LARGO, MA. VIDIA B.

QUIZ # 1
21 OCTOBER 2023

In The Rain Man Movie, a large majority of the film pertains to Charlie wanting to get
the three million dollars estate inheritance from Ray issued by their deceased father
after his death. Ray was sent to a mental institution at a young age and has been
there ever since. The main question is why did Ray receive the inheritance instead of
Charlie or divided to both of them? I can understand the argument of since Ray was
placed in an institution for most of his life and his father giving him the three million
dollars estate maybe is his father’s way of making up for sending Ray to the mental
institution and stayed there for all these years. Another question is, if his father
knows that Ray's mentally retarded, then why did he give him the responsibility of
such a large estate worth three million dollars? Or even if it was cold cash, what
could Ray do with it if he's inside the mental institution and with limited mental
capacity?

So, ultimately, was their father's issuance of the estate to Ray instead of Charlie a
gesture of apology to Ray or more of an intentional insult to Charlie? It could be
argued that, if his father really was sorry for placing Ray in the mental institution then
he could have issued the inheritance to Charlie instead but with the stipulation on the
will that some of that money be applied to taking care of Ray, example getting a
decent house for him and hiring a caretaker for him. If this is the situation then Ray
and Charlie would still have the chance to get to know each other, and not too much
of the story would change and both brothers would perhaps loosely speaking equally
benefit.

To explain if further, I will state a summary of the story. Angry that he has been cut
out of his share of the inheritance, Charlie takes Ray out of the mental home and
promised to bring him to live in California with him. Charlie Babbitt played by Tom
Cruise is faced with in Rain Man. His brother, Ray played by Dustin Hoffman, is
autistic but he can carry on conversations, stick to a schedule, compile baseball
statistics, memorize dinner menus and become disturbed when there is a change to
his routine. Ray can also count in seconds two hundred forty six spilled toothpicks,
adds incredibly large numbers in an instant and calculate square roots in a flash.
There is a moment in the movie that crystalizes all the frustrations that Charlie feels
about Ray. There was a moment when he cries out, "I know there has to be
somebody inside there!" But who is that? And where is it? The movie is so thrilling
since it refuses to answer those questions with sentimental but unrealistic answers.
The movie tells so well about Ray's limitations because it is a movie about limitations
and also Charlie's own limited ability to love those in his life or to see things from
their point of view. As the film starts, I see Charlie frantically trying to juggle his way
out of a crisis in his Los Angeles business, which seems to consist of selling
expensive imported automobiles out of his own money. Charlie is unhappy and
workaholic. One day Charlie receives a news that his father had died. He had no
contact for years with his father. At the reading of the will by the family lawyer, he
learned that he has received only a Buick Roadmaster car and that his father's three
million dollars fortune has gone into a trust. Since he wants a fair division of the
inheritance, he investigated and he discovered with a shock that it goes to support
an older brother he never knew he had. Ray, his autistic older brother has been
institutionalized for many years. Visiting Ray at the home where he lives, Charlie
finds a methodical, mechanical, flat-voiced middle-age man who knows things, such
as that tapioca pudding must be on the menu and that his favorite TV show must be
watched daily by him. Rain Man follows this discovery with a story line that is as old
as the hills. Since Charlie is very angry because his inheritance was cut off, he took
Ray out of the mental home without permission and wanted to bring him to live in
California with him. However, Ray did not want to fly. He even recited the dates and
fatalities of every airline's recent crash. So Charlie drove and puts Ray in the front
seat of the car. Charlie and Ray meet actual Americans on the road and have
strange adventures. Everything had changed in the movie except for Ray. In a
roadside diner Ray still stubbornly insists on the routines of the dining room in his
mental institution. The maple syrup is supposed to be on the table before the
pancakes come and he used toothpicks instead of fork. Charlie at first does not quite
seem to accept the dimensions of Ray's world and grows frustrated at what looks like
almost rebellion. Toward the end of the journey, Charlie finds that he loves his
brother Ray and that love involves accepting him exactly as he is. The Rain Man
movie is a project that Hoffman and Tom Cruise have been determined to bring to
the screen for a long time. The problem, of course, was Ray. If fiction is about
change, then how can you make a movie about a man who cannot change his
routine. A man whose whole life is anchored and defended by routine?

At the end of the movie I felt a certain love for Ray. I don't know quite how Hoffman
got me to do it. He does not play tall, dark and handsome, lovable or pathetic. Ray is
as a matter-of-fact, unmoved and uncomprehending in all of his scenes except when
his routine is disrupted and when he grows disturbed until it is restored. And yet I
could believe that the Charlie character was beginning to love him. I loved him for
what he was, not for what he was not. The changes in the movie all belong to
Charlie, who begins the film as a narcissist materialist. By the end of the film Charlie
has learned how to pay attention, how to listen and how to have a little patience most
the time. He does not undergo a spiritual transformation, he simply gets in touch with
things that are more important than any material. He is aided in this process by his
girlfriend, Susanna played by Valeria Golino, who loves him but despairs of ever
getting him off autopilot. By the end of the movie, what have we learned? I think the
film is about acceptance. Charlie’s first appearance in the movie has him wheeling
and dealing with problems in life, trying to control his it and the lives of others by
blind and arrogant willpower. What Ray teaches him is that he can relax since
whatever he does with all his might, he will always be powerless over other people.
People will do just about what they choose to do, no matter how loud Charlie’s
screams. Ray has a lot he can teach Charlie about acceptance, even if it is the
solitary thing he knows. In the end, money became unimportant to Charlie, what is
more important to him is his relationship with his brother.

Article 854 provides that preterition of one, some or all of the compulsory
heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born
after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of the statute we are called
upon to apply in Article 854 of the Civil Code which provides that the preterition or
omission of one, some or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living
at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator shall
annul the institution of heir but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they
are not inofficious. Except for inconsequential variation in terms, the foregoing is a
reproduction of Article 814 of the Civil Code of Spain of 1889, which is similarly
copied. Article 814 states that the preterition of one or all of the forced heirs in the
direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the
death of the testator, shall void the institution of heir; but the legacies and
betterments4 shall be valid, in so far as they are not inofficious.

The deceased Father of Charlie and Ray left only the latter as the descendant. But
he left forced heir his another son Charlie in the direct ascending line. And the will
completely omits Charlie. He thus received nothing by the testament, he was
deprived of his legitime neither was he expressly disinherited. This is a clear case of
preterition. Such preterition in the words of Manresa refers to the mandate of Article
814, now 854 of the Civil Code. The sentence institutes Ray as the sole, universal
heir — nothing more. No specific legacies or bequests are provided for. It is in this
posture that the honorable court can say that the nullity is complete.