- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,095
Pauline (Melanie Lynskey) is a sulky, under-achieving pupil in a dreary girls’ school in 1950’s Christchurch, New Zealand. Isolated by poor health, she befriends Juliet (Kate Winslet), a somewhat arrogant newcomer. They become inseparable, to the growing consternation of their families, and together create a complex fantasy world of castles and princesses. When they are forced to part, they respond with appalling violence.
Heavenly Creatures (1994) was Peter Jackson’s fourth film as director and his first serious drama. It is a very entertaining film, by turns charming, funny and horrific, and given the potential for tabloid sensationalism in the real-life case on which it is closely based – lesbian schoolgirls in insane murder pact!* – it’s sophisticated and sympathetic, without losing the sense of the enormity of the crime with which it ends. In fact, one of the great successes of the film is that the amusing wackiness of much of the story contrasts so brutally with the grisly conclusion.
There are lessons in Heavenly Creatures for writers, and not the obvious moral of not letting your creations run away with you. Firstly, Jackson switches almost constantly between different tones, not just getting the right mood at each point, but moving seamlessly between them. The story covers kitchen-sink drama, broad comedy, pathos, romance and ultimately horror, and at times several at once. It is quite possible to be entranced by the batty exuberance of the Wonderland that the girls create, while at the same time recoiling from the sheer insanity that its existence implies. There’s a point where Pauline comments that she and Juliet are mad, and it’s hard not to think both “Yes, see a doctor!” and “Isn’t being mad just wonderful?” at once. I defy anyone not to be swept along by the scene where Juliet descends the staircase in a ballgown to welcome Pauline. Fans of “grim” fantasy and SF ought to take note here, because the bursts of frivolity make the darkness even darker. Jackson is well aware that you can’t make great music by playing just one note.
Jackson’s other great achievement is the mingling of fantasy and reality so that each compliments the other. Through costumes and early CGI, the girls’ imaginary world comes alive. The sheer detail of the magical kingdom of Borovnia (whose lecherous royal family are hilariously described by Juliet in one scene) is testament to how clever, and how obsessed, the girls are. But the bizarre starts to intertwine with real life: Juliet dreams of sending an annoying vicar to the chopping-block; Pauline escapes from a grotty sexual experience into a fairyland, only to find her aspiring lover’s face intruding on the dream. As with the best SFF, the fantastic serves to strengthen the characterisation, not to take its place. The only film I can think of that pulls off a similar trick is Terry Gilliam’s Brazil. I suspect that in the hands of another director – Tim Burton, say – this would have been a much worse film.
With any film like this, there is a risk of trivialising real events, or of turning murderers into heroes. Jackson’s film is understanding, but it’s just that level of understanding that makes the crime with which it ends so terrible to watch. At the end of the day, despite and in some ways because of all the humour and cleverness in the film, Heavenly Creatures is a disturbing tragedy. Lives are lost and ruined, and what could have been delightful becomes monstrous. Kate Winslet and Melanie Lynskey put in excellent performances as the two girls, but Jackson does great work in bringing it all together. To my mind this is his best film.
*The question of homosexuality does arise, although it seems debatable either way. In the long run, I don’t think it makes a great deal of difference.
Heavenly Creatures (1994) was Peter Jackson’s fourth film as director and his first serious drama. It is a very entertaining film, by turns charming, funny and horrific, and given the potential for tabloid sensationalism in the real-life case on which it is closely based – lesbian schoolgirls in insane murder pact!* – it’s sophisticated and sympathetic, without losing the sense of the enormity of the crime with which it ends. In fact, one of the great successes of the film is that the amusing wackiness of much of the story contrasts so brutally with the grisly conclusion.
There are lessons in Heavenly Creatures for writers, and not the obvious moral of not letting your creations run away with you. Firstly, Jackson switches almost constantly between different tones, not just getting the right mood at each point, but moving seamlessly between them. The story covers kitchen-sink drama, broad comedy, pathos, romance and ultimately horror, and at times several at once. It is quite possible to be entranced by the batty exuberance of the Wonderland that the girls create, while at the same time recoiling from the sheer insanity that its existence implies. There’s a point where Pauline comments that she and Juliet are mad, and it’s hard not to think both “Yes, see a doctor!” and “Isn’t being mad just wonderful?” at once. I defy anyone not to be swept along by the scene where Juliet descends the staircase in a ballgown to welcome Pauline. Fans of “grim” fantasy and SF ought to take note here, because the bursts of frivolity make the darkness even darker. Jackson is well aware that you can’t make great music by playing just one note.
Jackson’s other great achievement is the mingling of fantasy and reality so that each compliments the other. Through costumes and early CGI, the girls’ imaginary world comes alive. The sheer detail of the magical kingdom of Borovnia (whose lecherous royal family are hilariously described by Juliet in one scene) is testament to how clever, and how obsessed, the girls are. But the bizarre starts to intertwine with real life: Juliet dreams of sending an annoying vicar to the chopping-block; Pauline escapes from a grotty sexual experience into a fairyland, only to find her aspiring lover’s face intruding on the dream. As with the best SFF, the fantastic serves to strengthen the characterisation, not to take its place. The only film I can think of that pulls off a similar trick is Terry Gilliam’s Brazil. I suspect that in the hands of another director – Tim Burton, say – this would have been a much worse film.
With any film like this, there is a risk of trivialising real events, or of turning murderers into heroes. Jackson’s film is understanding, but it’s just that level of understanding that makes the crime with which it ends so terrible to watch. At the end of the day, despite and in some ways because of all the humour and cleverness in the film, Heavenly Creatures is a disturbing tragedy. Lives are lost and ruined, and what could have been delightful becomes monstrous. Kate Winslet and Melanie Lynskey put in excellent performances as the two girls, but Jackson does great work in bringing it all together. To my mind this is his best film.
*The question of homosexuality does arise, although it seems debatable either way. In the long run, I don’t think it makes a great deal of difference.
