MovieChat Forums > Jindabyne (2006) Discussion > What on Earth was wrong about their acti...

What on Earth was wrong about their actions???

posted 17 years ago by rei_t_ex
96 replies | jump to latest

Who was unfairly hurt by them?

They found a dead body in the middle of nowhere Friday evening, and reported it on Sunday morning. So what - the whole outrage was over the police starting 36 hours later on a case they were unlikely to ever solve? I suppose it would have been ideal to send one person back to the car and then to within a cellphone signal, but it is a well known fact that people under duress and in unusual circumstances act less rationally than they might otherwise, and the superiority of such an action over simply staying there for another day and a half is excessively minor.

What other choices did they make?

1. To move the body from relatively stagnant water to somewhere more rapidly flowing? The potential downside is that more rapidly flowing water could wash away some trace forensic evidence that was left, with the upside that it discourages the same due to the actions of insects and fish. Pretty even, in my opinion.

2. To leave the body in the cold water as they found it rather than dragging it with them on a multi hour trek through a forest, under a hot Sun? Obviously this decision was the right one.

3. To tether the body to something rather than living it untethered. Again, obviously the right choice - it would not be very smart to risk letting a murder victim float away.

Anything I am missing?

And why was the fact that the girl had some minuscule fraction of Aborigine blood in her so heavily stressed. Indeed, I did not even realise this fact until one of the characters called her "black". Racism? You have to be kidding! Ditto for her other attributes - people are far more inclined to do things for pretty young girls (even dead pretty young girls), than they are for fat old men...

[–] Drtimk 17 years ago

Ummm! Two go as quickly as possible for help while two stay with the body! 99.9% of people would have done this. Ever thought she might have had a worried family?

[–] glumpy_99 17 years ago

I had a debate about this with a friend after I watched the movie. My feeling is that if I came on a dead body while on a camping/fishing trip, the trip would *IMMEDIATELY* be over, and my primary concern would be doing all I could to contact the police. I doubt I could relax and enjoy myself knowing somewhere the person's family were concerned, compounded by my sense of identification with the body (what if it were a family member of mine dead, dumped in the bush). Ethically speaking, I wonder how anyone can even *question* the wrong-headedness of their actions.

Robert Altman
1925-2006
RIP

[–] Drtimk 17 years ago

Of Course. You'd just freak out and be running on adrenaline.Also,you'd think. Gosh,I don't want to be a suspect!Need to do the right thing etc...

[–] GoldenGooner04 16 years ago

I would have hoped any human being would go straight to get help and phone the Police.
How on Earth could they carry on fishing with a dead body in the water

[–] HHFan 17 years ago

Because everybody doesn't feel like you. Who cares about some strangers.
Also there is the danger the police might say you did it.
That said i would probably turn around and then report it anonymously.

[–] carey-8 16 years ago

I certainly wouldn't be able to sleep camping out next to a dead body. And I certainly wouldn't be able to sleep having left it there without telling someone right away.

[–] auggie1doggie2000 16 years ago

I thought I would throw up when he came home and started making love. How replusive!

[–] emncaity 16 years ago

"I had a debate about this with a friend..."

I'm pretty sure that's exactly the reaction the original writer of the story was looking for--seven pages of posting on this thread alone, and way more on a whole bunch of other threads, in the aggregate.

It's exactly the point that it's hard to articulate in so many words any reason why what the guys did was wrong, but it _seems_ wrong, and if you were married to someone who did it you might look at him a little bit differently. Who is that sleeping in my bed now? How much do I know about this person?

I mean, any verbal formulation of why what they did was wrong falls apart pretty quickly. Would the victim have been less dead if they hadn't done what they did? Nope. Did any of them to anything to cause the death or desecrate the body? Huh-uh. Was it a fairly unusual situation--like, it's not like finding a body on the street out in front of your house, but rather, they were in a spot that took quite a bit of time and effort to get into and out of? Did any of them have any ill will or hatred? No, no, and no...but still. And in the "still" is the power of the central event.

I do think the script needed a serious rewrite, and there are times when it lapses into melodrama. What's good about the film is the idea of it and the moral questions it raises; that is, the idea of the story is better than the way it's executed. Regardless, it obviously provokes some serious discussion.

[–] rei_t_ex 17 years ago

Well, I did say that their behaviour was ultimately irrational. My point was that there was little that was unethical about it, in contrast to the vilification that they were subjected to in the film.

[–] Drtimk 17 years ago

Sorry,totally disagree. Criminal,in fact!

[–] rei_t_ex 17 years ago

Giving your reasons for disagreeing would make your statement much more useful.

[–] Drtimk 17 years ago

Already have. What about her family? Worried sick,I imagine. Also a body decays quickly,in water or otherwise. Plus the thought she was left there while they continue fishing is incredibly disrespectful.The person is dead. Let the process of grieving occur as quickly as possible.Have you ever had anyone close to you die?

[–] scarlett1978 17 years ago

I think it is obvious that their actions were unethical and moreover inappropriate. Obviously, it crossed my mind initially that maybe their delayed response wasn't as bad as was recieved. But you could tell they did feel guilty themselves despite trying to justify their actions. So some small part of them knew what they did was wrong. However, Laura Linneys charater makes an interesting point when she asks her husband the question of whether they would have left the body in the water if it had been a boy. Iregardless of what race the girl was or the fact she was a young woman, it got me thinking that even if the dead body had been a man of whatever color or race that they probably would have done the same thing. Because it was an adult. However if it was a child,then one can only wonder if they would have felt comfortable with delaying their report. To leave a dead child floating in the water while they caught fish and enjoyed their meals would have surely played on their conscience.... so to answer the question "what on earth was wrong with their actions?" all you have to do is flip the situation around a little. Also, why did the irish guy have another look at the body? A bit macabre i think and maybe a bit perverted?

[–] Drtimk 17 years ago

My whole problem was if they'd been *beep* it may have been believable. But they were clearly not. Hence,I found the whole thing incredulous. Maybe it's saying something about fisherholics. I just found the whole movie a poor excuse to lay lots of apologetic nonsense on. It doesn't stand up. Not that movies need to be realistic. It's just that when you set serious themes to a movie the story should be credible. And to me this movie is not. Their actions were despicable. I'm not a moral high ground person. I have no set beliefs other than those based around fundamental human dignity. I just don't believe a group of four reasonably normal men would do this.

[–] tonto_mbopo 17 years ago

This reminds me of a story my grandfather told me when I was a boy. A bunch of loggers near Smokey Cape in NSW came across the bodies of a man and a woman in a gully in the late 1800s. I cant remember if the dead were black or white but knowing the attitudes of my grandfather's generation regarding aborigines in that time and place I'm assuming they were white.
Rather than interrupt their work or send someone back to South West Rocks and leave themselves a man short the loggers buried the remains in shallow graves and continued felling trees for five days.
There was no public outcry as far as my grandpa knew; in fact, he used the story to illustrate a point about Australian men - that the country itself gives Aussie men a hard and callous exterior and that the bona fide 'bloke' does not waste tears on things he cannot mend.
While I cannot endorse my grandpa's view or even verify the accuracy of his story I could not help be reminded of these things while watching Jindabyne. Part of me got it completely when the fishermen didnt return to the car immediately to call for help. By the time they'd brought the body in closer to the bank it was getting towards twilight and thrashing through the bush in the dark would have been out of the question. What turned the tide was when Byrne's character caught that first fish the next morning; that was the catalyst for them to shrug their shoulders and remain. It was almost archetypal blokey behaviour, as described by my grandpa, for them to disregard the ethics of their situation and to go about the business they'd come for.
Yes, I do agree that such an attitude is somewhat reprehensible. However, I do not think it is outside the bounds of possibility given the history of our national male character. Modern forensics, the Irishman, the law and family considerations aside, I can see similar events as those depicted in Jindabyne happening easily.

[–] Miss_Alana 17 years ago

It's a moral argument: whether you could do that to another person; whether you could just tie them up while they're naked and continue with your camping trip as though nothing happened. We're talking about 4 regular guys here, not hardened criminals. I can understand why the cops and the women were so shocked.

I thought they could have dont without the racism aspect of the storyline... I dont think their actions were racially motovated at all (she didn't even look that Aboriginal) but they were wrongly interpreted by the Leah Purcell's character as being racially motivated. It added another complexity to the storyline.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Schezzi 17 years ago

The racial issues in the movie highlighted local tensions - being Aboriginal is not a 'look', but the distraught family of a culture where respect for the dead is sacred couldn't understand the men's actions otherwise.

[–] alkamal_r 16 years ago

Look, the racial aspect of the storyline was added to show the local tensions between the communities. Of course there was no racist element in their actions but sometimes these things can happen where people are falsely accused of racism. This also added to the unfairness of the situation which the men found themselves in.

Ironically, this isn't even ironic at all.

[–] Limeginger 16 years ago

How do you know there was no racist element to their actions? If she were a willowy pale blond who looked like Nicole Kidman is it possible they wouldn't have kept fishing? When Claire is passing the plate for donations for the girl's funeral few people in town pony up funds. And the blond friend goes so far as to say disparagingly that "those people" aren't really a part of the community.

I curious whether the people who say the racial element is unnecessary are Australian? I'm American, and I think the racial element added a lot. otoh, I can imagine if it were an American film in which a black woman were found in a river by 4 white guys who ignored her for 2 days, many white Americans might reject the thought that race had anything to do with it. Rather than some probably totally unconscious racism that would allow them to regard her as an object floating in the river like a beer cooler, rather than identifying with her--i.e., not automatically empathizing and seeing her as someone like their beloveds, sister, cousin, girlfriend, wife, etc.

[–] rmoriarty97 8 years ago

I agree - in fact I believe the tensions between the white and Aboriginal communities in this story formed the basis for the entire film.

[–] jonnocr 17 years ago

It didn't make sense to me either.
As an Australian male I just don't think fishing (or other male pursuits, for that matter) are THAT sacred that they would warrant delaying the reporting of a dead body.

[–] Bushbaby31010 17 years ago

The whole point of it, is not that there was anything specifically wrong with their actions, merely that his wife felt that there was, and she couldn't reconcile hereself with what had happened.
It's not Good versus Bad, or Right versus Wrong, it's simply A versus B.
Ray Carver writes this type of story better than anyone.

[–] totalfailure 16 years ago

they didn't continue fishing because they are fishaholics - they continued with their trip because this was the only time the old world men could get away from their stiffling lives, away from the modern world, and away from their unhappy home lives.

they figured - she'd dead, but we're still dying. this was one of the few times left for them to enjoy their lives. they tethered her, put her on hold, and then continued with their trip. the young man is the antithesis - he can't wait to get back with the girlfriend, get his ear phones on, contact the police, get on a cell phone. he's a product of the modern world.

[–] cflr 16 years ago

Groups of reasonably normal men and women have committed many horrific acts through the course of time. One only needs to look at the numerous genocides that have been committed for examples.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ObstinateAnnette 14 years ago

Drtimk, you do real this was based on a real story, correct ?

This movie wasn't based on a true story. It was based on the fictional short story by Raymond Carver, "So Much Water So Close To Home".

I need my 1987 DG20 Casio electric guitar set to mandolin, yeah...

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Krustallos 17 years ago

why did the irish guy have another look at the body?

My take on this was that it was to show he was genuinely sorrowed by what had happened - he looked at her with tenderness and he was emotionally affected. The point is that he was also able to compartmentalise, to cut off that sorrow and carry on with his fishing.

This is the whole point of the original story - the divide and indeed incomprehension between the rational, 'male', approach and the 'emotional' female approach. And also the "correct", "polite society" reaction (compare with Camus' L'Etranger, if you've read it).

I think the race element was brought in to add another dimension to that - on the other hand it muddied the waters somewhat also.

As I recall the original story it was not at all clear that there had been a murder, so there was less of an issue of the evidence trail going cold. It seemed a lot less obvious that the men were doing the wrong thing.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ulht1 16 years ago

Yep - unless Australia/NSW is some different about the laws on that sort of thing than the US is. (Refing the "criminal, in fact." line)

[–] rmoriarty97 8 years ago

Agree with this. And the evidence is that there ARE actually laws about interfering with human remains.

No-one has yet mentioned the cultural aspects - the Aboriginal culture, like any other culture, has traditions and rituals around death and dying and there was no opportunity for these to be observed properly due to the time lapse between the finding of the body and the reporting of the death.

This is why we have criminal laws around death and bodies - the deceased deserve the utmost respect as do their families and community, no matter what the culture.

[–] donnastar2001 17 years ago

OKAY! I DON'T KNOW WHO OR WHERE YOU COME FROM BUT YOU MY FRIEND ARE A FREAK! I HOPE TO GOD YOU FIND YOURSELF IN THIS POSITION! MOST LIKELY YOUR CHILD! WHAT IF IT WAS A BABY? WOULD YOU STILL FILL THE SAME WAY?!! WHAT A *beep* A**HOLE!! THIS IS WHY WARS CONTINUE AND PEOPLE HAVE LITTLE TO NO CONNECTION TO WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE WORLD. I AM SURE YOU ARE MALE! SO *beep* TYPICAL.

[–] juxtapose70 12 years ago

Some possible spoilers.

I agree. Their actions, while apathetic and out of the norm, were not criminal actions yet the men were treated like racist criminals. I also agree with you about the "race" issue. Why is that always coming up? I thought she was white. She sure as hell looked white before she was killed and when she was in the water. Only when Laura Linney went to the morgue after it was mentioned that she was "black" did I see some colour..but not much.

The men were wrong. Apathy is always wrong. But it's not a crime. I loved this story because it shows how apathy often sets off worse things than the crime itself. i.e. her young son almost drowning, (what if he had?)- the psycho little girl whose mom had died becoming a serial killer herself. After all, she had a very unhealthy view of death. All these things could have happened in a real case scenario. Apathy is the root of evil. Just watch how they continue to fish and tell me it's not. It is the worst thing about civilised people. The ending was great because that's where the apathy ended.

I just didn't get the swat of the wasp.

[–] rmoriarty97 8 years ago

Their actions, while apathetic and out of the norm, were not criminal actions yet the men were treated like racist criminals.

Actually there ARE laws about interfering with bodies so yes, it was a criminal action. And you can tell very clearly from her facial features that she is Aboriginal. Not that this the point anyway.

[–] santiagosss 17 years ago

I believe there is no point to argue if it's a big deal what the men did with the dead body - actually not doing anything is also an act of violence. I think the film is about not solving the problems when they are meant to be solved. Let things pass just to skip the conflict is a mistake that pays back strongly later on, to us and everybody around us.
It's like when you are reading a book and you are not really paying attention to what you are reading but you keep turning pages and keep reading. The information you skipped in previous pages will affect the understandng of the reading until the end of the book. It's the same about life. We have to make an effort to understand every single one of our acts and the people around us.
The problem the characters in the movie have is that they do not talk about the problems in the past, therefore they are in conflict with the present and they cannot confront the future.
The whole dead body in the river thing is a methaphor of this issue. The men are meant to face a big matter but they just leave the matter aside for a while. That is an irresponsability, specially for an adult human being. When this is done there is only one thing that solves it: redemption (making an effort, accept our responsabilities, our mistake, face its consecuences). The spirit of the dead girl only rests in peace and leaves when redemption finaly comes into play. The whole aborigine ceremony at the end of the film is about walking through the smoke to leave bad spirits behind. And that's what the characters of the film have to do with their lives. If they do not do it specially their children will pay the consecuences (see the little girl Caylin-Calandria). Therefore is a big act of responsability alway to confront the present.

[–] annablumepa 17 years ago

I've seen this movie last fall at the Toronto film festival and it stuck with me eversince. A good observer might think that my infatuation with Gabriel Byrne is the sole reason, I even thought it myself but, reading this thread, I realised how much Jindabyne really got to me.

Here’s why: I KNOW THESE MEN... They’re my friends, my neighbors. Stewart could be my husband (And how I wish Mr. Byrne was!!!) I’m not saying my husband and his buddies would act in the exact same way the Jindabyne guys did, but I really feel they have it in themselves to do so...

In the big fight scene with Claire, Stewart admits, with all the rage that only guilt can cook up, that it did FEEL GOOD to be fishing for awhile... But how could it?, we wonder. That’s when it hit me, (some) men have the ability to BE IN THE MOMENT, to focus on their main goal and, basically, forget, for a while, the circumstances of those surrending them.

That, I think, Ray Lawrence portrays brilliantly in the fishing scene. The day is glorious, the lanscape is beautiful and, if I remember correctly, it’s one of the rare moments in the movie we hear music... The scene is a soothing interlude between moments of tension . So much so, I found myself smiling, along with Gabriel Byrne and the other guys. And then, I rembered the dead body, as did they!

Every article and interview I’ve read says the movie is about forgivenness and compassion. True, but to me, this movie is also alot about the differences between the way man and woman view and deal with the world. I truly believe no woman would be able to forget about a dead body, to make the kind of decisions those men made, but, in some ways, I can believe it from a man.

Another scene that rang true to me in depicting that difference is when Stewart comes home in the middle of the night . Feeling guilty and confused, he needs to make love to Claire, to touch her and give her pleasure in order to regain a bit of his humanity. Talking about it is not an option for him, there are simply no words. I agree with santiagoss, it's a way for Stewart to "skip" the whole event, to deny his own responsablity, to pretend he's not concerned by it.

Again, I feel a woman would need to "do something about it", to express her feelings and verbalize her angst before being able to be intimate again. Sounds like a cliché but isn’t it true?

And I needed to verbalize my thoughts about Jindabyne ;-)
I could go on and on about the many layers of that movie but that would add to what is already much too long a post.

Let me just add that Gabriel Byrne gives a strong and disturbing performance. (I also enjoyed seing him flash a disarming smile that we’ve seen too rarely in his past roles.)

"La vie, c'est comme le cinéma. On naît, on meurt et entre les deux, il faut leur en foutre plein la gueule !"

[–] aidanmckenn 17 years ago

I agree wholeheartedly with annablumepa- for me the film's themes of guilt/blame etc... all came secondary to what it had to say about the fundamental differences between men and women. Not just in their treatment of the dead girl but in their treatment of one another. What I'll remember about the film is the sheer complexity of the relationships between all the characters- Stewart/ Claire; Claire / Stewart's mother; Jude / Caylin Callandria and so on right the way down.

I also believe that no woman, had she been present, would have continued with her leisure activity upon discovering the body, and yes- despicable as their actions were, men could well be capable of it.

As for whether they deserved the blame or not; it's a moot point, surely. The local press will naturally provoke strong (often hystrical) feelings upon such tragedies- and underlying racial tensions in Australian societies (particularly small communities)are naturally prone to flaring when there is the outlook for them to do so. (Regardless of whether the victim in question 'looks' aborigine or not)

[–] strangenoise 17 years ago

Just wanted to say: I completely agree with santiagosss. To be honest: I am not so sure about the movie and the idea of 'the holiness of Fishing'. I just thought of it as part of the life/death dichotomy the movie uses most of the time(yeah, and of course the idea of civilisation and nature, but that's another cup of coffee). And the conflict-postponed pattern is part of every personal relation of the whole story. Therefore the 'hazy' end gives closure.

[–] Nakor87 17 years ago

Plus the fact that the girl was aboriginal, so naturally theres the element of racism that makes them look worse. Abbos'll winge about anything
oooooh no, I'm a racist now!

"Don't worry Sergeant Angel, I'll make sure everybody gets their just desserts"

[–] Bob_Schaaf 17 years ago

I comes really close to "misprision of felony". It may not be a crime in Australia, but it certainly is in the US.

United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter I, Section 4:

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

To delay the reporting of a crime is to hinder the prosecution of it.

Besides, the callousness of their actions was true scumbaggery.

[–] trashthegaff 17 years ago

A lot of people seem to know about decaying bodies here. Either you're all forenzic expects, or you've all got terrible secrets.....

[–] SimpleCynic 17 years ago

As far as what was wrong with their actions, just remember the golden rule and put yourself into the position of the people their actions affected. You can make the argument that the girl was dead and so couldn't be helped or hurt, but if you were a family member of the girl and she was missing, wouldn't you want to find out as soon as possible what happened to her? Wouldn't you want to maximize the chances of her killer being brought to justice?

[–] danieltaylor1981 17 years ago

i would have done the same thing and carried on fishing, just another dead body out of billions, big deal.

[–] dirtyvisage 17 years ago

bluff

how many dead bodies have you come across? highly unlikely/unusual that any of us on these boards would have just carried on fishing

[–] bloovee 17 years ago

They had the excuse of the sprained ankle, plus - though it was unspoken in the film except for the couple of shots perhaps intended to be from the POV of the perpetrator - perhaps they didn't fancy splitting up and leaving two people by the river with a murderer possibly still in the vicinity. (Or maybe they'd seen Deliverance....) If you accept they had to stay (because of injury to one), the point is not so much that they stayed, but that (rather than do nothing) they fished - and ENJOYED the fishing...

[–] MikeAnsaraFan 17 years ago

Without reading any replies, I cant believe the OP is serious.

If your loved one was missing would you be happy if some twits found the body and then decided to go fishing for 2 days instead of reporting it straight away?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ecbush 16 years ago

What the buddies did (in the U.S. anyway) could be a criminal offense called "tampering with evidence." By not immediately reporting the discovery of the body, and worse by tying it up, they knowingly tampered with the scene of a crime. Or it could be called abuse of a corpse.

Suppose someone found a body in a city alley. Did not report it but covered the body with a tarp for 3 days. That person would probably be a murder suspect at that point.

But the main offense was regarding this woman's body as no different than roadkill. No thought given that she might have a worried family. No thought that a perpetrator was on the loose and every hour could make it more difficult for police to catch him.

I think this was a great movie for bringing up this scenario and discussion. No one who has seen this movie would ever make the mistakes the fishermen friends did.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kisses5050 16 years ago

It reminded me of those horrid stories you hear about mountain climbers who step over injured climbers...

[–] Daedalus605 16 years ago

This movie had to be made so that people who have somehow out grown their humanity can be reminded that there are others who live on the earth, and that they deserve every bit of respect we can provide them.

Taking care of this body is the right thing to do because bodies contain a certain amount of sacredness in them. Even the cadavers we used to work on in Med School were treated with the utmost respect, and we were supposed to dissect them.

Since the earliest stories of either western or eastern tradition, the bodies of the worst people were ledt out in the sun to rot and become a feast for carrion birds and dogs. Yet, you still think leaving this body out for the insects to pick to pieces was a good idea. Brilliant.

If you are so callous that you can spend your time saving the faceless masses from the big bad spectre of a chain store (and yes, I know what they do; and no, I do not support Wal-Mart) but not consider the body of a fellow human being as worth a bit of your time, you need to really watch this movie again.

Note: If you had been following this thread, you would see that this action was, in fact, not their legal right. Rather, it was quite illegal.