move to a place far away from Paris, and start a new life? Leave the mother? Leave everything behind? I mean yes, the murder was haunting them, but if they changed the circumstances, they could forget with time, the pain and guilt would fade and they could live... and together, as they wanted.
shareI wondered why they just didn't poison her husband Camille -He'd been sickly all his life -Not as dramatic as the drowning, but imo more logical -Would a coroner think to examine for poison? Would there be any tell-tale signs of it if they used a potent one?
shareI doubt any coroners existed in the universe of this film; if there were they would have seen that he did not just drown but was repeatedly hit on the head (by that paddle) - an obvious plot fault.
Still, no matter the cause of death they would have still been haunted by guilt.
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
I mean yes, the murder was haunting them, but if they changed the circumstances, they could forget with time, the pain and guilt would fade
I think she actually did not think it through. Husband ended up being more to her than she realized. Everyone seems to be going with they lost there desire once they were in the clear but to me She needed to feel she was cheating or hurting someone [her mother in law] when she actually needed what he was providing, someone to nurture him. The lover did not need this, Without that she had no passion. The affair died along with her husband and her need for existing.
She had become what he mother in law set out for her son. Poetic...
Just a different take on this film.
I think she actually did not think it through. Husband ended up being more to her than she realized. Everyone seems to be going with they lost there desire once they were in the clear but to me She needed to feel she was cheating or hurting someone [her mother in law] when she actually needed what he was providing, someone to nurture him. The lover did not need this, Without that she had no passion. The affair died along with her husband and her need for existing.
She had become what he mother in law set out for her son. Poetic...
[deleted]
You Say........
I appreciate your take on things, but I don't buy it. What killed their affair was guilt. The wife did not have her identity wrapped up in her role as a caretaker. She resented it because it trapped her in a life she never wanted but it is one thing to wish a person dead and another entirely to see it through. The two lovers wanted a way out of her marriage, but never counted on what that would mean for those shaken by the husband's death. (Think of Lord and Lady MacBeth. Desire and ambition can fade when guilt enters the picture.) It also could not have helped that the mother in law/aunt would not let her niece forgot about her deceased husband. I mean putting a portrait of the husband up on a wall on the lovers' wedding night is pretty sick. But hey, that's just me.
You make a great point,....I just saw it different, She was a nurturer, the protector. Remember her protecting the mother in law from Laurent on the stairs. She missed doing that, but really did not feel it until after the death. We are shown her taking care and nurturing her mother in law. She also feels guilty because Camille called her name for help and she did nothing. In the photo we see Theresa behind him in the form of a bear protecting Camille's back. Laurent did not need to be taken care of. She needed to be needed. That was what was drilled/forced into her head[sort of like a mild Stockholm syndrome,] With the death it was gone. Remember her husband was not really all that bad as a person. Killing him was more of actions taken so he would not suffer from her betrayal. It's her responsibility to minimize his suffering. He would have fell apart after they left him. This to me is why they just did not run off and why it was so easy to kill him. They said this in the film. This is just another opinion and I like yours as well.
Just what/why would they have cared about what people thought of him to have been happy for themselves, If that was the case they would not have killed him. I ask you what were they actually feeling so guilty about, [I felt Laurent was not as down as she was about WHO they killed, but the act of killing someone for her was actually catching up to him, he is not a killer] sort of like buyers remorse. How does one not feel guilty about the act of killing but feels guilty about the love others had for him. She knew the husband for a long time so for better or worse they had a life if it was nothing more than companionship. And to me the sub plot is taking care of him was all she knew how to do, the mother in law trapped and succeeded in breaking her. Laurent was her escape so she thought, but the husband and his needs plus her nurturing ways due to being held captive or trapped for so long took a toll on her. She cannot love with him being gone/killed by her permission, lack of her protection even if she did not love him in a conventional manner. You spoke of Macbeth, making me try to come up with a film that I could use but I am stumped on this at the moment. Basically I am saying she thought as all captive people do that they will be ok, but after gaining freedom and love they, captive/trapped people sometimes are broken. It's not a film, but think of ADDICTION. One last point, Laurent did not need nurturing, so she had no use for him. He will never fulfill what she has been doing for her husband all her life, sort of proving she really never needed it in the first place. Is this why she says we are alone after his death? Just a different take on the film.
by pix-e;
"Realistically, (and I wonder why they didn't just do this) they could have just told hubby and mommy dearest that they were in love and were leaving together,"
In the mid 1800s leaving a husband and running off with a lover would be a major scandal.
The husband and the mother would make a public complaint and the lover and wife would probably not be able to find work.
And in a Catholic country there would be no divorce.
* The wife's choices were not easy.
But the best one would have been,
- stay in the marriage and keep Laurent only as a lover.
- And refuse to go along with Laurent's idea to kill the husband.
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
They should have done that before killing the husband, after that his death haunted them and it poisoned their love. Guilt is esoteric, even if they went to Australia the husband would still haunt them. Even if they had never been caught they would still try to kill each other and themselves (Laurent did not know they were on to them, yet he bought the poison).
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
I am surprised thereda disn't think about smothering Camille in his sleep to end his suffering.
shareIt was deeper than guilt to her, she realized her husband meant more to her and she made a mistake. She lost her companion and along with him she lost her will to live without him.
shareZola's novel (and the film it was based on) can be viewed as a study on how even the strongest, fiercest love - and, along with that, the souls of the lovers - can be thoroughly poisoned by the right poison; the poison in this case was the murder of Camille. Yes, the poison goes deeper than guilt, it reaches into the foundation of the soul and corrodes it.
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
I think your thoughts are mildly true but my above thread is more to what we actually saw in the film. The photo of the bears says she is his protector. I also feel the film said a lot more than a simple guilt spoiled there romance.
shareThey wanted the money. Laurent was broke, Therese had nothing, and the mother put the pair of them in her will to inherit her store and 20,000 francs. I don't doubt that if Laurent and Therese had moved away, Mom would have changed her will.
share