Like many it seems, I was initially thrown that this story didn't lead to some kind of operatic and/or emotionally explosive conclusion, since it feels like it's going in that direction (think E.T. or Coppola's Tetro, the latter of which has a similar aesthetic to some of Wonderstruck) but in hindsight I admire the understated, ambiguous, and quietly soaring way this finishes. And watching Haynes go back to his Superstar roots in the utilization of dolls and miniatures in the third act was a fan's delight!

But there's one thing about this story that I'm still trying to wrap my head around and I'm curious to read other thoughts about this: the motivation of Ben's parents, and in particular his mother Elaine after Ben's father died. It's never explained (or I didn't catch on if it was) exactly why Elaine wanted to keep Ben's parentage in the dark, going as far as to ensure that he would never have knowledge of or contact with grandmother Rose. One of the doll scenes has Rose meeting Elaine and a very young Ben at the museum, and Rose didn't know at the time who they were, but by the time Rose meets Ben she seems to know exactly who he is. But why was Ben kept from Rose? Why didn't Elaine at least have private contact with Rose? What we learn about Ben's father makes him seem like a good man, and Rose both young and old is just about the sweetest character in all of Haynes, so it doesn't seem like Elaine was running away from (and/or protecting Ben from) something negative. Or did I miss something? Does the book address this a bit more?

Right now I'm reading it like this: for whatever reason Ben's parents made choices that kept him and grandmother Rose apart, but Ben and Rose have a cosmic connection as well as a familial one and are destined to be there for one another, and by the end they're together as grandson and grandmother... but there will always be some mystery as to why Ben's parents kept things in the dark. That is, again, unless I missed something. I would definitely be curious to read some thoughts about this.

Again, I loved this film, but I'm still wrapping my head around this rather mysterious part of the finale.

This may sound strange, but with my childhood friends raised by one parent, I generally didn't know what happened with the "other" parent. Maybe it was the culture I grew up in - the Midwest certainly feels more private and less open about things than NYC - but if they didn't bring it up, I didn't pry.

So in thinking why she would do that, putting myself in that character's place, it might've felt too painful and in a lot of ways too complicated and overwhelming. The kid may have been too young to understand at the time, so she decided to put it off, but with time, the stress of letting him know probably becomes greater - it becomes tougher to do because it's a hell of a thing to lay on a kid. So the easy thing to do (and not necessarily inappropriate) would be to wait until the child reaches some maturity, and when he's able to process it better, break it to him that his father's dead. I'm not sure there's a right answer to how to deal with this situation because every child and family is different. Not knowing his grandparents would've come out of this pretty easily if she chose to keep him in the dark. I personally would've preferred to bring them into his life, but I think I know quite a few people who have that distance between grandchildren and grandparents for various reasons.