MovieChat Forums > Disappearances Discussion > Not ashamed to admit I don't get it. (SP...

Not ashamed to admit I don't get it. (SPOILERS)


Very interesting movie, I was hoping to find more discussion on here so I could be enlightened as to what the heck was really going on.

So, at the end I guess the dad died and the farm was gone? What was with the disappearing stuff? Why did the main bad guy keep coming back in different incarnations?

Why did Kristoffersen's character try to reassure his brother that they could replace the car with his share of the money, before it was stated that a split of the $2,000 wouldn't be nearly sufficient? He didn't seem delusional, was he supposed to be? Bad judgement that just wasn't ever explained?

It seems like there were too many things not explained in this movie. And for those who ask why I need something explained, it seems there is a point to having the owl and having things disappear and having the lady appear - they are just hard to pick up. I really got the feeling like the director had a point but just didn't make it clear enough. Had the director been intentionally vague, he should have made that more obvious so the audience's reaction would be discussion rather than head scratching. I believe there is a difference between implied ambiguity and confusion.

I'm usually not this ignorant, but need some help on this one if these questions have answers.

Despite my comments I really enjoyed the movie's atmosphere and acting but just felt it didn't achieve whatever it was supposed to.

reply

agree...please help.

Movie had potential, but I got lost in the odd symbolism.

reply

I don't think there's anything to get. Pretentious dreck, in my opinion.

There could have been a good movie there, but this one seriously misfired.

reply

[deleted]

Maybe this'll help:

http://www.kingdomcounty.com/directors_statement.html

reply

Yeah, um, I was going to read it but I scrolled through to see how long it was. Wow.

reply

I thought about how some of it may have meant that our pasts (ancestors) don't die, but they do fade away, but can come back and haunt us.

reply

Hey man,

That's an excellent explanation of the complicated plot. Thanks! Seriously, so many posts are not helpful, this one was pretty much 100%. Now I understand the film, and I like it more than I did when I was confused. It was such an amazing visual and audio film, and between Kris Kristofferson (who I think is amazing) and that young actor (Charlie McDermott), the overall experience was amazing. Being of Nova Scotian decent, I enjoy films set in the North Country, particularly during that amazing time in history, where you could still live off the land, and truly live free (legally or illegally).

Again, without too much hyperbole, great response, very helpful.



Film is a cornerstone of any good life.

reply

I directed the film and would be glad to have a dialogue about what I intended. And, yes, the director's statement is long--but it shows how I relate to the story and themes and layers of it. Basically, the film's a whiskey smuggling adventure and coming of age story. Quebec Bill (Kristofferson) leaps at the opportunity to take his son on one last great whiskey smuggling adventure--and to fulfill his dream of a son in his own image (Wild Bill), having been abandoned by has own father. And the trip achieves the coming of age--but not exactly as Quebec Bill envisions. True enough, it seems to me.

But the kid is also influenced by his aunt Cordelia (Bujold) who is the opposiite of his dad. Quebec Bill exists in the physical world and in the present. Cordelia resides in a world where she looks beyond the visible and knows the unknowable. As a teacher she drills her kids in Shakeaspeare, Milton, and the Greek poets. And she recites Emerson, the great New England transcentalist poet. And like those transcedentalists, she acts on intuition and imagination--not on rational impulse. Hence the magical realism where she appears to the kid--to admonish him, to guide him, and finally, to let him go on his own. Her impulses reveal a skewed take on the world, irony, whimsy, and cultural and family links to the past.

It's intended that you find some of your own connections in the picture--and trust your own instincts--to experience what's there and take what works for you. And if you simply want to see it as a whiskey smuggling adventure where an eccentric aunt appears to the kid and is out of left field, that's OK, too.

Most people who watch it again find more the second time through. There is also a director's commentary on the disk. And, like I say, I'd be happy to send you the director's statement. Just e-mail me at [email protected].

The idea at the head of the film is meant to prompt some conenctions--the idea that the past is never dead. It's not even past. And yes, those who have passed also remain present--for better or worse. And maybe even how we live as long as those who knew us last--and how we need to resolve and dispatch the lingering ghosts by facing them head-on--before we can move on. The kid goes into a future that will not know the likes of his dad and aunt--but he takes something lasting from each of them.

reply

i liked the movie. very much. tells a story without resorting to the usual stereotypes.

reply

Well, Mr. Craven (I'm assuming that is you), I certainly appreciate your trying to explain the movie's plot to me, but I just didn't get it at all. It seemed confusing for confusing's sake. I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but I must opine that I feel you missed with a possibly good story with talented actors to boot. Well shot cinematographically speaking, but too intricate with the story and with too many loose ends at the end of the movie.

This is simply my take of course.

reply

Either you get it or you don't. You sir, don't get it! It's a fine movie! I enjoyed it very much. I didn't find it all that confusing either. Kristofferson was great, I haven't seen him this good since "Lone Star"!

reply

I will personally watch anything with Kris Kristofferson in it. He was one of my favorites in the early 70s when I was only 20 years old. I listened to him endlessly. Such a fine songwriter, actor and pretty good singer...

I think the movie was fine as it was. yes there are questions at the end, but it made me think and come to my own conclusions.
I applaud Mr. Craven for coming on here and posting. It really helps.

Ninaskids

reply

I wonder if that really was the director who responded here. He was "active" for a year and a half on IMDB and made only 3 comments, all 3 on the board for this movie.

reply

jcraven-6 You got any more of the drugs you were taking making that movie? LOL

reply

Thanks for the post Jay. I'd like to read the book but it's not available yet for Kindle's. No offense intended but that's the only way I can judge how well you did writing the screenplay. If I ever read it, I'll watch your movie again (from my new perspective)and readdress this post. Too many things just don't make sense.

“Wait a minute, wait a minute. You ain’t heard nothin’ yet!”

reply

Just got done reading the novel and I have to admit that they are two very different stories. I can see why much of the novel was left out and, truthfully, I think the film is better than the novel. I'm not trying to discourage anyone who liked the film from reading the novel. I think the film lets the viewer form more of his or her own opinion about the characters (especially Quebec Bill) than the novel does for the reader. I would encourage anyone who enjoyed the film (and I liked it enough that I wanted to read the novel) to give it a read. It's a fast read and I think it will enhance your understanding of different parts of the film while giving you something to compare it against.

I'm glad the director took the time to comment on here. I was pleasantly surprised by this movie and rented it because of an outstanding review given by a critic I trust. Well done, sir.

reply

I looked at it as sort of a fairy/ghost tale. I liked the commentary by the director also. It gave me more info, but I was satisfied with the film regardless.

reply