Unnatural & Accidental Meta (essay)

Mar 20, 2008 19:47

Timelines, Rita, and who the hell is Aunt Shadie? Making sense of Unnatural & Accidental.

Also known as: a big mess of my thoughts jumbled up on the page, adding up to 2800 words.

Spoilery, of course.

In which I go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. )

.genre: essay, film: unnatural & accidental, .genre: meta

Leave a comment

c_regalis March 21 2008, 14:04:07 UTC
I always thought that all of the victims are dead when Rebecca starts her search. Or, at least it was something I just assumed early into the movie. The dated newspaper clippings I guess. Anyway, this wasn't something that bothered me too much.

What did bother me was the ending, like you said: It does seem like it could be read as a very stereotypical, reductionist 'First Nations is First Nations through violence and nature' message. Or, more helpfully and less insulting (♥), an embrace of an active First Nations-ness that pushes back against oppression [...] Yay powerful First Nationsness! But, they're all dead, while the world of the living is shown as a blood-drenched Rebecca and whatever transformation she's undergone since we first met her, an aerial city shot, and Norman's murder and memory getting the press and presumably police attention denied his victims.

Because, honest. What the hell? I wasn't looking for a happy ending here (and, okay, even if I was, I gave up on that after the first ten minutes of film), but this is... what? I don't know. And for some reason I don't think it was meant to be like that.

I saw that Rita was somehow separated from the other victims, I didn't really... notice it though, if that makes sense. Interesting. I totally didn't get that Aunt Shadie thing, huh. And the book with the missing / not missing women... hm. I have to watch it again now, don't I. *mopes*

And okay, one last thing; I guess I would have been more happy with the whole timeline / Rita / whatever thing (though probably not with the ending) if it... *sigh* The way it was shot? The picture of the kids? The fucking tree that suddenly appeared in the garage? In a movie like that you don't want to have stuff that makes you cringe and laugh at the same time. Not if it's, you know, framed by scenes of a sociopath serial killer beating to death one topless victim after another.

But okay, you got me here. I guess I will have to watch it again. /c\

Reply

c_regalis March 21 2008, 14:05:22 UTC
Ooh, and if you maybe have something to say about Norman and Callum-as-Norman after all? I'd love to hear it.

Reply

slidellra March 24 2008, 05:48:13 UTC
Yeah, I think the victims being dead is kind of clear, as much as anything is. But the messed up timeline is one of the confusing things about the movie, so it's fun to try and pin down exactly what the hell is going on when. And failing, because there's always something that's hard/impossible to sort out. Like the little girls (child versions of the victims, yeah?) and the one little girl leading her to the Blue Girl's murder scene. *twitches*

I'm pretty darn literal and have a terribly hard time with how the movie makes gestures at the formula (this is the scene where she discovers a murder scene and figures out what happened), but fails to fulfill the conventions. A horrifying flashback and Carmen Moore making guppy face does not a revelatory scene make!

And yes about the ending. I know it's maybe just a little bit unfair to go looking for some big answer to The State of First Nations-ness in Canada Now and Future in the end of this one film, but it does seem to set up the characters as more then just themselves, and the victims as going to a very idealized, soft-focus place, and I just scratch and scratch my head. Something about life going on and surviving and what victory looks like when it doesn't look like flashy headlines and shiny, capital J Justice. Maybe.

Oh, the stuff what is bad. The trees, the talking pictures. It's so frustrating to me that those elements seem to be so very heartfelt, you know? Like, if you cut the incoherence and the surrealism, you'd have a much more ordinary, formulaic (coherent, less mockable) film, and they didn't make that film for a reason. But, but, but, that stuff sucks! And, yes, I Do Not Want to giggle and sneer at this movie, so it should not tempt me.

But okay, you got me here. I guess I will have to watch it again. /c\

Damn U&A and it's freakishly involving ways.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up