unnecessary disturbing scenes

This is a film about the wild west dealing with disturbed people.
Life is nor only love.

umitayansmmm
1) a woman throws a baby in a toilet bowl.

2) a man has sex with a woman when her mother lying next to her in same bed.

I think this scenes are not necessary for the film and very disturbing.

No two persons ever watch the same movie.

I agree completely. These scenes detract from the good work that was invested in this film.
1) There were already enough scenes that indicated she was loony.
2) That scene served no purpose whatsoever.

۩๑●▬▬▬▬●๑۩๑●▬▬▬▬●๑۩

it was an adaptation from a novel, so I'm sure he was trying to be honest to that. And it was showing how rough that time and place could be which is what lead to the women loosing their sanity. I thought the baby in the outhouse was a very dark and memorable point. I think it was put to good use.

Maybe when an adaptation is only inspired by a book I will.

It's a little funny to me. I don't have an overwhelming desire to defend the movie, probably because it was so disturbing in places, but... I thought on your comment for a while (I just finished the movie) and I thought that, as people, we have a tendency to romanticize periods of time we're not from. I think that might have been the point here... there was just no romanticizing this.

Take for example our love for the Middle Ages-- often lauded as a time for chivalry, artistic integrity, or colored by what we think life lived in a castle would have been like. We weed out the rampant disease, the large-scale starvation, and the terribly ugly wars.

But we do this for every period! It's the grass is greener phenomenon we all seem to suffer from. Even recent history falls prey. Think of the 60s. We're usually painting it as a time of free love and free expression. Hippies and Haight Ashbury and peace signs. But in the 60s we also had the Vietnam War (one of our bloodiest "skirmishes"), race riots, and massive contentions not only between the pro and anti war movement, but between sexes, labor disputes and the death of a President!

So, yeah. We do this all the time. We think how amazing it would have been to return to a time when things were so simple and it was just life on the plains. Farming and the quiet nights spent with family around the warmth of our own hearth. Well, I think that's part of what they were trying to do with all the disturbing imagery. Not just point out that these weren't idyllic times, no. They were hard, but at times, they were beyond the comprehension of the word. They were brutal, unforgiving, and at times, extremely tormenting times. So bad, the only option left was to abandon the mind.

I won't say that I think they were 100% successful in everything they were trying to do with this movie (though, I have to be fair and say I haven't read the story). But to this end, I think (if it was their intention), that they accomplished what they set out to do. Unnerve. Rile. And, even revile.

woman who throws the baby in to toilet bowl is the other one. Not the one lost 2 children you mentioned.

The diversity of opinions one finds on the internet never ceases to amaze me. Yes, they were disturbing, the first especially so. These scenes were instrumental in showing the audience the depth on a woman's insanity and the cause of another's. If you want it neatly portrayed in a Hallmark Made for TV film, that's your right. But the rest of us might appreciate something considerably less gentrified and truer to the horrors that life can offer. With that in mind, they were absolutely and completely necessary. Perhaps North Korea is a good destination for you?