Failed to deliver on the backstory (spoilers) - Seraphim Falls (2007) Discussion

[–] picap 18 years ago

SPOILERS

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think they should have shown even less of the back story -- it was more compelling in flashbacks and I thought the recreation was a bit clumsily directed. But not because it showed that Gideon wasn't evil or dastardly. I don't think it's necessary for Gideon to be evil or to have even done anything wrong in order to have Carver want vengence. In fact making him evil or dastardly would be to make simplistically black and white what's compellingly gray.

Regardless of Gideon's intentions the outcome was that Carver's family was burned alive in front of his eyes and by men who were under Gideon's orders and control or should have been. That Carver would blame the man in charge is logical, that he would need to feel justice done is also understandable. The clear righteousness of Carver's need for vengence though isn't the issue, but that even if he was completely righteous his vengence has eaten him alive and made him do some despicable things -- more pre-mediated than anything Gideon or his troops did. And in the end Carver has one last chance to basically save his soul. Gideon is compelling in that even though it wasn't really his fault he still feels the guilt from it because he was in command. For him it's all part of the collective pain and loss from the war -- and part of him wants to die but he can't give up living which is why he fights so hard to survive when it would be easier not to -- even if it means killing others which he has so clearly tired of. Still at the end he's willing to give the life he's fought so hard for to Carver.

They're complex characters, partly because of the script but mostly because of the brilliant level of acting by Brosnan and Neeson.

reply

[–] tag8833 18 years ago

I agree that showing less backstory would have been better. I would feel cheated, but not nearly as cheated as I did when the backstory turned out to be ridiculous.

Spoilers

On Carver going after Gideon. As directed it appeared that Carver saw Gideon chew out his second-in-command about the house being empty. The second should have been the target of his rage. Or, it could have been implied that Carver had hunted down every last man that was involved and Gideon was the last.

reply

[–] jonnyp53 18 years ago

The flashback scene is considerably better handled in the original print - the latter version obviously didn't work as well.

reply

[–] alexrusek 18 years ago

Carver was knocked out and presumably unconscious when the second in command got chewed out, so he would not know Gideon's true feelings.

reply

[–] mkantz 18 years ago

mavrotsala

reply

[–] drhessmd 18 years ago

The movie had excellent actors but only about 20 minute of silly plot intersperced with 60 minutes of riding between towns on horseback. Then the rediculous endings with people popping up out of nowhere with water or bullets or a gun, just insane. Oh, and if you look, after the religious camp when the one guy points his gun at the other, there are bullets visible in the cylinder. Then he discovers that the gun is empty and after that, there are no bullets in the chamber. A minor goof in a movie that goofed with the writing.

reply

[–] athleteshi 18 years ago

I am not sure if you totally understood the meaning of "people" popping everywhere...

as they also say in the bonus feature...then Anjelica Houston is kind of portraying the devil...not sure what the Native American is playing...have to think a little bit more about that...

reply

[–] droche-3 18 years ago

I think the Indian is some sort of "equalizing angel". Sort of like how Kharma works.

Gideon is about to cross a desert with two horses--one unnessary, and leaving Carver to a certain death. Not fair, by any means! And if Carver dies, both men will have to live with guilt, rage, and other demons. He points out that life must be replaced with life, and nothing is free. When Carver arrives, the Indian points out that the black horse "is his", and does not even suggest a sale. When Carver does indeed pay him ofr the water, the Indian smirks and dumps the coins out. He obviously did not need or accept the payment. He resets the balance between the two men, and makes it possible for them to meet again. With any luck, they will work out their differences.

The devil woman also balances the differences between the two men. Providing a bullet for one, and a gun for another. She wants the contest to end badly. She trades the gun for an insignificant pittance of a water canteen (not enough to make a difference to the thirsty horses) as a ruse to give him the gun.

It is also quite odd to note that neither the woman or the Indian show any signs of perspiration, or ever explain their presence in an environment that should be foreign to them.

Granted, the movie did shift from Adventure to Allegory. But I liked the acting and the frequent surprises.

"When you throw dirt, you lose ground" --old proverb

reply

[–] mpdc_jonathan 18 years ago

Let me say that I expected a whole lot more out of this story.

The first part of the story was catching to me. Why were Liam Neeson and his gang after Pierce? What is the saddlebag? Where are they going?

About halfway through the film it is difficult to say any of those questions were being answered.

By the end of the film, I felt it had gone over the top.

Holes in the film? Yeah there were quite a few. Cinemaphotography? Outstanding, but in the end the story is weak. I felt like it was a poorly made version of the Outlaw Josie Wales.

reply

[–] dac287 18 years ago

I do think it was a bit clumsy that it was directed in such a cheesy way. I think the son shouldn't have been there. I think it should have just been the mother and the baby. His son running in too ,was cheesy. Also when Gideon found out he should have been surprised but he should have buried it and not said a word as he was chastized by Carver and just buried his horror into a "business-like" face.

No freaking out at his lt. and no ripping off the uniform. Then coming back we see it did bother Gideon but he was monsterous in his handeling of it. Also no cheesiness of the boy doing exactly what his mother did.

reply

[–] antherick 18 years ago

I think it shows just how irrational Carver is. Gideon is going on orders, didn't know about the baby, the plan was already mobilized, not much he could do, but then Carver acts like it was his full intention and he has to do everything to make sure he wipes out this "monster" as quickly as possible.

reply

[–] kvoltti 18 years ago

Vengence isn't rational, Carver is like Ahab, he's willing to do anything to get vengance. Also, I think the indian represents coyote, a trickster whose games lead to enlightenment.

reply

[–] kenny-164 17 years ago

I would even go one step further, and note that it was far from clear that Carver had any good reason to have been hiding, which is what triggered Gideon's men to search for him. As I understand it the war was over at that point. Was Carver with a bunch of holdouts? If so, and knowing as he should that Gideon would not have necessarily known the baby was in the house (and of course they set fire to the barn, and it spread to the house), then his revenge motivation has very little rational aspect.

reply

[–] inthegamecash 18 years ago

Even as a boy, I would have most likely run into a burning building to save my mom and baby sister/brother... I think most people would do the same.

Push it to the limit!

reply

[–] kiddglock 17 years ago

It was a good film with the potential to be very good with just a bit of tweaking. Take the son's character out. There was no need of him in the film. Take out the questioning of the Lt. and the immediate angst. After all, Brosnan's character had lost two sons as well. Take out the part with Brosnan throwing off his uniform. Brosnan's actions in the present do enough to establish that he is not some sadist and also bring him sympathy without the weird scenes of his immediate remorse at the time of the accident. Give a little more background on Neeson's character-such as he was a Quantrill type raider or a regular who had failed to take the amnesty oath, as had all his men. I think I would leave out the switch to allegory at the end also. Leave Studi and Huston out of it.

As an aside, I find it offputting when characters such as these, way out in the wilderness and needing every bit of technology they can get just to survive, do things such as pick up revolvers and stuff them in their waistbands whilst ignoring the cartridge belt on the guy they just killed. They should have kept their sidearms in the end also, no matter how distasteful, because if the movie taught us anything, i t was how dangerous that country was. They were always running into other people who wanted to kill them.

reply

[–] wwcallie 17 years ago

<<<I find it offputting when characters such as these, way out in the wilderness and needing every bit of technology they can get just to survive, do things such as pick up revolvers and stuff them in their waistbands whilst ignoring the cartridge belt on the guy they just killed. They should have kept their sidearms in the end also, no matter how distasteful, because if the movie taught us anything, i t was how dangerous that country was. They were always running into other people who wanted to kill them.>>>

But don't you think you may have just missed the point of those last scenes? I really don't think they cared anymore if they lived or died. They were through with fighting no matter what (if indeed they were still alive--given all the theories of their being in a type of purgatory in the end). Why would they even want any weapons of any kind, given their current mind sets? The ending is a wierd combination of being uplifting and depressing at the same time. Uplifting, because of the forgiveness they were able to find and depressing because it's pretty obvious that they are going to die if indeed they are not already dead. I kinda liked the ending because, while, wierd and allogorical, it was different than the usual cliches found in a lot of westerns.

reply

[–] JPMerola 13 years ago

KidGlock, Your aside is right on. I assume you're a gun guy, too. I always think the same thing. I know it's only a movie, but if I were in the circumstances of any movie, I'd pick the weapons and ALL the ammo off every dead body I pass. It would be comical to see me half way through any action movie with 12 full holsters on my waist, ankles, and under my shoulders, not to mention the countless long rifles, machine-guns, and shotguns over my shoulders. I'd, of course, have to find a wheelbarrow to carry my harvested ammo. But if I was really thinking straight, my character would just Bug-in in his fortified home stocked to the gills for defense, like Michael Gross and Reba MacEntire in the Tremors franchise.

reply

[–] ssny27 18 years ago

I think that was the point...you find out that neither one was as good or bad (or right or wrong) as you once thought.

reply

[–] ferus1920 17 years ago

I loved the first half of the film but found the second half wanting. Basically everything after Carver realizes that his ammunition was stolen seemed out of place to me.

However. That does not stop me from discussing it.

With the end of the film moving into allegory and symbolism nearly all interpretations are open. With all of the references to the woman in the carriage being the devil I think it is entirely possible that the two men are both dead. Think about it, they are both low on supplies and exhausted chasing each other through the harsh desert. On IMDB Wes Studi is credited as playing "Water Man" (as Wes Studie) but in the actual film credits he is credited as "Charon."

In Greek Mythology Charon was the ferryman of Hades. Charon took the newly dead from one side of the river Styx to the other if they had money to pay the toll. This is why in some cultures the dead were buried with coins on their eyes, so they could pay the toll.

At the end of the film Both Gideon and Carver meet "Charon" at a pool of water and are unable to move on without offering some form of payment. Gideon pays with his horse, and Carver pays with a bag of coins stating that "it's for the water..."

This leaves the two wandering through a wasteland (purgatory maybe?) until they confront each other. Then they come to terms with their past and move on. Carver gets shot and then gets up and in the end walks off in his own direction without help. After all, you can't really get shot and die if you are already dead can you?

Just a thought, tell me what you think.

reply

[–] Radioactive1138 17 years ago

I loved the cinematography, but when it comes down to the plot, the film failed for me personally in a very key point : the motivation of the two characters.

As it was said previously, i was also really looking forward to the backflash explaining why Neeson is hunting Brosnan. Just for the power of the motives, i felt it didn't help that it basically was an "accident".

It's certainly narrowed down, but i felt it took a lot away, now knowing that two "innocent" and "good" men are fighting over death.

The last key point where the film lost me totally, was the lady in the desert. Basically Brosnan and Neeson are giving away what they need to survive, just to trade it in for a last chance to kill their enemy.

After over an hour of a life and death chase, the build-up for the climax and final confrontation is...*drumroll*... they are driven incredibly by the urge to kill each other.

no kidding *rollseyes*.....

Since the film solely concentrates on this part of the two personalities, i found it overall not very sophisticated and, to use a harsh word, rather boring.

reply

[–] Breast_in_Pieces 17 years ago

that's a very good 'view' - i like that, and the fact that the credits call him Charon indicate that the film makers might have intended to put it that way, but maybe left it more open - for viewers who would just see it as 'allegory' - it did seem a bit jarring to me, first that Indian and then Huston which by then i was already thinking "hallucination".

i think the movie did well enough to convey the story, it certainly "convinced me" but i would agree with the OP's points about the backstory being a bit disappointing when taken to heart - of course, one can't really view vengeance with any "logic".

basically, i agree with;

by wwcallie (Fri Aug 31 2007 10:35:37)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------The ending is a wierd combination of being uplifting and depressing at the same time. Uplifting, because of the forgiveness they were able to find and depressing because it's pretty obvious that they are going to die if indeed they are not already dead. I kinda liked the ending because, while, wierd and allogorical, it was different than the usual cliches found in a lot of westerns.

what i got out of it was a "moral" - that we could be so consumed by our 'hatred' for our "enemy", that if we took the time to LOOK (or KNOW) him, we might see their humanity as well. (when Carver looked back at Gideon after he refused to pull the trigger.)

i really liked the way they skewed apart at the end as well, it doesn't have to be - poles apart, one going North, the other South (or East v. West) - NOR does it have to be (fairy-tale) total reconciliation as they walk TOGETHER, but they just go their own way, in a similar direction - still "forward", leaving the past behind.

He was going for the Tim-Tams
FOOTBALL is *entertainment* - NOT a "results business".

reply

[–] blackisbeauty 13 years ago

ferus1920, your first line summed up my feelings exactly. Perhaps I might add, instead of 'dragging' the story with that final half hour or so across the wastelands, desert, etc, the filmmakers could have inserted a brief side-story about how Gideon lost his two sons in the war (like they did with the Carver house-fire bit). Just to kind of balance things, you know.

Also, thanks for the 'education' about the Charon character and what he must have stood for. Sure explains the scenes leading up to and including the climax (especially the devil-woman). Those two must both have been long dead already, I agree.

reply