A disturbing movie

I don't think they were labeled as geniuses. They refer to themselves that way, but that's all in voiceover, which was taken straight from Pauline's diary; it wasn't inserted by Jackson to glorify them.

They were certainly shown to be intelligent, however, because they both clearly were. They were intelligent and creative...and completely messed up. I don't think occasionally showing their positive attributes takes away from the brutality and horror of their crime. If anything, it makes it all the more upsetting. All the usual explanations for murder fail to apply here; both girls had a great deal of talent and potential, and threw it all away for some silly fantasy.

I think that without ever coming right out and saying it, Peter Jackson made this movie a celebration of their disturbed minds more than anything else.

Their minds were nothing to celebrate because they were so disturbed and violent.

Almost all of the things you cite as evidence of this alleged "celebration," however, are Pauline's own words and actions. And I don't think we can realistically expect someone to make a movie about these murders without using the diaries she wrote. They're the most insightful thing we have on the topic.

The film is very nuanced. As I pointed out before, we have several instances in which we were clearly meant to sympathize with their families. They're very rude to people for no particular reason on more than one occasion, and the film shows us this, front and center. The fact that it also acknowledges their intelligence and creativity does not, in my mind, qualify as a "celebration."

One of the things that makes this murder so noteworthy is that it wasn't done by a couple of poverty-stricken girls with a grim future and their backs against the wall. It was done by two girls (one of whom was part of an affluent family) with plenty of options and potential. I'm not sure how Jackson is supposed to touch on this angle without showing their positive attributes. By letting Pauline do it in her own words, however, he's found a very deft way of displaying their mindset to the viewer without endorsing it, as he would surely seem to if he were to write such things himself.

Forget the narrative throughout the movie, still Jackson paints these girls as brilliant people who need to be recognized as such.

Even when you take away the verbatim diary entries, you still have Jackson painting these girls as clever, brilliant and respectable minds.

Even the murder scene is somewhat justified by the direction of the movie.

Brilliant and clever, perhaps, but it seems as if they were both of those things, so that's fine. Respectable? How did he paint them as respectable?

Zuh? Alright, I've been able to kinda-sorta see where you're coming from up until now, but I don't know what you're referring to here at all. The murder was brutal and invoked an outrageous wave of sympathy for Pauline's mother. As I said in my review earlier in the thread, it's probably the only time a non-horror film has made me genuinely want to turn away from the screen. How did Jackson justify the murder with his direction?

Peter Jackson plays these girls off as victims the whole movie. They just want to be friends and people want to stop them. Poor young girls...

He delivered it as "Murder is wrong, but can't you see where these girls are coming from? They wanted to separate them and that's just not fair."

These girls were DISTURBED, but he made them look like people who were brilliant and simply had a quick lapse in judgment.

But how? You keep saying "Jackson did this" or "Jackson did that," but I don't see how you've reached those conclusions. What did he do to incite these feelings? Clearly, you took that away from his direction, but I would guess that most other people did not. I certainly didn't, and am having a hard time pinpointing what moments and techniques have you thinking otherwise.

I can certainly think of ways in which Jackson incites the opposite feelings, however. The example I used in my review upthread is Pauline's father joking around with the fish. He's just being playful, and Pauline flips out on him for no real reason, simply because he's chosen to kid around while she's trying to listen to something Juliet recommended.

Far from portraying their friendship was wholesome or good, right from the start Jackson gives us indications that there's something obsessive and dangerous about it.

He shows Pauline as temperamental, but even still he has the mother seem unreasonable. Like they are telling her she can't do things or go places just to be mean.

I just really hate this movie. It makes me mad to even think about it.

The mother didn't seem unreasonable to me. And nowhere did Jackson paint anything other than the picture as one of the girls herself painted it.

I think you're confusing the GIRLS' portrayal and view of themselves with JACKSON'S view, which frankly, doesn't really come out in the movie much. I've seen the movie many times, and I honestly haven't a clue what Jackson thought about the girls.

I do, though, know what the girls thought of themselves. Don't equate the two.

__________________
Linda's Author Website
Linda's Amazon Author page

I didn't think the mother was unreasonable either. I liked her. I thought perhaps she didn't spend enough time guiding her daughter and involved with her but mostly I saw her as a good person, doing her best.

The other mother is another whole kettle of fish.

It occurs to me that in this movie and in Pan's Labyrinth both, the children used fantasy as a way out. I can totally relate to that. It's part of why I enjoy books and movies so much.

But in Pan, the girl didn't resort to violence against the people she loved. She didn't even do so against the people she hated or feared. She had far more negative experiences and violence around her which might have somewhat justified or explained her actions better if she had.

So, what caused the difference between her and the girls in this movie? That is the key thing for me, personally.

I know Pan is fiction and the other is mostly not. Still I believe most of us would not cross certain lines no matter how much we fantasized about it.

__________________
Bleacheddecay

I just have to applaud Yoda here, I would have lost my temper long ago. Please tell me you're on Prozac because your self-control is inhuman.

I've just seen the film, came here and couldn't stop laughing at every single post Bobby has made in this thread. If ever there was a time for Yoda's old OG quote, this is it. This is probably the best film Jackson has ever made, and it's quite hard to associate it with the generic drivel of King Kong. Why aren't movies as original as this anymore?

I've read Yoda's review a few pages back and found it astounding how anyone could be "undecided" after having seen such a brilliant piece of work,...forget the story outline, and just focus on the way it was shot. The way he incorporates the maniacal camera movements from his B slasher film days (I've only just now understood the irony of my earlier comment at Bobby) to accentuate their neuroticism and eventual lunacy (remember the skewed close up at Pauline's hate-filled face when she decides to kill her mother) and seamlessly combines the fantasy world with the real world is absolutely incredible.

And as for the story, it depends on your mind frame. I found nothing shocking about their relationship, on the contrary. They were, indeed, heavenly creatures...such an incredibly intense relationship transcends this world and all the rules of normality. In fact, I wish I was stark raving mad...:\

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

It's not easy being an admin.

"Ours is a high and lonely destiny..."

It's a little ironic to refer to a film based on real events and writings "original," but I agree that Jackson still manages to leave his mark here. He seems to have a penchant for infusing his style into other people's work without ever overwhelming the source material. I don't think I need to mention the other, more prominent example of his skill in this field.

The most impressive part, for me, was the use of voiceover. It obviously scores the film some serious accuracy points, seeing as how it came straight from Pauline's journal, and it wisely lets Pauline make her own case, lest the viewer feel that the film is defending her heinous acts. At least, that's my interpretation of it.

Well, I'm "undecided" as to the central topic of the thread, which is whether or not the film is disturbing, or has a dubious message. But I certainly agree that the film is superb on a technical level. As I said earlier, the film's climatic murder was easily one of the most upsetting things I've ever seen in a film. That I can say that about a rather straightforward murder scene, and not about some shock-value grotesquerie, speaks to the film's technical brilliance.

Ah, here we go our separate ways. I do not think they were heavenly, nor would I guess that we are meant to think so. I see the title as almost ironic; "Heavenly Creatures" is the phrase Pauline uses to describe the two of them, after all, and not Jackson's.

To me, it illustrates just how far gone she is; she'd have to believe that they were truly superior beings to justify such a murder. In that sense, it's rather like Hitchcock's Rope, which is also about a couple of young people who believe themselves to be superior to others, and therefore outside of conventional rules of conduct and decency.

Was their relationship so transcendant? We don't really know. We know that Pauline certainly thought so, but she was a teenage girl at the time, and I wouldn't say people of that age have a stellar track record in emotional perspective. It's the deepest thing she's felt to that point, though, which leads her to make a common adolescent mistake: she assumes she's the only person who's ever felt this way before, and thus feels she can justify any action to preserve that feeling. Such love is a selfish love, and is directed inward at the void it fills, not outward to its alleged source.

I do not pretend to know exactly what Jackson thinks of what took place, but I think the emphasis on Pauline and Juliet's talents and intelligence is a lamentation on the life they threw away. We have lots of stories about desperate people doing desperate things, but these girls were not downtrodden. They were not born in a slum, or abused, or systemtically driven to the breaking point.

I see Heavenly Creatures as a story about the lengths people will go to fill their emotional voids, and the cunning ability of the human mind to persuade even itself of anything in order to get what it wants.

[quote=Yoda;384676]
You know what I meant, but just to clarify, I was referring to the visual style of the film, not so much the story line, which has been done many times before and since (although I find it hard to think of a film that was so effective in bringing the audience into the specific mind frame of the main heroines).

I think the main mistake people (including Bobby) make is that this films intention was to shed a sympathetic light on the girls. It was meant to tell their story, a very intriguing story, nothing more nothing less. The fact that people do relate to them (some more some less) only amplifies the point...people who commit such acts are just people.

For me, one of the more impressive accomplishments of the film was the ambiguity of their sexuality. I've read several people's reactions and their general disapproval of them being portrayed as lesbians. But they weren't. If you look closely, their relationship was never explicitly sexual (the closest Jackson ever came to implying their relationship was indeed sexual was in the scene where, according to Pauline, they reenacted sex with their "Gods", all of whom were men). People around them assumed that since their relationship was so unusually close, there must be something "unnatural" about it (feeble and backward minds unable to comprehend such an intense relationship and a bond between two human beings that transcends the physical). No wonder they were getting increasingly frustrated...


So do you think it's a good film or not?

I don't think it was very hard for them to think they were superior, it's pretty obvious they were. They were capable of thinking outside the Christian "box", something most people of that time could not. Once you separate your world view from that of the Church, anything is possible...

This was the first thing that popped in my head. hehe

I've seen the bulk of Heavenly Creatures, and liked it. Something came up, and I had to turn it off. I never did finish it, but I do aim to soon enough.

__________________

Why is this the title of this thread?

I know this thread is old, i never saw Heavenly Creatures and i'm just browsing through this thread and it seems like a film i'm probably gonna check out soon but anyways.

but Resident Evil? are you serious?

I have to admit to being surprised by this thread. Yes, Heavenly Creatures is a disturbing movie, but I don't think its only purpose is to shock by any means. It is hardly gorno. It can't be the fact of the murder - after all it is only one murder, compare that to something like Goodfellas which glorifies murder and mob violence and you haven't got a leg to stand on in condemning it for its morals.

Particularly coming from someone who loves American History X, Bobby, I can't see where all the hate is coming from for this film.

It is visually inventive and emotionally enthralling. It is from the perspective of the girls, but I don't think that that means it excuses or glorifies the murder in any way. In fact the way I read the film was that after the murder, the film stops and so do all their dreams and plans of before. The film seems to show us that it is one thing to fantasize about violence, but the sick, brutal reality is something else. The murder is presented in a very real way in a deliberate effort to contrast with the fantasy escapism of earlier in the film. The brilliance of the film is in making us sympathise with the girls until we reach this point of no return in the murder where the friendship between them and the sympathy we have with them is murdered too.

I can understand not liking a film if the characters are completely unsympathetic, but I didn't feel this was the case with this film, and I can't understand condemning a film simply for being disturbing, or showing us the point of view of a criminal. If you do that, how many other great films would you be condemning?

Edit: I feel after this like I should revise my comment on the 'movies someone can't dislike without losing your respect' thread.

But the film clearly shows us that they're not just any people. Apart from being very creative, they're both very disturbed. Sure, even murderers are people, but I don't think Jackson was telling us that any normal person can just up and murder someone. If that were the point of the movie, I don't think so much time would have been spent showing us how different they were from everyone else; in both the good ways, and the bad.

But they were correct! Given what transpired, there was something "unnatural" about their relationship; it was not simply devoted, it was obsessive. And it wasn't simply because people tried to keep them apart, because Pauline, for one, begins acting out long before that takes place.

To me, it's quite ironic; their parents are right to be concerned, but not for the reason they think.

Absolutely. Anything which disturbs me that much without resorting to anything overtly shocking or over-the-top deserves my admiration.

I imagine this is meant as an indictment of religion, but I think you're making the opposite point; when you separate your world view from that of the Church, yes, anything is possible. And in this case, that "anything" is the most brutal of murders.

Whether or not they were "superior" depends on your definition of the word. If we limit it to raw creative output, then yes, they were. If we include basic decency and perspective, then they were decidedly inferior to most of the people around them.

I liked this movie a lot, and disagree that it shows the girls in a "positive" light. I agree with Yoda (I think) that the film's title is ironic. They certainly saw themselves in that light, and thought of themselves as superior, but I don't think Jackson or the writers intended for us to think of them like that.

To me, the girls are extremely intelligent and creative, but they are emotionally and morally immature (I'm tempted to say "stunted," but will resist that urge because of their age), and extremely obsessive. Their obsessions extend from everything from Mario Lanza to each other to their fantasy life to their hatred of the mother of one of the girls. This combination of emoitonal and moral immaturity, obsession, and a rich fantasy life lead to a "perfect storm" that culminates in the crime at the end of the film.

One of the reasons I like the movie so much is that you can feel the pressure building...building...building, until you know that something has to give, and that it will not end well for anyone concerned.

I joined just a week before this thread was put to sleep, and I don't recall reading it before, but I have a few brief comments to make.



First off, I give the film . I was already a fan of Peter Jackson from his low-budget shock films, Bad Taste, Braindead and Meet the Feebles, so this film seemed to be a big step up in class as well as seriousness for him and his co-scripter/wife Fran Walsh. However, it still contains Jackson's trademark dark humor and an incredible array of creative visuals, so I suppose someone could feel just as overwhelmed by the film's technique as the two lead characters did in the 1950s by the intensity of their relationship and how they felt when they learned that they would be separated. In that way, I can almost find someone having a hateful aversion to the film to be an actual recreation of what the characters did in murdering one of their mothers. Instead of murdering a person, someone (perhaps Bobby B) wants to kill a movie. I would think that an intense reaction is the sign of a film which succeeds on at least one level, but everybody has their own definitions of success. For me, it's often a film which is original, highly-cinematic and intense, and Heavenly Creatures certainly qualifies as all three.



One thing I didn't see discussed here is that Juliet (the Kate Winslet character) is actually famous murder mystery novelist Anne Perry, and my wife has read over 40 of her novels, including some before we even met in 1985. So, although it was only revealed after Heavenly Creatures was released that Anne Perry was Juliet, it added an extra dimension to my wife's and my take on the film, the true story and Anne Perry's literary career.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page