisy. Again, lazy writing.
Then there is Charlie's daughter, Ellie, one of the most annoying, evil teenagers to be put on film. But, having a heart of gold, Charlie never loses faith in her very well-hidden good nature. I understand she is a hormonal teenager (a bit of cliché) whom her father abandoned, but Ellie is over the top. She nearly kills her father by spiking his food with sleeping pills. She also takes pictures of Thomas smoking pot and secretly records a conversation where he admits he ran away from an old mission in Iowa and stole money from his youth group. (why are these Bible-thumping hypocrites always from middle America? For once, I'd like to see one from a big city like New York-they also exist there, trust me!). Ellie then sends Thomas's confession to his former youth group and family. In a reversal of expectation, his family dismisses the incident and welcomes Thomas home. But it is very unclear why Ellie sent the confession: was it to out Thomas or to save him? Yes, in the end, Ellie shows a little compassion. But it is too little too late. Her sudden change feels forced.
Then there is Liz, the sister of Charlie's deceased partner. This subplot is in a grey area at best. Despite Liz's best intentions, she is not a good nurse. She gives Charlie junk food, and even though she knows he is dying from the very beginning of the film, she does not call a doctor or get more help. If you know someone is eating themselves to death, wouldn't you feel responsible for getting this person professional help even if they do not want it? The same would go for an alcoholic. Liz and Charlie's interactions are not 'protected' like that of a priest in a confession or a lawyer with a client.
Then there is Dan the Pizza Man. Why is this guy in the film? Just to remind the audience one last time that Charlie is fat and repulsive by giving him a judgmental stare before running away?
The best subplot in the film is Charlie's ex-wife.