As I read the other comments, I am surprised that I had a completely different feel about and interpretation of this film. As I see it, the entire part of the movie in which winged Ricky is portrayed only happens in the mind of the mother. A frustrated and desperate re-invention of how her life could be.
If you will bear with me, I will try to explain this and offer some distinct scenes and pointers in the movie that corroborate this interpretation.
In the first scene the mother is seen speaking with a social welfare counselor. She states that her partner has left her for a week and that she is desperate and willing to give up her child to foster-care. In the remainder of the film, when she is raising Ricky, she was at it as a single mum, for at least a couple of months and doing so happily. Why would she throw that all out after one week of being alone and after losing a previous child. Which she handled with grace.
Secondly, at the start of the second scene, it is clear that the rest of the movie is a flashback of the first scene. This is made clear by the text on the screen that says "A few months earlier" when the second scene starts. However the time-lines of the remainder of the movie cover much more. It starts at the conception of Ricky, the birth of Ricky (+9 months), Ricky growing, flying, and eventually walking (+ 12 months), the mother pregnant again and giving birth to another kid (+9 months). That spans at least two and a half years.
If however it is only Ricky that is born, and the mother that has a nervous and financial breakdown, while imagining how life could be if some fantastical thing would have happened, then the time-line make much more sense.
The fantasy of a flying baby and consequently the staying together of the family is her way of escaping the harsh reality. This also explain her lack of surprise and her readily accepting her loss.
A winged infant that flies away and still survives and is nourished in the wild, is symbolic for the outside world, and her desire, out of desperation to give up her child to foster-care and seeing it prosper.
The feel and the rhythm of the film are very much in tune with this interpretation.
But then again, I could be totally wrong. ;)
If you will bear with me, I will try to explain this and offer some distinct scenes and pointers in the movie that corroborate this interpretation.
In the first scene the mother is seen speaking with a social welfare counselor. She states that her partner has left her for a week and that she is desperate and willing to give up her child to foster-care. In the remainder of the film, when she is raising Ricky, she was at it as a single mum, for at least a couple of months and doing so happily. Why would she throw that all out after one week of being alone and after losing a previous child. Which she handled with grace.
Secondly, at the start of the second scene, it is clear that the rest of the movie is a flashback of the first scene. This is made clear by the text on the screen that says "A few months earlier" when the second scene starts. However the time-lines of the remainder of the movie cover much more. It starts at the conception of Ricky, the birth of Ricky (+9 months), Ricky growing, flying, and eventually walking (+ 12 months), the mother pregnant again and giving birth to another kid (+9 months). That spans at least two and a half years.
If however it is only Ricky that is born, and the mother that has a nervous and financial breakdown, while imagining how life could be if some fantastical thing would have happened, then the time-line make much more sense.
The fantasy of a flying baby and consequently the staying together of the family is her way of escaping the harsh reality. This also explain her lack of surprise and her readily accepting her loss.
A winged infant that flies away and still survives and is nourished in the wild, is symbolic for the outside world, and her desire, out of desperation to give up her child to foster-care and seeing it prosper.
The feel and the rhythm of the film are very much in tune with this interpretation.
But then again, I could be totally wrong. ;)