 |
|
4.8 The narrative gap in the murder scenes.
** What is the narrative gap in the murder
scenes?
The murder scene is presented in two pieces in the film. The immediate aftermath of
the murder is shown at the film's opening. The murder itself is depicted at the film's
close. Comparing the scenes in the film with the detailed forensic evidence of the case,
it becomes apparent that there is a time gap between the two scenes.
** What is the evidence for the narrative gap?
Very simply and graphically put, Honora Mary Parker exhibited forty-five separate
wounds to her head, neck, face and hands. The murder scene in the film showed a very small
fraction of those wounds being inflicted. Hence, the audience was not subjected to a
graphic, real-time depiction of most of the violence inflicted against Honora. What we saw
in the film, horrible as it may have been was, indeed, just the beginning of Honora's
murder.
** What did Jackson leave out?
The evidence supplied by Honora's wounds implies that she did not die quickly, or
meekly, or painlessly. The autopsy dryly referred to wounds on her fingers, interpreted as
having been obtained when she tried to defend herself. Audrey Amos, a policewoman who saw
Honora's body, said her fingers were practically severed by blows from the murder
weapon--a brick, remember. It was speculated that Honora was conscious and she may have
fought back, or at least may have tried to avoid her daughter's blows, for some time.
Jackson's 'hommage' to these facts are Honora's terrible cries during the murder scene and
the brief shot of her crouching on the ground with blood trickling down her face, her arm
half-raised. Twenty-four of the wounds on Honora's face and head were consistent with
their having been caused by extreme-force, crushing blows from the murder weapon, i.e. the
brick. Under cross examination, the pathologist stated that some blows may have cause more
than one wound. In "Heavenly Creatures" we only see 7 blows being struck, 4 from
Pauline and 3 from Juliet. Even taking into account the multiple-wound-per-blow idea
(simple physics would probably make more than 3 wounds per blow very improbable), this is
still a serious undercount of the number of serious wounds. Since there were minor wounds,
too, the implication was that there were many more blows, some glancing. Try counting to
twenty-four, slowly. If there were that many blows to Honora, it would create a different
impression of the murder than does the few blows shown in the film. The pathologist
testified that it would have taken only a few of the major head injuries to render the
victim unconsciousness. This tends to make the murder appear to be a situation of gross
'overkill', but the situation may not be simple to interpret. This may be one reason why
Jackson did not show all the facts. Glamuzina and Laurie tend to de-emphasize the violence
of the murder in their analysis (actually, they refer to it as 'the killing' throughout
their book) and they argue that repetetive 'overkill' is more common in juvenile homicides
and does not necessarily imply the same thing as it would in an adult homicide. They cite
studies which show children having unrealistic ideas about what is required to produce
death, and also that children often express deep fears that the adult, who has been
omnipotent to that point, will get up again and seek revenge for having been injured.
Finally, even though the real murder was extraordinarily, shockingly violent (and seen to
be those things at the time--one reason for the continuing emotional reaction the murder
produces in those who remember it) it may not have been brutal. Brutality speaks more to
the state of mind of the murderers, and that remains unknown.
** So the overall effect of the narrative gap
is...?
...a severe toning down of the violence of the murder. We are left with a vastly
more sympathetic portrait of the girls from the film's murder than we would have obtained
had the whole murder been recreated graphically, in real time. Or, had we been present at
the murder as witnesses.
