They only find out that she was last seen getting into a car. So do we assume that she ran away with someone? Or is there some other deep message that I failed to understand?
I only ask to be free. The butterflies are free. - Charles Dickens
How I interpreted that ambiguous ending was that they were drawing parallels with her going off with Slug at the skate park, and I think she did the same impulsive thing by getting into that car with a stranger, only it didn't pay off the second time around. So I think something bad happened to her. Since she didn't bring a backpack and she went out with her brother, I think it's safe to say she didn't pre-arrange to meet someone she knows.
shareor someone kidnapped her, raped her and killed her...
remember that through movie it always comes back
"kids simply disappeared here"
More likely it was Bertie, if it wasn't than the movie strangely cut to him sitting on a car for no reason after telling you someone picked her up in a car.
shareThere is also the possibility that she simply arranged to go to the concert which she was not allowed to go to by her father in the beginning... although I admit it's probably not what we are supposed to think.
shareI had the feeling that something happened between the mother and the daughter.
When the mom starts dressing and dancing like the daughter, and getting flirty with "her younger self" in the mirror, you could interpret this on different levels.
She could ran away from whatever happened. The last words of the movie where something like "you touch me, I touch you." There is no reason that something bad happened to her. 1000s run away from their parents any year, Australia is no exception.
Yes, I am pretty sure we are meant to interpret that the mom had, in some way, abused the daughter. The scene in the desert with the following nudity scene, the scene in the hospital where the father says that "she didn't get it from me" (or something to that effect), and the scene with the mother dancing etc, all alude to her having *beep* up the daughter in some way or other.
shareI was mostly on the mother's side throughout the film and I want to thank those here, on Imdb, who wrote about her responsibility in this. I didn't quite see it.
Narcissic mother, I guess, - so no special physical violence is needed, probably?
But I still see the father responsible, too, not too little. He sees sexual (and perhaps not only sexual) as dirty, it's not healthy. They both are bad examples and bad as parents, I think. Traumatized, with their traumas left untreated.
Yeah that is true. The mother was perhaps borderline? That's what I thought at least.
shareI think you're right about borderline - looks quite much so (just looked it up and am ashamed that I talk about things I have a shallow knowledge of :); I used the term 'narcissic' because I read how children can be narcissistic extensions for their parents (and Lily seemed like one for her mother), - I guess, I generalized the term too much).
shareThose lines in hospital, saying that she didn't get it from me. Those lines also surprised me and i was thinking what does that mean. I want to know how do you interpret them? I really have no interpretation to that but i do want to know what does those lines mean according to you.
shareWell, it's pretty obvious that the dad is not as "interested" in sex as the wife is, and perhaps there has been some occasion earlier where she has cheated on him (they seem to be distant with each other not only because of the daughter and the move but there seems to be some other reason as well), as we also see evidence of throughout the movie (she hits on the policeman, the "retarded" man/boy etc.). She seems to use her attractiveness and sex as a way to get what she wants, to manipulate people, perhaps because that's the only way she knows how -maybe she was abused herself from a young age.
So I interpret that line from the dad simply to mean that the daughter has inherited and/or learned the above described behaviour from her.
Exactly. He was meaning his wife was a wild tramp growing up too.
shareIt's nice how a woman who is interested in sex gets characterised as a "wild tramp", a "whore", "slut" etc..
It's pretty obvious that the husband is the one with fvcked up sexual issues, deeply repressed and hiding from something, that he's been pushing them both away physically and mentally for years and that he is the reason they act out sexually. But no, he's fine, it's the wife and daughter that are abnormal.
It's pretty obvious that the husband is the one with fvcked up sexual issues, deeply repressed and hiding from something, that he's been pushing them both away physically and mentally for years and that he is the reason they act out sexually. But no, he's fine, it's the wife and daughter that are abnormal.
I am male and I'm not a feminist (in your very limited comprehension of the term).
In the other, we have his wife who is coming on to the mentally challenged man who had sexual relations with her underage daughter, tries to seduce the officer in charge of finding same daughter and wonders around town completely naked.
in your twisted feminist mind, it's the MAN who has issues, here
No healthy person whatsoever actually doubts that this woman had major issues and dysfunctions.
She certainly did have a major issue, both her kids were missing and presumed dead XD That's going to bring about a little dysfunctional behavior.
The husband might have been emotionally distant or unavailable at times
the dysfunctional sexuality of the wife.
With the sheriff, she reaches out to the one man who has shown any sort of compassion, warmth or interest towards her.
Hello Morgana,
She is seriously dysfunctional.
That's true. But from a remark made between the husband and wife, before the children disappeared, it seems that the mother had always been 'wild'. I can't recall the exact words but she had said how she had quieted down since being married, something like that.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Morgana0x
I don't remember that either but I don't think being sexual should classify a person as dysfunctional. What did you infer from that remark? I mean What does "wild" actually mean? That she liked "kinky" stuff? That she had many partners? That she had cheated on him prior to their marriage? Sex is a natural function and I can't think of anything less dysfunctional than a strong desire to perform a natural function that feels great.
shareWhile I have seen it in my own life I never understood the attraction between people where one is sexually adventurous and the other is repressed. It always lead to friction and ultimately divorce. So why did they bother??
shareAbsurdly simplistic, the kind of opinion I would expect from a young child with no life experience and thus a very limited capacity for empathy.
It's pretty obvious that the husband is the one with fvcked up sexual issues
factual account of what the mother had been doing.
It's a fact she was coming on to the mentally challenged man who had sexual relations with her underage daughter.
It's a fact she tried to seduce the officer in charge of finding her daughter
It's a seriously messed up point of view, just so you know.
Hey don't let facts get in the way of Mrs. Parker getting it on. She cant help it. She is the victim. Maybe? At some point she was...
shareOh you have facts now?
In the last post I saw of yours you were convinced that the dad was molesting the daughter but it seems that through diligent research you have uncovered empirical evidence that substantiates your now radically different position, that it was actually the mother molesting the son. Hey, someone's got to be molesting someone right? XD
In an interview with the director she basically states that her hope was to create uncertainty with this film. Uncertainty that any parent with missing children feels. She also suggests that the town/audience would create a narrative true or false base on their perceptions and need to rationalize the horror missing little ones. After watching the films 2 times I concluded that there were clues, red herrings, and dead ends to confuse the viewer and create uncertainty. The Sheriff states clearly that the town will assume that the husband was the abuser. When was the last time the mob had any insights on the truth let alone complicated behavior? So we can almost assume that if the mob thinks it is one it most certainly not the case. Lilly's diary states that abuse is still occurring nightly. Therefore, it must be one of the parents since Tom was not born prior to Lilly's acting out. After some consideration and other perspectives I believe that Mother is the culprit. Mrs. Parker has done things very questionable but hard to reconcile since she is woman and there is double standard in place in regards to sexuality, beauty, and mental illness.
shareYou believe the mother was abusing the girl now? That's ridiculous, no more comment necessary.
Lilly's diary states that abuse is still occurring nightly.
Mrs. Parker has done things very questionable but hard to reconcile since she is woman and there is double standard in place in regards to sexuality, beauty, and mental illness.
Yes i agree.
Thanks a lot for clearing it.
Do you think maybe Lily was not his daughter, but from an affair? Hence " she didn't get it from me? I'm not sure about the mother being a molester, I'm going to watch it again for sure, I don't agree with the remarks about the scene when she visits the daughters room. I think she is missing her and trying to connect with her by trying on her things, smelling her scent to give her comfort. Certainly there is something going on, I just can't say with any clear certainty that she is molesting them.
shareExactly my point!
I don't see her molesting her daughter in the past though. Lily had some disturbing past, we must agree but apart from Burtie and a few lads at skatepark, we see no clues in the movie throughout.
The "she didn't get it from me" alludes to an earlier statement the husband made to Kidman's character about their daughter: "She does whatever she wants. She's is more out of control than you were. Doesn't care how what she does affects anyone else."
It could also be a reference to how both the daughter and the mother use sex to express emotion.
I don't think the mother abused the daughter. I think she felt as if her daughter was an extension of herself, which is why maybe 'inside you inside me' was more powerful as a maternal connection than as a sexual one.
I think the way she either channeled her grief or tried to find her daughter was by putting on her clothes and trying to sleep with that slow guy, and then disappearing to the desert and coming back...like she was rewriting her daughter's experience with a better ending.
I agree with the last part of your post. The mother overwhelmed with grief went out to the desert to rewrite her daughter experience. She came back abused and bruised and the her daughter was presumably gone or dead. The question is really what sparked the sexually risky behavior? Dad might have abused her until the day she left. Mrs. accuses her husband of abuse. I think Mrs Parker abused Tom hence the night walks...
shareI agree, she just simply took off to start a new life, either to escape current abuse, most likely sexual, that was going on at home, or because of abuse that had shifted from her to her brother. In either case, she knew she had to leave forever. She had already probably made her way to Sydney or Melbourne, never to look back. She'd tried at least once before... you could tell one of the parents, I can't remember which, had said at the police station that they found her staying at a friends that that was complete bull$hit... she had been trying to run away for good, but they caught her and brought her back home, and even moved to a much more isolated community to make it tougher for her to try to get away again.
shareThat might have been her intention but leaving the little brother in the outback? Unplanned escape maybe?
shareThere is also the possibility that she simply arranged to go to the concert which she was not allowed to go to by her father in the beginning... although I admit it's probably not what we are supposed to think.
She ran into Professor Humbert Humbert and got into his car.
shareIt's irrelevant to the story. Dead, pro, travelling the world?... who knows. Point is she ran away from what she saw as a bad situation. Hardly anything new.
shareI think there was someone abducting kids in the town. The Aboriginal community can't make a fuss, perhaps because it's interpreted by them as the land taking the kids back, perhaps because they know something and are scared to speak up. What surprises me is that, given the circumstances, it wasn't all over the national news, her photo everywhere. Then if she had run away it would be more likely that she would be spotted. Nobody would pick up a young, teenage girl in the middle of the night without questions, so if she did get into a car she didn't get out again. Also it's the middle of bloody nowhere - so unless she pre-arranged the pick up or knew the person in the car it's unlikely she'd get in. And if she was running away - why take her brother to witness it, and as Kidman pointed out she didn't take her diary. She also clearly loved her brother and I can't see that she'd leave him in a situation where there was abuse at home. Something was as offkey about the town as about Kidman and Fiennes.
It's too cerebral! We're trying to make a movie here, not a film!
I think think she went to meet somebody she knew. Nothing special there since she was not oppose to getting in the "box" with anybody. Whoever she met drove off and left Tom out there. Tommy waits and she never comes back. He walks and eventually gets lost. Super speculative, her old teacher calls her for reunion roll in the hay. The teachers wife actually put him up to it and when they do meet the wife kills Lilly from the back seat. The point of the movie according to the director is that we the audience is suppose to experience the loss and uncertainty that parents suffers during the crises. Sometimes there is no resolution. I am more interest in the why she ran away part of the film which is mystery to be solve unless the director concocted a story no solution.
shareshe ran away or was abducted. parents deal with missing children. that's all
shareshe ran away or was abducted. parents deal with missing children. that's allShe ran because she was sexually abused. What happened to Lilly? I really don't have the foggiest idea. The director states that she wanted the audience to experience the uncertainty with this type of loss. share
She ran because she was sexually abused.
She is the victim of statutory rape at the very least. This is sexual abuse. I am only talking about the teacher not to mention all the other overage guys from town. Criminal. Still not ringing any bells? You win I give up.
shareOh I'm sorry, I ignorantly assumed you were referring to sexual abuse you believe she was subject to by one or both of her parents. I think what gave me that idea was EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR POSTS on this board. XD
shareEither the landscape is what abducted her, in that case the movie confuses itself, or she was kidnapped by an unidentified individual far removed from the town limits, and was since then literally long gone. The only thing to interpret in the sense of reality is what kind heinous force took her.
share[deleted]