 |
|
4.7 The murder compared to real life
** How accurate was the portrayal of the murder?
As mentioned previously, most facts related to the murder which were shown in the
film were accurate, on the whole, compared to evidence read into court testimony.
Unfortunately there were also facts related to the murder which weren't shown explicitly
in the film and these missing facts have a rather profound effect on the perception of
this crime. Jackson attempted to convey the missing pieces of information indirectly, but
he was only partly successful in his attempts, judging from the perceptions of many
viewers.
** What facts were omitted from the film?
The film's murder was in agreement with a subset of the facts revealed by the post
mortem and investigation. The most glaring difference between the murder shown in the film
and the real-life murder deduced from the full set of forensic evidence was the extreme
violence of the real-life murder, which was far in excess of the film's version, horrific
as that may have been for most viewers. One important detail not shown in the film was the
fact that Honora was found lying on her back. Coupled with the nature of her injuries (see
7.2), it was clear that she had faced her assailants through most of the attack. It was
also clear that she had fought back against the attack. The next most important omission
concerned the emotional state of all three principals. There was evidence entered into
testimony of a violent argument between Pauline and her mother immediately preceeding the
murder, and Juliet may have also participated in this argument.
** Why would Jackson 'edit' the murder in the
film?
The most obvious reason for 'editing' the depiction of the murder is simply that it
would not be possible to get a completely graphic, explicit rendering of the murder past
censor boards. Jackson has experienced this problem before in his previous films, and he
was also attempting to distance himself a bit from his reputation as a master of the
gore-fest. So, he had to make a difficult artistic decision, and he chose to attempt to
convey the horror and brutality of the murder a little indirectly, though he has stated
that he wanted the murder to be horrific and anything but entertaining. Jackson used
clever innuendo (listed below) to imply those 'facts' he chose to leave out. The innuendo
may have been just a bit too subtle, though. The extremely powerful impact of the murder
scene in "Heavenly Creatures" upon the audience is proof that Jackson succeeded
in portraying, in part, the spirit of the crime, but some of the bare facts of the case
carry an impact that is even greater.
** What 'innuendo' did Jackson use?
Primarily the physical state of the girls when they approached the tea shop in the
opening sequence of the film. Without showing the actual murder in detail, this was
Jackson's opportunity to imply the extraordinary violence of the crime. The patterns of
the spatters and the quantity and placement of the blood were reasonably-close
representations of the evidence entered into trial; if anything, he may have exaggerated
the amount of spattered blood slightly on Juliet's face. There is an incongruity between
this image and the image of the murder shown later at the close of the film, and it is up
to the audience to interpolate between the two (see 4.8). In the murder sequence, Jackson
has Honora cry out horribly. Many viewers commented to me that Honora's cries were very
distressing to them. This is a very subtle but important reference to the events in the
real murder. Similarly, Jackson also showed Pauline crouching behind Juliet when Juliet
picked up the brick, and the sound of Juliet's blow, in particular, was another very
important piece of innuendo. Pauline's tone of voice was also a muted piece of innuendo
pointing to the possibility of anger during the murder.
