The first jump scare, 40 minutes in when Michael is in the car and the father in law's dead face appears and the beautiful Latin voices shrieking like sirens: that was one of the scariest things I've ever seen. I screamed and jumped out of my seat. Didn't see that coming at all, it was totally brilliant.
The question is 'why?'. I understand the point of the paranormal, both literally and metaphorically, in this film; what I do not understand is why we as viewers need to be startled as part of the story telling. It isn't, after all, a horror story otherwise. It leads to asking the question why the father in law, who isn't even dead when these events begin, would be trying to harm or horrify his son in law. If the ghost is some psychological manifestation of Farr himself what is the point of the apparitions? What is he trying to tell himself in such a shocking fashion? Wouldn't the final apparition of his wife have been all that was required?
The incongruous insertion of these jump scenes almost ruined this movie for me.
I think the scene between the father-in-law/son-in-law tells us a lot. The angry, haunted look in Jim Norton's eyes and their interaction screams of anger on the one side and deep guilt on the other.
I think the implication is that there is a lot of anger, resentment, downright hatred, even, flowing from the father-in-law to the son-in-law. Both sides of the relationship--the anger from the FIL toward the SIL both for having him placed in a home and, likely, in some sense, of blaming him for not protecting his daughter as a husband should and the guilt of Michael both for his wife's death and for not be able to cope with the FIL--are spitting out this psychic nastiness.
Obviously, Michael isn't literally guilty of the daughter's death, but I'm talking about the broader, more subconscious sense of a father's sense of protectiveness toward his daughter and turning his negative feelings at her loss towards the husband. Though short, I think the scene between the FIL and SIL is potent, and contains this sense within it.
That doesn't mean the ghosts have to be read literally. But I think the relationship between FIL and SIL give us plenty of grounds to understand why they would be haunting/haunted.
In a way this film is very much a piece of Conor McPherson writing. His plays are often about men doing battle with one another and men doing battle with themselves--with the supernational lurking around to represent it. That's how I'd read this piece.
oshelley55. Thank you for your thoughtful response. I went back and looked at the scene between the two men, and honestly, I just don't see this sense of anger, projected or otherwise, at the SIL. In fact, what I see once we move past Malachi's irritation over being forgotten, is a quite well drawn study of two men attempting to share their grief despite belonging to a culture where such things would typically be constrained. There appears to me a deep bond between them, not the least because they loved and lost the same woman.
Malachi is filled with grief. Michael has not let it enter him. I could understand the grief overflowing from one to the other, and logically this is to the only other that could feel it in the same way, and this being manifest in these ghoulish apparitions; but as with my original 'complaint', I don't believe enough has been done in the rest of the film for it to feel like a natural inclusion.
There appears to me a deep bond between them, not the least because they loved and lost the same woman.
I don't believe enough has been done in the rest of the film for it to feel like a natural inclusion.
I think you are right that we have taken a different sense from the movie, and particularly from the scene at question. Please understand I am not arguing the toss on this, but attempting to flesh out anything I have missed. I *want* this film to have worked.
As a parent I have no doubt whatever that Malachi is right; that if one were obscene enough to assign a comparative quantum to the pain, no parent would choose to lose a child ahead of a partner. Michael HAS lost his balance, and this is confirmed in the script by the borderline neglect of his children. Malachi isn't competing as such, tho doubtless he is angry that Michael has children; he can and should move on. Malachi has nothing. He will not live to enjoy his grandchildren and being he is in a hospice has no meaningful relationship to them in the present.
To paraphrase Malachi, he says in effect that it hurts, he knows because he has lost a wife, but to have lost a child would make you doubt the existence of God. The logical inference here is that Michael still has his children. By stating what Malachi himself has lost, he is telling Michael what he still has. A parent not in eclipse would have seen this, but as it is, Michael has lost sight.
The logical inference here is that Michael still has his children. By stating what Malachi himself has lost, he is telling Michael what he still has. A parent not in eclipse would have seen this, but as it is, Michael has lost sight.
Indeed. It is Michael's subconscious ghosts that matter. Hence the problem with the literalism of the ghosts as depicted. This literalism even extends to marks on Michael's arms. I think the thinking behind the decision to do this is muddled and detracts from the story. A cynical view might even be that this is directorial hubris; that it is there to puzzle and manipulate us and to generate mystery outside of the story proper.
A third explanation is that these ghosts relate not to Michael's wife or father in law at all, but to an unreclaimed past or to a foreshadowing of his meeting with Lena, whose work he was familiar with. The intrusion of her thematic matter into his psyche shifts the story on its axis. We are no longer dealing with a man struggling to cope with the loss of his wife, but with the loss of his dreams of being a writer.
I think I need to read the book. :-)
"A cynical view might even be that this is directorial hubris; that it is there to puzzle and manipulate us and to generate mystery outside of the story proper."
But I'm just not sure what's wrong with puzzling or generating mystery, and I don't think the mystery is 'outside of the story proper.' As for manipulation, I don't see how it is doing so. The subconscious and its play on our conscious experiences remains somewhat puzzling and, dare I say, even mysterious. I'm not even sure 'subconscious' is the only proper word of describing all that's going on. It is presenting concretely that which is perhaps not so or not so in precise form, but that's not manipulative. It's closer to figurative.
"A third explanation is that these ghosts relate not to Michael's wife or father in law at all, but to an unreclaimed past or to a foreshadowing of his meeting with Lena"
Or all of the above.
The issue is contrivance. I would have the same objection were a gratuitous nude scene inserted, and I *love* nudity.
Simply, the story doesn't need real ghosts or the suggestion of such. It doesn't need jump scenes. Neither of these things propel the story along or add to a considered viewing of the movie.
So we have to ask why they are there, and whether this ensuing story confusion is a good or a bad thing. If, as you seem to be saying, the attempt is to layer the movie, I think having 80s style drive-in horror movie jump scenes punctuating an otherwise cerebral story, is a terrible conceptual choice.
"So we have to ask why they are there, and whether this ensuing story confusion is a good or a bad thing."
I just don't think there is story confusion, so in that sense it's hard to answer this.
I also don't think I suggested an attempt to layer the film.
'Or all of the above' suggests either ambiguity in the story or interpretive layers or both. Regardless, the result is a loss of a clear central story line. This will bother some less than others, and I accept it presents no problem for yourself. I have no problem with multi level interpretations of stories, nor even open ended stories in which the viewer or reader is expected to supply their own interpretation. I do have a problem when the elements that produce ambiguity or confusion, don't appear to be necessary EXCEPT to create interpretive problems. That is, imho, antithetical to good storytelling and scripting. And in the case of The Eclipse, the confusing material is decidedly lowbrow and sits harshly with the rest of the film.
That you feel there is no problem here is a good result for you. It does not follow that my issues with the film lack legitimacy or do not exist.
'Or all of the above' suggests either ambiguity in the story or interpretive layers or both.
The question is 'why?'. I understand the point of the paranormal, both literally and metaphorically, in this film; what I do not understand is why we as viewers need to be startled as part of the story telling. It isn't, after all, a horror story otherwise.
------------------------------------
I experience a feeling of horror at the death of someone I am connected to, or even acquainted with. When death comes close to me it always scares me and leaves me scared for quite a while. The more gruesome the death is, the more it horrifies me. The older I get the more it scares me.
I got the feeling that not only was Michael grieving, but he was also horrified at both his wife's death and the living death of his father in law.
I felt like the director was sharing the horror with me, so that I would experience the same sense of foreboding and dread and shock Michael was living with.
I have read a lot about the grieving process, but it has never included the horror of the dead, of death, of the gruesomeness of dying. That's a very real part of it for me, the horror, and I was glad the director included it as part of his depiction of Michael's emotional journey.
I find death to be shocking, and it has always taken me a long time to recover from that shock. Death is surprising and shocking and horrifying, in my opinion, and I want it to stay away. It scares me.
I think Lena expressed that horror during her reading when she said the ghost on the bed made someone realize she was going to die, her husband was going to die, and her children were going to die. That she was looking at reality.
Just my two cents on the topic.
-----------------------------------------
“...So do we pass the ghosts that haunt us later in our lives; they sit undramatically by the roadside like poor beggars, and we see them only from the corners of our eyes, if we see them at all. The idea that they have been waiting there for us rarely if ever crosses our minds. Yet they do wait, and when we have passed, they gather up their bundles of memory and fall in behind, treading in our footsteps and catching up, little by little.” - Stephen King
I think your response contained the reason why the inclusion is odd.
I have read a lot about the grieving process, but it has never included the horror of the dead...
The reason for this is likely that most grieving processes don't include this sort of shock-horror. While I accept that yours do, I for one totally fail to see the connection and so far as I can tell this movie doesn't make the connection either.
This is really an excellent post -- I agree with you entirely that as one gets older, and as one either deals with illness and loss and so on on one's own or with others, the horror of death becomes much, much more immediate and real. For example people will be haunted, sometimes for years, by images of a loved one in the ground (this is why some people opt for cremation instead of burial as the steady decomposition of the body is not something they want for themselves or for loved ones). There are also issues that happen as a person is dying, with the ravaging effects of a terminal illness or the violence of an accident. These memories do not fade, and the psychological effect is profound.
shareThere are many aspects to death and I have been, throughout my life, exposed to various pathways to that destination. I wrote these words in my review:
"For those who have forfeited pieces of your heart a bloody chunk at a time after losing someone dear, this movie will inspire. Our psyche, often in partnership with our dreams, can work through some regret, pain, loss, guilt and loneliness by gifting us very real visions in which we touch or hug that loved one, possibly even sharing meaningful words with them. In 2006 my sister died in a fire. On and off, for a few years, I experienced the sound of her calling my name in the night shortly after I fell asleep. This happened several times, waking me, bringing me to actually look for her. In fact, many years before that, I had the opportunity to be with and hold my infant daughter, who died of SIDS when she was 5 months. I held her preciousness in my arms and played with her several times over a matter of years. This always seemed to occur in the twilight of my sleep. At first, I experienced the loss of her, magnified when I awoke, knowing it was a dream; after many years, I unexpectedly became grateful for the privilege to spend that time with her. Since my loss, I have talked with so many people who have experienced similar incidents. I can almost imagine these phenomena taking themselves just a step further. Can't you?"
Both my parents died very young of cancer, my brother was killed in a hang gliding accident when he was 29. My sister and I hang glided his ashes over the Snake River on the Idaho/Washington border in memory of his love of the sport.
I worked with Pathologists in Boise, Idaho and helped with autopsies, I was an Emergency Medical Technician and was first on scene for several deaths, as well as in a major trauma center. While I am a cynical person, I have experienced things of a spiritual nature that I don't often tell people about, because I wouldn't necessarily believe it from others.
I think we, like onions, can experience only so much and when the layers are peeled away we can see things we wouldn't normally see. The pain/gain theory, I guess, 'sort of', as 'Fay Grim' would say. But, then there are those who see the 'innards' without losing the trappings first.
'The Eclipse' washed over me like a warm Chinook wind in a cool autumn month...
We who hear not the music, think the dancer mad...
My take on why is that is based on my own experience - that's what it can be like when you see a ghost (not always). My husband and I have both experienced ghosts and as soon as the first scene had played out we both commented on how realistic it was.
shareI agree with the poster that says that Malachy has a deep-seated resentment at being placed in the home & at the loss of his daughter, both of which he (deservedly or undeservedly) is projecting onto his son-in-law. The anger was palpable after he was "forgotten" at the rest home & missed the shindig at the beginning of the movie. Also, I felt he was trying to pull/drag his son-in-law, literally & figuratively, down into his grief in the wardrobe/closet scene. The marks on the son-in-law's arms I felt were foreshadowing of the fact that Malachy killed himself by slitting his wrists--marks made not straight across, but vertically through the vein, mirroring the vertical marks on his son-in-law's arms (albeit there were more marks & not exactly in the same spot; also, I guess the term would be "aftershadowing" as we don't see these until after we know that Malachy has committed suicide).
share[deleted]
That scene was so scary that I had to stop the movie. The Latin voices made my heart skip a beat! Wasn't expecting it at all.
Haven't been home in a year & a half. I'm about 90% sure I left the front door openshare