Quoting Silverhawkins:
"Because it is expected that if a writer poses a question in a piece of fiction, then he intends to propose an answer too. Anybody can ask a question or create a puzzle - it's the resolution of that which holds interest.
Personally I found PAHR unsatisfactory because it presented a fascinating scenario, a perfect set up for an intriguing whodunit, and then it fails to elaborate upon it all. It's the equivalent of me saying:
"A man is walking down the street when he disappears entirely."
People listening will say, "Wow? How? What happened?"
If I then say, "I dunno", they'll all be frustrated at the fact I raised it in the first place. It's a non-story.
That's not to say it's not still a beautiful film, but a lot of people want more than cinematography from a film, they want a compelling story with a beginning, a middle and an end."
End Silverhawkins quote.
That's not a fitting analogy at all, and to say "it fails to elaborate upon [the set up] at all" tells me you either weren't paying attention or failed to comprehend what was really happening. CONSTANT hints are given throughout the film as to what may have happened to the girls. And the story is indeed elaborated upon through several characters and their interactions. One of the girls is even found! How is that not elaborating upon the story? We don't get many answers from her, but we definitely get hints and subtle clues about what may have happened after she's found.
Ultimately, what you seem to have missed is that what happened to the girls wasn't the point. The point was to raise questions, give hints and clues, but leave it up to the viewer to determine what happened. That along the way the film touches on themes of repressed sexuality, class, colonialism, spirituality, and time itself (among other things), is just a really nice bonus.
The film had a beginning (everything leading up to the disappearance), a middle (the search, finding Irma), and an end (Sara's fate, Appleyard's own mysterious death).
As to your analogy, a more fitting one would be:
"A man is walking down the street when he disappears entirely."
People listening will say, "Wow? How? What happened?"
I then say, "I dunno. But he had a watch that had stopped ticking and one of his boots was left laying there. A few days later his glasses appeared, too."
Some may be frustrated by the lack of "closure" in his story, but just as many would be left puzzling over it, intrigued by such mysterious happenings.
Bottom line: leaving the end open is a huge part of what makes Picnic such a powerful film. Had we gotten a concrete answer, it may have satisfied certain viewers, but the film simply wouldn't carry the weight it does today.
reply
share