Amaqjuak's wife (spoilers)
...What happens to her after he's murdered? She just disappears, unless I'm missing something.
shareI also wondered about that and have now seen the film three times, without finding an answer. Maybe (and this is a BIG maybe), their culture mandated that a widowed sister-in-law be taken in by the surviving brother. If this is so, then perhaps it would have complicated an already complex plot and so she was dropped.
This film was confusing to me the first time I saw it (on video). I looked it up on Wikipedia and actually printed out the plot summary. Using this as a guide, I watched it again and realized how much I had not understood the first time. I really think the subtitles could have helped with the confusion, especially with the shaman's appearance and the binding ritual at the beginning.
I did rate this a "10" because it has all of what I enjoy about films - it is engrossing, entertaining and educates.
[deleted]
Hello SLCM-
thank you for your response and the info in it. This was indeed a thought-provoking film.
It sounds logical that this would happen but it certainly was not made clear in the film. On the other hand, it was complicated enough without introducing yet another sub-plot.
Thank you again for taking the time to respond. This is such a neat forum and the diverse views are always fascinating.
pamela
I think her name was Uluriaq. That's close.
Maybe she went to live with other family members, that we don't know about. She didn't appear to be related to either family. Atanarjuat's or the family of Oki/Puja/Sauri/Panikpak.
"You think you know, what you are, what's to come,
U DUN EVIN GOT STURTED."
you watched this movie... without subtitles??!!
shareI too did not fully understand (or therefore appreciate) this movie but have since read a very well constructed review. Armed with this new information I watched it again and can now fully appreciate how wonderful this film is.
I too have no answer as to the fate of the widow. Your guess is as good a reason as I can find.
Hard to agree with you that it makes sense to give a 10 to a hard to follow film. Why should it be so hard. This film mamanges to be at once hard to understand and overly simplistic. That is just poor film making, for me. I think it is a 4 or 5 personally.
I got my laptop out and followed the first 30 min on the wikipedia article, and then put the laptop away after that.
It's not a Hollywood film, it was an Canadian indie film about the Inuits made by Inuit filmmakers themselves from their POV. So,naturally,it's gonna be hard to understand because it dosen't follow the usual typical Western narratives/tropes/cliches of western filmmaking, which is why I liked it--- it was so uniquely different in its own right. Plus it's nice to finally see a film about Inuits made by themselves without the Hollywood gaze they're usually seen through. That's what made it so interesting to watch in the first place.
shareLoved it.
__ __
Hate leads to anger.
Anger leads to the Dark Side.
This is a Haiku.