Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) ✦ Full-Length Watchalong Reaction (Patreon)

Published:
2025-03-12 16:30:04
Edited:
2025-05-21 02:38:25
Imported:
2026-08
Tags:

Content

My first Wes Anderson movie! And in honor of Gene Hackman. Thank you so much to Tyler Foster for the Reactr request. [Direct link here.]

I normally don't like spoiling how I feel about a movie, but I do have to admit that this was not totally for me. 😅 But I'm not sure if this means Wes Anderson isn't for me. Anyway, this reaction has a VERY long review.

I'm looking forward to your thoughts! Thanks for watching with me!

✦ KL

Files

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) ✦ Full-Length Watchalong Reaction

Comments

Cabmonk

Lol I hear ya. I don't think he's for everyone. In that pic you're like huh!? 😆

Cabmonk

Definitely lol.

William

Yeah, seconded. Though I’ve generally enjoyed his films, they are very much not for everyone. They certainly aren’t ones that I’ve ever felt compelled to re-watch. Still, he is a pretty creative filmmaker who elicits some brilliant performances.

Cabmonk

Oh I agree and I like his films. I definitely have a very eclectic taste. I watched the 2008 Rambo with my cousin and uncle. After they left the theater I went across and watched Juno.

Tyler Foster

Hmmm. Well, looking forward to finding out more when I get home from work.

Death Lego

YES, totally get ya on this one. When I watched this a bunch of years ago.... And to coin a line from an 80's movie. Specifically the one that is a "humorous treatment of the time space paradox." (Direct line of the TV show Bones.) 🤣 Josh: I don't get it! This wasn't for me either. 😉

Ray H

This movie is hit or miss for people, has been since it came out. I personally love it 😂 and it is definitely not everyone’s cup of tea.

Tyler Foster

Tempted to sync it to the audio of the movie that I have access to right now and listen to it while I'm at work, but it would be the first reaction that I'd paid for that I didn't properly watch!

Joe

I listened to the review and it is unfortunate that you did not like it. I think the question of whether Wes Anderson is just not for you comes down to why you did not like it. Wes Anderson movies are big on visual style, music, and a dry type of humor and storytelling. It seemed from the review like you liked some of those things in Royal Tenenbaums and your issue was a little more focused on this particular story. There is a chance that some of his other movies like Grand Budapest that are less serious would potentially be more for you, however, there is also a good chance that you are just not vibing with Wes Anderson. You also could appreciate it more if you know what you are going to see going in (or be more annoyed by it). I personally am a Wes Anderson fan, but Royal Tenenbaums would be closer to the middle of my rankings of his firms.

Movies with KL

I'm definitely open to watching/reacting to another Wes Anderson that's highly rated and generally well-liked (probably Grand Budapest) and if I still don't love the movie, then I can at least say I watched two and any other Wes Anderson's I ever feel like watching would just be on my own time so as not to continue disappointing people. 😂

Joe

That makes sense. If you said, I did not like the quirky visual style or dry humor, I would say do not even bother. But it might be worth one more shot.

Jeff Marshall

My favorite piece of wild movie trivia for any film comes from Royal Tenenbaums: “The original falcon used to play Mordecai was kidnapped during shooting and held for ransom. Production could not wait for him to be returned. The bird that appears later in the movie has more white feathers because it's a different bird.” The fact Wes Anderson turned lemons into lemonade and added the extra lines in the script about molting white feathers and trauma and tying the symbolism back to Richie’s trauma was smart.

RichieRich

Not every movie is for everyone. It's ok to not like what someone else likes. I like Wes Anderson movies but when someone says they don't, I get it. At least you gave it a try.

Tyler Foster

First off, much like your reaction to Ghostbusters (2016), I would say that this was another reaction where you didn't like the movie, but I couldn't really tell during the film. I was wondering what it would be like all day at work and then watching it, I was pleasantly surprised. I admit that I got the sense that you weren't *in it*, but is that only because I knew?(Which is not a complaint, just an observation!) The three cues the movie gives you that Eli and Margot are together are 1) when she first arrives home and goes into her room, she says "Hello?" until Eli comes out of his hiding place in the closet in his underwear. 2) A much subtler one: they're also together the next day when Eli drives to get drugs with her in the passenger seat. Finally, 3) Royal sees Eli climbing out of Margot's bedroom window and says "I know you, asshole!" It is right after that where he directly confronts Margot about the fact that she's cheating on Raleigh. Although Richie and Margot are seen together a couple of times after they have the scene in the tent, my interpretation is that they really do "leave it at that." They've confessed their feelings for each other and Richie has accepted that they can't be together. I don't think it's supposed to be over the top or anything. Ultimately, I would say that Richie's problem isn't really being in love with Margot when he knows it will never work out, it's burying that feeling inside of himself instead of just confronting it. Elliott Smith, the composer of the song "Needle in the Hay," which plays during the scene of Richie doing something drastic in the bathroom, also had a tragic life, so for those who are fans of Smith, the song probably inspires a headspace closer to that of Richie's. When I write those intro notes, the idea for me is that those descriptions are a vague way to at provide some sort of vague tonal expectations. While I would never want to spoil a movie for a reactor, I definitely think there are scenarios where at least a vague nod in a certain direction is helpful -- for example, you can imagine someone being thrown in a bad way if they thought they were getting a rom-com and they ended up with a brutal horror movie. So while I think it hits most of those notes ("tragic" might've been an oversell), I imagine you'd agree that was what it was going for. In any case, I don't mind that you didn't like it. Of course, if a reaction is for a film I like, I always hope a reactor likes it, whether I paid for it or not, and since this is also work, I also hope that work is as beneficial for you as possible (like being able to use it for YouTube, which in this case, I understand, maybe not). That said, I also think figuring out what movies you don't like is a big part of enjoying movies, so even if you didn't like the movie, that's also valuable, and something you don't always get to see on these channels (for understandable reasons). As for myself, I think I mostly think it's funnier than you did, which goes a long way. I also find the characters entertaining regardless of whether or not I like them, which I understand some people can't do. For me, the emotional moments in the film come in the bittersweet poetry of Baldwin's narration, which I also really like, or moments like "Immediately after making this statement, Royal realized that it was true." I also understand why you seemed to scoff at it, but I definitely like the idea of Royal giving Chas the dog at the end more than you do as well. I was already interested to see a Grand Budapest reaction from you and this makes it even more interesting. The main differences that I think would work in its favor is that it is *much* faster-paced, and I think you'll like more of the characters, plus it will give you even more of the things you liked. And yet...I still don't know for *certain* that you would enjoy it! Which is its own form of excitement!

Nicholas Bielik

Grand Budapest Hotel is my favorite Anderson film, so I will second that one as your next port of call for his films. I’ve been watching his films since I rented Bottle Rocket from my local video store (and that was his only film at the time). Bottle Rocket is made by someone who’s still in the process of discovering who he is as a filmmaker. His second film, Rushmore, is where he blossoms.

Sam

I could tell you weren’t really into it quite early on—I think it was from the moment you realized Richie was in love with Margot. Then I realized that this is quite a big emotional chunk of the story, so it didn’t bode well for the rest of the film. And Wes Anderson’s signature style—deliberately unnatural line delivery and acting—doesn’t help if you’re already put off by the premise and characters. But, to your eternal credit, you stuck with it and were honest in your reaction. Personally, I think this is one of the finest films ever made, and I’m therefore tempted to push back against all of your criticism :) Yet, I won’t because, as we all know, art is—for want of a deeper analysis—subjective. People are rarely argued into liking something they instinctively dislike. So, that being the case, I just wanted to make two observations. Firstly, regarding the “incest” part. I think that people watching this film for the first time either take the “out” offered by Anderson—Margot is adopted and therefore not biologically related to Richie—and forget about it, to a certain degree. Or… they don’t. I had always seen this as an issue within the film itself—one that the characters grapple with, but not something the audience is necessarily meant to judge. The loophole is there, and by virtue of it, the viewer is positioned as an objective observer. But watching along with you, I realized that, for some, the loophole doesn’t work, and the discomfort lingers beyond the film’s own moral framework. From a narrative perspective, personally I see it as a Romeo and Juliet situation—not in the sense of feuding families, but in that there’s no intrinsic reason Richie and Margot shouldn’t be together, only a societal one. The usual biological rationale for the taboo doesn’t apply, as there’s no biological impetus preventing Richie from being attracted to Margot. And so, the audience is encouraged to reserve judgement and be on "their side" and not the side of societal pressure upholding the arbitrary status quo. Secondly, it’s not often that people genuinely surprise me anymore, but your description of Elliott Smith’s Needle in the Hay—easily one of the most depressing songs ever recorded—as ‘cheery-ish’ during the suicide scene nearly knocked me off my chair. :D You definitely have a unique way of seeing the world, and I appreciate that. It's why your reactions are brilliant. Hare Krishna 🙏

Tyler Foster

Personally, I think KL is correct. While they aren't blood related, they still have a sibling relationship. Although my interpretation is that Margot ultimately realizes that the reason she ran away from the family, has a dispassionate marriage to Raleigh, and is then cheating on him with Eli is because does have a subconscious crush on Richie (lots of subtext when she dryly acknowledges that she and Eli "mostly just talked about you. I guess that was the appeal, if you know what I mean"), she also doesn't seem to have actually thought about him that way before he brought it up. If there's a sympathy in there, I think the thing we're supposed to recognize is that it isn't really Richie's fault that he's attracted to Margot or vice versa. Eli seems to be the only friend the kids had due to the way the Tenenbaums live, and it's clear that Richie's interest in Margot started a long time ago, as we can tell by the wall of attempted portraits. As an adult, I think not being blood related is not enough to stop it from being uncomfortable, but Richie has probably been thinking that since he was young, even before the prologue starts (given the wall is already full of paintings), before he really knew what any of his feelings meant. As I said in my other comment below this one, ultimately I think what helps Richie and Margot is that they have both acknowledged their feelings to each other, know that a relationship isn't actually appropriate, which allows both of them to start the process of moving on. I'd say this is clear as early as the scene where Richie goes to see Royal in his elevator operator job. Instead of the crush being a secret he's carried around with him for decades, now he's able to ask someone for advice. Even when he tells Eli at the beginning of the movie, it's just stated, with no question, with Richie potentially planning to keep sailing around the world away from his family just so he can avoid thinking about it. He seems much more level-headed and healthier after he leaves the hospital and talks things over with her.

Tyler Foster

Personally, I really like Bottle Rocket. I'm sure if I were talking to Anderson he could point out all the places where his new movies have been different than he envisioned them, but it is obvious from his curated cinematography and impeccable blocking/framing that he is very specific. I think filmmakers often benefit from at least a little bit of unpredictability, and so I find Bottle Rocket very interesting as a film where Anderson didn't have the precise command of his vision that he does now -- a quality I think unpredictable actors like Bill Murray and Gene Hackman also brought to the table.

Tyler Foster

Totally unrelated to Tenenbaums, but my favorite piece of trivia is for the film American Psycho, which is that director Mary Harron asked Willem Dafoe to play his role as a investigating police officer three different ways: certain Christian Bale's Patrick Bateman was guilty, completely oblivious to the possibility of guilt, and somewhere in between, and then she used parts of all three so that the viewer never clearly gets a bead on what's going on in his head.

Sam

I couldn't disagree more. Your argument rests on the idea that Richie and Margot share a sibling relationship that makes their romantic attraction inappropriate, even though they aren’t biologically related. However, the film deliberately undermines this premise by showing how dysfunctional the Tenenbaum family is—how it was never a traditional sibling dynamic in the first place. While they were raised in the same household, Margot was always treated as an outsider—not only by Royal, who constantly pointed out that she was adopted, but also by the rest of the family. Margot’s emotional distance and lack of integration into the family unit mean that her relationship with Richie isn’t built on the same foundational experiences as typical siblings. The movie does not present them as a “brother and sister” in any meaningful, lived way. Compare this to, say, step-siblings who are raised together from infancy and share parental bonds, traditions, and experiences. In those cases, societal norms exist because their relationship mirrors that of biological siblings. But in The Royal Tenenbaums, there is a clear narrative effort to show that Margot is an exception. If the film wanted us to feel their bond was truly sibling-like, it wouldn’t have leaned so heavily on how othered Margot is. You mention that their relationship is “inappropriate” because they are, in some way, still family. But Anderson presents them not as siblings, but as tragic lovers kept apart by a social construct. This is exactly why I framed it as a Romeo & Juliet situation—there is no fundamental biological or even psychological reason they “shouldn’t” be together, only an arbitrary societal one. This is reinforced in the structure of the film. The love story is presented romantically, with all the hallmarks of a doomed, unfulfilled relationship. The train scene, the secret longing, the forbidden aspect—these are all tropes of star-crossed lovers, not estranged siblings struggling to overcome an inappropriate dynamic. The audience is encouraged to sympathize with them, not recoil in discomfort. If Anderson wanted to emphasize their bond as inappropriate, he could have leaned into Margot feeling unsettled or rejecting Richie’s affection as inherently wrong. But he doesn’t. Nothing about the film suggests that we, as the audience, are supposed to be unsympathetic to Richie and Margot’s situation. We are not meant to react with disgust, especially knowing that Margot is adopted. When she says something like “we’ll just have to be secretly in love,” it seems highly unlikely that Anderson’s intent was for the audience to nod along and think, “Yes, that’s the correct response, you should suppress your emotions.” Your argument assumes that Margot’s realization of her attraction to Richie is framed as an error—that she only comes to terms with it in order to suppress it and “move on.” But the film doesn’t support that reading. Instead, her arc is one of self-acceptance, as is Richie’s. You say she hadn’t really considered Richie in that way before, but her reaction to his confession isn’t one of horror or disgust—it’s resigned longing. There is no indication that she thinks it’s wrong. The problem isn’t the relationship itself; the problem is the world they live in and its expectations and preconceptions. If anything, what helps them move forward is the ability to acknowledge what they feel without shame—which is very different from saying they recognize that their relationship is wrong. If the film wanted to present this love as something to be discarded, there would be more moral weight given to their decision to “move on.” Instead, the takeaway is that they finally understand themselves and can now move forward with that knowledge. If Anderson’s goal was to make the audience question or struggle with their relationship, he wouldn’t have explicitly included the adoption loophole. The fact that Margot is adopted is not just a throwaway line—it’s an intentional narrative device designed to remove the most obvious biological rationale against their romance. The existence of this loophole signals that Anderson wants the audience to root for them rather than judge them. If he wanted their relationship to feel genuinely inappropriate, making them full biological siblings would have been the simplest and most effective choice. That he deliberately avoided this suggests he wanted the audience to view them as tragic lovers, not as a taboo romance. The idea that some relationships are inherently inappropriate is something history has repeatedly challenged and overturned. Margot and Richie’s relationship exists within a world that sees it as wrong because they were simply “raised” together—but history shows us that social taboos are often just social constructs, not ethical absolutes. Take mixed-race relationships as an example. There was a time when they were widely considered inappropriate, immoral, and even illegal in many places. And yet, by today’s standards, those prohibitions seem absurd and cruel. In fact, The Royal Tenenbaums itself features a mixed-race relationship between Royal’s wife and her accountant, and notably, it’s treated as completely normal—except by Royal, who hints at racism. It exists in stark contrast to the film’s central love story—because we, as modern viewers, are no longer conditioned to see it as controversial, whereas Richie and Margot’s relationship still carries a socially ingrained taboo. The same argument can be made about same-sex relationships. For centuries, they were demonized, criminalized, and socially condemned—but over time, those attitudes have shifted dramatically. What was once seen as “inappropriate” is now broadly recognized as a fundamental human right. So when we look at Richie and Margot’s relationship, the question isn’t just “Is this inappropriate?” but “Why do we feel this way, and would we still feel this way if we weren’t conditioned to?” Just like the prohibitions against interracial and same-sex relationships, the societal discomfort with their relationship may ultimately have no real rational basis beyond historical precedent and cultural inertia. Ultimately, your argument hinges on the assumption that societal taboos should hold weight even when the rationale behind them is removed. But if we acknowledge that the only real reason their relationship is seen as inappropriate is social perception, then we have to ask: why should we, the audience, reinforce that perception? Anderson offers a way out—he presents Richie and Margot’s love as real, tragic, and fated. The tragedy isn’t that it’s wrong; it’s that they live in a world where it must be seen that way.

Nathan Jasper

If it helps, I enjoy Wes Anderson and this is my least favorite of his films. Some things work, some things don't, and the humor just doesn't hit like his other later films do. I can 100% for sure say that Wes will be very hit or miss for you as he is for most people out there. Even on a rewatch, I was like...meh.

Tyler Foster

"Compare this to, say, step-siblings who are raised together from infancy and share parental bonds, traditions, and experiences." Margot was adopted at two. For all intents and purposes, Margot and Richie are in fact raised together from infancy. Admittedly, she leaves very early, at 14, but nonetheless, there is no question that in their formative years, during the period in which Richie first develops feelings for her, they are being fully raised as siblings and it is the only context they've ever known. It's true that Margot is othered, but Richie is also her anchor, and the one person in the family she seems to be close to, like when they hide out in the zoo -- a special adventure that only they go on, without Eli and without Chas. When I say "inappropriate," I mean it in a fairly neutral way. You say "react with disgust," but I didn't say that. That was the point of noting that it's not Richie's fault that he ends up connecting to Margot -- I agree that Anderson is not trying to gross the viewer out, and that there should be sympathy for the situation they're both in, but that doesn't mean the viewer is meant to root for them to be together. What I root for is that they find their paths in life again, which is what the viewer should be rooting for with all of the Tenenbaums, Eli, Mr. Sherman, and Pagoda. As for tragic lovers, like Romeo and Juliet, the movie makes it clear that this feeling is only fully apparent to Richie, and not Margot. It's tricky because I think Margot understands on a subconscious level that she doesn't love Eli or Raleigh, and that's in part because she does not have the closeness with them that she does with Richie, but I think it's obvious watching Paltrow's performance with Wilson in the scene where he first tells her about the letter and even moreso in the scene in the tent that she did not know Richie was attracted to her, and as a result, as Richie says, "I think she feels confused." I don't think it's a deep attraction that goes both ways, which is also why she rejects him -- not because she's unsettled, but nonetheless, a rejection that comes from her -- and they instead "leave it at that." No societal pressure is involved: he knows it's unusual, she knows it's unusual, and they both know between each other that it would not work.

Sam

Okay, I’d just like to say that I am not trying to invalidate anyone’s experience of this film. My main contention is that the “adoption loophole” is either accepted by a viewer as justification enough for a touching star-crossed lover’s story, or it isn’t—exactly why that should be the case, I couldn’t say. Hence, this is just a respectful disagreement which is entirely academic. So, to take it point by point, you say that Richie and Margot are fully raised as siblings. But they weren’t. They were raised as adopted siblings. That means 1. they do not have any natural biological impulse to be repelled by the idea of physical attraction to each other, which actual siblings have encoded into their DNA. And 2. they are aware—from the first moments they begin to develop complex awareness of societal norms of familial structures—that they are not biological siblings. This concept is reinforced within the film by the expository narration whereby Royal continuously introduces Margot as his “adopted” daughter—equivalent to being told "this is your sister, but remember, she isn't really your sister". This is not being “fully raised as siblings”. In fact, their relationship development would be unremarkable—two kids grow up together, fancy each other, fall in love—were it not for the purely nominal application of the words “brother” and “sister”—which outside of the semantically loaded concept of adoption, could easily be replaced with “close friend”. In fact, Eli being referred to as part of the family (yet, not really) is illustrative of how social constructs are sometimes impediments to genuine human relationships. Eli wanted to be part of the family, and for all intents and purposes was treated as such. Yet, his relationship with Margot isn’t even entertained as being incestuous. Why not? Had Richie fallen in love with Eli instead of Margot, would this have been different? And if so, why? Eli is like a brother to Richie in the same way as Margot is a sister to him (and Eli), minus the adoption papers. Now, as for who or what we are rooting for, of course this is subjective. However, in terms of what Anderson was aiming at, I think it is clear that the film wants the audience to feel sympathy for Richie and Margot’s situation. Richie doesn’t have a breakdown at the tennis game because he is tortured by ideas of forbidden incestuous love. It’s that the girl he loves has just got married. The audience is supposed to empathize with this angle. Richie asks Royal what he thinks, and Royal—initially nonplused—basically says, “…it’s frowned upon, but what isn’t these days? I don’t know, maybe it works. Why not? What the hell. You love each other. Nobody knows what’s going to happen, so… Do you still consider me your father?” If this isn’t explicit invitation for the viewer to question their prejudice against the relationship, I don’t know what is. I must admit that I don’t fully understand your last point. From my perspective, Richie and Margot are in love with each other and have been for a long while—this explains Margot’s inclination to secrecy, and promiscuity. It is only the societal pressure—they are nominally siblings—determining that they cannot be together. The whole film, in my humble opinion, is a reiteration of this concept. Royal is only a father to the children in terms of biology. He comes to realize that this advantage isn’t enough to actually be a father. Margot, likewise, is only a sister to Richie in name alone. Royale’s desire to reconnect is representative of instinctive pressure. Richie’s forbidden love for Margot is representative of societal pressure.

Tyler Foster

While I agree that this is just a conversation and there is no "right" or "wrong," I also just don't see it the way you do. Some of the things that you see one way (which is subjective, of course) are things that I think are there to support other parts of the movie, not the idea of Richie and Margot's romance. Royal always introducing his daughter as adopted isn't suggesting she wasn't raised that way; it's just another demonstration of him being a bad dad. It goes with him not remembering that they gave her the middle name Helen after his own mother, which is about as clear evidence that she was meant to be considered a full part of the family as any. Given the movie is focused on Royal, there's also not as much time spent on Etheline. Just because Royal reminds Margot of her otherness and she separates herself doesn't mean that Etheline fails to treat her like a daughter, and we are shown that Margot does think of Etheline like her mother when she permits her to come into the same bathroom she refuses to let Raleigh into, and at least tries to quit smoking when Etheline asks. It's fair to say that Richie no doubt treats Margot differently in some way given he has a crush on her, but since she is unaware of that until it is revealed to her by Eli in the movie, we can also assume that he treats her in a way she considers normal, and while there is no evident closeness between Chas and Margot, there doesn't seem to be any bad blood, either. Between Etheline, Richie, Chas, and Royal, at least three out of the four members of the family still treat her like a daughter or a sister -- and there's also no evidence that Royal fails to treat her like his daughter outside of announcing that she is adopted and the fact that he's bad at being a father. Something that may be relevant here: I am adopted. Adopted kids know they are adopted. Royal's blunt introduction is rude because it places a qualifier on "daughter," but it's more like a social faux pas. Not that I'd remember it, but I'm sure as an infant my parents would have conversationally said, "This is our son Tyler. We just adopted him!" and meant nothing by it, it's just information. I was aware that I was adopted, had the process explained to me, given some items that came with me from Korea, and even did a presentation on it in first or second grade. What Royal is doing is rude, but as someone who is adopted, and who has a sister (who was not adopted), I cannot imagine this kind of comment having any impact at all on what I thought of the overall family dynamic. It's like constantly introducing someone who went to the Olympics as "a second place winner" instead of just saying "Olympic athlete" or "silver medalist." It's all in the phrasing. Eli Cash is actually *not* referred to as part of the family by any member of the family themselves. He is described as being a constant presence in the household. That's his whole deal: "I always wanted to be a Tenenbaum." It is true that it is through this distance that Margot feels a connection to him, but that doesn't mean that Margot and Eli are the same. It would be fine for Richie to fall in love with Eli. As I previously stated, there is no question that Anderson wants us to have sympathy for the situation they're in -- it is a product of their dysfunctional upbringing and happenstance, and the things that attract us to other people are not necessarily something we can control or have any conscious awareness of. That said, of course Richie is tormented on the tennis court by the fact that his relationship is incestuous -- otherwise he would simply be with her, and she would be with him. He hasn't admitted it to Margot at that point *because* he knows it is unusual, and because at that point he believes it is only his cross to bear, since she has no idea he's attracted to her. He presumably even fears that revealing this will destroy their relationship, which is why he tells Eli not to tell her, and why he's been sailing around the world isolated on a boat trying to avoid his whole family. Later, in the conversation that Richie has with his father, you conveniently left out two things: in response to Royal's question, Richie says "of course" -- Royal *is* his father, no matter how bad he was at it, which would then follow that Margot is of course his sister, even if she was othered. More importantly, as part of Royal's growth, he also says, "Don't listen to me. I never understood her, myself. I never understood any of us. I wish I knew what to tell you, but I just don’t." As for the last part, I would still say you're missing the notes of Paltrow's performance. There is clear confusion on her face when she's in the car with Eli (who is, unbeknownst to her, getting drugs), and he's just told her about the letter -- she has definitely not considered this possibility before. When she confronts him about it in the cemetery, they both sort of deflect, but when Richie almost dies, you can tell that she is really dealing with that reality for the first time in a serious way in that tent scene. He confesses, she admits she understands it. She makes sure that he is no longer in the place he was before, and after she feels confident that he will be okay, that is when she makes up her own mind to leave the tent and say that it isn't possible. The moment is between those two characters. Society has nothing to do with it. They've confessed their truths and reach a conclusion together.

HugoBoss435

I’ve seen most of Wes Anderson’s films…not a fan of his monotone, understated, emotionless style. I like the vibrant colors he uses but his set pieces come off looking like they’re from a stage play. Will probably skip this reaction though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯