MovieChat Forums > Daniel & Ana (2010) Discussion > Well done film, but don't over-analyze. ...

Well done film, but don't over-analyze. Spoilers

posted 12 years ago by kaaria1
21 replies | jump to latest

***SPOILERS***

I wouldn't put much thought into it because the writers certainly didn't. It was just as another poster said, merely a plot device--a plot device that is specifically designed to be purposely ambiguous to allow the viewer to have fun coming up with their own interpretation of why he rapes her again. Our knee-jerk response is that he was severely traumatized. Hold your horses on that one.

If they had allowed him to undergo therapy...the rest of the narrative takes a sharp turn and anything as shocking as that scene immediately would come across as just a cheap, exploitative ploy. Noticed how the doctor was conveniently never available? You think that was just poor writing? Keep reading.
The plan was just to let the kid simmer in his juices while wasting away his days in abject misery, and then the subsequent rape is supposed to be a by-product of his inability to deal with what happened --giving us, armchair psychologists that we are, an excuse to pat ourselves on the back at having released our inner Sigmund Freud.

It's somewhat clever, but mostly just convenient--a little too convenient. They made him rather withdrawn and monosyllabic to begin with...and then just tossed in a bit of trauma to force him off the deep end. This was obvious to me in the way they dealt with his best friend quizzing him about his encounter with his girlfriend at the beginning of the movie.

He was uncharacteristically coy with any details for a 16-year-old boy who'd never had sex, but clearly had an opportunity to do so. It looked to me that the writers purposely kept him a virgin merely as a plot contrivance to heighten the shock of what was to come soon after. If he's not a virgin during the pivotal moment...the scene loses quite a bit of its shock value.
Think about it--his first full-fledged sexual experience just happens to be a forced encounter with his sister. Oh...the horror!!

The scene with Daniel and his brother-in-law in the restroom should have been the final determination that everything was just a plot device. Let's recap:

He's forced to have sex with his sister, whom he then rapes, OUT OF NOWHERE, after walking around in a daze for a week or so, buys a knife while in his tux on the way to her wedding, follows his brother-in-law into a restroom to kill him--but chickens out, and then jerks off in a cocktail and hands it to him to drink.

SERIOUSLY?!

Please guys...do yourselves a favor and don't try to over-analyze this film. There's a reason they only gave you vague details about this supposedly "true story"--it was mostly just poetic license. The framework of actual events given a generous helping of filler ...a salacious fantasy brought to life.

Think back to one particular scene between Daniel and his friend. The friend says, for no apparent reason, what we have been thinking since the film started, "Your sister is hot!" THAT is your reason for everything that happened--the initial encounter and the rape that occurred later. Elegant exploitation disguised as a deeply-moving, psychological treatise on the aftermath of sexual trauma.

If you don't believe me, think back to the long wide-shot that took place outside of the location where they were held. It was so long, that it seemed as if they weren't going to show us the sordid display of the forced encounter, as our voyeuristic tendencies and curiosity would demand that we see.

It looked as if they were going to let us imagine for ourselves the horror of what was happening behind those walls, and just have them come out and get back into the car--but they didn't. Ohhhhhh no! They wanted us to join in and make us a party to the guilt that the characters must have felt--thereby giving them an easy out in not having to explain why Daniel behaved as he did later.

Our collective guilt would therefore allow us to excuse anything Daniel did as merely his way of processing his grief...and they ultimately got to exploit a ridiculously gorgeous actress with a salacious act, not once...but twice.
If they had been given a larger budget and about 30 additional minutes...we would have seen them do it yet again, and this time she would have liked it and been conflicted. That movie's been done already, though a bit differently.
Look for Against The Wind starring Antonio Banderas.

This movie was meant to titillate...and the clues are all there. It may not be as much fun, but sometimes...the simple answer is indeed the answer. Sex sells.

I wish to die in my sleep like my grandfather--not screaming in terror like his passengers

[–] superaudreysaves 12 years ago

This post would make a lot more sense if it followed any actual analyzing of the film

just sayin.

[–] kaaria1 12 years ago

Um...shouldn't you be busy helping Santa about now--this close to Christmas, and all?

Oh...wait. My bad! I was thinking about elves...and you're obviously a TROLL.
Oh well...Merry Christmas--and here's your gift. Enjoy!

superaudreysayonara

I wish to die in my sleep like my grandfather--not screaming in terror like his passengers

[–] zznoory 10 years ago

I agree, this poster sounds like a narcissistic douchebag.

[–] harveythepooka 12 years ago

I had a different take on the film. I don't think it's titillating at all. Neither sex scene is at all arousing. When they showed the long shot of the house, I personally was thinking these awful things are happening in that normal looking house with all these people driving by and just living their lives while these two are have the worst day of their lives. As for why he raped his sister I personally thought he had romantic feelings for her and he was mad she was going back with her fiance, which is why he wanted to kill him. They always had a very close relationship and then sex was added to the mix which he had to enjoy to ejaculate, it was very obvious the sister didn't enjoy it. He snapped and raped her in rage at her moving on.

I didn't dislike the ending, being it couldn't end any other way but her getting away from him for good, being it seems obvious he would do it again. But what doesn't work is that this is supposed to be based on a true story and up until the end it is a die hard secret, unless this story was told by the shrink and the specifics were added.

[–] kaaria1 12 years ago

Harvey,

First of all, thank you for an ACTUAL response compared to the other one I got. I swear, the greatest mystery of all isn't whether God exists...but how and why these trolls find the most innocuous, obscure posts so quickly and even bother to say anything at all.

Before I posted, I believe there hadn't been any comments for months...and that individual popped up just days later to say...NOTHING. Judging by the amount of comments, it's rather obvious that many people have never heard of this movie, or if they have, they didn't care enough to comment--so how does a troll stumble upon it after months of inactivity as soon as a new comment is placed?
I think it's an inside job, if you ask me.

As for my inference of the scenes being "titillating," think of it this way. Nudity in film is always provocative, no matter the attractiveness of the participants or the manner in which it's being used. Provocative doesn't necessarily mean overtly sexual, as it also means 'to provoke.' True, the first scene between the two couldn't have been more antiseptic...the stark whiteness of their environs highlighting their nudity and a joyless, mechanical performance.

But, you have to ask yourself a question: How do 'exploitation films' become exploitation films? Generally, the answer is by including attractive women in scenes of graphic nudity where nudity isn't really necessary. Marimar Vega is an extraordinarily beautiful woman, and they decided to even speak to this in a line from the film, uttered by Daniel's friend before the events unfolded--"Your sister is hot."

Even though we as the audience recognize how redundant the line is--a seed has been planted, and the controversial fruit is born soon after. Either the first-time director is clever enough to recognize the conflicting emotions inherent in the audience by showing this "hot" woman completely naked while also being victimized, thereby making us either complicit or compassionate witnesses in the proceedings, or...it's just classic exploitation.

I choose the latter because there is NEVER any justifiable need for us to witness the entirety of what happened to empathize with their situation. Do we often see children graphically murdered in movies to comprehend the grief of the parents?
Couldn't that first scene have been just as powerful viewed from the perspective of Daniel and Ana--watching the kidnappers coaching and lustfully enjoying the forced encounter?

Ask yourself another question: Why are the women in movies such as this ALWAYS physically attractive? What, no average or plain looking actresses available? When is the last time you've seen a movie with a wholly unattractive fat actress, completely nude, being eviscerated by some maniac...or, graphically raped or molested by an attacker? It happens in real life, does it not...so why not in the movies?

The director also used the old "based on a true story" line to make his film above reproach--giving him carte blanche to proceed with impunity...and boy did he ever!
Raping your sister, a plot to murder the groom at her wedding, semen cocktails...

Yeah, sounds like a true story to me--and not the LEAST bit exploitative.

I wish to die in my sleep like my grandfather--not screaming in terror like his passengers

[–] harveythepooka 12 years ago

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I understand where you're coming from about feeling that many women are exploited, or else exploit themselves to get their careers going but I don't think that's what happened here. The scene is a sex scene that isn't about sex. It's about the awful thing that is happening them and despite all the skin there are few little actual "naughty bits" shown. We see her butt, I believe his butt and the side of her breasts, the rest is just skin.

My personal philosophy about nudity in movies is unless they are actually needed to tell the story it don't belong, but here the scene was needed, if nothing else to show a contrast to the later violent rape, also to show how the brother seemed to be very complicit in sexual encounter, maybe he was too scared to do anything, I don't know, but he never complained or refused to do it, Ana is the only one who refused. To me those are important parts. This is a sex scene that is not in the least about sex and neither Daniel or Ana are seen as sex objects in the scene and are not objectified so I have to disagree with you about this being exploitation. To me this nudity is as erotic as the nudity in Schindler's List. I don't even think the the scene is provocative, I think it's disturbing and shocking.

For me Ana needed to be attractive because that is a theme of the movie. She is beautiful and desirable and that is why this attack happened. If she wasn't beautiful most likely they would never have been singled out. Possibly if she wasn't attractive her brother would never have raped her. It's about the downside of being desirable.

As to why there are so many attractive females willing to be naked in film, I think the better question is why are there so many attractive people in film? It's not just women and it's not just about nudity, it's that some people have careers just because of the way they look. Is it fair? No. Is it going to stop anything soon? No. The only recent movie I've seen that has normal looking people nude is Intimacy so there are movies out there.

For me, exploitation of women is girls gone wild, most shows on HBO and Showtime, R rated action movies that have random girls in the shower etc. I don't think in this instance there is anything even resembling exploitation here. But like I said we are going to have to agree to disagree.

[–] kaaria1 12 years ago

Harvey, we are certainly in disagreement here because you have twice overlooked my point...and unwittingly made it for me simultaneously. It is also quite amusing to see you compare the nudity here with that of Schindler's List, which was the exact movie I had in mind when I gave you the differing meanings behind 'provocative' and 'titillating.'

Even though I SPECIFICALLY and painstakingly went out of my way to agree with you that the scenes were not the least bit sexy--you still responded as if I did. You seem to be unwilling, or unable, to discern the different manifestations of the word 'provocative.' Though I don't expect to convince you, because you seem to have closed your mind to the intricacies and sleight of hand involved in the more exploitative offerings within modern cinema, I'll use a reference you just made and one of my own to make my point yet again.

Take Schindler's List, for example. Would you consider the nudity there provocative? If you say no, you should really look up the definition of the word because I think that is at the heart of why you can't allow yourself to understand the nuances of what may be happening with this film.

In this movie, and in Schindler's List, it is merely used to provoke a visceral reaction from the audience. Other films that dealt with concentration camps managed to convey the horror of that situation without using nudity...as in the great opening sequence of the first X-Men movie.

Even though Spielberg was approaching it from eyewitness accounts of people who survived it, and its use was completely justified...the extended sequence of nudity at the concentration camp didn't involve any of them proceeding to the gas chambers as we first imagined, so an argument could be made for it being used to PROVOKE the audience into a deeper feeling of empathy, ergo, it was 'provocative.'

Though I understand why you would use Schindler's List to try and validate your point about how nudity isn't inherently titillating or provocative, you seem to have forgotten one MAJOR difference between the two scenes: There were no sexual acts involved in Spielberg's use of nudity, whereas there was an explicit(and forced) sexual act portrayed here--which is ALWAYS provocative in the fullest extent of the word, unless you happen to work in a brothel or the porn industry.

Point number two: If you happen to be walking down the street and you see a life-sized poster of a smartly-dressed man and woman standing innocently on a busy street corner in a store window, my guess is that you'd hardly break your stride in viewing it. Now, take that same exact scenario and have everyone in the poster completely naked...and try to convince yourself that there is nothing 'provocative' or 'titillating' about the photo.

If you agree that it would be even a tad bit provocative, your argument concerning the film becomes rather quixotic...because there is no sex in the poster whatsoever, but there is a graphic sex act on full display in the film.
And if it is your consensus that a graphic display of sexuality, no matter how clinical, unappealing, and uninterested the participants might be, cannot possibly be titillating in the least...the porn industry would like a word with you.

What I see from you is a person who found the film thought-provoking and enjoyable, if one can use such a word in describing a film with this subject matter, and sees the use of words like titillating and exploitative as somehow negating and demeaning its quality. Perhaps you should look again at the title of this thread I created. The seemingly diametrically-opposing views I have of the film coexist quite peacefully in my mind.

Hundreds upon hundreds of movies filmed around the world have been very well-made...and they also either exploited women in some way or objectified them outright.
Some have even made the exploitation into an art form that has reaped critical acclaim...as well as BILLIONS of dollars in revenue.
Ever hear of James Bond?

Although human sexuality is subjective, I would advise that you educate yourself to the realities of things that exist outside your comfort zone. If you don't think that there is anything remotely erotic or titillating about this film and its subject matter, I'd suggest that you Google "incest fantasy" or "rape fantasy." The number of hits may surprise you and suggest otherwise.

A simple search will reveal that movies with this subject matter NEVER make large sums of money, no matter the budget, director, or stars attached to them--so why bother to make them? Easy...because sex still sells, and controversy brings attention. Perfect them both, and the real money is made--so they keep trying.

Finally, I wanted to end with this statement you made:

"For me Ana needed to be attractive because that is a theme of the movie. She is beautiful and desirable and that is why this attack happened. If she wasn't beautiful most likely they would never have been singled out. Possibly if she wasn't attractive her brother would never have raped her. It's about the downside of being desirable.

That last part may get you into all sorts of trouble here, and shows a naivete about how rape and incest actually work. It has always been far more about opportunity and power than attraction. A testament to this can be found in the wide-ranging varieties of victims, from newborns, to the mentally and physically-disabled, to octogenarians and beyond.
Were all of those people "attractive" to their attacker(s)? Should every "attractive" sister be wary of her brother(s)? Should less attractive women consider themselves infinitely safer?

Of course you will say no, but it is what you inferred in that statement.
As I said before, I appreciate the dialogue, I really do...but you made some rather odd statements in your rebuttal that don't seem very well thought out.

I wish to die in my sleep like my grandfather--not screaming in terror like his passengers

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tyciol 11 years ago

>exploitation of women is girls gone wild, most shows on HBO and Showtime, R rated action movies that have random girls in the shower etc.

What does the verb exploit mean to you?

[–] Tsyroc 11 years ago

I like your idea about seeing what happened to Daniel and Anna only from the standpoint of the reactions of the kidnappers coaching and enjoying the encounter. I think it would have been a better way to film the scene than how it was done. It would leave things to the imagination of the viewers and that is a classic film making method.

Certain elements of the scene as filmed I find distracting because it keeps taking me out of what is happening and making me remember I'm watching a movie. Mostly because it doesn't seem to be able to make up its mind on how graphic it wants to be. It's like they want to avoid full frontal nudity of either actor but can't pass up on showing as much of Marimar Vega as possible. If they had to show the act I think it would have been more effective to go with the viewpoint of the kidnappers' camera the whole time and either cut away to the kidnappers when they give them directions on what they want done but the director or actors don't really want to show, or just keep the camera view at head and chest level the entire time.

I guess the problem is that I've seen weekly TV shows on basic cable channels handle sex scenes better than this movie did this particular scene.

[–] kaaria1 11 years ago

Thanks for the reply, Tsyroc.

While it is not necessary to agree with me about everything I've written, I certainly appreciate it when respondents at least understand what it is I've written and respond accordingly, instead of spinning my words into some sort of dyslexic vortex that only they can decipher.

It's like having two people sit down and read a 3 paragraph story about baby elephants, and then one of the two says the story was actually about aging giraffes. That's what it often feels like around here...the person before you being a prime example. It's also amusing how quickly they turn and run away once the rope they've been clinging to becomes a single thread.

Mostly because it doesn't seem to be able to make up its mind on how graphic it wants to be. It's like they want to avoid full frontal nudity of either actor but can't pass up on showing as much of Marimar Vega as possible.

Exactly! They lack the courage of their convictions--an exploitation scene with lines drawn in the sand. That was likely due to the actor's reticence about full frontal, and filming such a controversial scene containing such probably wouldn't have gotten past the censors.

I personally was rather disconnected from the proceedings because it lacked any real emotional heft from the actors and because I instantly felt that it was just to exploit Marimar on some level, because the nudity wasn't really necessary. I can think of a couple of scenes from other movies that they should have watched prior to shooting this one.

In the phenomenal City of God, the scene is very brief, contains no nudity and takes place off-camera...but the emotional weight of the aftermath was quite visceral for me, the overwhelming sense of helplessness of the boyfriend who was forced to witness it, and the conflicting emotions of the girlfriend who loves but now loathes him for letting it happen.

Another is the exact opposite. In Tim Roth's The War Zone, the scene is lengthy, contains nudity and is dripping with sadness from the father and daughter involved...and from the younger brother who happens upon the scene and is both mortified and aroused by what he has seen. Tim strayed from the latter part for the film, but it was exemplified to much greater effect in the book...the sexual tension between brother and sister. The scene was reportedly so traumatic for the actor playing the dad, Ray Winstone, that it took hours to shoot because he kept breaking down during filming.

I personally think the less-is-more approach would have worked far better in Daniel and Ana...the idea of it hardly needs nudity to validate the horror. Now, if this was a story of mutual, consensual incest between the two...the nudity would increase the shock value exponentially. Here, it came across to me as rather exploitative and pedestrian.

If you haven't seen the films I mentioned, I highly recommend them, and if you have, what did you think of the scenes mentioned in comparison to this film...and what did you think of this film as a whole?

I wish to die in my sleep like my grandfather--not screaming in terror like his passengers

[–] Tsyroc 11 years ago

I haven't seen either of those movies at this time. I'll have to give them a look. It sounds like they both could be emotionally draining to watch so it probably be a while before I get through them. Thanks for the recommendations.

What did you think of the rest of Daniel and Ana?

I thought there were some big missed opportunities to see the two characters interact with each other after the kidnappers are done with them. It could have started as early as the two of them in the trunk of the car but it was very odd that we don't even see them being very uncomfortable and closed off from each other in the car as they drive home. We see them get in and then they are home, not communicating with each other or anyone else.

I'd be very interested in reading the script or a novelization, if either bothers to flesh out the inner thoughts of characters.

[–] kaaria1 11 years ago

The War Zone is DEFINITELY a downer, but very well made. City of God, however, is basically Brazil's version of Pulp Fiction...and the direction and cinematography are second to none. I cannot recommend it highly enough. The scene I mentioned was extremely brief and does not in any way act as a depressant. Here's a trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJdW1TevoyA

As for the rest of this film, I'd be inclined to agree with you about needing to see some fleshing out of the characters. I just found it extremely frustrating to
not have two people communicating after such an horrific event...and even more flummoxed to see nothing happen after he initiates his own rape of Ana.

You think that sumbitch would have been at my wedding?!
I don't care WHAT I would have to tell my parents...he wouldn't be there, or living for that matter. And then it just hopped a cab to crazy town during the wedding, so...couldn't really take it seriously much.

I wish to die in my sleep like my grandfather--not screaming in terror like his passengers

[–] Tsyroc 11 years ago

As for the rest of this film, I'd be inclined to agree with you about needing to see some fleshing out of the characters. I just found it extremely frustrating to not have two people communicating after such an horrific event...and even more flummoxed to see nothing happen after he initiates his own rape of Ana.

I think that's one of the biggest issues I have with the film. I'm sure it's intentional that the director mostly just shows what's happening and little to nothing is talked about but man does it make the movie frustrating. So many what ifs. How much does it change if Daniel actually gets in to see a counselor on his own? I'm sure these boards would contain lots of discussions about his psychology being believable or not based on what is discussed during his sessions.

You think that sumbitch would have been at my wedding?!
I don't care WHAT I would have to tell my parents...he wouldn't be there, or living for that matter. And then it just hopped a cab to crazy town during the wedding, so...couldn't really take it seriously much.

I was with the movie when he was acting all depressed and skipping school. When he started getting violent it started to lose me. There's not talking to each other and then there's this movie. I would have thought that at some point there'd at least be some sort of scene where either Daniel or Ana, maybe both, just breakdown and start screaming stuff at one another.

I'm sure this is the movie the director wanted to make but boy is there an interesting movie waiting to be made where the characters actually sort of deal with each other, speak to one another, and get some serious professional help.

The one sort of good thing that I thought came out of the movie as it is was Ana agreeing with her fiance that he should take the job opportunity and they should move to Spain for a few years. I know she changed her mind mostly because of what Daniel did to her but I got the feeling, with her closeness to her family taking such a heavy blow, that she was a little more circumspect about her fiancee's feelings. A lightbulb seemed to come on concerning other people's feelings when the counselor asked her how Daniel was dealing with things and she didn't know. Realizing how messed up he had to have been to do that to her might be why she could tolerate him later on, although that last hug looked very painful and uncomfortable for her.

It's still weird that a pair of siblings who are supposed to be so close don't talk to one another. She seems to be pretty good at sharing with him but I guess we're supposed to take Daniel's early reluctance to speak about his love life with his girlfriend as an example of how he doesn't share with Ana and/or that he's already having difficulty with the idea of his sister getting married.

[–] kaaria1 11 years ago

"I was with the movie when he was acting all depressed and skipping school. When he started getting violent it started to lose me. There's not talking to each other and then there's this movie. I would have thought that at some point there'd at least be some sort of scene where either Daniel or Ana, maybe both, just breakdown and start screaming stuff at one another."

I kept waiting...and waiting...and waiting for this to occur, but nope. And that's when I had my epiphany that motivated me to create this thread. I don't know if you read my original post or remember much of it, but I cover everything you just spoke about within that one, especially concerning what happens to the film if Daniel attends the sessions.

My personal feeling is that he was always infatuated with his sister, hence him still being a virgin when he clearly had opportunities. His rather maladroit behavior seems to be a by-product of his obsession with Ana. And because such an attraction is generally considered abhorrent behavior, the initial forced encounter was the tipping point to take him over the edge, I suppose.

I wish to die in my sleep like my grandfather--not screaming in terror like his passengers

[–] Tsyroc 11 years ago

My personal feeling is that he was always infatuated with his sister, hence him still being a virgin when he clearly had opportunities. His rather maladroit behavior seems to be a by-product of his obsession with Ana. And because such an attraction is generally considered abhorrent behavior, the initial forced encounter was the tipping point to take him over the edge, I suppose.

I certainly agree about the infatuation with his sister. I'm not sure if he was still a virgin because of them or was overly attracted to her because he was still a virgin.

This makes me remember one scene where Daniel and his girlfriend are making out in their underwear and then the film immediately jumps to them sitting on the couch, fully clothed watching TV. My first impression was that the make out scene was what he was imagining while he was sitting on the couch with his girlfriend and then his father (I think) comes by and he snaps back to reality. I'm really not sure if I should take the scene as I first saw it or take it as that's what really happened before they sat down to watch TV. If he's having frustrated fantasies then that might go along with his later issues, but if it was real it could easily be that he was the one stopping things from going further with his girlfriend. She seemed pretty in to him later on, up until he started choking her. So maybe the earlier make out scene was meant to be the first hint that something is wrong with him already.

I thought the frustrated fantasies idea fit better with his description of his sex life to his friend but seemed kind of off with how his girlfriend responded to him later.

[–] kaaria1 11 years ago

I don't remember much of what happened before the kidnapping because it's been awhile since I saw it, but I think we are both of the opinion that there was a LOT that was 'off' about this film--hence the latter part of the title of my thread.

I wish to die in my sleep like my grandfather--not screaming in terror like his passengers

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kaaria1 11 years ago

Nice of you to take time out of your busy schedule of licking your own a$$ and contribute, um...and contribute...

I'm sorry...what the fvck did you contribute to the conversation again? And looking at the years spanning your obvious TROLLING comments, see you in, what...2016?

Until you decide to grace us with more of your infinite wisdom, why don't you go and play Russian roulette with uncle daddy's six-shooter...with seven bullets.

I wish to die in my sleep like my grandfather--not screaming in terror like his passengers

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

Well done film, but don't over-analyze. *Spoilers*

Well done film, but don't over-analyze. Spoilers