(Canada 1997 112m) DVD1/2
Berries waiting to be plucked
p Camelia Frieberg, Atom Egoyan d/w Atom Egoyan novel Russell Banks ph Paul Sarossy ed Susan Shipton m Mychael Danna art Philip Barker, Kathleen Climie cos Beth Pasternak
Ian Holm (Mitchell Stephens), Sarah Polley (Nicole Burnell), Gabrielle Rose (Dolores Driscoll), Tom McCamus (Sam Burnell), Maury Chaykin (Wendell Walker), Bruce Greenwood (Billy Ansell), Alberta Watson (Risa Walker), Arsinée Khanjian (Wanda Otto), Earl Pastko (Hartley Otto), David Hemblen, Brooke Johnson, Peter Donaldson,
It would be fair to say that novelist Russell Banks was in vogue with film-makers in the mid to late nineties, with two memorable films being made of his works; Paul Schrader’s Affliction and this haunting piece from Atom Egoyan. Both concern the same icy, wintry backdrops. Both concern familial trauma and tragic accidents, and both are ensemble pieces which encouraged superb performances from their casts (think of Nick Nolte and James Coburn). Yet in truth Schrader’s film doesn’t remotely come close to the impact of Egoyan’s. And yet, future Bilbo Baggins aside, most audiences at the time would have struggled to pick out anyone that they knew.
In a small town in the backwoods of British Columbia, the townsfolk are rocked by a tragedy when a school bus careers off the road killing fourteen of the children on board, paralysing the eldest from the waist down and injuring the driver. Soon after, into town comes an ambulance-chasing lawyer who, racked with a sense of injustice in the world because of his estrangement from his own daughter (who it turns out is HIV positive), tries to coerce the residents of the town to sue the bus company for negligence and get something back from the world that has cheated them so cruelly. However, not all the inhabitants are happy about it.
Right from the outset, as the credits roll, we are immediately put in a state of unease, almost equating to a sense of mourning. There’s regret, loss, almost funereal elegance to Mychael Danna’s haunting string and pan-pipe dominated theme tune (called, appropriately, ‘Procession’). The balance between life and death is potent, as is the desire to take care of children, as we see a couple naked in bed with their young child. Later on we find out that it is Holm’s lawyer’s over a decade previously, nursing their beloved child through a near-fatal disease. The camera cuts immediately to the elder Holm, stuck in a carwash, his being stuck a metaphor for the fact that he hasn’t moved on from becoming estranged from his daughter. He still needs cleansing of his hurt, and he sets out to cleanse the remote town of their hurt by the only way he knows how, by suing the balls off a company for negligence. He believes “there is no such thing as an accident…the word doesn’t mean a thing to me...” and doesn’t seem to realise that he’s causing damage as much as relief. Though in general it is better to face up to the past before moving on, in some extreme cases this is just not an option. Just like his car, stuck in the carwash because some of the dirt was too deeply ingrained.
What makes the suffering so potent is its setting. The landscape is unforbidding, treacherous, yet incredibly beautiful for all that. In the scene where we see Polley before the accident on stage singing, a dark, dusky gloom descends, almost a presentiment of things to come. Much of the credit must be down to Egoyan for his truthful adaptation of Banks’ book, and of course to Sarossy for his gorgeous camerawork, but it’s to the actors that the final plaudits go, including a truly never better Ian Holm, whose encounter with a former friend of his daughter’s on a plane is heartbreaking (watch him gently cover her up when asleep as if comforting his daughter by proxy). Yet it’s Polley who really haunts the film, through her mournful singing and quotations from the Pied Piper to her shocking but tender incestuous relationship with her father to her final walk into the ambiguous white light. Whether accidents are accidents is a moot point, but this film’s greatness is no accident. See it and weep.
While I’m glad you found a place for this on your list…and your review is spot-on…I am a little disappointed to see this so low. Of course, it was my number one…but I had hoped to see it at least in the top 25 here.
Still…it’s great to see it getting notice and some glowing praise nonetheless.
I hope this prompts others who have yet to see it to seek it out.
I especially appreciate your next to closing line, “Whether accidents are accidents is a moot point, but this film’s greatness is no accident.” Well done, Allan.
Well David, your promotion of this film at The Schleicher Spin was incomparable.
I’d like to add credit to David’s review at his site, as it was what I initially read that made me go seek this out immediately.
Absolutely Troy, no doubt about it. I am looking forward to your own list. Anyway I am going to spend a little time now with your Italian trip! Ha!
Thanks, Troy! I was not aware you had visited The ‘Spin.
And thanks again, Sam, for always being willing to post the links in your weekly recaps!
Allan – great review and certainly one of the best films of the decade. The film is emotionally draining so it may not be everyone’s cup of tea but this is a powerfully dark moving piece of work. Ian Holm is magnificent. Definitely, on my list of top 25 for the decade.
Indeed John, indeed. I couldn’t agree with you more.
Sorry, Allan, But I have to agree with the sentiments of DAVID SCHLIECHER here. You know I’ll defend the rights of anyone to their opinionn but the placement of THIS film seems a little low. There are certain films that are just granted in their greatness, once seen its obvious, and THE SWEET HEREAFTER is one of those films. Every decade has them, and the 90’s are no exception. Within this particular decade I’d think this film, SCHINDLER’S LIST, RAISE THE RED LANTERN and Kieslowski’s TRILOGY would be the granted films. Again, I defend your choice and placement, as always a wonderful review. I just always thought this was a natural for the top 10. Thanx, Dennis
If I say something along the lines that this film is not rated high enough I’ll get ruthlessly attacked. So I’ll just say that it’s my #4 as per my own Top 50, posted on the Best Films of the 90’s thread. Suffice to say this emotionally devastating film is in my view the second greatest Canadien film of all-time, falling narrowly behind Claude Jutra’s MON ONCLE ANTOINE.
Good call. When these list’s start it’s always fun for me to try and guess what films will rate high for Allan. The nineties I thought ‘Naked’ and ‘The Sweet Hereafter’ would be at least top 10 maybe even top 5.
It’s fun being surprised though!
Nah, you’ll not get ruthlessly attacked, I cannot necessarily argue with anything people have said as it is a masterwork, just that I reckoned on 31 better ones ont he day I made the list.
Mind you, I’m not a massive fan of Mon Oncle Antoine. It’s very good, but not more than that.
Agreed SCHMULEE!!!!! I’d say your assessment of this film is dead on. Like you, I think there are certain obvious films when you round up the best of each decade and, for the 90’s, THE SWEET HEREAFTER is one of them. Yeah, you better not say anything, the Boogie-Man may get you! LOL!!!!!
Just an observation…but I find it odd there are only seven comments for this film up to this point. Perhaps it is even more little seen than I had thought?
Or have people who have “experienced” THE SWEET HEREAFTER simply left speechless?
David, I believe that sometimes it’s just luck of the draw so to speak here at Wonders. We received over 50 comments for the ultra-obscure MOTHER AND SON (Sokurov) in large measure because a conversation started between several people. I believe SWEET HEREAFTER is a beloved film by most who come here, but a conversation just didn’t quite materialize as it does for three-quarters or so of the countdown choices. Strange.
Perhaps the lack of commentary is due to not as many people being aware of this film, but I find that hard to believe on this site…more than likely it’s because Allan’s writeup on it covers it so well. Regardless, I’ll chime in to make it eight comments, David.
I loved this film, having just experienced it for the first time a few weeks back. The movie has stuck in my head ever since then — the haunting main song, that shot of the bus careening off the road, the devastated looks on the characters faces throughout, the incredible, powerful dialogue that Holm gets and the way he delivers it — this is easily in my top 10 for the 90’s.
And Troy makes an excellent point too, methinks. Allan’s review was excellent, and perhaps some readers let it go at that.
The film is my own #4, and Troy, John Greco, Dave, Dennis, Jamie, and of course David Scheicher have admitted it makes there top 5 or 10. Again,not to be redundant, but this is one of the two greatest Canadien films of all-time in my estimation.
Perhaps Allan’s review did say it all as his last line was so succinct. I have noticed over the years that it is a difficult film to talk about…and maybe that’s it…or like you said, Sam, there was just none of that great back and forth banter that seems to sprout up all over this blog. Maybe that is because this film puts people in such a somber and inwardly reflective mood, where as many of the other choices here are either so obscure as to cause backlash, so well known and discussed to where everyone has an opinion they wish to voice, or so visceral that they cause an outward reflection where people just can’t stop talking about it.
THE SWEET HEREAFTER, however, just is…or perhaps (and this is my personal feeling) transcends that traditional experience of watching a film. And though most cinephiles have seen and experienced it, they have internalized it so deeply they can’t express in words how it made them feel. I know also it’s a film many respect but don’t necessarily love, so they feel, either because of the subject matter or because of how others have reacted to it, they should not speak out in any way against it or don’t feel an open discussion would lead to anything but anger…(hmmm…much like the lawyer’s words and deeds in the film)…
I don’t know, maybe I was just reading too much into the lack of comments for this one…but I’m glad to see I sparked at least a little something more.
hi there. do u realize the activity of eating, illustrates the world n hereafter ?.
i added u in my link list, would u add me too. thanx.