MovieChat Forums > Mama (2013) Discussion > Why is the uncle even in this movie?

Why is the uncle even in this movie?


Might just be personal preference because I like my horror films to have strong, independent female leads (i.e. Babadook - best psychological horror/thriller flick I've seen in years), but I felt like the uncle didn't need to be there at all. All of his storylines are under-developed and contribute nothing to the overall plot. Even his creepy hospital dream sequence - the one where his brother tells him to go to the cabin - is pointless; he goes to the cabin, gets knocked out, and is noticeably absent from the film's climax. Not to mention the fact that Mama gives him the boot within like ten minutes of moving into the house.

Seems to me that the film would have been stronger if Victoria and Lilly were Annabel's nieces, who had been missing since her brother killed his wife and ran away with them. She could still have played the reticent mother role - just one line to say that the girls have no other living relatives besides her, and bob's your uncle, you've got a tattooed, bass-playing rocker-cum-mom who doesn't want the responsibility of raising two developmentally strange children.

Again, just personal preference, but it seems silly to even have the uncle in the movie when he's unconscious for like 70% of it.

Also, random side note: did anyone else laugh out loud when Mama tosses aside her baby's bones? She's like, "why would I want this dead one when there's two fresh ones right here?" lol.

reply

There would be several problems with trying to rewrite this without Lucas.

You would have to invent a new explanation for why and how the girls were found. Annabel certainly wouldn't be looking for them. You would not only have to introduce, say, a random hunter stumbling on them -- it's illegal where I am for hunters to hunt near dwellings, so he would not have approached the cabin -- but explain why anyone thought the girls were the two who disappeared from Richmond, 150 miles away, years earlier. They would probably just remain institutionalized, as Jane Does, or go straight into foster care, unless there were someone downright eager to have them.

More important, you would lose the demonstration of how much Annabel did NOT want to be a mother. She's doing this strictly because she loves Lucas and this is the price of being with him; she's then trapped when Lucas is hospitalized. Otherwise, she's just a bass player in a tiny apartment, so she would have no trouble convincing people that she's a completely unsuitable guardian. She would jump at the chance to let Aunt Jean take them, and if you eliminated Jean as well, who would create conflict by judging Annabel for her obvious deficiencies as a parent?

You would also lose the demonstration that Mama gets violent with people who try to come between her and the girls. Lucas wanted them, so he got thrown down the stairs. Annabel was left alone until she started forming a bond with them. People would be left wondering why Mama suddenly decided to come after her at the end.

Lucas is necessary.

And no, I did not laugh at Mama's decision to discard the baby's bones. When she is given the bones, she starts recovering her humanity; she starts returning to a more normal form -- Javier Botet is replaced by Hannah Cheesman -- and she gets a human voice back. She becomes just human enough to decide that when Lilly calls to her, nothing else matters -- which sends her right back into monster form, though she maintains enough humanity to realize that Victoria belongs with Annabel. It's a complex scene and IMHO anyway, darn near perfect.

http://redkincaid.com

reply

I have to respectfully disagree with the logic of your first point. Anyone could find the girls in the cabin in the woods - hunters, hikers, someone whose car broke down, anyone, really. Secondly, the very FIRST thing authorities would do upon finding two abandoned children in the middle of the woods is search missing persons records. They would be identified pretty quickly, I'd imagine, regardless of whether or not Annabel would have been looking for them.

As to your second point, just because Annabel wouldn't want the responsibility of parenthood doesn't mean she would be willing to abandon the girls, in the case that they were her own nieces. When you say, "she's doing this strictly because she loves Lucas", that right there shows how much more of a plot device Lucas is than a character. If Annabel's willing to take on the responsibility because she loves Lucas (even though she doesn't want to be a mother), why couldn't she do the same because they were her nieces?

As far as eliminating aunt Jean goes, I agree that she is a good point of conflict in the story, but even she is a throwaway tertiary character who has very little development and purpose besides acting as a constant contrarian (and also a vessel for an angry maternal ghost, that is...). Anyone - a judge, the authorities, the child psychiatrist, anyone - could have judged Annabel unsuitable to be the girls' guardian. Moreover, with an actress like Jessica Chastain, it would have been fine to simply rely on her performance to convey her reluctance to be a parent.

As to your third point, you say "People would be left wondering why Mama suddenly decided to come after her at the end", Mama would come after her in a Lucas-free version of the film for the same reason she does in the actual movie: Annabel grew closer to the girls over time. Mama didn't perceive Annabel to be a threat for most of it because her ambivalence was clear, but toward the end Annabel starts to care for them, and that's when Mama gets jealous. And Lucas doesn't play into Annabel's growing bond with the girls at all, seeing as he isn't there for like 90% of it...

Therefore, I have to say that I still think Lucas is unnecessary, and I think it would have been a stronger film if it had relied more on both Annabel and Jessica Chastain to carry it, instead of wasting what could have been a lot of minutes of Annabel and Victoria's character development on introducing Lucas and subsequently eliminating him from all of the important plot developments.

And on that last note, I agree that it's a complex scene, and I agree with your interpretation entirely. Mostly, it was just one of those funny moments to me because Mama's been searching for so long for this child and then she literally chucks its bones over the precipice. It's not that I thought the whole scene was funny, and the gravity wasn't lost on me, but still I couldn't help a little bark of laughter at that moment.

Thank you for your response, by the way. And for not immediately calling me a hack or an idiot or whatever other names IMDB trolls like to call each other these days.

reply

Agree with everything you said.

reply

[deleted]

As Jeffrey and Lucas are twins, there's probably something symbolic going on.

So, yes, Lucas had to be there...


 Celebrating 100 Years of DADA * Feb. 5, 1916 * Zurich

reply

Then what's the symbolism? We're not really given enough information about the father to be able to make connections between him and his brother beyond "they're twins" and "there's probably some symbolism there". Just seems like the uncle either shouldn't have been in the movie or should have been waaaay more fleshed out. He seems like a plot device or a placeholder.

reply

I'm not really sure. But twins are often symbolic. They're often saviours like the Dioscuri. And the symbolism in the film is of a sacred nature.


 Celebrating 100 Years of DADA * Feb. 5, 1916 * Zurich

reply

[deleted]

To be perfectly honest, I find this response to be entirely nonsensical.

I've already explained my views on the first point you make and why I disagree with it. And your second point makes no sense to me whatsoever. Care to elaborate?

reply

I laughed at that part too. It was like wtf.

reply