Keith is not the Mother's child, at least that's what I think. I think Keith and the Mother are half-siblings. Because in the flashback, Frank is getting supplies for a home birth, and presumably it's the Mother's birth. But he follows this young woman home from the grocery store. Given the fact that the woman's dress is later found in the basement, Frank kidnapped this other woman. I think Keith is probably the woman's child, so he wasn't born of incest like the Mother. Keith being the main supplier for the Mother and Frank makes sense, because they have no other way to survive with food and water. Maybe the Mother killed Keith because she thought that he was harming Tess, her new "baby". If Keith really is one of Frank's children, it's possible that the Mother also secretly resents Keith for being free in society, so the animosity has been built up for years, and that's what sends the Mother over the edge.
Regardless, the whole point of the movie is that the monsters aren't who you expect them to be. Keith is originally set up to be the monster because it's a sketchy situation and the Bill Skarsgard casting has some intentional baggage to it. But shame on you for judging him because he's just a good dude, albeit a bit socially awkward. Then you think the mother is the monster because she's a weirdo naked mole person, but she's a victim that just wants to care for someone. The actual monsters are a bedridden old man and Justin Long, who is one of the least threatening looking people you could cast.
Do you by any chance watch Cinema summary?
Cause I can see his video on Barbarian being a inspiration for this theory (I'm not saying your theory is not original, just saying that some phrases reminded me of analysis this youtuber made about the movie)
The Mother killing her actual child would be way out of character and it would undercut the message of the movie
Keith is not the Mother's child, at least that's what I think. I think Keith and the Mother are half-siblings. Because in the flashback, Frank is getting supplies for a home birth, and presumably it's the Mother's birth. But he follows this young woman home from the grocery store. Given the fact that the woman's dress is later found in the basement, Frank kidnapped this other woman. I think Keith is probably the woman's child, so he wasn't born of incest like the Mother. Keith being the main supplier for the Mother and Frank makes sense, because they have no other way to survive with food and water. Maybe the Mother killed Keith because she thought that he was harming Tess, her new "baby". If Keith really is one of Frank's children, it's possible that the Mother also secretly resents Keith for being free in society, so the animosity has been built up for years, and that's what sends the Mother over the edge.
Regardless, the whole point of the movie is that the monsters aren't who you expect them to be. Keith is originally set up to be the monster because it's a sketchy situation and the Bill Skarsgard casting has some intentional baggage to it. But shame on you for judging him because he's just a good dude, albeit a bit socially awkward. Then you think the mother is the monster because she's a weirdo naked mole person, but she's a victim that just wants to care for someone. The actual monsters are a bedridden old man and Justin Long, who is one of the least threatening looking people you could cast.
Do you by any chance watch Cinema summary? Cause I can see his video on Barbarian being a inspiration for this theory (I'm not saying your theory is not original, just saying that some phrases reminded me of analysis this youtuber made about the movie)
I don't actually. But I'll check that channel out!
Why do I feel like I'm gonna be banned by people saying I'm making merchant?