Sexuality and revisionist claptrap
-
maz89 — 13 years ago(January 30, 2013 01:24 PM)
I don't recall the Aborigine boy having killed more than he could eat. There's a slight possibility that I'm wrong but since I distinctly remember disturbing images of worms consuming the rotting carcasses of animal meat accompanied by images of the tearful Aborigine boy (following the hunting sequence), I don't think I am.
The Aborigine boy ends his life dissatisfied for seemingly different reasons and after going through a much different "process". There's surely his depression over the pointless slaughter of animals he's just witnessed, and then his inability to face "rejection" from the white girl he's attempting to woo. He could have forced his will upon the girl but he didn't. On the other hand, the father lets his depression consume him so much that in his hysterical mindset, he pulls out his gun and shoots mercilessly at his children before committing suicide. Add to that the sinister quality of those early scenes, in which there's an underlying dread and a palpable feeling of incestuous rape.
There are no fundamental alterations in human nature and we are what we are, sure (after all, depression comes in many forms), but the pursuit of wealth (which isn't any cure for existential depression), and our selfish leisure activities that recklessly inflict damage to the natural world (i.e. hunting sequence) have made us lose sight of the natural beauty of our surroundings and have trapped us in our mechanical day-in, day-out routines (perhaps, the kind that fosters such kind of depression in the first place). The movie feels more like a nostalgia-induced contemplation of a more simpler, more innocent life (when depression is about reckless death of animals, and rejection by another we love dearly) when it was just about living and survival (although, admittedly, this might be a rather simplistic picture). That's the way it comes across to me, anyway.
In any case, there's no "preaching" given the way it's all so masterfully rendered and also the fact we're still discussing about what it might mean.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose. -
L0GAN5 — 13 years ago(January 30, 2013 11:12 PM)
It's a complex film by a very complex director (Roeg), so obviously it's open to considerable interpretation; but the best review I've ever read about it was Roger Ebert's in his "Great Movies" series:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19970413/REV IEWS08/401010372/1023
. It certainly made me appreciate the film in a whole new light. -
maz89 — 13 years ago(January 31, 2013 06:58 AM)
Yeah, don't think I've read that particular review before but it was well-written and articulates the film's themes well.
About which culture is "better", I still feel that the film takes a rather clear position (although I don't want to use the word "agenda") in just the way the journey of the trio is captured. However, I should clarify that this does not mean that the supposedly "better" culture is somehow able to stop any of that human depression and despair from rearing its ugly head. There's no magical way of life that could "fix" that. In that sense, yeah, the film doesn't take a position and now I don't know what we were disagreeing about.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.