i saw this film and couldn't clearly understand the doctor who was mumbling and then the patient history paper had scribbles on it that wasn't shown long enough for me to make out what it said
sister was sexually abused, father is likely suspect, doctor turned sister away when she tried to see doctor privately, sister then ran away?
The (relevant part) of the papers (medical records) said: "Difficulty urinating. Unwilling to be examined. Bike Accident?"
See here: http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/9728/73380114.png
So yeah, the mother brought her to the doctor claiming a bike accident, but she was being abused, by father most likely and it's implied that the mother knew but was in denial, would not acknowledge.
As to whether she ran away or not,.. well I don't know about that. I would say no, because there was absolutely no sign of premeditation that day that she was going to run away. I doubt she'd have decided on a whim, while lying in the dunes sunbathing in her bikini that she was going to take off with nothing but a beach towel and a box of cigarettes in hand. That seems unlikely to me...
Not giving us any clear indication as to what really DID happen to her is what spoiled this movie for me. I'd have been content to know whether she was alive or dead. Too much ambiguity. No closure, which makes the whole ending about achieving closure and letting go seem unplausable and disingenuous to me.
-snake
No way man- have you ever built a garden? Forget all your troubles man.
shareNot giving us any clear indication as to what really DID happen to her is what spoiled this movie for me. I'd have been content to know whether she was alive or dead. Too much ambiguity. No closure, which makes the whole ending about achieving closure and letting go seem unplausable and disingenuous to me.
In the book by Georgia Blain there was little indication of what happened to her, and the possibilities were even more ambiguous, and only ever vaguely alluded to. I took the book (on which this movie was closely based) to be an examination of what happens to those left behind when a child is abducted or runs away. The situation surrounding the disappearance of Frances is powerfully reminiscent of the disappearance of the Beaumont children from Glenelg beach in Jan 1966, and I suspect that this unfinished story - which may remain forever unfinished - provided the motivation for Blain's novel. The Beaumont parents died never knowing what happened to their 3 children.
Not knowing is the cause of both Elise's depression and irritation with the apparent normality of others' lives, as well as her mother's borderline craziness. To not know what happened makes this story uncomfortable, but ultimately more interesting, as well as believable.
1. Frances telling Elise about 'She's done it. With him. He did it to her under the jetty. He didn't love her, he just wanted to stick in into her. And she let him.' One rather believes she was referring to herself, not her mother. Her sadness, her demeanor, the way in which she related it to her sister is telling. This is classic with sexually abused children...and for all we know, it could well have been a stepfather. This writer has no access to the book.
2. Announcement of the death of the girls' father (by electrocution at work, Frances had nothing to do with his death), and Frances admitting that she had wished her father dead. These reveals happened in the subsequent scenes.
3. Frances' gathering of the sea wrack and leaving it under the window was perhaps a punishment of her mother for not keeping her safe. Sexually abused children often act out, blaming the other parent. It's irrational but it happens. She took seaweed from the ocean (remember the jetty?) and brought it to the house to make a noxious smell under *Dorothy's* window.
Elise was punished for Frances' seaweed crime just as she was punished with Dorothy's withdrawal after Frances was gone.
Elise creating a garden from seaweed and the dead newspapers was a symbol that she was ready to move on. Dorothy was so curious about what was going on she fell from her bed while she was peeking in her mirror. She was ready to move on, too.
4. The medical record read 'Difficulty urinating, unwilling to be examined.' The good doctor was apologising to Elise for not recognising sexual abuse in her sister, Frances. She came back to see the doctor three weeks later on her own. Here's what I think: Frances fell pregnant when she was forced by her father and perhaps even given an STD.
5. Elise asking her mother, 'Did he do it? Tell me!' and the response, 'We loved each other,' was code for, 'Did you know that my father raped my sister?' and 'Yes, but I loved him anyway.'
Here's what I believe happened to Frances: she was impregnated by her father, given a disease, and went for help to Doctor John. When he wasn't there in the surgery that day when she was willing to ask for help, she went in the sea and swam straight out until she drowned from exhaustion.
Frances is dead. Elise accepted this once Doctor John told her the truth and showed her the medical records. Dorothy, too, is now able to get on with her life.
your idea seems plausible to me.
I think the story is realistic....life is "murky" as well. We often don't know what actually happened for decades. Kind of scary, eh?
Well done film but, the very low key pace combined with the murkiness of the plot seem to make it a sure winner mainly with fans of its stars....
That was my guesses on it as well, minus the girl having an STD, but of course that's possible.
The fact they never come out and say so in the film I found highly annoying.
I also wondered if Elise did see something that day her sister disappeared, it was hinted at - but yet again we're never told if that is the case.
Thank you so much rven for your comments on the book. I was hoping that there was a book to read that led to this movie but your point that it was left even more ambiguous makes me very sad! This movie angers me because of how little it even cared about Frances' fate. I get that the movie is truly Elise's story (and in a minor way, the mom's), and I have no problem with that in the overall sense. But to leave it so lacking in so many ways ruined it for me. I agree with what you're saying about how not knowing makes the story uncomfortable but interesting, and I think it would have been moreso if the story had been told better onscreen. It is just laid out in such a dragged out, muddled way. Regardless of whether we find out what happened to Frances, there are so many "threads unsewn," or at least that is how it felt to me.
shareAnd thank you for your observations, xenatikkanen-1.
I found the book a more realistic experience than the film. To attempt to re-create the moodiness of the book on screen was a big ask, and it didn't quite come off. As I mentioned in an above post, there were a number of disappearances of children in Adelaide from 1966 through to the early 80's, and the mystery of their disappearance remains................which is why the film does not even attempt to solve the mystery of Frances' disappearance. To do so would have been cliched and trite, and patronising to the viewer (IMO).
Georgia Blain, the writer of "Closed For Winter", writes novels which are in essence huge metaphors. Another one of her early novels - "Snake In The Grass" - is worth reading. She is an elusive writer, and so to film her work leaves the viewer wondering about all the gaps left in the story, and this is uncomfortable if you're expecting a `tidy' or `clean' story.
Thanks again rven for your wonderful observations and also comments about the books. I love reading, and I think they both would be an interesting read. I enjoy authors who use metaphors in this way so I would probably like Blain's work.
I think you have also prompted me to do some "research" into the history of the time of the rash of disappearances/abductions (?). In the 70s and early 80s is when it really became a part of the landscape in the United States, and it has always been a painful but intriguing subject to me. I can't stand anything bad happening to children at all, but for some reason, I am drawn to books and films about the topic. I guess I wish I could save them all. :(
I agree with you about the ending. How can you let go of something (especially in this case) when you still don't know what happened. The whole idea was for Elise to find out what happened to her sister. She never does. So I guess it's about her letting go of the fact that she will never find out what happened. But I still find it annoying that there is no explanation. I would have rather found out that the sister drowned herself because she was abused or something, that not know anything. Death, as sad as it is, can give a change for a closure. I don't know if that makes any sense or not :)
shareThe doctor was telling Elise that Frances was being molested probably by her father but he wasn't sure, when she then asked her mother about it the silence from her mother and the comment we loved each other pretty much confirmed it for her. I don't think Frances was pregnant or had an STD, I also don't think she ran away, I think she was probably abducted and murdered, by that point her father was dead so he was no longer a threat to her she really had no reason to run away. I disagree with the poster who said that they thought maybe Elise did something the day Frances disappeared that it was hinted at, I didn't notice that at all, Elise waited around for Frances like I'm sure she did everyday when Frances didn't come back for her she walked home stopping on her way to look into the shop where Frances buys her cigarettes then when she wasn't there headed home, she was 10 years old what could she have possibly done.
"I'll set my course by you my northern star"