I think this is a great aussie film!!
Dion Beebe is a legend
i wish him all the best for his hard work : )
and Clara Law for her endeavours she is a wonderful director
did BG aka Rose Byrne murder the couple ?
was he the same guy that tried to pull a fast one on her in the outback ?
she only suggested it was suicide
if anyone can shed light i would love to know
thx in advance
neo
I just watched it and didn't understand many of the things in it... the 2 questions u have are on my mind too.... plus some more:
How did BG end up in the couple's house?
I remember the boxer guy drove away with her Goddess, leaving her sleeping under a tree with some deers (?) in the wild... so... what happened between there and... when she was with the little daughter of the couple?
would be happy if someone could enlighten me.
btw, i love Clara Law's films!
They were dingos near the tree she was sleeping, not deers.
I thought that she must be an adopted type of child of the couple (greg and wife) and that the husband shot the wife and then killed himself through anger that she wanted $40,000 for the car and he would settle for $35,000, like BG said.
I watched this film on video many years ago , and could not fit things together, then
observed the DVD release ,and again too many disconnected factors leave no logic to solution within the complexity of plot.It is a stand alone film that potentially is
going to remain untouched to resolve.
The intrique also is something held in account with Clara Law and her script writing partner whom it is believed had racked together enough script material for possibly two films within the one.What this means or how the threads of the story were edited altered ,shifted forwards or backwards in timeline is unclear.How the characters were
brought to the surface to be connected the environments they were established ,and what modus operandi influnced their presentation to the cinema audience , again goes back to Clara Law and ( i cannot recall his name ?? ).
This was probably a little frustrating to rationale ,and yet may have let audiences of the hook should more or less undesirable events ,or perhaps more of the darker passages in the characters experiences taken on the journey.It is a 'road movie in a sense,yet the car is the most resilient object , a machine , metal,nuts, bolts, wheeels. THe characters are not so strong, emotionally fractured, fish out of water,
and haunted by past and uncertain of future,until like a T.S Elliott poem the wasteland or the journey ,they recognise the place they first started out with , then know that place for the first time.
Hi mates,
I think the question "did she or didn't she" is up to the audience... I couldn't make out any solution in the film.
I agree with fsc2984. I saw it for the first time last night and I'm totally in love with this film.
Sex is kinda like pizza. When it's bad, it's still pretty good.
It's probably the most obvious loose thread in the movie. But there were others.
But in the end, the sense of realism would diminish to the point where the logic of events (at least, some of them) wasn't important.
My first impression was that the blind girl didn't kill the couple. It looked like the crime scene investigators had been there (chalk or tape outlines of bodies). The blind girl may have been around when they were there, based on how well she knew where the body bits were located.
But would the police have left the little girl behind with the blind one?
The scene that convinced me of the unreality of the story was the one where the blind girl says goodbye to the little girl: You're Mum and Dad are dead - and I'm leaving you - stay in the gas station until the police arrive.
It's at that point that I threw off all expectations of logic and reality. The story is to be as surreal as the photography.
Another untied thread is the two men who try to run the Citroen off the road. Who where they? What were they up to? Did they have anything to do with the couples' death? That may have been answered by the end credits -- which list the two men as "road rage" driver and passenger.
Later on, the question would arise of how the blind girl tracked down the car and the owners. Again: no answer.
The fact that these didn't get in the way of my enjoyment of the movie is very surreal in itself.
I dont know about BG but the 'road rage' guys were just that. Morons who got upset because the car infront was driving too slow.
shareI am probably too apt to take things at face value but...
- the boxer and Mr. Hughes aren't the same...B.G. (or Deidre???) ended up on the test drive with the boxer, and specifically asked him, begged him, to take her to her cousin's...then adding, 'in the city'. I'm assuming that Mr. Hughes (or his wife) was that cousin.
- I assumed that after the unfortunate night, the boxer searched for, and found, BG/Deidre, and they continued the journey.
- that would explain how the car ended up where Deidre/B.G. was...presumably, boxer drove her there and left her (and the car) there. What happened to boxer, etc, I think becomes minor point in story, then.
- nothing suggested to me that the girl killed the couple...and it would be a bit of a stretch to figure out how she might have done so, although, the acid test of realism didn't seem to be an over-riding consideration through the movie
- the idea that the little girl had been left with the blind girl, esp so shortly after the tragedy (marks still on floor, blood on walls) does stretch credibility.
- the little girl being dropped off at the gas station strikes me as less incredulous... if there were people there, I could see a faith-based assumption that 'she would be alright'...
- the blunt words on her departure I thought were in character. BG/Deidre was scarred, damaged, and several times...spoke bluntly. Not with hostility, just what one might call, inappropriate bluntness. Or candor, if you prefer. She wasn't much for euphenisms, IIRC.
- of course, the concept that she could be dropped off, and the couple then head off on their 5 day drive, without being tracked down after dropping the girl off, does again stretch credulity.
- as for the guys in the Volvo, initially on viewing, I just took them as 'typical mean, normal people', but given that this little movie didn't turn on plot twists and dramatic tension, I'm now more inclined to see them as perhaps "2 individuals who were everybit as 'normal and conventional' as our protagonists were 'unique and alienated', and as such, much more than ready to ostracize and terrorize the unconventional when they chance upon them, and, in particular, not merely ignorant of the fact that they had happened upon the presence of a goddess (or two) but anxiously to belittle, threaten and risk destruction of same.
Or something like that.
I've just finished watching this movie, & I have to say that Whynot2's explanation of the chronology makes the most sense to me & jibes with my take on the movie, & I particularly appreciate his wise words on the subject of "normal & conventional" people. Well said, my friend!
By the way, the poem JeromeScott is referencing is not from "The Waste Land" but another, equally-magnificent work by Eliot, "Four Quartets", specifically the last stanza of the last poem in that collection, entitled "Little Gidding". Just so's everybody knows.