on the children in the town? WTF did they have to do with anything? They didn't murder her son, and the families had nothing to do with the death. So, what's the point of her just randomly killing, because her son was left for dead in a mud bog by her sister and her ex?
shareHer child was taken away from her. Her sister didn't try to save him in the marsh and so she carried that hate with her to her death. She cannot forgive so she kills the children so their parents feel what she felt when her son died.
Sarah xx
I can only speak for myself, but that is the weakest damned plot I've ever heard of for murdering people who have nothing to do with anything to the main plot, which was the son's death.
The ending was a bigger wtf too. So, he dies after being miserable since his wife died, and then they all stroll off into whatever notion of heaven is there for them? Kinda lost the whole point of why this was supposed to be scary. So, she kills people so they find happiness in death?
namaGemo writes:
"So, she kills people so they find happiness in death?"
Arthur and Joseph might have been happy with Stella, but those kids didn't seem happy to me. I think they were in "limbo".
And the WIB intended to kill Joseph, not Arthur. Her plan was foiled.
"I think it's time to see Amanda sticking guns in people's faces."
She was bent on revenge. But she was a little grateful for setting some of it right. But of course it's too little too late.
So he was not made a slave of her. The children are slaves to her.
How come every word you say is either *beep* *beep* or *beep*?
I don't think he got to go off with his family because she was a little grateful. WIB didn't get to keep Arthur's son in limbo because Arthur proved his love for him by dieing in his rescue attempt. She was taking revenge because her sister never even tried to save her little boy from the buggy. Had her sister done the same as Arthur WIB may not have gone on her ghostly killing spree. I think Arthur dieing heroically broke any spell she had on his son.
shareSo, he dies after being miserable since his wife died, and then they all stroll off into whatever notion of heaven is there for them? Kinda lost the whole point of why this was supposed to be scary.
Why? who says that revenge has to be rational or logical?
This is the kind of film where you need to pay attention.
Don't play it down Mickel, that won't work.
Don't play it up, that won't work either.
The act of revenge itself may not seem logical in the action taken, but revenge is in urself a deliberate action taken again those who actually harmed you, thus why it is called revenge.
This spirits acts were more randomly homicidal, not those of revenge. Might as well kill anyone, why leave the murdering to one small group?
I can only speak for myself, but that is the weakest damned plot I've ever heard of for murdering people who have nothing to do with anything to the main plot, which was the son's death.
The ending was a bigger wtf too. So, he dies after being miserable since his wife died, and then they all stroll off into whatever notion of heaven is there for them? Kinda lost the whole point of why this was supposed to be scary. So, she kills people so they find happiness in death?
it had nothing to do with finding any happiness, she was killing the other kids because what happened to hers. not a weak plot at all. and not the first time a killer has gone after kids to upset parents, see i.e: Krueger, Freddy
Roswell That Ends Well
Poor support for your hypothesis. Krueger and Freddy are the same people by the way. Second, they were killed by the people in their town. Did these people in WIB did something against her? Nope. Not that the audience knows of. This is indeed the weakest plot I've seen for a massacre.
WIB is evil.
This is a horror film that taps into the anxiety about child-abduction.
An evil being just snatches the children from the village for no apparent reason. Three little girls are playing tea party in the safety of their home... and the next moment they're gone. Life doesn't get much scarier than that.
Also, Victorian morals dictated that Jennet (WIB), a single mother, could not raise her son. So, in a way, the village which is part of that society does share the blame for Jennet's loss. The WIB strikes out at the nearest representatives of the society that wronged her.
"I think it's time to see Amanda sticking guns in people's faces."
Nearest representatives of the society that wronged her, so Arthur is now part of that society? Really. A recovery of her son's body and being of foreign origin. Are we going to spend our money and answer all the questions for the writers? If I have to infer more than 10 things about a film, it's not a well structured film.
sharejames-hong writes:
"...so Arthur is now part of that society?"
Of course. He's not an alien from tralfamadore! Victorian Morals weren't just confined to that little village!
Generally, the setting of a film, drama, story, or novel is important. WIB could not be set in contemporary society. Out-of-wed-lock births just don't have the same stigma today as back then. This is not a flaw in the film.
In many ways, the WIB is a product of the setting of the story.
"I think it's time to see Amanda sticking guns in people's faces."
If not, why are her activities confined to that village?
shareWe actually don't know that they are. In the book she wasn't.
sharejames-hong writes:
"...why are her activities confined to that village?"
I think tradition maintains that ghosts usually haunt the places of their deaths or places of importance.
Jennet committed suicide in the house; her son died and his body was lost in the tidal marsh. So, that's probably why she haunts that locale.
"I think it's time to see Amanda sticking guns in people's faces."
While I'm not a big fan of using Freddy Krueger as a comparison, I believe the above poster was merely writing his name in the "last name, first name" fashion. The way he wrote it gave me the impression that he was intending for it to read it as though it were a subject you were looking up at the library, and writing it in that fashion would be appropriate then.
If this was the weakest plot for a massacre, what about the little girl's massacre in The Ring? Or any number of other ghost/poltergeist movies? I thought the two movies had striking similarities, and the little girl in The Ring killed people around her who had no connection to her and didn't do anything wrong to her. They were the victims of her revenge even though they did nothing to deserve it.
Vengeful spirits are not exactly known to be rational and limit their evil doings to only those who wronged them in life. Poltergeists (if you believe in that kind of thing) are thought to be spirits who cannot "move on" because of something that happened to them while they were alive, usually something bad. They are typically thought to terrorize anyone who is in the area where they are stuck in the afterlife, regardless of who the people are.
e.g., not i.e.
shareThe error you are making is looking for a rational, logical reason for WIB doing what she did. There is no logic to it, that's the point. She is utterly and completely batsh!t crazy.
The thorn defends the rose, yet it is peaceful and does not seek conflict.
There IS NO reason... that doesn't mean it's a weak plot... get over yourself!
She's just a vengeful, bitter woman!
Like Billy said in one of my favorite films, Scream
"I don't really believe in motives sidney, I mean, did norman bates have a motive? no. Did they ever decide why hannibal lector liked to eat people? DON'T THINK SO!"
The woman in black didn't have a proper motive for killing those children, thats the point. like I said, she's just bitter. It's a lot scarier when there's no motive
"They went looking for our beginning. What they found, could be our end"
Prometheus 01/06/2012
Get OVER myself? Sorry, it was a question, and I still think it's a very weak plot point, as was the ending of the film. She might as well have murdered adults too, since it was adults that let her child die like that.
shareNope... that would be pointless.
She didnt want to kill adults, because she wanted to kill their children to make the parents feel the same pain she does
"They went looking for our beginning. What they found, could be our end"
Prometheus 01/06/2012
The woman in black didn't have a proper motive for killing those children... It's a lot scarier when there's no motive.
Most parents would prefer their own deaths to the death of their child. If she killed the adult, that would mean they would be free from the torment of losing a child. It makes sense that her targets would be mostly helpless and would do the most damage to the townspeople. And in the case of the Jerome family, she got to kill twise. Mrs Daily went insane. Everyone else lives in constant fear that their child might be next.
You make me laugh out loud, bubble!
There's been plenty of discussion on this board that would answer your question but if you didn't understand it after watching the film I don't think you will ever understand it. Maybe you should check out another film?
shareNice waste of time response. See, the thing is, some are saying that the fact that she kills children randomly is what's scary, and that's fine,. My point is, if she is just malicious, then killing adults makes it even worse. A psychotic killer who makes everyone a possible victim is more terrifying than one with a chosen target patter. If someone just targets children, and 50% of the people in town don't have kids, its a non issue. They can be concerned for others, but have nothing to fear themselves. So, when viewing a film like this, knowing the target is children, as an adult, there is little to fear. That's why it fails to scare, because the main character is an adult who the ghost won't bother trying to kill, despite him dying at the end.
shareIn the book she is killing children because she loses the thing she loved most when she was alive, her son. She wants everyone else to feel her pain and anguish. She becomes mad because she contracts a wasting disease which kills her eventually, but also makes her insane.
The reason it is scarier than what you are suggesting is it is far worse to a parent to lose a child than for them to die themselves.
See, I understand, and that's a great point, IF everyone has kids. To me, it just seems flawed because not everyone in town has something to fear.
shareThey do in a way, people always fear the unknown, they also fear for other families children, who is to know down the line you may one day have a child and that child may succumb to the evil.
sharenot everyone in town has something to fear.
I'd say they were more fearful than antagonistic?
shareThey wanted to kick his ass when they stopped Sam's car...
The thorn defends the rose, yet it is peaceful and does not seek conflict.
Yeah but it's more through fear than any kind of vengeance. They know he has a son and there are also children in the village, they are just looking to protect. There is no malice towards Arthur. Fear makes people do crazy things, look at the couple who kept their child locked away in the basement for example.
shareYou're saying it fails to scare because the main character has no reason to fear death at her hands, but he has a child and the prospect of his death is so much worse for him - that's why he goes through so much to try to stop her.
You've also said it's not scary because half the people in town wouldn't have kids and would have nothing to fear. First, we have no clue how many people in town don't have kids - I would guess at this time in a small village like this, the number of people with children would far outnumber those who didn't. During the end of the 19th century, I would imagine people were marrying young and having multiple children, and there weren't too many people who chose to avoid these societal expectations.
Second, for the smaller number of people who didn't have any direct children, why wouldn't the children of your village dying be something that would terrify you? In a small village like this you were likely either the friend or relative to these children and their families. If you didn't yet have children of your own you would be terrified to bring them into this world, and it would be a horrible, depressing place to live knowing the next generation was far more likely to die a horrible death at a young age.
The problem is, people could send their kids to live out of town with relatives till they were adults. The premise is this is real, not imaginary, and people staying in a town where they know 100% that something will try and kill their children and they remain in that town is a bit ridiculous. I guess that's why it fails to scare, because I can't imagine any parents not moving at the expense of their children's lives.
shareI asked my husband this same question when we watched the film, and I would have loved if they had given some kind of indication why no one did this. Were they in denial for too long and didn't realize what could happen to them until most of the children were already killed? Were they too poor, had no relatives outside the village, etc., that would keep them from sending their children elsewhere?
This was a small "issue" for me, but I ended up going with an assumption that there was nowhere to send them and if everyone in the village was poor, how could they pick up and move elsewhere with no money and nowhere to live? If they thought their entire family would certainly starve to death if they left that area, I could understand living in fear of the WIB and just making sure no one went out to the estate to see her since that was the only time she killed the children.
I guess it's not too out there for me since there isn't a shortage of parents today who live in places that are very dangerous for their children, whether that be places with a lot of violence or known environmental contaminants that are making their children sick. At least the people of this village could exert some control over the situation by keeping people from going to the estate.
Why didnt the families with kids just move out from that town - simple.
I guess then we wouldnt have had a movie....
"Good for the Tuna" Jerry Seinfeld
[deleted]
by - namaGemo on Sat Feb 18 2012 08:50:54
Nice waste of time response. See, the thing is, some are saying that the fact that she kills children randomly is what's scary, and that's fine,. My point is, if she is just malicious, then killing adults makes it even worse. A psychotic killer who makes everyone a possible victim is more terrifying than one with a chosen target patter. If someone just targets children, and 50% of the people in town don't have kids, its a non issue. They can be concerned for others, but have nothing to fear themselves. So, when viewing a film like this, knowing the target is children, as an adult, there is little to fear. That's why it fails to scare, because the main character is an adult who the ghost won't bother trying to kill, despite him dying at the end.
And you obviously lack the ability to comprehend. I said the people who are not targets have reason to be concerned for those who are targets, however, they have nothing to fear THEMSELVES. I assume most men can feel sickened by the idea of rape, which is usually male on female, but men also don't go through life fearing the idea of ever being a possible victim of rape.
shareStill doesn't make sense.
I don't believe in ghosts but I understood what the intentions were of Jennet and felt a chill whenever her presence was on screen.
Then let me ask this, when you watch the news and find out someone was murdered in another state, how often do you go to bed trembling in fear? It makes 100% sense. If there is nothing to fear for your OWN life, then there is a lot less worry on your mind. Doesn't mean you throw away compassion for others, but your own fears are down to nothing. You obviously liked this film and are trying to defend its flimsy storyline.
shareI suppose that is where you and I differ. I am more afraid for others than I am for myself.
If I really get involved with a movie, I feel scared for the character if they are experiencing fear or pain. As I don't believe in ghosts, I don't go home being afraid of the dark, lol unless I am in an unsafe environment like a car park late at night. I'm afraid for what is real not imagined or fantasy.
I have empathy for Kips because he is suffering depression after losing his wife and his job is on the line, very easy to relate.
The revengeful ghost is pure fantasy but effective, I enjoy gothic horror.
You also have to remember that Jennet was pretty pissed about the Drablows for taking Nathaniel in the first place. In the book, her goal was to eventually 'steal him back'. If the Drablows had never adopted him, then he never would have been near the bog to begin with. The bog is dangerous and it was an accident. There was no reason to blame the Drablows for not being able to save him or recover the body, because it was damn near impossible even with a car. But Jennet is irrational, mean-spirited and selfish, and someone had to be held accountable for her suffering. When torturing her sister wasn't satisfying enough, she took it out on the town.
You make me laugh out loud, bubble!
Jennette wanted to make the town's children suffer as a result of her son's death but I think that she wasn't in the right frame of mind and was crazy.
shareGhosts in movies frequently have silly and trivial reasons for killing people. Hers were at least a sound reason, even though she needed a bitch smack upside the head.
share
his body wasnt found so she kept looking for him and she took those other kids instead, it was explained near the end part.
what i dont get is why kept killing but i surmise this has something to do with dying whilst in deep hate, thus the movie "ju on" was born, when the mom was killed by a jealous husband and she if i am not mistaken killed an entire city
Yeah, it made no sense. Is the book this is based on as poorly written as this movie was? They didn't explain *beep*
shareThat's how I felt. People keep throwing out the "it's an angry spirit" plot point which runs the lines of other films. That reason does NOT give this film any more credibility for what we watched. It's like saying "if your friends jump off a bridge, does that make it right?"
Yeah, she was crazy, angry. suffering, bfd. They could have added an element about the town and the people in the town and tightened up the story quite a bit.
This actually was explained much better in the book. In that version, Jennet moves into the town after her sister Alice adopts her son. Jennet wants to be nearby so she can visit him. Jennet is dirt poor and takes in sewing to survive, so the town knows who she is. At first Alice only lets her visit rarely, but as he grows up, Jennet spends more and more time with Nathaniel. They develop a bond, and Nathaniel begins to be cold toward Alice. Jennet is planning to take him away, but before she can, he dies in the accident.
After her son's death, Jennet begins to go mad with grief, anger, and a desire for revenge. Then, as the book puts it, "Whether because of her loss and her madness or what, she also contracted a disease which caused her to begin to waste away. The flesh shrank from her bones, the color was drained from her, she looked like a walking skeleton--a living specter. When she went about the streets, people drew back. Children were terrified of her. She died eventually. She died in hatred and misery. And as soon as ever she died the hauntings began. And so they have gone on."
So basically, the town shunned her--and cut off her source of income--because she looked freaky. Since the movie has Jennet hanging herself in the nursery right after the buggy accident, the above doesn't make much sense. I guess they opted for the (much weaker, IMO) explanation of "She's just eeeeeevil."
Agreed with the last poster!
Thanks for reviving this old thread!
*nods*
Such a difference in terms of Jennet's life in the book vs. her life in the film.