MovieChat Forums > Edge of Darkness (1986) Discussion > Incestuous undertones?

Incestuous undertones?

posted 15 years ago by Frqtflyr
9 replies | jump to latest

There's no question that Edge of Darkness remains both timely and gripping. Yet a disturbing scenario, possibly unintentional, presented itself when I watched it recently. The relationship between father and daughter is portrayed as intimate. Understandable given that the wife/mother was lost early to cancer. And yet... In the car, the two behave almost like lovers. They massage each other, the touches lingering. Not-so-subtle subtext underlies the dialogue about her boyfriend, intimations of jealousy, culminating in his memory of her as a child saying (innocently?), "Why don't I sleep in your bed?" When Craven goes through her possessions, he finds a dildo (or vibrator), and kisses it tenderly; his next discovery is a gun, the ultimate phallic symbol. He then places the gun suggestively between his legs while caressing a teddy bear... Later when he identifies her in the morgue, the voiceover narration states (paraphrased) "I wanted to kiss her but it would embarrass Muncie... So I asked for scissors and cut off a lock of her hair." Again, the act not just of a grieving parent but of a lover.

Yes, you could argue that such bold scenes as the dildo represent Craven's grudging realization of his daughter's burgeoning womanhood vs her supposed innocence (the teddy bear) -- but c'mon, look at the placement of that gun. Considering the script's symbolism, I suspect the suggestiveness wasn't a teaser of sorts. Perhaps it can read as a parallel to the rape of Gaia. Another implicit parallel might be the radioactive clothes (even her hair), relating to a topic society finds toxic.

The concept of incest (or even an Electra complex -- requited, it would seem) doesn't add anything to the plot, or enrich the characters' complexity. Yet the sexual tension is palpable, not least because Peck is such a ruggedly handsome actor, arguably better looking than Whalley (saddled with unflattering curls).

Thoughts?

[–] Kaserynofthegyre 15 years ago

I'm currently rewatching the series as part of bracing myself for the hollywood remake (one can only hope...)and while I see what you mean I honestly don't fully interpret the scenes the same way.

The scene when she was younger, inviting him to sleep with her following her mothers funeral, signposts their emotional dependency on each other.

The dildo kiss is quite shocking but it comes mere hours after she has been gunned down - his kiss represents a desperate desire to reconnect with her, via an object of extreme intimacy. I think they are, for want of a better phrase, emotionally incestuous - she has provided the emotional support he would have had from his wife - he has treated her as an equal - total acceptance of her as a human being. His surprise at finding the gun is not that she has a gun - but that she never told him that she had it. As the series goes on it becomes clearer that she kept her activities from him to protect him rather than because of any lack of trust.

As for the (iconic) shot of Craven laying on his daughters bed cradling her teddy bear to his cheek and holding the gun across his groin, I think this is illustrative of his state of mind rather than his relationship with her. He is a man who has lost everything of value to him. He has two things left - his memory of her and the vengence he intends to wreak - the teddy and the gun respectively.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fortean2 15 years ago

Quite.

The relationship between Craven and Emma is VERY open to interpretation and really is up to the viewer (and what the viewer 'wants' to see).

Personally speaking I think that they were simply very, very close due to the death of the wife/mother - nothing icestuous going on. BUT I can see how it could be interpreted otherwise.

[–] kkarma2 15 years ago

You are good in arguing I must say, I do agree about the other things, but the dildo kiss is undigestable, the dildo infact is. Sometimes i feel that just like in the story plot, GAIA was created and the poeple misled into believing they were saving the environment, i feel this documentary was made to , how you put it.......like to make people "aware" without arousing in them a need to take action.
Making it all seem like a "fictional" drama. talking about stuff that was terrible truths of mass genocide(like Salvador, and other CIA stuff). In the process also trying to do what media does best, through their programs, that is "desensitize" the masses to "taboo stuff" and "immorality".

I think this was an attempt to "desensitize" masses to the dildo, in such a gripping drama, when any father would get shocked, they show that this father is not shocked but actually kisses it(I would say there are no incestuous overtones only trying to convince father and daughters "explore your sexuality" to the father let her explore it)
So I am sure that everyone who saw that(except for the few people who came here and asked about it) everyone else would have just "pretended" it to be a normal act. Many would have watched in front of the family. I think since this was the most watched TV series(Atleast popular I have no statistics about it being most watched) I am sure it had families watching it together, and this would have been a breakthrough moment in history for the DILDO.
Its 1985 my friends you have to remember that(I am also watching it because I could not wait for the movie and thought I would miss something as this is a very long series, I am sure the movie would edit out a lot).
So the way people are acting as if "this all is normal"(I am talking about political stuff in the movie that if you spoke about openly you would be labeled as a conspiracy nutjob theorist) to desensitize people while their heads are all spinning around so much...and they introduce this DILDO thingy which was really unnecessary(if its a piece of fiction, what the *beep* was the author thinking while writing this piece) No matter what you and i try to justify about this character, this is a piece of fiction, a deliberate thought by the author and for me I just see either a sick person in this author or a him trying to play an evil social joke with the viewers mentality.
Think about it...

[–] Thorsten-Krings 15 years ago

I share your impressions 100%. As a father myself I found the vibrator kiss absolutely shocking. Under no circumstances would a father do such a thing unless.... Butr it's also those small gestures in the car and the way she says "I think you should sleep with me" when she was child. Interesting turn of phrase she uses and she almost looks like a seductress in that scene. There actually are verbal hints as well such as when Ross tells him he would be spared a trial and "dirty little secrets" coming out and when they go to the theatre he asks Clemmy what the play is about, she simply replies: Incest. So everyone seems to know it too.

[–] johngalt-1 12 years ago

There's also the scene near the end where Craven is dying and Emma tries to reassure him, saying: "you'll be with me". Not "with Mum and me"? Emma appears to have become a surrogate for Craven's wife, who has been dead for some years. He has not remarried nor is there any sign that he's had a woman in his life other than Emma. Indeed, the plot commences in part not with Emma's death, but with a conversation between Craven and Emma about the fact that she is moving out to live with her boyfriend. Who, of course, proves to be a significant link in the chain of events which follow.

The word "craven" has an archaic meaning of "defeated" or "vanquished". In many respects that describes Bob Peck's character, whose motivation stems almost entirely from events set in motion by others. Including Emma.

The last resort of one who cannot think is to argue that another cannot feel.

[–] nephihaha 12 years ago

Not even undertones.

---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!

[–] Speed-the-plow 11 years ago

After watching that scene, my first reaction was, that can't be a dildo. I almost convinced myself that I was seeing things. Not that we knew much about the character at the time, but it just didn't fit in with his "straight-laced" appearance, nor her apparent "innocence" (she has a somewhat wholesome appearance), and maybe that's the point. I don't know. I mean, he could've kissed anything else, but a freakin' dildo?!?

So, yeah, definitely incestuous undertones.

[–] JacintoCupboard 10 years ago

For heaven's sake, of course the relationship is incestuous. The point of it against the broader story? Damned if I know. But one would need to be in serious denial or plain deaf and blind not to see it.