Why not just have the plot be Martin poisoned the son? Ruined it for me once it took that cosmic turn. Felt totally unnecessary. These films are always trying to be original and just end up being eye roll stupid. Why couldn’t Martin just be a psychological wreck seeking to exact some justice in his own twisted way?
shareLots of reasons...
First, it's sort of the writer/director's thing. The Lobster, for instance, is bizarre like this. I think the genre is called "magic real". It has elements of the supernatural accepted in a mundane manner and placed into an otherwise "real" world.
It's use allows for the exploration of themes and symbolism without hampering the movie with needing to find all kinds of realistic explanation. I'm thinking a lot about the "sacred" part in the title. This is a world of mythology and sacrifice, so a curse works within the world it creates.
The movie needs Steve to reconcile a lack of control that he otherwise has. It needs him to bleed for mistakes he has made and buried and refuses to own up to. Poison doesn't do that. When Martin introduces the curse, it's almost reluctant, like he has no control over it; it's the furies coming down with wrath on a mortal. It's Zeus gunning for Cronos. It has to happen. It's fate (or Fate).
Then there's just the practicality of it. If it were poison, it shunts the film in a different direction. We need to know what kind of poison. We need a reason why Martin can't just keep his kids in the house, lock the doors, and kill Martin. Martin's a child. Poisons are traceable. These are doctors. He'd get the police involved. Whole scenes would be devoted to a manhunt, or to Martin evading the cops with clever, tricky, sneaky questioning. It becomes a Michael Douglas thriller. It's Cape Fear. It's not this film.
Given the themes and what the movie wanted to accomplish, I think the supernatural element worked.
Fair enough. Just not my cup of tea.
shareThat's fair enough, as well; I can certainly understand that with the odd acting style and the strange world of "reality plus curses", it's definitely not for everybody.
I liked it less than the other films he's made (that I've seen): The Lobster and The Favourite. So, I understand where it might be off-putting.
I found the odd acting and wooden nature of the characters fine. Different is OK. When it starts getting into the otherworldly stuff is where they lose me. And I don’t mind sci-fi or anything like that. I just felt a movie such as this would’ve been more enjoyable to not go that direction. But that’s just me. I def will not watch the Lobster.
shareAvoid the Lobster. You might like The Favourite, which has some strangeness, but nothing supernatural or otherworldly.
shareI think this would be better if you understood that this was an allegory based on a Greek myth, much like the movie "Triangle". I loved that film, and yet it has some supernatural and unexplained phenomena due to the main character not taking responsibility and repenting for their actions.
shareDefinitely agree with the practicality angle in addition to the cosmic comeuppance angle. As the movie progressed, I was wondering what the point of it was, and then I realized, it really does simplify the film and allows us to engage directly with the emotions and plot points needed.
It's never occurred to me that there is functionality in invoking supernatural and/or unexplainable causes in a story. I usually find it lazy or simply unimportant depending on the story.
Yeah, any plot angle will work. Magic can be laziness, but it can also just be a great mechanism for the story, and in a smart writer's hands, every element of the screenplay needs to be practical. They have two hours (ish) to tell a story; they don't have time to be frivolous. (Of course, I'd argue no story has time for meandering digressions; everything has to contribute to the work at least a little).
shareI feel like, I have a tendency to overexplain in real life. This probably impacts my forays into fiction as well lol. Good to keep in mind that it can be effective to avoid this.
shareIt can be effective if it serves the story, yes. It's all just tools in the toolbox. If you have a nail, grab a hammer. No need to get the lathe involved. So if you're writing moviechat message board posts or fiction, use anything that best suits what you're trying to say.
shareYour explanation really clarified alot for me. I enjoyed it more than the actual film.
shareThanks! I appreciate your saying so. Too bad about the movie, though... I get why it's not everybody's cup o' tea.
sharewow your original post was 4 years ago so I was surprised you saw my reply and responded. The internet can make the world a bit smaller sometimes.
shareIf used correctly, it brings us all together. If used poorly, as it is all too often, it brings us all within punching distance.
I try to reply to people who have taken the time to write to me, even if it is an old thread. All conversations are ongoing. Time has no meaning here...
Gettin' way too philosophical about this...
I don't know.
shareThe movie doesn't work if it doesn't go "supernatural". You want a movie about a kid poisoning a family? That could be ok but that's not what this movie is. This movie is odd, uncertain, mysterious, and frightening. It's fucking beautiful.
share