MovieChat Forums > A River Runs Through It (1992) Discussion > What happened and why?

What happened and why?

posted 14 years ago by OtterBoone
29 replies | jump to latest

"Someday when you are ready, you might tell our family story. Only then will you understand what happened and why."

I've seen this movie many, many times. Most (if not all) people I've talked to about the movie identify with Norman. I identify with Paul. Years ago, a counselor of mine insisted I watch it and try to answer the question, "What happened and why?"

I have never been able to answer that question.

I know why my counselor wanted me to do that. She wanted me to realize that if I continued to behave like Paul, I was going to end up like Paul. That's not the point of this post.

I still want to understand what happened and why. Is there an answer to this question? I've pondered it for almost 20 years now, and I've got nothing.

If I could ask (old) Norman this question, what would he tell me?

Anyone? Anyone?

[–] scubadude44 14 years ago

They went fishing and caught some. The reason why is they're good fly fishermen. For a counselor to ask you to read more into that is a little strange. Because at the end of the day, it's a movie.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GhostyFox 14 years ago

The Macleans were literary people. The reverend home schooled the boys in mainly literature and writing. Norman recites Wordsworth from memory, regales his friends with stories and becomes a college English instructor. Paul becomes a journalist as well as a great story teller. The reverend realizes that it is only through telling a story that they are able to find and express their deepest thoughts and emotions and hence understand them. He understands this from his own experience as a preacher and a father. Otherwise, they do not communicate with each other their day to day emotions. They fight with each other without a word about the true nature of their conflict. Paul is unable to share with Norman his troubles and Norman cannot articulate to Paul his own frustration with him. It is through their shared frustration with Neal that they do connect. When Norman wonders aloud "How do you help that SOB?" Paul replies, "Maybe he likes the idea of you trying to help him." In that moment Paul is revealing more about himself than he is about Neal. This theme is mentioned again when Jesse laments about how those needing the most help won't take it and finally when the Reverend Maclean preaches about those closest to us are the ones who elude us and while often times we cannot help them, we can still love them. Norman Maclean wrote his novella nearly 40 years after Paul's death and as soon as he finished it and shared it with his family, he wept for the first time over his loss.
The answer to the why lies in the flaw of pride. The normally reticent reverend displays moments of boastful behavior when fishing with the boys and playing horseshoes at the picnic. Paul has his father's competitive streak which motivates him to shoot the chutes and overestimate his card playing prowess. It is his pride that propels him to push the limits in all his endeavors. While Norman is a lot like Paul, he drinks, swears and plays Front St. poker, he never challenges his father like Paul does. He is more humble than Paul. He decides to move on with growing up while Paul wishes for things to remain the same. "Brother, I'll never leave Montana."
I believe the message to be subtle yet simple, grace does not come from perfection, it doesn't come from being helped as others might see fit to help, but comes from loving unconditionally as God loves us. His presence is all around us and the Macleans recognize that presence best when fly fishing on the Big Blackfoot River. This is a profound and poignant story, the cinematography and score are beautiful. This is an American classic which ranks with the best movies of all time.

[–] OtterBoone 14 years ago

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Anyone? Anyone?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] malika585 13 years ago

Really, like others have said... your post was so accurate and well written. For the first time I wished there was a "like" or "save" button on IMDB.

for the original imdb layout:
http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?redesignolddesign

[–] territhelin 13 years ago

Same here. There is so much garbage and off-topic, ill-informed ranting on these threads that it's a joy to read a well thought out answer. Well done!

[–] vanboom 9 years ago

"Well done!"
I enjoy Fly Fishing, perhaps the main reason I watched this movie in the 1st place. I like to believe, that the best messages posted about this movie, were left by Fly Fishers as well.
The most common saying that is shouted by a fishers partner, after watching them land a good one is usually,
"Well Done!".
A++

[–] bsanders-4 13 years ago

GF,

This is most articulate response to a question I think I have ever read. Superbly done. I also think of Norman writing a beautiful letter to his girlfriend, but unable to talk to Paul in a meaningful way, even though he wants to help him.

[–] GhostyFox 13 years ago

Bsanders, you made me realize that Norman is pretty inept at communicating one on one with anyone. He is awkward talking with his father about his future plans, but they click when reciting Wordsworth together. Most of his conversations with Jesse are just as awkward, but as you pointed out, he writes her beautiful prose, and of course, he bonds with Paul while fishing not necessarily conversing. Neal and he share an unspoken moment of understanding upon the former's departure, only after being unable to exchange one word of meaningful conversation with one another.
Like father, like son, Reverend Maclean says little about Paul's death except to ask Norman "to tell" him more. Eventually, he stops talking about it all together until years later he alludes to it in a sermon.
This theme of Scot-Presbyterian thrift runs through the entire story. Words are to be heard before they are spoken. When spoken, they are to be the artistic expression of what is already known. The Macleans are taught to listen for those words long before they are spoken and later, when they are ready, give them life (but only half as long!). Redford's and Maclean's Montana is like a lark in the morning calling out those words in a prose so beautiful that only God could have written them.

[–] pturman-929-979676 13 years ago

Are you secretly Richard Friedenberg or Robert Redford or Norman McClean's son, GhostyFox? You don't need to tell. Like Norman's words, yours are also sacred sublime.

[–] Toby_gibson002 13 years ago

Fantastic response- excellent.

This is one of my favorite movies, largely because it is so well done and because the short fiction by the same name is probably my favorite stories and in my opinion one of the finer pieces of prose I've read- truly beautiful.

Like the original poster, I identify largely with brother Paul. I'm Scotch-Irish and tend to shine brightly, exceptionally bright when I'm great and exceptionally a trainwreck when I'm determined to damage myself. I'm a writer myself and have always wished I could write such a keen balance between darkness and light, between romance and beauty and tragedy. I tend to dwell in the dark too much and have a hard time encapsulating the beauty like Norman Maclean could.

In the end I think Paul shone so brightly and was so enigmatic that people couldn't help but love him, but maybe he couldn't love himself, and maybe he tried very hard to not be the person they loved so much. I understand that, and maybe it's just me- my paradigm- that I'm assigning to my interpretation of this film.

Total non sequitur but I recently read the book "Tsotsi" and found that the author Athol Fugard has a gift for encapsulating beauty and emotion along with the dark side of that, and it was well worth reading. Many times while I read Tsotsi I was reminded of the beauty of Norman Maclean's writing.

Aloha- TLH

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pturman-929-979676 13 years ago

Wow. Do I disagree. I think Sheffer's performance is one of the best things about the movie, and I can argue specifics as to why if you'd like. Notice how many times he expresses Norman's thoughts with just a look or expression. I don't know what you're responding to when watching this but I don't think it's Craig Sheffer's acting ability (maybe his lack of movie star presence but not acting ability--which are two different things).

[–] pturman-929-979676 13 years ago

Thank you for your post, GhostyFox. This is my favorite movie of all time (I've seen it a dozen times if not more) & your insights have helped me see depths in this movie that I wasn't aware of. You've given me an excuse to watch it again!

[–] jgoldman2 13 years ago

Beautiful analogy. Thank you.

[–] LPurch6636 12 years ago

That was a lovely response-- because the "why" about Paul definitely needs addressing. I have watched this show so many different times before I could start feeling like I "got" some things about "why" this movie was made. I am a writer myself and very much believing that a book needs to have "a beginning, middle and end," and a "reason to be." Perhaps that is why I first watched "A River Runs Through It." It was about a man who would become a writer.

At first the title of the movie eluded me a LOT. "A River Runs Though it." What in the world did that mean?

After three viewings, I think I have another "reson de'etre."

It involves the River as the main character in the movie, separating and splitting aspects of life if you understand that the River has a jillion facets to it, greater and more shallow depths, placid (the Pastor) and more frightening elements (Paul).

I can't quote the pastor exactly but at the beginning of the movie he tries to explain to his sons what lies within the old, old river, and how just looking into the river you see yourself, the people who love you and the people you love, and the depth of what lies within the River which was there a million years ago and still is there. (I will have to watch the movie again to be able to write down the Pastor's exact quote about the River.)

But after not understanding why the movie was called "A River Runs Through It," after starting to maybe, sort of "get" some of the depths and meanings of the River was the first time I could "get" why the movie was named what the movie was named. (I imagine it's easier to "get" when you read original book. Though I think MacClean's work was actually a "story" that they built into a movie script.)

Paul WAS every aspect of the river-- "beautiful," loving, but scary and willing to take chances that could kill him.

Flanagan

[–] yourmovieguy 11 years ago

Late to the party on this one, but what a simply outstanding response GhostyFox! (Your other resonse as well!)

Would love to hear more thoughts from you on this wonderful movie.

[–] eloyal9756 11 years ago

I agree with you that it's about unconditional love. The reverend's last words of his last sermon - You can love completely without complete understanding.

[–] otterprods 10 years ago

Outstanding response from GhostyFox. While I don't entirely agree with the notion of unconditional love (I believe God has clear standards for those desiring to be his friend, and that we should too), I do agree that he has agape for all and that was what the movie was trying to say. I also agree that it's a classic which ranks with the best movies of all time, even moreso as years pass. (when I first saw it in 1992, it was only playing at some art theater in San Diego, and that theater was nearly empty)

Otterprods, to keep those aquatic Mustelidae in line.

[–] melalmigre 13 years ago

We are examining a tragedy and trying to see why it happened. This movie is an attempt to analyze, judge and blame. It shows the preacher as stern, rigid, disciplined with unquestioned interpretation of the Bible and it's message. He is also emotionally unavailable to his boys, a reflection of his stodgy religious beliefs.

Being raised in such a controlled, stern atmosphere his boys rebel, but in different ways. This leads to tragedy.

As with any tragedy though, all the analysis and blame will come up short of giving us an answer. Redford tries to convince us that a more liberal upbringing might have lead to better adjusted boys and might have prevented this tragedy. I'd like him to tell that to Martin Sheen right now.

Many people tout themselves, their values and their beliefs as the correct, never failing ones which give all the answers. Unfortunately, this movie does the same things as it spreads its judgement of the values embraced by the main characters that resulted in failure. Both Redford and his preacher character think they have all the answers, and in doing so resemble each other more than they would like to.

The message of this film for me - sometimes bad things happen, and we just don't know why.

[–] rizdek 10 years ago

Not to discredit other interpretations...but your interpretation is how I saw the movie. It was great acting, impressive scenery and an interesting and novel presentation but the ending was not to my taste, so I've not rewatched it.

[–] IcySpoon 9 years ago

While I find your interpretation interesting, I've never thought Redford was trying to push any kind of liberal agenda on the audience. Frankly, after reading so many beautiful comments on this thread, I was disheartened to come across your post. I've read many reviews of this wonderful film and have never come across a view similar to yours. I have a feeling that you would blame that on the, "liberal media". You speak in generalities and I'm at a loss as to what you're referring to specifically. Where does Redford try to convince the audience that a more liberal upbringing would have led to better adjusted boys? May I ask if you've read the novella? Until you've done so, I don't think you're in a position to assume that the director has projected any of his values onto the film.

I think this is a wonderful interpretation of the novella. The script, cinematography and direction are sublime. Obviously Redford needed to flesh out the book-embellish a bit with some of the minor characters but I think he remained true to spirit of the novella and people that populate it. Based on what I've read about Norman Maclean, his brother Paul would always remain a mystery to him throughout his life-this is not something that Redford made up in a need to project his own values onto to the film. Where did Redford assign blame for Paul's drinking to a conservative upbringing? I think you've lost the point of the film if you feel that it's about people looking to assign blame for this tragedy. This is a story about unconditional love, of family and the ties that bind us together-of the perfection that comes from excelling at something and how that can bring us closer to God. In some ways it's also about the tragedy of alcoholism.

I'm lost as to what your last paragraph has to do with this film. Based on what you've written, it would appear you've projected your own beliefs about the director and a liberal Hollywood onto this film. It's ironic that you come across as morally superior and highly judgmental with a definite prejudice against the director after blaming him of having the same prejudice. You've "over-thunk" this lovely film.

This excerpt comes directly From the novella (not Redford)

“Each one of us here today will at one time in our lives look upon a loved one who is in need and ask the same question: We are willing to help, Lord, but what, if anything, is needed? For it is true we can seldom help those closest to us. Either we don't know what part of ourselves to give or, more often than not, the part we have to give is not wanted. And so it is those we live with and should know who elude us. But we can still love them - we can love completely without complete understanding.”
― Norman Maclean, A River Runs Through It and Other Stories

"Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it." Norman Maclean

[–] deck007-1 9 years ago

I thought the review people were so enamored with here....I think it was by GhostyFox was excellent too.

The message of this film for me - sometimes bad things happen, and we just don't know why.

This is the ending to another reply. I would just say about this that "sometimes" is wrong. If you look at the world......bad things happen much more often than good ones. I believe anybody (well, almost) who participates in these message boards are lucky.

With the population at around 7 billion & growing......there is a clock that shows how many births in the world in an hour. Almost all of these births are basically a luck lottery.

Depending who gives birth to you & what country u live in determines your life. And by far most will have brutal lives & short ones. I will add that I see God mentioned a lot in these messages. I don't believe in the God most people refer to these days anymore than all of the others before this one. I know that leads to endless arguments...so that is just what I think & am not saying what anybody else should.

SOMETHING INTERESTING - I saw this again a while back & I really like it a lot too. And I really liked some of these messages. When the older brother tells his dad what happened to Paul and that the bones in one of Paul's hands were all broken....his father thinks for a beat and says "which hand"?

In another Redford Movie "The Horse Whisperer" when Kristen Scott Thomsas's daughter is badly injured & she gets to the hospital (the Mom)- a doctor & her husband tell her they had to amputate part of one of her daughters legs (the daughter is Scarlett J. really young), the Mom thinks for a beat and then says "which leg"?

I know this meandered a bit - but my 2 cents.

[–] pturman-929-979676 13 years ago

What happened was he was trying to help his brother but was unable to, as was the rest of the family. This was summed up in Reverand McClean's final sermon in which he states "each one of us will look upon a loved one who is in need & ask the same question: We are willing to help, Lord, but what is needed? Either we don't know which part of ourselves to give or the part we have to give is not wanted. And so it is those we should know who elude us. But we can still love them. We can love completely, without complete understanding." I've been on both sides. I've been a loved one who needed help & also seen a loved one who was in need of help.

[–] Silverandwhite 12 years ago

I have just watched the film again and what I have discovered this time is how often people who are close ( family, friends...) can´t do very much to help or to be really available among each others.
I also see how important the fishing is in the film, it is an important character because Paul seems to really connect with his family only through fishing, it is as if it was magical, and I realise that it is true that we need to do certain things and activities together in order to give more strength to our relationships, or to resume a relationship because, thanks to that activity, we recognize our bond.

[–] yumasa 9 years ago

Life happened. We all balance our actions between expectations of others and following our inner passions. The brothers lean on to different sides. You can describe the reason, for me, that is not interesting.

A river runs through these two sides. Where Paul is crossing, diving, embracing the life energy, Norman stays closer to one side of the land on firmer soil. It is the foundational tragedy of brotherhood seen in many movies. Here brought to life with exceptional subtlety and clarity.

Norman never understood what is passion; his story is descriptive, not expressive. His story is written from the conformist view of "doing your part" in the society and "doing the right thing". As he does not understand, he resorts to dramatic interpretation of why and what. For him god, art, perfection and beauty are ideals from the literature. He knows only the words. He sees them only in his brother. He never becomes them himself unless you want to conclude final scene to that experience.

A Wonderful piece of film work.

[–] rj-27 9 years ago

So many thoughtful and wonderful comments. Inspired by a carefully crafted movie to do just that. This is the top thread, I think, I have seen in my 16 years of being an IMBD member.

A river runs through these two sides. Where Paul is crossing, diving, embracing the life energy, Norman stays closer to one side of the land on firmer soil. It is the foundational tragedy of brotherhood seen in many movies. Here brought to life with exceptional subtlety and clarity.

I believe this strikes closest to the thematic imagery Norman Maclean meant to present in comparing his life to that of his brother's.

While Paul lives in the turbulent waters of life (climaxed allegorically in the scene where the battle with the huge trout takes him in and under dangerous rapids) where those dangers finally catch up to him and tragically, but not unexpectedly, end his life.

Norman lives his life on the edge of, but carefully avoiding, the extreme dangers of fast waters.

The two brothers meet in the river that is the strongest thread of connection they will ever know.

"Maybe all I ever really knew about Paul is that he was a great fisherman."

"You knew more than that. He was beautiful."

Did his father mean this superficially (maybe) or as something indicative of the way Paul reflected the work of his Creator in a way many of us envy but can never quite emulate?

Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. H.L. Mencken

[–] ShannonTriumphant 7 years ago

I really like this interpretation:

Where Paul is crossing, diving, embracing the life energy, Norman stays closer to one side of the land on firmer soil. It is the foundational tragedy of brotherhood seen in many movies. Here brought to life with exceptional subtlety and clarity.

This is even shown visually, when Paul not only gives up his father's 4-count method of fly fishing to invent his own style, which he calls "shadowcasting", but even plunges into the river after hooking a huge fish, refusing to give it up, no matter the cost. I think that this is at least part of what his father means by calling Paul "beautiful"; he lives life to the fullest and I think the father is even a little envious of that, despite his upbringing.

It's ironic that Brad Pitt played a very similar character, Tristan Ludlow, in "Legends of the Fall", who, as his older brother whines "breaks all the laws" and "everyone loves you more". Interestingly, this film is also set in Montana (though filmed in Canada).

I don't think Norman keeps resenting Paul's wildness and his father's favoritism, but comes to terms with the fact that he chose to live a more staid, safe life and also, that Paul's lifestyle would never have suited him.

This idea of two different brothers inspiring different sorts of love in people, especially parents, is very old. You see it with Hector and Paris of Troy in Homer's Iliad or with the Bible's story of the Prodigal Son.

-Those we should know elude us. But we can...love without complete understanding.