MovieChat Forums > A torinói ló (2011) Discussion > why did they come back?

why did they come back?

posted 13 years ago by bubba_blais
16 replies | jump to latest

first off i thought in terms of atmosphere and cinematography this film is a masterpiece. but i can understand how it would be torture for some viewers. personally i was very impressed.

but what i was wondering was there was a super long take where theyve packed up all their stuff and left. you see them disappear over a hill with a tree on it. the shot remains in the same position for about a minute, then you see them come back over the hill and return home. no explanation is given.

why did they come back? maybe because they realize they have nowhere to go, or the storm is too strong? what do you think?

[–] vinisj009 13 years ago

I just watched this movie, and I'm pretty sure that the whole thing is full of heavy symbolisms. The couple(father/daughter), insists on doing the same things, day after day. Nothing seems to disturb this freakin' routine. Even when the horse is getting weaker and refuses to drink/eat and the well dries up, and things seem really tough, they can't do anything, in effect. They try to escape, in the first place, but there's no alternative, anywhere. The routine, no matter how unbearable is, it's the only thing they have, the only thing they know better, and feel secure in the numbness it provides.

[–] Al-73 13 years ago

SPOILER below (or is it)?

I was wondering about that too, until the point in the movie where even the fire didn't work. At that moment, I realized that they were going through the end of the world. So this might actually count as an anti-spoiler, because the reason they go back is that there's nothing on the other side of that ridge. It's either a case of there being desolation more severe than their farm as far as they can see, or (considering the lack of fire and the mysterious dry well), there might be literally nothing on the other side of that ridge.

This movie might be the most restrictive take on the apocalypse put on film.

[–] vinisj009 13 years ago

Yes, you're absolutely right. I've been thinking about that myself. Your take on this is entirely consistent with mine.

[–] radioheadrcm 13 years ago

I was just at a screening with Bela Tarr in attendance, and I coincidentally asked him this exact question, and that was his exact answer. He then qualified his answer by saying "I'm sorry."

[–] blinger12 13 years ago

I definitely agree with that. Remember the visitor to the house talking about the town being destroyed? Whatever exactly happened to it, I think that's what they saw on the other side of the ridge.

[–] deanowest 13 years ago

The guy who visited them said the city is in "ruins." When I heard this, i assumed he was being figurative. by the end I think it was literal. they had nowhere to go.

existentially, they returned because they may have agreed to face their end or finitude. to run is to deny our existence and our eventual death. it is more human (manly, see below) to face it with dignity.

here's a quote I use when I teach 12th graders "the Stranger" by Camus:

“. . . To be an authentic person is to be one who faces the human condition, resolutely accepts his finitude and death, creatively responds to life, and manfully assumes responsibility for all he decisions . . . .”

Frederich Nietzsche

Dictated, but not read.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 13 years ago

existentially, they returned because they may have agreed to face their end or finitude. to run is to deny our existence and our eventual death.

I agree with this in terms of the film's symbolism. Like another poster I thought the neighbour who visited wanting Palinka was joking about the town being blown away. The final scene suggested they had returned to die although I hadn't factored in the possibility (probability) that they returned because they found nowhere else to go.

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

[–] In_Celluloid_We_Trust 12 years ago

I just thought that it was an implication there was nothing out there left to go to. I loved Werckmeister Harmonies, Damnation and The Man from London, but this really did try my patience at certain points. I don't feel as though I can offer any valid criticism toward this film because Tarr obviously has an idea he's going for and I might not have got it, so I will have to watch it again, but the scenes of the fellow routinely getting dressed by his daughter and the potato eating and fetching the water from the well from a different camera angle or another became slightly boring. I get it meant to express the repetitiveness of their banal existence but it didn't half make for some dull viewing. I think?

Still, the photography was beautiful and I liked the way that the horse was possibly the saddest reflection of humanity I've seen on film and, like Nietzsche, felt compelled to hug it. Especially with the amazing opening shot.

[–] murakami06 12 years ago

Reminiscent of The Seventh Seal, the iconic frame of a dancing procession, in celebration of salvation as they crest over the hill. Except in Turin Horse, the two move out of sight, but instead of the expected cut, the shot stays and stays, and when they reappear, it's devastating. Barry Lyndon style.

[–] chuck-526 12 years ago

...The Seventh Seal, the iconic frame of a dancing procession...

Yes.

Recently I saw a precis of an interview with Bergman who admitted it was neither in the shooting list nor his idea. (Also the main reason it's a distant shot is it's not really the regular actors, rather it's some of the crew dressed up in the character's clothes.)

It still amazes me how every once in a while an "accident" becomes "iconic".

[–] j_money77 12 years ago

I thought it was fairly obvious they turned around because something awful was on the other side of the hill and there was no place for them to escape to. What other explanation could there possibly be?

[–] In_Celluloid_We_Trust 12 years ago

"What other explanation could there possibly be?"

Well since they didn't expicitly show you what was on the other side of the hill I think it's meant to left open to interpretation. There was nothing obvious about what was on the other side.

[–] j_money77 12 years ago

I shall rephrase that, what other plausible explanation could there be?

I know that what's left un-shown is definitely up to interpretation, but why else do u fink they would turn around with all their worldly possessions in tow and return to their barren farm?

[–] Artimidor 12 years ago

I wouldn't look for anything concrete on the other side to analyse. :)

The whole thing of course is heavily symbolic and tries to marry the Christian world view with Nietzsche's proclamation that "God is dead" in one apocalyptic vision. Notice the words of the visiting stranger which are very Nietzschean, and then you have the 7 days structure mirroring the 7 days of creation. The last day isn't shown anymore in the film however, as this is the day when the final darkness falls. That's the film in a nutshell I'd say.

Artimidor
Art's Top 111+ Movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/e-VkvtHDDNQ/
Trailers and reviews included - recommendations welcome!

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

Plausible? Well my initial thought was that the horse refused to go further, but after reading the discussion here, I have to agree with the consensus.

For what it's worth, here's how my scientific mind makes sense of it all: Volcanic activity. First the town is wiped out by a pyroclastic flow from a nearby volcano while the ground water flow is changed, drying the well. Later a giant ash cloud blocks out the sun. Finally, a giant cloud of carbon dioxide flows into the basin causing fire to stop burning and making the people too tired to do much besides sleep. Dumb, I know, but it fits the facts.

[–] PsychoDingo 12 years ago

even Jancso would say this is a difficult film

I'm proud to say my poetry is only understood by that minority which is aware.