MovieChat Forums > Wind River (2017) Discussion > Change in focus (Renner’s family) *spoil...

Change in focus (Renner’s family) *spoilers*


I may be off base in some things as I was multi-tasking last night when we watched “Wind River.”

It felt as though the director’s intentions initially were to put greater focus on Renner’s character’s role as a father and (ex) husband. We see a lot of moments with his son, a little scene with the boy riding the horse, and he shows a lot of concern for his ex-wife in their discussions about her travels and possible new job.

That all seemed to get completely lost by the halfway point in the movie. I may have missed some references by the end, but in terms of their being visible presences on the screen, they just weren’t. Perhaps there were scenes that were deleted, but did Wilma get the job in Jackson Hole? What was teh ultimate effect of Renner’s ditching his son with his grandfather while he helped the investigation? (The boy was obviously disappointed at first.)

Also, not related to Renner’s family, did anyone else feel that it was a little jarring to shift the POV so sharply toward the end so we the viewers could get a scene explaining the attack, rape, and murder(s)? There’s no way for us to know all that without completely stepping outside the way that the movie had been unfolding up until then. Generally if you have a flashback, someone you’re following needs to be doing the flashback-ing.

That said, I did enjoy the voice and I thought it was beautifully filmed, but I came away with a slightly unfinished feeling.

reply

I also noticed how the ex-wife and son were curiously dropped from the story by the midpoint. I think they were included to (1.) establish Cory's history and current situation; (2.) illustrate his character; and (3.) as a red herring to throw the viewer off.

did anyone else feel that it was a little jarring to shift the POV so sharply toward the end so we the viewers could get a scene explaining the attack, rape, and murder(s)? There’s no way for us to know all that without completely stepping outside the way that the movie had been unfolding up until then.


I think the way the writer/director did that flashback was creative: Both present and past sequences start with someone knocking on the door of the security guards' trailer. It only takes a few seconds to discern that events have switched to the recent past. Then they switch back to the present and everything explodes for the thrilling last act.

reply

It's not that important tot he plot, but it is very important to the characterisation and the emotional journey of Renner's character... Tracking down the killer of the girl gives him the catharsis from what he failed to do in protecting his family...

It's emotionally and psychologically connected for him... Well written... I think if you didn't have the distractions you would have sensed it through the movie...

reply

What I was suspecting I had missed was some way in which the ex and son were referenced at the end of the movie, for example addressing the ramifications of putting his son off with another relative when it was supposed to be their weekend together or addressing whether the ex moved, but it sounds like that wasn't the case.

I liked the content of the flashback and what it established, and I'll have to accept the breaking of POV as something that had to be done in order to communicate the information to the viewer in the sequence that the director wanted (for example, not having it come out during an interrogation of someone who was actually present during the flashback and could thus say what had happened).

reply