BEFORE: I seem to be in a run of horror films/thrillers with strong female central characters, this reaches back to before the vacation, with "Ma" and "The Witches". And this week "Colossal", "Swallow" and now it's a fresh take on Lizzie Borden, the infamous woman from Fall River, MA, who was accused of killing her parents with an axe. From what I've heard, this film was pretty controversial a couple years ago, and I think not just because it had Kristen Stewart in it. This was based on a book, I think, that set out to stir up some new controversy over this 130-year old murder trial, which I now realize I don't know very much about, but after the film I'll go straight to Wikipedia to try to separate fact from ficiton.
Denis O'Hare carries over from "Swallow".
THE PLOT: A psychological thriller based on the infamous 1892 murders of Lizzie Borden's family.
AFTER: Well, clearly we can see that whenever someone makes a historical biopic or a period piece, it's done with the sensibilities of a modern writer or director, there's just no getting around that, because none of us truly know what it meant to be alive in 1892, we can guess and speculate but we can't really be sure about anything. Lizzie Borden was described as a "feminist", but what did that mean back then? Was it the same concept as it was in the 1960's, the 1980's, or today? It's tough to say for sure. But clearly the men back then had strong opinions about what women's role in society should be, remember before 1920 women couldn't vote, and most couldn't hold down jobs except for cook or maid, and society had determined that the best thing a woman could do was to marry well and then look after husband, who was the one that went out had earned money. I know, the U.S. of the 1890's feels a lot like some foreign backwards Third World country sometimes.
The speculation in this story sort of starts with that feminist angle and then says, "Well, what if she were really super-feminist, and what if she liked women?" which may or may not be the next logical step, depending on your point of view. It's certainly possible, there had to be gay women back then, but just because it was possible doesn't mean that it was true. Still, possible - and I'm sorry, but as a title, "Lezzie Borden" was RIGHT THERE. Forgive me for being blunt, and liking puns just a little too much maybe. Portraying Lizzie Borden as a lesbian is also a convenient short-cut to set up conflict with her parents, if they knew about her orientation - sorry, that's a dirty word these days, so is "sexual preference" - if they knew about her sexual identity they might have a problem with it. Again, possible, but that doesn't make it true.
(ASIDE: I'm thinking that "Lezzie Borden" is probably being used by a drag king somewhere as a stage persona, or at the very least, it's the registered name of someone competing in female roller derby. Gonna Google it to check - yep, there's a roller derby person with that name, also a queer horror movie critic. Should've seen that one coming...)
But I'm glad to learn that the Borden's maid, Bridget "Maggie" Sullivan, was a real person, she wasn't a character invented for this movie to make Lizzie a more likely lesbian. However, there's nothing really certain in the history books that says that Lizzie and Bridget were a couple, or for that matter, there's no record of Lizzie's father forcing himself on Bridget sexually, it's another thing that is both speculative and makes a little bit of sense after the fact, creating another motive for the murders, but then this makes me wonder if some writer is really connecting the dots in the proper fashion, or if they're connecting dots with the lines THEY want to craft the story that THEY want to create.
Conventional wisdom is that Lizzie Borden killed both of her parents - and she's still the main suspect in this 130-year old case, but she's not the only one. Bridget Sullivan is another, if you want to believe that Andrew Borden was raping or molesting her then there's motive there. Emma Borden, Lizzie's sister, also lived in the house, and like Lizzie she was concerned that her inheritance might not be guaranteed, especially if her maternal uncle were placed in charge of it. That uncle was John Morse, and it's not too far-fetched to think that he might have had a hand in the killings, because then he could be named executor of their estate. If forensic science had been a little more advanced in 1892, a proper CSI investigation could have shed some light on these murder, but I think even fingerprinting wasn't around back then, or it might have been at a very early stage. The only thing that investigators could tell back then was that Abby, Lizzie's mother, had been killed an hour or two before her father. Which is significant, because if Abby Borden died first, her estate would be inherited by her husband, and then upon his death that wealth would be distributed according to HIS will, presumably to his daughters.
If Mr. Borden had been killed first, the estate would transfer to his wife, and then to HER heirs, not his, since she was his second wife.
What's odd about the trial of Lizzie Borden isn't the fact that the maid vouched for her whereabouts at the time of the murders, it's the fact that Lizzie herself was never put on the stand, perhaps because her answers to police investigators were so vague and cryptic, but still, she stuck to her story. But the prosecution didn't even TRY to make her seem like an unreliable witness? Jeez, guys, this is "Law & Order" 101. She was acquitted by a jury of 12 men - which I guess means women couldn't serve on juries back then, either - who simply couldn't believe that a woman of her high social standing could kill her parents with an ax. This would be kind of like if the jurors in the O.J. Simpson trial were all fans of the "Naked Gun" movies, and couldn't see him as anything but a lovable comedian.
The film states that after the trial, Lizzie and Bridget went their separate ways, but other reports say that they lived together for 12 years after the incident, and perhaps split when Bridget came to believe that Lizzie was in fact guilty and not innocent. Bridget moved to Montana, worked as a maid and married a man she met there, and allegedly gave a death-bed confession in 1948 about changing her testimony at the trial. So I guess that's about as close as we're going to get to solving this case after the fact. Hey, did anyone ever figure out that JonBenet Ramsey thing?
Eventually, the film does get around to showing us what it wants us to believe went down on the day in question, August 4, 1892. I mean, I guess if you're going to kill somebody, it makes sense to be naked, because then you don't get all that blood on your clothes. Just saying. But if you've tuned in to this one for the nudity, then you may be here for the wrong reasons. I'm sure this is somebody's favorite fetish film, but that person might also need professional help. In the end I'm not sure that it helps Lizzie to be portrayed as a lesbian, or if that helps feminism or the gay rights movement. Let's just say it's a muddle. Gay people, do you want to claim Lizzie Borden? Because if you want to claim James Buchanan and Abe Lincoln, you've got to bring her along, too - gotta take the bad with the good.
Really, it's just one small mental leap from this depiction to "repressed lesbians are axe murderers", isn't it? I'm not saying I agree with that, but it's the easy take-away here.
Also starring Chloe Sevigny (last seen in "Shattered Glass"), Kristen Stewart (last seen in "Equals"), Jamey Sheridan (last seen in "Driven"), Fiona Shaw (last seen in "Ammonite"), Kim Dickens (last seen in "The Blind Side"), Jeff Perry (last seen in "The Grifters"), Tara Ochs (last seen in "Selma"), Daniel Wachs, Jody Matzer, Don Henderson Baker (last seen in "October Sky"), Jay Huguley (last seen in "The Eyes of Tammy Faye"), Roscoe Sandlin, Tom Thon, Katharine Harrington, Darin Cooper (last seen in "Ford v Ferrari"), Laura Whyte (last seen in "The Dilemma"), Terry Jackson.
RATING: 4 out of 10 pigeons in a coop
No comments:
Post a Comment