I'd like to say first of all that I loved this little gem of a film! But, I too think Willem Dafoes voice-over was not necessary, and even detracts from the film. We are intelligent enough to think and feel for ourselves on how the film is affecting us! Also, his role was so small compared to all the other family members and friends in the film, why?
I take it to mean, when they say they never speak of Wade, that he ran away and was never heard from again. But, nonetheless, its a brilliant film with top-notch acting from both veteran actor James Coburn , as the violent drunken patriarch of the family, and from Nick Nolte as the eldest son, who in his ever-disintegrating mental state,and drinking, is fast-becoming all too like his maniacal father...
reply
share
pylgrym
17 years ago
IMHO, the prayers of Wade's sister were answered. He was spared the justice system of New Hampshire but, like Cain after he slew Abel, was doomed to walk the Earth unknown, unloved - a 'marked' man - forever....
YE must be born again
reply
share
corruptmatt
17 years ago
Damn that is the best reply I've ever seen on the IMDB!!!
I may be wrong but I think in Schrader on Schrader it is mentioned that the book opens with the same narration from the brother.
I'm really not sure but I think it may be.
It's odd I remember Dafoe at the funeral when he looks at his brother and father after their confrontation, it seemed he was part of the film then but in the beginning no.
reply
share
dubexplorations
17 years ago
Wade's final words.. "..so that I can continue." - in response to the suffering/(affliction) Wade himself inherited..!
W/o Dafoe's narrative, there would be no context to the notion/statement of the larger message of the film's message.
*best-line, "..I'm almost out of 'browns' dammit..!!"
reply
share
variable-7
17 years ago
Yeah I pretty much loved all of Cobrun's lines in this movie.
My favorite is when they are in prayer after his wife dies and he is sitting away from them drinking, which in itself is hilarious. Then one of them says something like
"Oh but God is your savior" or something about religion
Cobrun: "Ohhh.. go *beep* yourself!"
reply
share
17 years ago
[deleted]
xdayton
16 years ago
Dafoe's narration is crucial. He is the one bearing witness to the story of his family, specifically the men in his family, who suffer the "affliction" of violence. The narration not only sets the tone for the movie, but provides the crucial context for all that happens. And his character is the one who lives on, to deal with the affliction (which his character does by, essentially, becoming invisible).
Not sure why anyone needs his role to be "bigger." The movie is identical to the novel in this respect.
reply
share
Writ_in_Water
14 years ago
Dafoe is the secret villain of the movie. His sad-sack, touchy-feely narration is just a misdirection. His abuse at the hands of his father (which he was always too cowardly to resist) has left him emotionally scarred, paranoid and self-absorbed (which is why he thinks the movie is HIS story). HE is the one who tells Nolte that the hunting death was a murder; he is responsible for Nolte's spiraling paranoia and destruction. He is a weak man who can only act thru others, and then tell a story about it (he shapes his family's story into one of suicidal despair). He embodies the movie's hidden message about the evils of fatalism and passivity.
reply
share
nodttiurp
12 years ago
Wow! Previous response is really creative. I see Dafoe as the younger brother that sees the futility of his brother's resistance to the father and seeks an alternative resolution to his own frustration by abandoning the family and locale. You may call this cowardly, but I call it a wise, defensive, withdrawal. Military calls it a retrograde operation.
So, in order to present the narrative, the author apologizes for his withdrawal and tries explain what appears to be heinous acts of his brother. In other words, he tells the story of his brother, within which he is only a minor character, after the fact.
So, this leads to interesting suppositions.
Is the real author Dafoe? Or, did the real author create a Dafoe based on a real event?
The lack of resolution about what happened to Wade is what this movie is based upon. Frustration!
Is this a true story?
reply
share
thepooles-1
12 years ago
I will assume that Russell Banks knows which character he represents in this tragic tale. The Dafoe character has indeed chosen -but not by free will- to somehow to put an end to family abuse dynamic by not marrying and certainly by not having children. He's also chosen academia over homesteading. I'd bet that Banks is married with children and a productive nurturing parent. I'll check his bio to see if I'm right, At least I hope he isn't a single, childless Dafoe type.
reply
share
thepooles-1
12 years ago
Moving away from a dysfunctional setting is wise AND courageous. But the Rolfe character is clearly a wimp and sheepish. It was probably his temperament before his dad called him a candy ass. I see him as unlikely to marry let alone have children.
I saw Wade as perishing in some remote woods after the shooting where his remains would be scattered by animals. I don't see him finding a new hidden life somewhere. Wade, while he was stroking the brow of a physical force and threat no longer viable, seemed to sense his father was also a victim of an abusive upbringing. It was a late epiphany and too late to try and save himself by helping his father change his brutish behavior.
reply
share
thepooles-1
12 years ago
The Rolfe character is a timid male- a "candy ass" as his father calls him. He is in denial that his whole personal life was bent in a tragic downward arc by his father's abusive demeanor. When asked if he teaches at Harvard he volunteers that he teaches at BU in a self effacing manner.
Rolfe feels awful about buying into and then reinforcing Wade's suspicions of criminal acts behind the death of a bigshot Boston union guy and will live with that guilt until he dies.
The score enhanced this elegiac film in a compelling manner. The mournful French horn figure stood in for all the Whitehouse males and when it was doubled by a simple low guitar line it suggested that here were men who had lost their way. The scene where Wade is stroking the brow of his deceased father suggests that Wade - finally free of an ominous threat - realizes his father was also a tragic victim of an abusive macho upbringing.
A son can be tormented by the thought that he somehow should have been able to make a father whole and exorcize the father's flaws and shortcomings. A son also wonders if a poor showing on his part deepens a father's cynical fatalism that the genetic lineage is one of losers.
reply
share
GuyOnTheLeft
11 years ago
I like this "secret villain" angle. I just started a thread wondering if he is an unreliable narrator. I even wonder if his villainy could involve something else, like after he figures out the conspiracy he becomes part of it? Probably a reach, but I don't know.
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
reply
share
PopperTheKungFu-Dragon
10 years ago
Interesting. I hadn't thought of this, but you could be right. I actually didn't like Dafoe's character and felt sorry for Wade.
reply
share
thepooles-1
12 years ago
Agreement with your opinion. Dafoe's narrative presence is an important aspect of the tale. We are led to believe that Dafoe will live out his life with survivor's guilt and regret. AFFLICTION resonated with me in the strongest way possible. There was a fleeting moment when Wade stroked his father's brow after delivering an unintentional fatal rifle butt blow and saw his father for the first time as most likely a tragic victim of generational childhood abuse such as he had experienced. The affliction was generational and Wade was left with no choice but to wander off and let himself die in the wilds. The story of a dysfunctional family would end with his death.
reply
share