When Sethe returned home to find Beloved asleep in her yard, she had to pee all of a sudden. I probably wouldn't have thought twice about the scene but it was clear that she had such an urgent need to relieve herself that she couldn't even hold it long enough to make it to the outhouse. This seemed odd to me. Does the book maybe offer any information on why? I already know that she didn't recognize her, that was clear.
shareyeah i was a little puzzled by that as well.
shareThat part was totally unnecessary. The whole movie had parts like that. Such as the rape of poor poor Danny Glover. It didn't tie itself together well at all.
shareactually that part was not completely unneccessary.
i recommend you read the book. it might help you understand all the little parts like that, because you will see all of the symbolism and how pieces connect.
I recommend you not read the book. It's honestly one of the worst books I have ever read. There are multiple uses "shock" imagery throughout the text that serve no real purpose to the story.
shareI can't believe anyone would ever recommend not reading any book. That's ridiculous. The book is ALWAYS better.
The movie could just confuse people (obviously). Reading the book really helps make sense of it all. Unless of course they don't understand deep books with symbolism, then it doesn't matter anyway.
“One can never read too little of bad, or too much of good books: bad books are intellectual poison; they destroy the mind.
In order to read what is good one must make it a condition never to read what is bad; for life is short, and both time and strength limited.”
definitely disagree. though it relates more to game design, I'm more in the boat of "you learn more from the turkeys than the hits". being a good artist requires an understanding of both the good and bad parts of the art.
==================
astrolupine: even with makeup, you can't make an actor's face look like a chair
I understood it to be symbolic of the "breaking of water" that occurs at birth--whomever Beloved may be in actuality, Sethe comes to see her as the grown version of her murdered baby. It's also obvious, however, that this "return" of the dead child can only end in destruction.
sharethats a very interesting interpretation. i didnt see it that way (breaking of the water)
sharethe exact reason why she urinated in the yard was the breaking of the water that and the rape of Paul D are both very necessary scenes.
share[deleted]
Yes, Beloved seduces Danny Glover's character in the water house.
shareThis part is in the book as well along with many other uses of the image of water. This part in particular alludes to Sethe breaking her water just like in labor. I haven't read the book in a while and right now i'm watching the movie for the first time but in the book Beloved has a fascination/obsession with water and at this point in the book they describe beloved as being smooth and like new--- like a baby...
I thought it was quite cleverly written
RIP Heath Ledger (1979-2008)
and i wonder if you know what it means
Yeah, the book really does dive into the "breaking-of water" with Sethe, along with the "milk" deal with Sethe. Read the book, you'll have a better understanding of it after watching the movie. And vice-versa.
Hate is baggage. Life's to short to be pissed off all the time.
also, in the book you learn that something the mothers did back then was take some urine and dab it on the newborn baby's eyes. it helped them open them, or something to that effect.
so it probably connects to that symbolically.
As soon as she sees beloved she urinates symbolizing birth as a mother's water breaks before delivery. You have to read the book to pick up on things like that, that is why the movie wasn't that great.
share
I'm sorry, but the idea that a grown woman peeing in her yard to symbolize birth is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time. That's just another reason this movie is awful.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it stupid, nor does it qualify as a reason to criticize the film.
This time, Effie White's gonna win.
Whitney was wrong. Children are no longer the future.
It's explicity stated in Toni Morrisson's novel that that's what it meant. You're taking issue with the esteemed author here, not with the film.
shareAlthough I LOVED the book and liked the movie, you Scannon977 are completely right -- some lyrical scenes don't translate well to film and should be left out of the book-to-screen adaptation. If the producers would have run this movie past a test audience of individuals who had NOT read the book -- or if they did, really listen to the responses -- then they would have seen the flaws in time to re-edit the movie before its release. Someone should have told the director that the audience hadn't read the script or the book. It is such a shame, as this should have been a great movie, and had the potential to be a great movie.
shareThis reminds me of something I heard Oprah say in one of her shows about being shy to urinate in a public restroom because she didn't want anyone to hear her pee. Wow, what a turnaround, huh? (Probably stunt pee, right?)
http://nocirc.org/
http://nospank.net/
Fight the "everyday atrocities"!
If for no other reason, the fact that this movie can inspire a topic with the subject "When Sethe urinated in the yard...," makes me glad that Beloved exists.
shareI thought the scene was disgusting and completely unnecessary. It never crossed my mind that it was supposed to symbolize breaking the water at birth - I find the idea very silly. Maybe it was cleverly written in the book, but it definitely did not translate so on the screen. Anyway, I find it funny how people tend to attribute a "deep significance" to (more or less) bizarre gestures.
shareI'm reading the book right now and this scene makes more sense, just because of the way its written. She never says she has to go pee, she uses the words 'breaking water' - all this water suddenly coming out like she is in labour, not quite like urinating at all (she doesn't use that word in the book- the 2 or 3 times its mentoned its always 'breaking water' or just 'water')
So she runs to the toilet but doesnt make it, and thinks (paraphrasing slightly here) 'wow, that was really weird, like my waters broke because Im pregnant, when obviously Im not'
And in the book, it works. In the film, it DOES NOT WORK. It just looks fake and odd and like she needs to go pee because she has an infection or something, and takes away from the emotion of the moment.
Because I read the book I knew about that part, and so when I saw the film, I thought, oh no they aren't going to include it are they? Because I had a feeling it wouldnt translate well. And its a shame because the look on Sethes face when she sees Beloved for the first time- I thought that was bloody good acting by Oprah, it was enough for me,just the facial expression, then suddenly she runs off to pee- that ruined it a bit for me.
I cant help but compare it to The Colour Purple, (the two films do have a lot in common, I suppose)it seems as though Beloved the film wanted to be a copy of Beloved the book, word for word and include every tiny detail, whereas The Colour Purple was well edited. A few word changes, a tweak here and there, miss a few things out but overall, didnt destroy the storyline whatsoever. When they missed bits out they made up for it by allowing the actors to express and say so much with just one look. It was subtle, and I felt sometimes with Beloved I was being whacked in the face with a shovel.
"Anyway, I find it funny how people tend to attribute a "deep significance" to (more or less) bizarre gestures."
Huh? Whose attributing anything? That's how it was written in the original novel. In fact, most of the "bizarre gestures" you refer to stem from it. If you referring to Toni Morrison, that's simply how she chose to create the story. Personally, I thought it was pretty ingenious. And one's perception of what's "deep" or "deeply significant" is quite relative.
And I agree with you, soozy. Although I understand the significance of that scene, it wasn't completely necessary to include in the film. The other clues to Beloved's identity could have stayed in the film, and it wouldn't have made a difference. And also, I agree about the film's interpretation of Beloved. I felt she was more of a elusive and mysterious character in the novel, and in the film she was made into more of a frenzied, hysterical nightmare.
This time, Effie White's gonna win.
Whitney was wrong. Children are no longer the future.
Another way to look at the scene (both the movie and book versions) is to realize the symbolism in the form Beloved takes as a fully clothed woman walking from the water. Her character is so associated with water because Morrison was evoking the Orisa deity Yemaya, a West African deity with ties to the ocean and water. She's very famous in Haiti, and other Caribbean cultures; Morrison uses African Cosmology with the Orisa and other African American traditions as a basis for much of her work. In fact, what makes Morrison so interesting to read really is her use of both western traditions (like the bible) and African Cosmology to complicate her work.
shareIt's the exact same position she took when she was about to give birth, perhaps seeing Beloved brought back that feeling of urgency when she was about to escape but gave birth instead...
like being trapped in hell twice.
I'm just reading the book now but I first saw the movie back when it was released and had no idea what was going on.
There's no ambiguity about the scene in the novel (people aren't just reaching for an interpretation). The novel flat out states that she feels like she did when her water broke the last time.
It's a shame the film couldn't translate this clearly to the screen (or just eliminate it); but it works very well in the book.
I wrote my post in 2011, and randomly thought of this movie while running yesterday. Its interesting you replied shortly after :)
I'm just reading the book now but I first saw the movie back when it was released and had no idea what was going on.
There's no ambiguity about the scene in the novel (people aren't just reaching for an interpretation). The novel flat out states that she feels like she did when her water broke the last time.
It's a shame the film couldn't translate this clearly to the screen (or just eliminate it); but it works very well in the book.
That said, the movie would have been better if anyone other than Oprah played the lead.
share