This movie has a long, long line of events that prepare us for tragic ending. And it still comes unexpected, unless you've read the spoiler-containing comments.
Having read other comments, I don't want to repeat what's been written. I'll share some thoughts about author's relation to characters, plot and year it happens.
(IF YOU DON'T LIKE LONG COMMENTS SKIP THIS PARAGRAPH) First we notice that the director's relation to characters seems to be rather cold. We see a wife having a barely hidden affair and her husband not caring much. Is he used to, does he have affairs of his own, or he simply has no feelings for his wife any more, or maybe never even had? Or is this a kind of free love from flower-power? Is he resignated and waiting for the divorce, or is this situation convenient for him too? He can drink, stay home, go away, hang around with kids or ignore them and always have an excuse, he has a bad marriage. The parties these people take part night after night with their friends (turists as themselves) seem to be rather wild, with drinks, smoking, and maybe some drugs (I haven't noticed them, but...), wild enough that they (especially mother) need a lot of morning hours to recover (and prepare for next evening). During parties they swim nude, though they are not naturists (we never see them swim nude otherwise, even on such marvelous locations that simply lure for skinny-dipping - I can only dream to ever get there), so it is alcochol that rinses their inhibitions away. A girl, young teenager, has a few drinks, a few cigarettes, and her mother's reaction is weak, maybe just because she has an impression she should say something. But, being the one who is smoking and drinking and going alone with her lover, she knows she can't judge her daughter for following her steps. And the daughter goes forward, she chooses mother's lover to be her own as well. Is this the mother-daughter competition, the way daughter proves herself and builds her self-esteem, maybe trying to save her parent's marriage by taking mother's lover for herself or just imitating mother's behaving? We are left unanswered. (Btw, some people ask what happened between Janey and Cody. Did they watch some cut version, or do they really need an X-rated graphic version to understand what's going on?).
After her brother's death there is an interesting, underestimated scene between mother and daughter. The girl blames herself for the accident, and mother comforts her. But this comfort is weak, inconclusive. It looks as if mother found a grain of consciousness but won't admit it and hopes for someone to say it's not her fault either. As they are rivals, both having an affair with same man, their guilt is equal, both were acting against the family. If they comfort and forgive each other, their own guilt will grow and they are not able to cope with it.
The way all these events end gives us an answer why is the director on such a distance. She simply doesn't like any of the characters except the little child (as women often do), making him a victim to emphasize all the things she doesn't like in the world she is showing us. And she has no mercy and no understanding for any of these sinful adults.
Just remember the last scene when the boy appears alive on the beach. He looks as if he knows it's all over, his world has collapsed, I can imagine this was the way children looked when they realized they'd be sacrificed to ancient pagan gods. This is a look that transfers a director's message: look what (and why!) happened to this cute kid, and most of viewers will agree, yes all those bad, bad people are guilty because of drinking, smoking, taking drugs, nude swimming, dancing, adultery, premarital sex, teenage sex, OK - sex in general; having headaches, pretending to have headaches, making photos, sailing, not sailing, going on holidays... well, doing anything amusing at all. It should all be forbidden to make the world better.
Finally, why 1972? It seems as if the authors had some very bad experiences in 1970's and want to confront them. The basic plot could have happened in any period of history (even future), but the year looks to be carefully chosen, and none of the stereotypes people have about those years has been omitted. condemned After Manson "family" killed Sharon Tate and her guests four years before, making people realize the danger of drugs, Easy Rider was history in USA. Some (very) bad things in flower-power made people neglect positive sides of it. Few extreme situations were excuse for some people to terminate freedom movements, and plant a seed of paranoia that is blossoming today. Conclusion: the condemned life style led to L.A. murders, and it also led to Jim's death. We got analyzing the ten commandments one by one, then seven mortal sins, in more strict version than in ordinary churches (Pope John Paul II would forgive this sinners, and imams would maybe call back their fetvas, but there is no mercy from authors). The director must be a Saint herself. But if Christine Jeffs isn't Mother Theresa's pseudonym I can neither understand the authors nor feel sympathy for whatever happened to them in the 1970's.
Having read other comments, I don't want to repeat what's been written. I'll share some thoughts about author's relation to characters, plot and year it happens.
(IF YOU DON'T LIKE LONG COMMENTS SKIP THIS PARAGRAPH) First we notice that the director's relation to characters seems to be rather cold. We see a wife having a barely hidden affair and her husband not caring much. Is he used to, does he have affairs of his own, or he simply has no feelings for his wife any more, or maybe never even had? Or is this a kind of free love from flower-power? Is he resignated and waiting for the divorce, or is this situation convenient for him too? He can drink, stay home, go away, hang around with kids or ignore them and always have an excuse, he has a bad marriage. The parties these people take part night after night with their friends (turists as themselves) seem to be rather wild, with drinks, smoking, and maybe some drugs (I haven't noticed them, but...), wild enough that they (especially mother) need a lot of morning hours to recover (and prepare for next evening). During parties they swim nude, though they are not naturists (we never see them swim nude otherwise, even on such marvelous locations that simply lure for skinny-dipping - I can only dream to ever get there), so it is alcochol that rinses their inhibitions away. A girl, young teenager, has a few drinks, a few cigarettes, and her mother's reaction is weak, maybe just because she has an impression she should say something. But, being the one who is smoking and drinking and going alone with her lover, she knows she can't judge her daughter for following her steps. And the daughter goes forward, she chooses mother's lover to be her own as well. Is this the mother-daughter competition, the way daughter proves herself and builds her self-esteem, maybe trying to save her parent's marriage by taking mother's lover for herself or just imitating mother's behaving? We are left unanswered. (Btw, some people ask what happened between Janey and Cody. Did they watch some cut version, or do they really need an X-rated graphic version to understand what's going on?).
After her brother's death there is an interesting, underestimated scene between mother and daughter. The girl blames herself for the accident, and mother comforts her. But this comfort is weak, inconclusive. It looks as if mother found a grain of consciousness but won't admit it and hopes for someone to say it's not her fault either. As they are rivals, both having an affair with same man, their guilt is equal, both were acting against the family. If they comfort and forgive each other, their own guilt will grow and they are not able to cope with it.
The way all these events end gives us an answer why is the director on such a distance. She simply doesn't like any of the characters except the little child (as women often do), making him a victim to emphasize all the things she doesn't like in the world she is showing us. And she has no mercy and no understanding for any of these sinful adults.
Just remember the last scene when the boy appears alive on the beach. He looks as if he knows it's all over, his world has collapsed, I can imagine this was the way children looked when they realized they'd be sacrificed to ancient pagan gods. This is a look that transfers a director's message: look what (and why!) happened to this cute kid, and most of viewers will agree, yes all those bad, bad people are guilty because of drinking, smoking, taking drugs, nude swimming, dancing, adultery, premarital sex, teenage sex, OK - sex in general; having headaches, pretending to have headaches, making photos, sailing, not sailing, going on holidays... well, doing anything amusing at all. It should all be forbidden to make the world better.
Finally, why 1972? It seems as if the authors had some very bad experiences in 1970's and want to confront them. The basic plot could have happened in any period of history (even future), but the year looks to be carefully chosen, and none of the stereotypes people have about those years has been omitted. condemned After Manson "family" killed Sharon Tate and her guests four years before, making people realize the danger of drugs, Easy Rider was history in USA. Some (very) bad things in flower-power made people neglect positive sides of it. Few extreme situations were excuse for some people to terminate freedom movements, and plant a seed of paranoia that is blossoming today. Conclusion: the condemned life style led to L.A. murders, and it also led to Jim's death. We got analyzing the ten commandments one by one, then seven mortal sins, in more strict version than in ordinary churches (Pope John Paul II would forgive this sinners, and imams would maybe call back their fetvas, but there is no mercy from authors). The director must be a Saint herself. But if Christine Jeffs isn't Mother Theresa's pseudonym I can neither understand the authors nor feel sympathy for whatever happened to them in the 1970's.