I saw this movie for the first time last week and couldn't stop watching it. I only had one question. The girl who watched her sister get murdered finally tells her father what she sees, then she proceeds to tell him that all three "took her". Did the little boy rape the girl too??? I would appreciate comments, because it is driving me crazy. Was the little boy bad or was he just stuck in a bad situation???
shareThe boy was a bystander. I was very moved by how the situation of the young boy was rendered: the way that he wretched every time he tried to eat, his utter powerlessness with regard to his older brothers. He's just a kid, who has nowhere else to go, no one else in the world to take care of him.
Karin was not the only person who lost her innocence that day; the boy did too, after seeing how cheap human life can be.
Thanks for answering. I couldn't believe that the kid was actually involoved. I was thinking that he was just stuck in a bad situation with horrible people , but I was curious what others had thought on the matter. Thanks again! :)
shareI haven't seen this movie for 30 years at least but it made such an impression on me that I have never forgotten it and, for my peace of mind, I have vowed never to see it again. I always felt terribly bad about the boy being killed along with his guilty brothers. The way I recall it, the murdered girl's mother was sympathetic to the boy also wasn't she? It even seemed to me that the father didn't even care whether the boy had done it but just felt he had to kill him because he was part of the evil group.
I know this is a great film because it is so raw and brings out deep feelings. But it is too much to bear. They ought to make rapists and murderers watch it in prisons for punishment.
The mother was sympathetic to the boy. Even though this movie was made quite a some time ago and is not even close to as graphic as movies now a days, it has had an impact on me. The rape scene and the killing of this innocent girl really got to me. I agree that it is a really good movie, but I don't think that I shall be watching it again for quite some time.
shareGood points. Nevertheless, the boy did participate in Karin's rape by tripping her before she may have gotten away.
Worthy of a death penalty, no. Keep in mind the Father's blood lust after the strugge with his brothers and Ingeri's testimony.
That's what makes it a great movie, the moral ambivalency, hence our discussions.
I agree, the boy was part of the rape in that he helped capture and secure her. I would have liked the ending better if the boy had survived so that the parents could raise him properly. Sort of a replacement for the loss of their daughter and a penance for their revenge.
shareIn a letter Bergman wrote defending the objective and brutal nature of the rape scene, he noted that nobody was as upset at Tore's "savage murder" of the little boy, but that it was just as evil an act. The boy's innocence is meant to display the evil in both parties' actions.
In the beginning, it is always dark...share
"The boy's innocence is meant to display the evil in both parties' actions. "
i couldn't agree more
"I suppose the boy could have been spared and raised by Tore and his family. But it appears Tore was taking no chances and wanted complete closure. It's difficult to blame him."
interesting to remind that scene when the boy is trying to eat, but he can't. The women look at him, concerned, whereas Tore looks at him for like half a second, and then looks back to his food, and continues to eat. Tore doesn't see beyond the boy's odd behavior, so he kills the boy in an act of blind justice.
The killing of the boy is a symbol of Tore's blind vengeance. Even though the scene of the killing is rather slow. He enters the room slowly, he watches, he stops, he thinks, he sit down.
Amazing movie (just watched)
"he went a little funny in the head... you know, a little... funny!" (Dr. Strangelove)
The boy`s part of the story is probably the saddest of all the sad moments in the movie. I never saw him do anything evil, but he did follow the two brothers (Were they all really brothers?) around just like abused kids follow their parents around today... They don`t know any better, for one thing. The boy being thrown against the wall was indeed shocking. I expected him to be spared.
I'd say that he did do evil (he helped capture the girl when she was trying to escape, and he tried covering the murder up, in a way, when he threw dirt on her body), but that doesn't mean he deserved to be killed. And I think the father knew that after he realized what he had done.
shareI think the boy threw dirt on Karin's body as if trying to give it a proper burrying, even if it was not technically possible, more than an act cowardice of trying to cover the murder up. I was also sympathetic towards him. He was so disgusted by what his brothers had done that he couldn't swallow any food eventhough he must have been starving.
shareI didn't interpret his throwing dirt on the body as an attempt to cover up the crime. It is Christian to give the dead a decent burial and the boy at least gestured at this.
shareDeath was probably the greatest gift that boy ever received.
Last Films seen:
Breach(2007)- 9/10
The Virgin Spring(1960)- 10/10
81/2(1963)- 8/10
Is this a plea to present all murderers, their children and other relatives with this 'great gift'? I am surprised by your graciousness towards the child.
Tore *could* have taken up this kid in his family and try to raise him properly. That would have been a whole lot better than 'building a church with his bare hands'. I guess killing the child was Tore's easy way out.
Michel Couzijn
I am torn over the boy too as he was not entirely innocent but by no means evil or deserving of death. In regards to his guilt, it was perhaps more so apart of the curse that Ingrid says possessed the goatherds into acting so repulsively. Remember he tries to eat immediately afterwards and bites into the bread that had the frog inside. I think that was what made food disagreeable to him. I think the effect of the food on him was what instilled the fear and guilt in him. He perhaps began seeing bread and food associated with her body as her prayer probably confused him.
shareAmbiguity and openness is the heart of great art. We are never told directly whether the 'boy was bad too'. Neither did Tore have the answer to that question. All we saw was that the child was there with the apparently evil men, and that Tore killed the child. This makes room for some interesting questions:
- is a child 'bad' because it happens to be in the environment of evil people?
- if children do 'bad' things under the influence of evil people, do they deserve to die?
- if we kill evil people, whom we suspect to be 'bad', are we being just or being bad too?
- if we kill children, whom we suspect to be 'bad', are we being just or being bad too?
In his time, Tore cannot count on the perpetrators getting a fair trial by some juridical system. So we easily accept the fact that Tore is both plaintiff, summoner, judge, jury and executioner. We, the audience, do not need proof because we have witnessed the crime. But when it comes to the boy, we are not so sure whether Tore has a right to call 'his justice' over him. Because it seems to be blind vengeance. And blind vengeance kills the innocent too.
Blind vengeance kills the innocent too. See Iraq after 9/11, with over half a million of 'innocent boys' being killed by the wrath of people who call themselves a 'great nation', and who believe they should impose their 'justice' upon this world. Try to answer the above questions through an Iraq-war perspective, and see for yourself why great art is timeless.
Michel Couzijn
We are a great people and where on earth did you get the figure of "half a million 'innocent boys' being killed"? That is just nonsense!
shareThe figure of 'half a million' innocent civilians killed as a result of the US-led invasion of Iraq has been established by The Lancet, the world's most respected scientific medical journal. The number is accepted by many scholars and scientific instiutions world-wide. I use 'innocent boys' here as a metaphor for all innocent people who happened to be around in the face of evil; men, women and children. We had better face up to the devastating results of the wars we wage.
That Americans are 'a great people' is something for you to believe in, and to work on. But don't ask me to believe it too. You are just as susceptible to cruelty and self-interest as any other people. Only your bombs are bigger.
Michel Couzijn
"As a result of the US led invasion"
So, by the context every time a suicide bomber kills 50 civilians we can all just chalk that up as the fault of the United States.
The most Philanthropic country in the worlds history, and everybody hates it. It's completely unbelievable how ungrateful people can be.
Yes, we're very philanthropic when we send our bombs. If anyone should send a bomb to my house I'll remember to be very grateful, and think that it's probably in thanks for the bombs we went someone else's way.
Way to conflate everything- yes, the US does some great works, and I'm happy about that, and happy to work towards that. But that doesn't give us a blank check to bomb any country with which the current administration has unfinished oil business. On the list of countries that had anything to do with the 9/11 bombings Iraq is further down the list than the United States itself, back when we were funding the Taliban against the USSR.
Nobody's blaming suicide bombings on the US. If you take what I wrote above as doing so, you're being willfully ignorant and deliberately obtuse. Somebody wrote a thoughtful, totally on-point post about striking out in revenge without carefully examining one's actions. This person didn't compare us to the rapists, but to the father. I think that's absolutely fair, if not generous.
Even though your comment is 2 years old, I don't wanna leave you out here alone ! I'd like to add that if this country were ever in the hands of a 'Saddam' like tyrant, I'd personally call in the air strikes if asked to. Then I'd take the family to the safest place I could find and wait out the 'hostilities'
(of course I'd volunteer to help out the liberators - you get the idea).
If I lost a family member no doubt I'd be wracked with guilt but at the same time I'd face the sobering reality that this needed to be done. This effort on behalf of the USA may never be seen for its full worth if the Iraqi people don't seize the moment to establish a free, open democratic society. I hate to use this old line but it fits: You can lead a horse to water...' (no need to complete).
The USA spends G_d only knows how many man hours, money etc., to develop weapons which inflict the very least amount of collateral damage. Iraq on the other hand, remembering back to the 1st Gulf War, lobbed scuds indiscriminately into Israel - and Israel wasn't even part of the war !! I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that our American hating friend here probably had NO PROBLEM with that !
Did you forget that Iraq asked for a cease fire during the 1st Gulf War and we (the USA) were forgiving to the point of stopping the 'march to Baghdad' and agreed to the cease fire ? How many nations in history have agreed to a cease fire just as the aggressors were about to loose their capital city ??? AND THEN the scumbag violated the terms of the cease fire every chance he could !! No, not the 'WMD's' - sending Iraqi war planes to illegally cross the agreed upon 'no fly zone' and to add insult to injury, have them fire on US aircraft !!
Did you get that ?? The country who defied the laws of civilized nations around the world (UN members) and attacked. unprovoked, a peaceful country (Kuwait), raping and pillaging all the way, actually had the gall to fire upon the country that they had just asked a 'cease fire' from !! The uS was within its rights to resume hostilities and finish the job in Baghdad for this sucker punch alone !! But no, we agreed to 'UN sanctions' instead of taking the bastard out. Whats he do with this ?? Sells oil, in violation of the UN agreement, to France/Germany so as to line his own pockets while he screamed about how his people were suffering due to said sanctions !! THEN he began kicking out UN Inspectors - inspections he agreed to as part of the cease fore agreement. Do I need to go on ??? If you think I'm making this all up, look it up !! FACTS !! The US had ever legit. reason in the world to resume hostilities and finish the job.We even announced our 'intentions' and then gave him and the Iraqis a full YEAR to prepare for the resumption of hostilities !!
Stick that in your fu... ok, blood pressure rising, will end here.
Wait, chew on this: If not for the USA, its forgiving,blindly generous people,YOU would probably be living in whatever home country you hail from, under a tyrant as bad or worse as Saddam. YES - our existence/presence has a tendency to keep the bad guys in line. Every once in a while a truly insane bastard grabs the reins and he has to be dealt with. Suffice to say there would be a lot more blood shed on this planet if we, the American citizens, had your attitude.
We don't even ask for a 'thanks for the hand' and its a shame that we have to come on here (and other blogs/forums) to point this all out to the likes of you - not our nature.
Your patriotism is disgusting.
America has killed more people in its imperialism than helped. Vietnam, Iraq, Cambodia, the list is endless. Let's also not forget the coup d' etat of democratically selected leader Mossadegh in Iran. There is a lot more one can list, and it could serve as a very good book.
Did you know David Bohm, a friend of Einstein and eminent quantum physicist, was kicked out of this country during McCarthyism for allegations of "communism"? This country has never been free, and prior the Civil Rights Movement, the black minorities didn't even have any rights or privileges! Now they are dealing with massive discrimination, poverty, and negative media portrayal, so I am pretty sure the majority of them are thankful for this "freedom" in their clean ghetto environments.
Americans are very much like Romans, lost in the lethargy of their indulgent ignorance. I hate Aleister Crowley, but he said one thing I very much agree with:
"It is necessary to live in the United States and know the people well to get a really clear view of hell with the lid off." -- Aleister Crowley
*Most Americans have such a one-sided view of geopolitics that it would make anyone laugh.
*Most Americans have such horrid tastes in literature, film, and other media that would make anyone cringe.
*Most Americans aren't even aware of third party candidates (e.g., Jill Stein, Ron Paul, etc.) and continuously fall for the 2-headed snake.
*Most Americans are unhealthy from GMO and preservative pumped foods that they never feel vibrant.
*Most Americans oppress and alienate their own youth by sending them to poorly constructed school systems. They assume this is "normal", but it is simply barbaric. Speaking about being "civilized" when students are dying for an arbitrary letter grade.
*Most Americans are fined by their corrupt police for "speeding" and petty crimes, and justify this because they don't know better.
*Most Americans feel the need to point fingers at minorities or other foreign countries for stealing their "freedom", something they never had.
This country will fall like Rome and this is not a bad thing. It has had its fill. It is time for a new ******* to rise up! Here is a hint! The reason this country aims to convert other countries into Christian capitalistic plutocracies is to strengthen the hegemony of the rich. It is basically the same thing as what has happened in almost every country, except on a larger scale: the rich simply establish and perpetuate/strengthen a cycle to survive "pleasurably" in (i.e., a kind of positive feedback loop where you can fit the media, flow of money, and etc. into).
The most Philanthropic country in the worlds history, and everybody hates it. It's completely unbelievable how ungrateful people can be.This is an old comment but it deserves to be preserved as a reminder of some Americans' view of themselves in the world. That it is believed the USA has been a philanthropist in their foreign policy is ignorant at least and heinous at the worst. That they expect gratitude for their immoral activities makes me detest such people.
A bird sings and the mountain's silence deepens.share
This is not an easy film to "digest." I had some trouble with the boy's death also. I originally thought, he's just a boy and should be spared. But upon further reflection, the boy was probably already infected with the evilness of his brothers and in Tore's judgment had to be destroyed also. I suppose the boy could have been spared and raised by Tore and his family. But it appears Tore was taking no chances and wanted complete closure. It's difficult to blame him.
shareI watched the scene again just now, and while the boy doesn't actually rape her, he does help his "brothers" catch the girl (watch him dive at her legs and trip her preventing her escape while the other two pile on top). He certainly wasn't a passive witness to the crime - which is why he is probably showing guilt with his actions the rest of the film.
shareI think some people are missing the point.
I don't think that wether the boy is or not responsible for the murder is the key issue to the film. The key factor is that there is innocence at both sides: on the boy and on the girl (Karin).
The girl is being "over-adored" by her parents, since Ingeri has already "lost her innocence". Karin symbolizes the last piece of love and innocence on that family; yes, they all get along as a big happy family, but the sorrounding people couldn't get even close to Karin's faith, youth and, of course, innocence. There is a message on this.
On the other hand, Ingeri shows since the very beginning her own portion of vengeance: she places a frog on Karin's piece of bread for her journey. She is jealous, she regrets her past, she kind of admits she's done wrong when she got pregnant, but she can't avoid her family's agressive position towards her. Remember, this is Sweden on 14th Century: a girl got pregnant before making sure of marrying the man. It's heretic.
In the middle of all this, you got the mother. She is pratically the only person left (except for Karin) who's closer to innocence, and that is why she loves her daughter so much: because she sees herself on her and she wouldn't stand "losing" another daughter the same way as happenned with Ingeri. She overprotects her and makes sure she keeps ont he right track.
Then you got the sistematic issues Bergman usually takes into account. The main here (which is also characteristic of this final 1950's Bergman era) is the Church, as a religion and as a compulsory source of belief by an human. The dialog on the end of the movie (which I think is expendable, for the image talks for itself) brings to the top the lack of comprehension of people on God, whoever that guy is. The man killed the 3 guys, including the boy, and in the end he promises to build a church on that place, as if that would ever forgive for his irrational vengeance. You can't blame him for murdering them, but you must also understand faith was then as vengeance: blind and irrational.
There are some complex and depth questions over here, and Bergman did an excellent job on mixing them and, simultaneously, avoiding the film became some kind of sallad with the ingredients all confused and mixed up. It's a serious job here, and the film deals perfectly not only with the issues of the story but also with the characters. That is why the film is so good.
P.S.: For those who won't see the film again because of the violence... come on!... What would you expect? It's 14th century Sweden, people get carried away so easily by their emotions... That's exactly how it is.
This movie is so emotional and intense that I was on the verge of becoming hyserically upset. The violence and rape scene in minimal, but it is really upsetting to watch. I can't see it again for awhile.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
The boy's death is very sad and undeniably regrettable. But I can see why it happened. Nowadays people are so quick to group everyone over 18 as automatically responsible for everything they do and everyone under 18 as a mere pawn of the evil adult system. I think this is a stupid way to look at things. I think taking responsibility for your actions happens a lot more gradually than that... and that full responsibility comes well before 18, whether we like to think it or not. It's hard to say whether that boy should take full responsibility for abetting the crime or not, but he's right at the age where he knows what's going on and he knows that it's wrong. It may seem unfair that he'd be expected to have enough strength to stand up against his older brothers and have nothing to do with their crimes, but that's the sad reality of the world: bad things happen, and we have to make decisions far before we're ready to make them.
And if we make the wrong decision? The boy made the wrong decision, even though he was so young and shouldn't have had to face that decision. And it is bitterly sad and heartbreaking that he had to die because of it, but that's what the consequences entailed. Maybe it was just horrid, horrid luck on his part. But I do not think the father could be "right" in killing the older brothers while at the same time being "wrong" for killing the younger one. Either he was "wrong" for killing them all, or "right" for killing them all.
I think, though, that the scene in which the father prays to God at the end best explains the way most of us feel about this situation. It's just awful all around, and we really don't understand why it had to happen. But we know no other way to fix things. And is there really a moral answer for all this? That's the question this movie poses.
Proud member of SHREWS (Society for the Honor Required of Eyes Wide Shut)
Sin by association. He was there and could have chosen to do all he could to stop what happened but instead was entirely complicit. He did, in fact, participate in her capture - which led to the rest of her horror. He wasn't bad, but he certainly wasn't good.
I think this movie is one of the most thoughtful and ingenious explorations of how there is no pure good and evil. It's all shades of gray. Should the boy have been killed??? Were I in that same place and time, dealing with those same emotions, being the sole judge and jury of all 3 - I may well have chosen exactly as he did.
Notice how he didn't act impulsively. He went to the hill and got the birch. He flogged himself and purified himself with searing, hot water. Then he gets his knife and goes to the men and he WAITS for HOURS until the sun rises. Then and only then does he pronounce them guilty and mete justice upon them. He gives them a fair fight too - except for the boy, who never had a chance.
I can't say whether the choice was right or wrong...just another shade of gray in our incredibly complex life.
Were I in that same place and time, dealing with those same emotions, being the sole judge and jury of all 3 - I may well have chosen exactly as he did.