Subtext?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Into the Forest
CtlAltDel — 9 years ago(July 29, 2016 06:10 AM)
Saw the film and enjoyed it but haven't read the book or any interviews. So is this a deconstruction of the Adam and Eve story? Is is only coincidental that she's called Eva? Have they returned to the Garden of Eden at the end of the story? Has anybody read anything about the subtext of this story?
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die. -
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(July 29, 2016 12:04 PM)
I think that's one of the main points of the story, is to strip away all the noise and distractions of modern life to the bare essentials. Two sisters committed to keeping their father's promise to look after each other. Eva seems to be having the hardest time coping with the collapse of society, until the pregnancy and surviving natural child birth gives her new eyes to see the world with. She realizes they have to let go and burn what's left of the rotting house down, rather than hanging around mourning the loss of power. As she says, mankind has been around maybe 200,000 years, and the modern aberration of convenience and abundance we're now living in thanks to fossil fuels and an explosion of technology may wind up being a very short lived anomaly.
It's easy to pick at the particulars of the premise of the film. It barely even hints at a possible cause for the power outage. It's hard to imagine a scenario that would bring down the entire grid, nation wide (possibly world wide), without warning, without there being some encounter with the root cause. Whether that root cause is terrorism, nuclear war, or pandemic, or a massive cyber attack. People would be moving around on horse back and bicycles and even on foot and would get around well enough that they would make some sort of contact and find out what happened. It doesn't make sense that the father has started putting solar panels on the roof, yet he doesn't have an inverter yet, or a battery bank, and is apparently doing this half-ass installation onto a leaky roof he should be re-shingling first
But, the point of the film is to introspect on the pros and cons of living in our increasingly competitive world where our technology is accelerating faster than we can possibly hope to cope with it, and all the ways that it both enriches and extends our lives, yet also stresses us out and blinds us to the core essentials of life. -
scorp-945-748744 — 9 years ago(July 29, 2016 07:03 PM)
I think that's one of the main points of the story, is to strip away all the noise and distractions of modern life to the bare essentials.
Were men part of that distraction? The film seems to have feminist undertones. -
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(July 29, 2016 08:09 PM)
I didn't really pick up a man hatin' vibe from the film. Nell's boyfriend was nice to her. He wasn't dominating. He didn't try to force her to continue on with him to Boston. His only crime was falling for an unlikely rumor (were there strangers passing through town with Boston accents and wearing Red Sox jerseys to provide credible sources of what was happening on the east coast? If sowhy would they have chosen to head west where the power was still out?).
Their dad was nice, and probably less dominating than most fathers would be during a crisis of that magnitude. His main failing was being too lazy to fix the leaky roof, finish the solar installation, and do proper chain saw maintenance
In a dystopian societal collapse, there are bound to be at least a few guys like Stan (the price-gouging store owner and rapist) who exploit the vulnerable while the rule of law is no longer championed by an organized and well armed police force that are only a 911 call away on your smart phone (though in many situations they might not show up fast enough). I don't think that's an indictment on men in general. It's just the reality that men tend to be more aggressive, and that aggression is more likely to run rampant without the rule of law keeping it in check. Though I believe many would continue to let their conscience be their guides, rather than succumb to a total law-of-the-jungle mentality.
Also, Eva and Nell were both more vulnerable to falling prey to a lone rapist at the time that it happened, primarily because of their mental state. As they became more self reliant and strong enough to confront their new reality, they're less likely to let their guard down and not heed those hairs-raising-on-the-back-of-the-neck instincts warning you that you're confronting a sociopath.
After Eva endures anesthesia free natural child birth, she's become tough enough to open her eyes and see that the situation they're in is likely not temporary, and that it's their new reality. It's not the end of the world, so much as a new beginning. It's really the end of the "fugue" state. The fugue state being the bubble of abundance that humanity enjoyed for 140 years, thanks to finite cheap oil, natural gas, and technology. I think the next "Stan" that tries to rape Eva or Nell is going to feel the business end of that ax, or rifle -
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(July 30, 2016 07:29 AM)
Eva was happy to accept her baby boy. In fact, she even remarked that she wanted a boy before the baby was born. She was determined to have the baby, despite the dark nature of the act of conception. She didn't seem to be concerned that the son of a rapist would be inherently evil or sociopathic and grow up to be like his father. I really don't see how one could dismiss the film as some sort of feminist propaganda.
-
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(July 30, 2016 02:31 PM)
Was it somehow Nell's fault that Eli insisted on hoofing it to Boston and probably died along the way? She probably would have been happy had he chosen to turn back with her. Would the two sisters live in that hollowed out stump with a roof and the baby for the rest of their lives to avoid the influence of other males on his upbringing? Seems doubtful. They probably would encounter others, or even seek them out. There's safety in numbers (also more dangers because of the Stans of the world), and more able bodies to share the burden of raising and gathering food and hunting. You and "RapeIsaSoicalConstruct" imaginations are really working overtime to try to read a feminist agenda into the film that's simply not there.
-
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(July 30, 2016 08:25 PM)
With a user name like "RapeIsASocialConstruct", it's not surprising you would hold such a low opinion of two female characters. You base your opinion on what, besides your contempt towards women? We men may be typically more physically powerful than women, but physical strength isn't the only quality that provides a survival advantage. The reason natural child birth for humans bears with it so much agony and a 10% mortality rate in women, is squeezing out that big skull containing that big brain. It's smarts that matter most. And these two young ladies were learning how to cope pretty fast, once they finally accepted that the power might never be coming back on. Eli clung to the false hope that civilization would soon return to its former "glory", and fell prey to an unsubstantiated rumor. His inability to see the big picture, and his lack of critical thinking skills to see through the rumors about the east coast may have been his undoing.
Eva wanted to burn the ruins of the house in order to throw the next would be rapist off their trail and presume them dead. Of course, we have another comment speculating that their motive here is to insulate the child from "male toxicity". Maybe their plan is to keep a low profile living deep enough in the forest to avoid further attacks from amoral scumbags like Stan (and you can hardly blame Eva for being fearful of that considering what happened to her), until they can maybe scope out another group to join that consists of decent folk. Smart tactical decision making and filling their heads from those books on the local fauna, would give them better odds of survival than all those biker dudes running around killing themselves over stale Twinkies until all the junk and canned food is gone. -
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(July 30, 2016 11:07 PM)
Could your anger have anything to do with your complete social ineptitude and inability to get laid? Try relating to a woman as a person, and check your libido for a while, and you'd be amazed at what can happen.
-
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(July 31, 2016 12:01 PM)
You're a little beyond a "non-liberal" person with a user name like that. Rape is only a bad thing in the eye of the beholder? You're saying Stan's raping Eva by force was somehow justified? With "reasoning" like that, what couldn't you justify? Is murder just a "social construct" as well?
-
toocoolmac — 9 years ago(July 31, 2016 08:15 PM)
Many studies show that male circumcision reduces the prevalence of STD's, and has medical merit. Though, some would argue it can lead to reduced sensitivity. Yet, nobody but a troll and an idiot would try to equate a brutally forced sexual act with that of a widely accepted (though not without controversy) medical procedure. Male infants are not able to consent to this procedure, but consent for a great number of other things parents do for and to their children isn't sought after either. We send kids to school, whether they like it or not. Is that rape as well? Because children are compelled against their wills to be educated, would you argue that's akin to rape? If we looked at it that way, we'd end up with a world full of dumb beep like you, wouldn't we?