The Sweet Hereafter
Reviewed by Gordon Kearns
Please be informed: This review includes key plot elements (SPOILERS).
The Sweet Hereafter tells of the after-effects on a small community from a tragic school bus accident that killed fourteen children. I was really intrigued by the depth and complexity I sensed when I saw the movie; so much so that I bought and read the book by Russell Banks on which it was based. This with the realization that if it's necessary to read the original source of a movie to understand it, there must be something lacking in the movie. I didn't feel I lacked understanding of the movie, but, though I liked the movie (10 out of 10), I felt bothered, unsatisfied with what was happening. Actually, the events in the movie turned out almost precisely as they happened in the book. But there was a terrible imbalance in the movie's presentation that revealed itself as I read the book; and it was this imbalance that was the basis of my uneasiness with the movie's story. Russell Banks designed his story much like the old masters designed their paintings: you know, like a geometric pattern that draws the eye to the point of the work. The book was divided into four distinct and equal parts: Dolores Driscoll (the bus driver) - she was sort of the conductor, the instrument through which the tragedy occurred, like the Captain of the Titanic. Billy Ansel, the garage owner, who was following the bus, waving at his kids, when the accident happened. He represented the community's dreadful loss. He faced the tragedy with stark understanding of what it meant for the one who was left behind. Mitchell Stevens, the lawyer, roiled the community, worked it up, pretending to give direction for its grief. He had no personal interest in the community or the individuals, living or dead. He was like the religious preachers who assume power pretending they can give logic to an illogical existence, but end up only depriving people of their own hearts. Nicole, the girl who survived, represented the force that ultimately brought the community back to its focus on life as it is now. She freed them from their trip into un-reality. In attitude, she didn't see herself as the kid who was left behind (as in the story The Pied Piper, which Director Egoyan leaned heavily on as a plot device ): she saw herself as among those who died, and looked on as such by everyone. She brought focus to the point that the people in the community, including/especially her father, were acting for their own selves, rather than directly facing the sense of loss for the ones who died. Nicole's father was hungry for a good settlement. He always acted according to his own needs, without thought to his daughter's needs (incest was the core of his relationship with his daughter). Her surprising testimony at the deposition hearing severed her father's power over her, but more importantly, it brought life in the community back to normalcy. The central focus of these four stories was the community, not any one of the four protagonists. By Egoyan's weighting the story to the lawyer, the balance was thrown off. I can understand why directors sometimes change an original source into almost a new story. Trying just to edit the original story into a satisfactory screen format easily results in this kind of imbalance. By the way, in the book the reference to the tracheotomy was just to point out Mitch's ruthlessness, not his caring for his daughter. He was thrilled with the situation that was so black and white that he might have to do the desperate act ... just as when he heard his daughter tested positive for HIV ... black and white - life and death: he was thrilled because he could again take her to the edge of oblivion. His love for her was less than giving. Also, in the movie it was implied that Nicole rationalized her trysts with her father in a sort of fantasy way. They even had her slip on the sexy sheathe before her father was to pick her up. However, in the book she never ever looked on her times with her father as anything but disagreeable ... and humiliating. I think in that wise the director betrayed her character.
Sarah Polley stood up well in the toe-to-toe confrontation with great actor Ian Holm, who played Mitch; and, as Nicole, she was up to the task of putting the powerful Mitchell Stevens out of business in her town, and setting life in the town aright. If for no other reason, the high, tense drama swirling around the climactic scene where Nicole testifies about the accident is easily worth the expense and effort of watching the movie.
or go to
An Explanation; Being Things; Childhood; Heroes; The Inner Spirit;
Elves I Have Known
Other Essays at Large: Movie Classics; Class of the Millennium;
My Book Reviews; My Stories
From Dorothy's Corner: For Dorothy
Comments: GKEARNS@prodigy.net