MovieChat Forums > White Material (2010) Discussion > Can someone help me figure out the plot?...

Can someone help me figure out the plot? spoilers

posted 14 years ago by squinchyface
26 replies | jump to latest

I saw this movie at the VA Film Fest on Nov 5th. I loved it. I was able to sort the plot out in a general kind of way.

But neither I nor my friend could figure out the ending. I have been waiting for others to start viewing this so that I can get some help with the plot! Maybe I will get an opportunity to see it again to sort everything out. But until then, these are my questions:

In the final few shots: the main character comes back to her plantation and finds the roasting house burned. (Yes?) And her son is there, dead, burned to death. Does she realize this is him?

And when she goes to give a final blow to someone, is it her father-in-law? If so, why?

And who is the soldier who runs toward the woods at the very end, in literally the last shot of the film?

Thanks.

[–] barnagel 14 years ago

I had many of the same questions and not sure if I can add anything except ---- the older man she kills is her father-in-law -- at some point in the movie he tells her he wants to die in Africa -- not go back to France -and during the film she says the same thing -- that she would be unhappy in France -- so perhaps her killing him has something to do with that -I thought the soldier running at the end of the film was the guy at the road block (who she recognized as her son's gym teacher) not sure -wish I could help you with the rest of the questions - any other reponses are most welcome

[–] squinchyface 14 years ago

thanks, that's at least a good start! good point about the father-in-law having stated his wish to die in Africa. i think i missed that.

[–] caroleworldwide 14 years ago

I just finished watching the movie.

Not too far before the end, the father-in-law says something about "old bones" being on the plantation. Clearly, it's his whole world, and there's nothing else for him there.

Marie Vial knows he is sick, and without medicine. She has the "courage" (which she talked about, too, saying something like, "...if I return to France I will have no raison d'etre, no way to demonstrate courage ... " (that's a broad paraphrase, but hey, so are subtitles). I think she kills him as a final act of courage.

I think she does recognize her son. Who, by the way, is charred "black".

It's a complex movie. The son clearly had no raison d'etre ... dissolute, lazy, uneducated, and totally not connected with the "old bones" of the plantation. Joining the rebels gave him a purpose, finally. but in the end, he too dies there.

[–] squinchyface 14 years ago

Carole thanks for your interpretation. I find it really insightful. I think I agree with you - it was an act of courage (though sort of an unhinged courage, like all of the rest of her courageous acts of the film.) G

[–] JSFound 14 years ago

I just got back from this wonderful film and I think I know some things. I believe the child soldiers we saw sleeping at the house came back with the son, who of course is mad and led them there. They killed the father and then the army came and killed them. They put the son in the burning house as punishment for aiding the rebels. When Maria comes home, I think she realizes her son is dead (this is never shown). She kills her father in law for letting it happen--remember the scene where the army passes by him in the house.

Now the reason I think they're the army and not the rebels is because they have green uniforms on and they kill the rebel child soldiers. But there is no court of law and everything is chaos so that's why they are so violent. And this all leads back to the beginning of the film, when they discover the rebel leader dead in the house from his wound. I don't know what the last shot with the soldier carrying that red hand towel (?) means. Maybe it's Maria's and we are to infer that he killed her. I think she does die, either at the hands of rebels or soldiers or by her own. This may be after the movie ends. That's my interpretation of the ending.

[–] revenancer 14 years ago

That was the Boxer's red beret, not a hand towel. That soldier was the leader of the band of child soldiers that found the Boxer by his horse and said that if he met and fought under the Boxer he would never ask God for anything else.

[–] picketf 12 years ago

"I just got back from this wonderful film and I think I know some things. I believe the child soldiers we saw sleeping at the house came back with the son, who of course is mad and led them there. They killed the father and then the army came and killed them. They put the son in the burning house as punishment for aiding the rebels. When Maria comes home, I think she realizes her son is dead (this is never shown). She kills her father in law for letting it happen--remember the scene where the army passes by him in the house."

I think this is the most simplistic, naive and narrow minded interpretation I have ever read in my whole life. It's difficult for my brain to comprehend that "viewers" of your caliber watch this movie let alone form an opinion about it.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JSFound 14 years ago

Actually, I think that you can't ascribe something as rational as revenge for her son's death to Maria's killing. She probably killed her father in law because he let her whole reason for staying--the farm--burn down, even though rationally he couldn't have done anything about it. I think the movie is a deliberate path of one woman going mad, a case of extreme blindness as she becomes delusional enough not to realize the danger all around her. Huppert said in an interview that the script was Shakespearean and I can see it. It's like Hamlet. Both characters go mad and tragedy falls because they fail to do one thing: Hamlet doesn't kill Claudius and Maria doesn't leave. Which brings on the many dead bodies. But what a performance by Huppert, hey?

[–] BreakerSeven 13 years ago

Shakespearean tragic characters tend to have some redeeming quality. Maria has none.

[–] Revolutionow 13 years ago

Maria has many redeeming qualities. She is strong-willed, independent, beautiful, etc.

ce n'est pas une image juste, c'est juste une image

[–] vrcotner 13 years ago

Energy....for good or ill.

[–] chas77 14 years ago

I just saw this excellent film last night in L.A.

I believe she realizes the burned boy is her son; doesn't really matter though because she finally realized her son was completely lost to her anyway. It would have been nice if they explored his character a bit more. Maybe a prelude to his madness?

She is killing her father-in-law. I think she finally realized that it was his ass-backwards notion of remaining a colonial holdout forever that had blinded her to the reality of the deteriorating political situation. I think in a way this freed her from her own idealistic notion of remaining "in this beautiful country" -- a country that, as the Mayor stated to her -- no longer wanted her.

The soldier in the end was the lead rebel boy who you see hiding under the bed when the government soldiers were slitting the throats of his fellow rebels. Not sure of the significance of the red cloth he was holding -- was that part of the rebel uniform or a piece of clothing he stole from the French house? Or were they making some kind of Marxist statement? ;] In any event I think the filmmakers put that shot in there to show the audience that despite the number of rebels they killed there was no way the government could keep its hold over them.

[–] dombrewer 14 years ago

I saw this tonight - didn't like it as much as everyone else here it seems. I didn't think it had any particularly original point to make about Africa or the social or political divisions within it. The flashback structure and relationships between the white characters was unnecessarily confusing too. I don't mind working things out as a film goes on but I was getting annoyed after an hour.

At the end I'm sure she killed her father in law because she saw the burned body of her son and went crazy. It was a pretty random moment though, that didn't appear have much of a lead up - much like the bizarre behaviour of her son. Psychologically it all seemed a bit far fetched.

Oh, and the "red cloth" the rebel was holding was The Boxer's red beret - the man he idealised. Quite why he bled to death rather than actually treating his stomach wound is another odd plot hole for me.

[–] squinchyface 14 years ago

dombrewer, I can understand your reaction. I felt very on edge during the film because of its disjointedness. Like you, I'm usually fine with out-of-order narratives. But I also found this one really hard to figure out, and because there was an impending sense of doom, I was increasingly anxious when I couldn't put the pieces together. I found myself getting really angry at the filmmaker - I felt like she was toying with us and being purposely opaque, beyond necessity.

And even after it was over, and I discussed it with my friend, we still couldn't figure it out.

So it surprised me when the film ended up really haunting me and sticking with me despite that. Although I'm glad you and others have helped fill the plot holes (thank you!) I realized a day or two after the screening that I thought it was a great, affecting film.

There are many who share your point of view. I heard some others in the audience the night I saw it complaining that it perpetuated stereotypes about conflicts in African countries without deepening our understanding or capturing any of the issues in any depth, and that making it take place in a "nameless country" had the effect of painting Africa with too broad a brushstroke.

And David Denby of the New Yorker gave it a bad review, calling it: "Dreadful, in an aimless, intentionally disjointed way that some people have mistaken for art."
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/reviews/film/white_material_denis

It's funny - I totally see where he's coming from, and yet I still like the film. I think if nothing else, it can make for interesting post-film conversation/debate.

[–] chas77 14 years ago

There are a lot of good reviews to balance out the bad. Here is an interesting review that goes over the objects within the film:

http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/2558

I agree it's an affecting film. It keeps you thinking...

[–] l_oldach 14 years ago

I think she killed her father-in-law because the Mayor told her during the car ride that her father-in-law had signed over the plantation.

[–] psdhart 13 years ago

I think she killed her father-in-law because the Mayor told her during the car ride that her father-in-law had signed over the plantation.

maybe she thought he had killed the son

[–] biwtican 13 years ago

her son is killed in the fire by the soldiers when they secure the plantation. the killing of the father in law represents the final connection with the old ownership style of the plantation. she is going to stay and the mayor hints to her that she can still run the plantation. she will probably live her social life through her ex-husband's black child raising him. the soldier at the end is the leader of the child soldiers who led them to the boxer. the red beret is the boxer's and indicates that the ideas of the boxer will live on and the battle will go on. what makes the movie confusing american white people is that although there are white people in the movie they are not in control of the events. she goes on as if nothing has changed while the results of her actions say everything has changed.

[–] psdhart 13 years ago

"that the ideas of the boxer will live on and the battle will go on. what makes the movie confusing american white people is that although there are white people in the movie they are not in control of the events. she goes on as if nothing has changed while the results of her actions say everything has changed. "

exactly she was partially in denial

[–] PoppyTransfusion 13 years ago

I don't see how anyone can tell who the charred body is. It is burnt beyond recognition.

You know it is the son because when the soldiers dscend on the plantation and find the rebel children, who they kill, we see them locking the son in the shed where the charred body is later found by Maria Vial.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

[–] PoppyTransfusion 13 years ago

I think she realises the body is her son and this is partly why she kills her father-in-law, who survives the mayhem where her son and ex-husband don't. I don't see her killing her father-in-law as a mercy killing. I think she was angry with him re-the plantation and she took all her anger and sorrow out on him when he happened along.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

[–] neil-321 13 years ago

I reckon she engineered the massacre. She was shagging the mayor and the plan was that he was going to own the plantation and she would run it. However, the soldiers didn't kill her father-in-law for some reason so she had to finish him off. She didn't really care about either her ex-husband or son. That would explain why she was trying to get the harvest in when everybody else was saying it was hopeless. She wasn't really scared because she was under the protection of the mayor and his private army.

[–] millsspiers 11 years ago

I'm not sure she engineered it. However, there was a strong parallel between her reclaiming 'what was hers' and the rebels reclaiming 'what was theirs'. I believe she felt the plantation had been stolen from her, by her father in law. There was a brief scene in a hospital, a flashback to her father dying where he tells her the plantation is to be hers.

Can someone help me figure out the plot? *spoilers*

Can someone help me figure out the plot? spoilers