MovieChat Forums > Nybyggarna (1972) Discussion > Scene with foetus too much? (Spoilers)

Scene with foetus too much? (Spoilers)

posted 17 years ago by nordicwolf_1975
26 replies | jump to latest

*** Beware of Spoilers***

I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking that the scene with the cut out foetus was extremely disturbing and unnecessary.

I suspect that this scene has been cut out of many versions so for those of you that haven't seen it when the indians kill Danjel and his family they cut out the unborn child of one of the girls and hang it up outside the house. While you don't see the actual cutting you do see the almost to term foetus hanging on the door including a close up of the top of its head with flies amassing.

Seeing peaceful Danjel and his family murdered was more than enough to establish the horrors of war on the frontier. This, I think, puts it way over the top and establishes the natives as savage beasts without redeeming qualities. The dialogue up to that point seems to try to explain the desperate situation the natives found themselves in, but that scene pretty much negated all that and when they are mass hanged it evoked feelings of vindication in me, something I doubt was the intention.

Anyway, I'm not even sure anyone reads this message board, but if anyone does I'd be very interested in what you think of that scene.

[–] Neger_Joe 17 years ago

I also find that scene disturbing, but i guess that was the "hard life" . The natives were savages.

"That´s fly,Negro!"

[–] drjukebox 17 years ago

...and the immigrants were trespassers. Who had a right to the land?

The indians were dying. As for cruelty, they were not christians and saw life and death in a very different way.

I think the story tells it rather well. Both immigrants and natives led hard lives. Indians were pushed around or becoming extinct. The Swedes had escaped poverty and famine and were ready to fight for their property.

[–] Neger_Joe 17 years ago

Yes,but the natives still were savages.

"That´s fly,Negro!"

[–] henrik_ulveland 17 years ago

As for the natives being portraied as savages I belive there are several reasons.

First of all the books are written about 60 years ago and I'm affraid the view on native americans were still a bit disturbing back then, not that it's an excuse. But a big part in the book describes the horrible treatment the natives got when europeans arrived. They were pushed away from their territories and becasue of it starved. The attack on the settlers are a direct answer to this treatment and they did it becasue their children were starving, they had to feed them. But I guess the movies doesnt show this very well and instead shows them as savages but I don't think it was the original intention of Jan Troell. Perhaps its because of cut scenes, I know they had to cut alot form the films.

[–] Buff70 12 years ago

Henrick -- read my post on this.

YES, the natives were seen ''as they were''. Reality was told as reality was. No phony political correctness back then. Just plain Truth.

Cant be truthful today, you gotta act and talk ''phony''.

[–] drjukebox 15 years ago

I truely believe that the indians thought of themselves as the people and the intruders as savages.
And for a very good reason, considering the atrocities committed against them.

Consider Mexico - ten years after the Europeans arrived, two thirds of the native population were dead.

[–] henrik_ulveland 17 years ago

Yes, the scene is extremely disturbing but I don't think it's unnecessary in any way. The books are very realistic and becasue of it very tragic and horrible, and the films only continue in that spirit. And by the way, if any non swedes read this and saw the movies, read the books aswell! They are probably the best books ever written by a swede. They are four in total: "Utvandrarna" (The Emigrants), "Invandrarna" (The Imigrants), "Nybyggarna" (The settlers) and "Sista brevet till Sverige" (The last letter to sweden).

[–] Dreldon 16 years ago

Just got back from NEW LAND at LACMA, and the foetus scene is easily one of the most shocking things I've ever seen in a movie- especially with the Fulci-ready corpse juxtaposed against beautiful flowers. Taken in the "wrong" light, it's easily the most anti-Indian image I've also ever seen in a movie, and you don't have much sympathy when 38 of them are hung en masse at the end. I guess it all goes to the brutality of the land and the unseen doom that many of the settlers had coming. I honestly don't know if it should've been in the film, but it does serve some horrifically poetic point I guess. Would be interesting to hear Troell's take on it. In the end, did something like this actually happen? I've heard of atrocities being done to Indians by the whites- but nothing like this being metted out by Indians beyond scalpings and such.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] michuk 15 years ago

I did not find it anti Indian at all. I found it a very objective tale without redundant commentary of the director (which was a good thing).
Remember that the Indians were kept away from food for months by the "white people". So a natural thing was a revenga. Taken upon wrong enemies... oh well, I guess there was no Internet those days so they were not well informed.
Not an anti-Indian film at all.

michuk

--
http://filmaster.com - movie recommendations and blogs

[–] drjukebox 15 years ago

Vilhelm Moberg is perhaps the greatest of Swedish authors, it is only Strindberg who can come close. Main difference is that Moberg is not as internationally well known as Strindberg.

[–] Remnant_Of_The_Abyss 15 years ago

I believe the Director could have remained loyal to the scene portrayed in the book, only I fault him for his approach. He could have shown the horror of the event, but also could have spared the viewer from the disgusting image, displayed in such dramatic fashion.

He could have used a long medium/long shot, or could have even have just shown the feet of the fetus with the bloody spear below it. But to have flies all over this poor child, and to use a close up, I believe it was unnecessary and over the top. I think this sickening piece of directing takes away from movie, and leaves many viewers disgusted just as the movie is about to end.

Unfortunately, this horrific image is the one that will stay with me, overshadowing my recollection of the rest of the film, and therefore it detracts from the rest of this otherwise very fine story.

[–] bosnian_flatdog 14 years ago

I don't think you can argue that the director used the wrong approach or that it was "too much" - it's his vision and this is how he envisioned it. I thought it was perfect how it was shot, very original in every sense of the word. Beautiful yet gritty and realistic!

[–] Remnant_Of_The_Abyss 14 years ago

Quote: bosnian_flatdog
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't think you can argue that the director used the wrong approach or that it was "too much" - it's his vision and this is how he envisioned it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh really? I just did. And I stick with my assessment with the scene being over the top and disgusting, thus alienating a lot of viewers; the very reason, from what I've read, why this film has not been put to DVD.

Oh, and since you have described the scene as "Beautiful yet gritty and realistic!" and also "very original" I've got a movie recommendation for you!

Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975)

In this film, there are naked young women (portrayed as underage) being forced to eat freshly dropped human feces from a carpet. I'm sure this will be up to your standards of "beautiful" and "very original" and you'll enjoy it very much.

ROTA Top Foreign Lang. Films: http://www.imdb.com/list/qQvbXmXhhCU/

[–] bosnian_flatdog 14 years ago

So you think you can label me, huh? What makes you think I'd like a movie like Salo? FYI I've seen it, I found it rather dull and boring. You my friend are a moralist of the worst kind.

Ugly things can be beautiful too. For example, I find grotesque art to be beautiful. Btw, have you seen McCabe and Mrs. Miller? A great example of a gritty film, yet very beautiful and poetic. That's a director, a poet of images.

Now if you can't handle it maybe you should stick to "Waltons" and "Little House" instead...I'm sure they fit your sentiment a little better. Let's get real here, the only reason you are bitching is because it's a scene with a dead fetus. You know it's not a real fetus,right? What about the mass-hanging of the indians? No issues there, huh?

[–] Buff70 12 years ago

Nordic - that macabre scene was quite horrible, and unexpected.

Remember in the beginning, some Indians who came into Karl and Kristina's home, they seemed okay, they looked at the rifle, and put it back on the wall. I was surprised to see such 'civilized' Indians :)

Then, the next time around, with the massacre of the neighboring family the director wanted to show the true side of redskins.

Here's my take on this movie. I believe director/writer Jan Troell wanted to show the world that natives were no saints, the reality of them being uncivilized, ''savage beasts'' goes right up that alley.
Jan Troell (or main author of the story) decided to adopt the "tell it like it is" approach -- and GOOD for him. My thought is, since this movie was made in 1971, back when the phoniness and ridiculousness of being ''politically correct'' was not yet implemented in the American society, truth was told boldly. If this movie was made today, there would definitely be repercussions.

The new land, this new world, the North American continent NEEDED to be developed, cultivated, and populated by civilized Europeans. What would become of this continent if, say, instead of White people, those natives were populating it, aimlessly, savagely, with no culture, no democracy, no law, no civilization. If anything, they should be grateful to White settlers for bringing some sense into their existence.

Oh, but you cant say this out loud -- remember the buzz words: political correctness.

[–] org1andrew 11 years ago

Did it even cross anyone's mind that maybe the 4 natives who slaughtered the family in this film don't represent all "Indians" for all eternity? Indigenous people come from several different tribes/bands, and within each band there will be those who are more violent than others.

Remember earlier in the film when Robert believes he has killed a native in a tree and Karl-Oskar remarks "If you've shot an Indian you've brought misfortune down on all of us."

Well I could imagine the elder chief of the nearby tribe saying the exact same thing to the 4 young natives after they told him what they had done: "If you've killed a white man you've brought misfortune down on all of us." And that's exactly what happens: a mass execution (i.e. mass hanging) of natives.

And to Buff70: your opinion sounds a bit too one-sided. I'm guessing you're somewhat of a film-buff judging by your name and by the fact that you bothered to watch this movie, so I recommend you check out some films by indigenous directors such as Alanis Obomsawin. Her "Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance" is brilliant.

-Andrew

[–] Buff70 11 years ago

OK. Have you studied redskins from Quebec, Canada ?? Les IROQUOIS. The irate ones who savagely murdered French missionaries right around that time. But oh, that's ok right, they are French.

Put your double standards aside, and face reality for what it is.

[–] Buff70 11 years ago

Andrew, thanks, among other genres, I also like historic movies depicting immigration, persecution, and hardships. I am the grand-child of genocide survivors...
I am sorry, I do realize I sounded 'one-sided', my bias was going more towards the hardship of these immigrants, and how difficult it was for them to change their entire lives, and start all over again in a new continent... Anyone who hasn't lived all of that throughout their existence wont know what it all means.

Some Americans never left their ivory tower, so they can only see up to the tip of their nose, nothing more.

I'm going to check that movie you suggested, thanks, I might find it on Netflix or Amazon ...

[–] jakdstew 9 years ago

I think there's this perception today, no doubt due to the PC-culture, that the Native Americans were this peaceful group of people who simply wanted to hunt the buffalo and be left to themselves. The fact is that they were far from peaceful even before the European settlers arrived. They were in nearly constant battle with rival tribes and committed numerous atrocities themselves. When the Europeans arrived, it just simply added another source of violence to the already existing sources.

It's true that they were swindled out of their land and treated inhumanely, but let's not forget or be dishonest about what actually happened.

[–] nietzschicharonsky 8 years ago

yes theyre in constant battle with rival tribes but how about europe? didnt they have wars against other european countries also?

[–] jakdstew1989 (5) 7 years ago

Yes, they did. What's your point? Are you suggesting that we should pretend that many Native American tribes weren't violent by nature just because the Europeans were also violent? I'm not in any way trying to justify what the white settlers did. My only point is that this idea of that natives being peaceful and harmless is nonsense. Generally speaking, of course.

[–] nietzschicharonsky 8 years ago

"those natives were populating it, aimlessly, savagely, with no culture, no democracy, no law, no civilization. If anything, they should be grateful to White settlers for bringing some sense into their existence. "

how about aztez empire? inca civilization?
the book: american indian contributions to the world

[–] AgentSniff 11 years ago

That scene reminded me of Cannibal Holocaust. Added to that the real killings of animals in the film.

It's funny how few people talks about Troell and his violence.

[–] freshy 8 years ago

Oh man, yes I agree. It's easily one of the most disturbing scenes from a movie I've seen along with the Rumanian film 4 months 3 weeks 2 days. I could've done without it. And i find it a bit extremist in portraying the indiands as being so cruel and remorseless. Not cool Jan Troell, not cool.
Whatever other beautiful scenes there may be in this movie, this is all that will come to my mind when I think of The New Land. A bit much indeed.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]