MovieChat Forums > Maria Larssons eviga ögonblick (2008) Discussion > The ending was too unrealistic, borderin...

The ending was too unrealistic, bordering ridiculous.

posted 14 years ago by bite_me_loser_86
18 replies | jump to latest

I loved this movie and happened to watch it today by chance, had never even heard of it before. But I felt the ending ruined it all. I don't know if it is based on a true story, but regardless, I think the ending scene where they are dancing and he is spinning her around as she is laughing happily and they act like they're madly in love and the years of physical and verbal abuse, adultery, rape, alcoholism and death threats never happened, are pretty *beep* hard to swallow.

I mean come on now.
I understand he changed and became a better man. But you do not mean actually make me believe a couple can go from the Hell to Heaven like that.
Hey, a message to all the abused women out there: keep giving your tyrant husband chance after chance and someday he will start treating you right! He'll go from holding a razor blade against your throat to dancing around with you in a flowery field! It can happen to you!

I know this was in another time when it was common for men to slap their wives around after work, etc, but there's gotta be a limit. Men like that don't change that radically and marriages like that just do not end that happily.

[–] little_miss_sunnydale 14 years ago

I know this was in another time when it was common for men to slap their wives around after work, etc, but there's gotta be a limit.

You and I can identify limits. A woman who is raised in a society where divorce is socially unacceptable and when marriage is regarded as a scared bond that cannot be broken, cannot see this clearly and easily. Her husband was obviously awful and of course it would have been great to see her leave him. But in the overwhelming majority of cases this scenario did not play out. Abused women frequently stayed with their husbands; some out of fear of the repercussions (from the husband, family and/or from the local community), some out of religious obligations, for the ‘sake’ of the children (an illogical reason but one cited nonetheless) and of course some were in love with their husband that they could ‘overlook’ the abuse. After all this happens today – the whole ‘well he only hit me once and will never do it again’ mentality.

The story is true; the real woman’s daughter provided an account of her life. From what I can tell, her parents did stay together so the film provided a realistic account of her mother’s life.

I enjoyed the film and liked (if that is the right word?) that they chose not to amend the daughter’s account to please a modern viewer. They were not providing me with the satisfactory end I would love to have actually occurred, but the bitter reality and I appreciated the honesty. The cast was superb and though I couldn’t stand the husband, the actor who played him performed the role very well.

‘Noli me tangere; for Caesar's I am’

[–] bite_me_loser_86 14 years ago

No, you misunderstood me. What I found unrealistic wasn't the fact that she stayed with him. That is actually very realistic and quite common, even today, for abused women to stay with their men.

What I found ridiculous and unrealistic was his drastic CHANGE from abusive to loving. How their marriage suddenly was miraculously improved and they were SO in love and everything was so great between them.
That's what I found unrealistic.

[–] winterOfMyDiscontent 14 years ago

...And you are so right. People never change. And abusive people tend to take their victims for granted,as they are usually cowards who take it on weaker people, say women or children, certainly disrespecting them on a regular basis, therefore, he would hardly change his attitude towards her just because, with no triggering situation. For him to behave like that towards her,actually showing respect and considering her an equal to be in love with and not an inferior person to ill-treat, he would have to be a new man, with a new brain. And that's really unlikely.
"Since I am convinced myself I do not have to convince anybody else"
Yes, I'm a girl

[–] marian72 13 years ago

"People never change."

Oh yes, they do. -- And the brain's wiring can be re-wired, btw. It's called neuroplasticity. Check it out. -- But it takes someone like Maria, who refuses to be the victim, to bring about that change in Sig.

[–] Mastadge 13 years ago

People change. They can even grow. People can and do reflect on their mistakes, experience events that cause them to understand themselves and the world around them differently, and make changes in their lives. A coward who takes out his anger or shame on a "weaker" victim but who later overcomes the shame, or outgrows the cowardice, can certainly reform his life and behaviors. Changing one's outlook on life, outgrowing a deeply held prejudice -- these things don't require "a new brain".

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5946) 3 years ago

"People never change" is incorrect. "You cannot change someone else" is correct. People can change themselves.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] matahari20-1 12 years ago

Bluesdoctor. I believe you may fail to see the mixture of good and bad in feminism, which, although can suffer from a prejudicial modern outlook, has most certainly provided a whole new paradigm for both women and men to explore old themes of human truths. And it is an important paradigm because it offers the other half of the human race to speak the truth of being human in our own right, and not merely exist as some kind of reflection of male eyes and understanding. We can not partake more fully, and honestly, of our humanity without this perspective.

[–] ellecid 14 years ago

"The story is true; the real woman’s daughter provided an account of her life. From what I can tell, her parents did stay together so the film provided a realistic account of her mother’s life. "

Is there any chance that the daughter's memories are viewed through perhaps rose colored glasses? Memories are fallible,there's often a strong tendency to view one's own parents in a flattering light.

[–] filmfancy 13 years ago

I understood Maria's reluctance to leave her husband. At one point she seemed determined to pack up his things and throw him out, but when he returned from prison and was embracing the children she saw the bond between them (especially with the younger ones). So she focused on her photography and gained some personal freedom from her creativity.

I loved the film but did find it odd at the end when Sigfrid bought the new house, which included a dark room for Maria. He had scorned her creative skills before, so it seemed out of character for him to be suddenly so accepting.

"Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy night."

[–] bakerman-778-231428 14 years ago

Since it's a true story & the fact is that she didn't leave her husband, the screenwriter probably made a bit of "movie magic" with that dance in the meadow at the end. Sure, the father started his hauling business and even drove the Temperance Group to their annual outing and well, what if they DID have a dance in the meadow? What a happy ending, but in any case, the movie needed some joy.
It was a good story, and I don't mean fictional story.

Towards the end, it was more real when the photographer moved away. That's when her character and morals were tested more than ever before, and the pain must have been unbearable. To end the movie there would have been leaving out the rest of the story, though, and the story was not all hers.

I'm glad that the writer had the children encouraging their mother to leave him. That wasn't a topic openly discussed in those days.

I understand your anger and frustration; having experienced abuse myself and also in my family, I don't like to see anything phoney. (no secrets)

I do think it was a wonderful movie anyway. I'll never forget it.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bakerman-778-231428 14 years ago

oh. wow. Well I'd love to see that photo. All I can say is that they certainly had a passionate relationship. I wasn't critical of that part of the movie in the first place. I enjoyed the whole movie. Thank you for telling me that.

[–] fearnotofman 13 years ago

Yep, the photo is shown on a couple of extras on the DVD. The freeze frame in the film looks a hell of a lot like it (which was the intention, of course).

Sigge always cared about his family. He always meant well, but he was tormented by jealousy and alcohol addiction. It's not so strange that while in prison, again, for a longer time than the first time, he would have reflected on how he could be a better husband and father. I don't think the movie tried to say the relationship was healed and perfect, just that it improved, that Sigge, who always did care about his family, tried even harder to be good to them. Perhaps he realized while in prison that Maria could care about both him AND photography.

In films, it's common for characters to be stereotyped into "good" or "bad" and that expectation can even shape the way we view films, but that doesn't happen here. Maria (the "good" parent) has serious faults and Sigge (the "bad" parent) has wonderful qualities. They're both good and bad, just at varying degrees, and it's not such a big leap of faith to think that Sigge could bring out more of his good qualities after having the time to reflect in prison.

[–] lamont-hard 13 years ago

Just because she did leave you don't think this is a good movie. I thought this movie showed she was a heroine but not the kind that most of us may like or agree with. There may be just as many woman who stay in a abusive relationship as there are women who leave one. This film is very rare and courageous because it shows the other side and not the easy way out we all feel what she should have done. You are not supposed to forget the abuse only that it is gone by the end of the movie. And even though he came around it is not so far fetched that it did not seem true. People do change. And I am glad to see something different then the usual. I do not advocate staying in a abusive relationship but can understand and empathize with some one who tries at all cost to do what THEY feel is right for them. Not society....Great film I feel almost everyone in the theater was angry at her for not leaving and not really grasping what the film was trying to say.

[–] timlin-4 12 years ago

"Abused", what a joke. A much more vital and good-looking man worked back-breaking labor all his life for an ugly woman, and she refuses him sex and respect. And when he tries to restrain his justified anger she calls him a coward to force him to hit her. She couldn't wait when she saw how satisfying it was to pretend to be a battered wife after displaying a completely accidental injury that she did to herself. Movie is actually pretty truthful, but of course it expects female viewers and their male enablers to only take away the message of how great female victimhood is, even if it is achieved through manipulation and nasty behavior.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

A much more vital and good-looking man

That's a matter of opinion. I found him rather unattractive aside from when he was with a horse. Horses seemed to like him. He should have married Kropotkin.

Like Maria I was drawn to Pedersen.

Anyway, a man who makes his wife and children's life a misery is odious. I wish he had left Maria. This would have solved all her dilemmas. Twice he tried to kill her and the second time he got sent to prison, thank god. Methinks you'd do well in a men's prison with all these 'vital and good looking men'.

Movement ends, intent continues;
Intent ends, spirit continues

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

But you do not mean actually make me believe a couple can go from the Hell to Heaven like that.

Yes, they can. It's not what you believe; it's what happens.

Movement ends, intent continues;
Intent ends, spirit continues