Hello! OP here, to re-address the...OP.
I hadn't read any of the replies aside from the first few after I posted, now a while ago.
Some of the replies countered my argument by saying that "most crimes" aren't reported. Given that this woman was grievously harmed by a man who has many things to hide, the first action she would have done would have been going to the police. Given that there would have been DNA evidence of the father being in her apartment (and especially leaving a good amount on her VCR) there would be no reason she wouldn't have come forward to the police.
In conjunction, the argument that she died as a result of the father's attack would only lead authorities to question her co-workers, and a criminal investigation unit would have been deployed to find the culprit of her death would have pointed to the father for previously mentioned reasons.
Now, I understand that the movie is an allegory for Greek social and familial dynamics (to an extreme) and that we shouldn't be questioning the internal logic, but the worker that had paid sex with and close intimations with such a strange family still stands as a loose strand. She would have been the closest and most likely individual to alert the authorities.
I am not familiar with the intimacies of contemporary Greek society, but I understood the metaphorical content of the film in relation to its social critique. This was just a plot hole that I couldn't logically resolve, other than that she was such a beaten-down, meek individual that she would never dare to think of going to authorities for her assault for fear of shame and social ostricization. Given her tacit (and legally, conspiratorial) actions to support this severe form of child abuse, she wouldn't approach the authorities. However, it still seems implausible that she would 1) continue to work for the company, or 2) take the VCR to the face in stride, or 3) that other people - both in public and from intimate relationships - wouldn't question her injuries.
The thing is, after that brutal attack, she would have no allegiance to the father or his family and in reality would directly go to the police with her story, hoping at the least for immunity for testimony. It would only take a few calls to have a swat team descend upon the family's compound.
So, there it is: a logical argument of the loose thread in the movie. I know it's just a movie, and it's supposed to be allegorical, but it doesn't sit well in contemplation of an otherwise logic-tight film.
Further thoughts, comments, arguments? Something more substantial than "hahaha your *beep* stupid" would be nice.
reply
share
Ralyyy
12 years ago
First, some reason why she wouldn't do that:
She might still need her job at the factory.
She might be embarrassed.
She might not want to confess her illegal doings to the police. (So what were they doing there? And you didn't say anything? How many times did you go and assist them in this madness?)
These are the cons. What are the pros? Why would she ever go to the police? To get back to him? That seems to be the only reason she might consider it, but probably not worth the trouble she'd be facing.
If you think she'd go to the police in order to help those trapped inside, she never seemed too worried about them while she was getting paid. In my opinion, she was a weak person who would try to forget the whole thing, not really the revengeful type.
reply
share
isotope_217
12 years ago
Thank you, Ralyy, for giving a good reply to my post!
I agree with your assessment, by the way: that she was so complicit in the abusive acts in the family, and was directly benefiting monetarily (as a prostitute) from her involvement, your answer was a clear, concise counter-statement to my initial inquiry.
"What are the pros?" is a good rhetorical base for this discussion. While my own perspective of the situation would lead me directly to involve the law, the situation that leads to her predicament is one that I would never find myself in. Perhaps it's a question of a personal moral code or ethics on the character's part: that she has transgressed so heavily against many social mores for so long, she understands that she would be implicated with the legal ramifications of the family's disturbing setup.
Given that it's established she's an aging single woman who is being paid by her employer to have sex with his son, who - along with two post-adolescent women - are being held captive by their parents and raised in a family dynamic that disallows any personal agency and instead complete, conditioned submission to their authority figures, she would most certainly be considered implicit in these acts of extreme child abuse (not to mention be identified as a prostitute).
To turn the discussion another direction, then: what is it that makes her so desperate or submissive a character? She is an aging single woman, but has gainful employment. Surely she is not in such financial straits that she would be so desperate to be complicit in such acts? If her job didn't pay enough, than she could find other employment long before succumbing to such amoral behaviors? Perhaps it's a question of how little we know about her character. Perhaps she's so amoral as a person that none of what she encountered inside the family bothered her? Yet we see moments of empathy - however fleeting and shallow - between her and the daughters of the family. So is this a fault of character portrayal, or are we not being given the full story?
I find her character fascinating, if only because she is the only one in this film with any sense of "free will", while the rest are so directly involved in the ongoing deception that their perception and actions in the events portrayed are natural behaviors (so to speak).
reply
share
kavonlrak
12 years ago
It isn't a plot hole there are many reasons she wouldn't go to the authorities. I'm curious why you think what the parents did would warrant the invasion of a swat team. Did they actually break any laws (from Christina's perspective anyway)?
reply
share
infinity8
12 years ago
I don't know why Christina does what she does, but she is an immoral character. It is terrible that she persuades a young woman who does not have any clear concept of sex and what it means to give her sexual pleasure in exchange for a cheap headband (and later, movies). The girls in the family are so child-like in their understanding that what Christina does is pretty close to child abuse.
As for why she was willing to sleep with the son for money, that is a bigger question. If the prostitution didn't bother her, the creepy blindfolding and the way the father treated his family should have given her some pause. My guess is that Christina is so cynical doesn't care about her life, other people's pain, or anything else.
reply
share
kdk7
11 years ago
That's making quite a leap, saying that since she had no allegience to the family that she would go directly to the police. I'd say just the opposite is true, going by violent crimes against women in this county, many many of which go unreported. And that's not even taking into consideration the conservative culture that is Greece's. If she did survive, i'd say that it's most likely that she would not report it.
And if she did die from the attack (which is possible i guess, but seems unlikely), if the father was careful, picked her up from a seperate location etc., and the father had never been caught in crime before (no fingerprints on file), it seems unlikely that it would ever lead back to him.
reply
share