There is a clear sense of justice when Sydow kills the rapists but why does he have to kill the kid? Is this supposed to be what they now call colateral damage in that he kills the boy while in a fit of rage, or did the boy do something that made him guilty as well?
"The books have nothing to say!"
-- Fahrenheit 451
I didn't see it as justice.
shareThe boy was a victim, first of his regrettable cohorts, then of the father. The father could never be sure what part he played in his daughters death and at that point he really didn't even know that she had been raped or whether she was dead for sure. But obviously he was sure enough and i think killing all three of them gave him a sense of completion. I also agree with you that he was in a rage and had he not been he may have spared the boy.
shareTore didn't know exactly what happened, but he did have a "witness." Remember when Tore found Ingeri hiding under the steps and he told her to "tell what she knows?" Ingeri told the father that ALL THREE played a part in Karin's death. In a sense, she was right. The boy did help capture Karin, and after the deed was done, he acted as the lookout for the other two.
I did feel somewhat badly for the boy, because he was just taking orders and was threatened by his brothers.
But no matter how you slice it, this was revenge for the father.
If I recall correctly she said that all three raped her.
share"If I recall correctly she said that all three raped her."
I don't recall that, elden. It doesn't seem likely since while the rape is going on, the kid is shown hiding out of the way. Even if he did, we can believe that it was his older brothers that forced him to.
I.S. Oxford
"The books have nothing to say!"
-- Fahrenheit 451
She definitely said that, but her account was different than what we saw. Considering the brevity of the scene, I think we were supposed to get an idea of what was happening, not a complete telling of it.
This story is already over
I don't think she said that all three heardsmen raped and killed her. She said that "they" did it. So it was uclear whether she meant two of them or all of them.
shareShe definitely said all three of them... because when she said it, I was surprised. I knew we hadn't seen the boy rape Karin, but he was there.
shareI think se was lying. Also she witnessed the act and did nothing to stop it, although I guess it would have been dangerous. The movie showed no indication that he participated in the rape, but he did help his brothers catch her, so...
shareShe looked scared, which is understandable. She makes some hints early on to Karin that her pregnancy was not due to consensual sex. She comments that if the boy Karin likes wanted to have sex with her, she wouldn't be able to stop him. And she just got groped by that old man in the mill, which freaked her out. It's unrealistic to expect to her to go striding in there like Wonder Woman with no weapons against two men and save the other girl, especially when she's, what, six or even eight months pregnant? I mean, jeez, she looks ready to have the baby right there.
As for as whether the father's action was justice or revenge, for that time and place, it's both. Scandinavia was not that long out of paganism by that time and familial/clan law was still important. If someone killed a member of your family, your family had the right and duty to exact revenge. You see this in the Icelandic sagas from around this time.
The boy may be technically innocent, but medieval people tended to think of each other in terms of groups and group association rather than as individuals. As one of three brothers, two of whom raped and murdered a young girl, whether or not he participated, too, is a moot point. The father would have the right to kill or not kill him as he saw fit. And if he didn't, well...the boy wouldn't last in the woods by himself unless someone took him in.
I think what makes him seem so tragic and sympathetic is that we see his guilt.
Innsmouth Free Press http://www.innsmouthfreepress.com
don't you watch movies? you must ALWAYS kill the little kid, otherwise he'll grow up and seek revenge.
share"don't you watch movies? you must ALWAYS kill the little kid, otherwise he'll grow up and seek revenge."
Are you implying that the father in this movie is the "Godfather"?
I.S. Oxford
"The books have nothing to say!"
-- Fahrenheit 451
It's not a concept born from The Godfather. It's been done for ages. You can't keep the young one around or else he/she will grow up to avenge the death of their family members.
share"It's not a concept born from The Godfather. It's been done for ages. You can't keep the young one around or else he/she will grow up to avenge the death of their family members."
So are you saying he killed the boy because he was afraid of future retaliation? Sorry, tanya1976, but I don't buy it. The Max vov Sydow character appears to be a person who only fears God.
I.S. Oxford
"The books have nothing to say!"
-- Fahrenheit 451
I think he was joking.
shareIngmar Bergman is too smart a film director to simply present a simplistic tale where you have "good guys" and "bad guys". The father's actions don't necessarily have to have been morally justifiable, it's simply what he did.
share And that is the whole point of the movie--where does justice stop and revenge begin? Von Sydow's character feels remorse for allowing his rage to lead him into killing the three herders, but it was the killing of the child that stopped him. His rage was sated, but he realized that this was just a poor child he had dashed against a wall, and that his guilt or innocence of the crime committed against his daughter mattered little--he himself had just committed as savage an act upon a frightened little boy.
His building of a church at the site of his daughter's murder was not simply to commemorate the loss of a beloved child, it was an act of atonement.
To me it was both justice and revenge. Why does it have to be either or?
sharethe boy was the brother of the confirmed rapists/murderers, & the father knew that he was an accessory to their crime (whether he was just a lookout, or also willingly or unwillingly raped the girl too, was irrelevent).
in the eyes of the average pre-1950 American or European male (or many contemporary males in Asian, African, & Islamic countries today!), the boy got what he deserved.
of course this logic seems barbaric to many today...however, our ancestors might have argued that to allow someone who assisted in the rape & murder of a young girl to live, merely on account of age, would have been far more barbaric.
"in the eyes ... many contemporary males in Asian, African, & Islamic countries today!), the boy got what he deserved."
What you say is not true. Are you a racist?
This film presents the most noble European family that could have existed in those times and their cottage is reffered to as a castle. Do you know what was Asia + North Africa (especially Islamic countries) during those times? They were the lands of silk, gold, science, medicine, chirurgy, law, poetry, metropolises, castles made of marble stone not wood, seven world wonders. And all of this much before the 14th century. The European savages as depicted in this film attacked those beautiful civilisations and left them in ruins and blood. Luckily they were also enlightened by the civilisation they tried to destroy and brought all those nice things back. Including the rule of law. But even today it can happen that you return to the old habits, like the latest genocide on the European soil (1992-1995) proves. It is not true that today in eastern countries and black people would support the murder of the boy in this film. Are you that close minded to think that these people are racially inferior to you?
~~~~~~
Race has nothing to do with it. Remember the rapists were Swedish too, and the law was not going to deal with it. Our legal system is highly developed and powerfully equipped, and it is still inadequate in some circumstances and some countries. Tribal, religious and customary rituals supercede, and vengence/revenge/revanche prevails. Also racial, religious and tribal warfare, etc. Be happy what you got.
shareI think that he killed the young boy simply because he was in a blood rage and not in complete control of his actions. The boy isn't completely innocent, but then again, neither was the girl who was raped. I'm not saying that she deserved to be raped and killed or the boy deserved to die, only that neither one are completely innocent. The girl was aware of the power of her beauty and the little boy could have tried to stop his brothers... or not. Film doesn't have to answer every question it poses.
"The Dude abides."
I think the father felt he was acting in the cause of justice, but in actuality he was performing an act of vengeance. Justice is blind and is administered by a lawful authority, such as God or a human judge/jury. Revenge is taken by injured parties and involves the satisfaction of an emotional component that is not present(or shouldn't be) in an act of justice.
shareGood lord! She wasn't innocent because she "was aware of the power of her beauty"? But that doesn't mean she deserved to be raped? What the hell does that even mean?
She's innocent in every conceivable sense of the word. The fact that she's a young girl, appreciative that she's attractive, changes that not one whit.
If you find that somehow decreases her innocence, your view of a woman's complicity in her own assault is truly alarming.
_______________
Nothing to see here, move along.
This is something I wrote almost 9 years ago, and, wow, I can't believe I typed something like that -- I'm ashamed to say that I most certainly victim-blamed her. I'd never write something like that now... but damn, I'm really not liking that this is something once I thought.
It definitely deserved to be called out, even 9 years after the fact. Thanks.
It's a stupid plan, but some excitement might keep me awake.
Thank you. I appreciate your saying so.
_______________
Nothing to see here, move along.
<<<<Is it justice or revenge? (Spoilers)>>>>
Probably both.
Last Films seen:
Deliverance(1972)- 9/10
[deleted]
"did the boy do something that made him guilty as well?"
Remember Ingeri (for some reason) told Sydow that ALL THREE of the males, including the boy, raped Karin.
So Sydow obviously believed that the boy was as guilty as the two grown males.
There is also the class aspect of Tore, master of the manor vs. three poor herdsman who were not even from around that area.
Whether it was Tore himself who did the deed or other locals, those herdsmen were goners once they committed their crimes. No way could three poor, non-locals get away with raping and killing the rich man's daughter with no punishment. Especially since they were stupid enough to have her clothes among their things.
The fine dress Karin was wearing could probably only be owned by a handful of people within a hundred miles distance. It wouldn't have taken people long to narrow down the owner and figure out what happen. For the herdsmen to have such an expensive dress in their bag was probably more damning than DNA is today.
Often, the richest man around an area was also the local law representative. So Tore would have be the judge on the situation whether he's the one who dealt out justice or not. In a way, because of his social status, Tore was well within his rights to take revenge and be judge, jury and executioner.
Building a stone church in return for the lives of two outsider men and a boy who were involved in the rape and murder of his daughter was probably considered a pretty good trade-off.
If the herdsmen were local, they'd know not to touch a hair on Karin's head because they'd know who her father was. They'd probably respect his authority.
No two persons ever watch the same movie.share
I think its both, cos you would really, wouldnt you?