I wasn't sure if I totally misinterpreted what was going on, but it seemed that when the Dad got totally drunk on New Years Eve, he and his daughter stopped the car and "did it", I think. They didn't actually show it but it was sort of implied. No wonder the mom completely lost it.
shareI was under the impression that he did do something to her, that sick bastard.
http://dearsuicide.blogspot.com/ Where DEATH is still celebrated
[deleted]
what a stupid convoluted scene - what a coward the director was - either make a statement or not. As it was the camerawork was supposed to be symbolic of something but it was as hamhanded as a 1st yr film student. Basically shooting the blanket and half of the rear view mirror...reaally?
I was like WTF????? are you saying they had sex??
this movie was so poor....
I, also, thought it was a cop-out by the director to be so ambiguous with this scene. There's another thread on this board from someone comparing the film to the events of the book, and yes, Norma definitely WAS molested by her father in the car, but the way the scene is cut in the film you can argue that all that happened during it was her father crawled on her lap and fell asleep. I suppose the filmmakers didn't want to demonize the dad any more than they already had, because supposedly in the book he's not as much of a drunk as he's portrayed in the movie, either.
You know....some day this war's gonna end!
Atually, the message I took from the scene was that they were physically close. She was probably a virgin that no boy would touch, and the father probably had not touched his wife in years. So, I thought, they hugged, or he simply rested his head on her lap. In other words, they were both hungry for physical contact, not necessarily sex. That physical closeness is all that was intended in the scene, or at least that's what I thought. However, that depiction of physical closeness makes us wonder if they had sex before, or if they would do it later, so that the scene has implications that go beyond itself.
Although the movie is based on a book, the film needs to be interpreted without any external reference.
The key that it was a serious offense was what Norma did afterwards. They pull up in the driveway and she turns away from the house to go visit Stella (Ingrid Nilson), the "I can't believe it's 1970" scene. Yeah, in the book it's more clear and Norma always rides in the backseat afterwards. Also her friendship with Stella turns much sadder. The actress portraying Norma has retired from acting by the way. It's a tough business! Ingrid Nilson was good in What Goes Up (2009), but you almost wouldn't recognize her. Really a nice turn as a quirk in an ensemble cast, she set a tone the movie needed.
shareI was beginning to think that too but I concluded that he gave her a hug. Maybe the director wanted the scene to be tripped that way. His jacket did cover the lens and as his arm was releasing from around her we could see the sun began to shine.
shareI agree that in the movie, regardless of what the book says, that scene was very ambiguous and should have made a more direct statement of what happened. I don't think, as others have said, the director could commit to either way. Her statement of 'Dad' during the scene certainly implied the dad was at least making her uncomfortable but where that uneasiness came from we will never know. The movie claimed in the beginning to be approved for everyone which is obviously not the case, at least on my DVD that's what it said. Maybe with this line of thinking they thought that explicitly stating or showing an inappropriate sexual relationship with father and daughter was beyond what they were comfortable with but hinting at the possibility was fine.
share