'The Sweet Hereafter' concerns the tragic effect of a school bus crash on the townspeople in a rural town. Many critics were afraid to judge the film on its own merits and placed it on a pedestal where they declared such a film "off limits" to any kind of real criticism. Unconsciously the subject matter affected their judgments. Here was a film about a very delicate subject--the death of innocent children. The characters in the film (parents of the deceased children) were all shattered. It was as if criticizing the film was akin to criticizing these parents as well as any parent who had experienced such a tragic loss. But from the point of view of effective drama, the film is virtually a complete failure. Very little of it rings true at all.
Except for some very nice cinematography and an affecting musical score, 'The Sweet Hereafter' plods along at a snail's pace. The director's intent is to display the range of emotions these parents felt in the aftermath of losing their children. But what is so profound about focusing on such grief? The main character, a negligence lawyer, goes around the town convincing the parents to join in a class action lawsuit against the unspecified person or situation which caused the terrible accident. Most of the parents he sees agree to join the lawsuit (a lot of these scenes with the parents are drawn out and could have been easily condensed). The lawyer finally encounters one man who gives him a hard time. This is perhaps the most dramatic conflict that comes up during the film. But this one towns person's opposition to joining the lawsuit is completely vague. Why is he so against joining the lawsuit? Why is so angry at the lawyer? Because he feels the lawyer is profiting at the expense of the townspeople? Even so, is it really believable that he doesn't want to get to the bottom of what happened as opposed to simply dropping the whole case?
The ending of the film is even more unbelievable. The negligence lawyer never seems to have a definitive plan to try the case. He alludes to various factors that caused the accident, such as a faulty guard rail or a defective bolt inside the bus. A real negligence lawyer would never have taken such a huge case in the first place without feeling that he could be successful. It almost seems like he thinks that he uncover the 'truth' during the discovery process. A real lawyer would have already had some tangible evidence (already uncovered) that would have convinced him to go forward. Furthermore, when the young survivor lies in her deposition, stating that the bus driver was driving too fast, the seemingly smart lawyer folds up like a deck of cards and decides not to cross-examine her. A real lawyer could have made mince-meat of her but he chooses to quit the case and leave all his clients in the lurch. In real life he probably would have been hauled in front of an ethics board.
And why does the young survivor decide to lie in the end? Why does she lie knowing that she is accusing the innocent bus driver? Why does she want to case to 'go away'? Is it that she's so traumatized by the accident that she simply wants to forget about it? Everything is left so open and vague in this film that we never understand any of the characters' motivations.
Lastly, there's a lot of lame talk (mostly over the phone) between the lawyer and his drug-addicted, rebellious daughter. Seemingly there's supposed to be some kind of parallel between the lawyer's personal angst and the angst of the townspeople (this is the lawyer's defense when that one townspeople berates him before the climactic deposition scene). All this conflict between the lawyer and the daughter is gratuitous and simply does not work cinematically. We hardly ever see those two characters together and their conflict is basically a separate story which has no real place in this film.
The Sweet Hereafter basically lacks substance. It congratulates itself for displaying the raw emotion of grief but lacks a central antagonist to engage us. An examination of grief in itself is not enough to sustain an entire story. Whenever conflicts do arise in this film, they are episodic, unclearly motivated and for the most part, lacking the ring of truth. If you're strictly into atmosphere and mood, this is the film for you. But if you're looking for a strong story arc with convincing conflicts, you will not find it in 'The Sweet Hereafter'.
Except for some very nice cinematography and an affecting musical score, 'The Sweet Hereafter' plods along at a snail's pace. The director's intent is to display the range of emotions these parents felt in the aftermath of losing their children. But what is so profound about focusing on such grief? The main character, a negligence lawyer, goes around the town convincing the parents to join in a class action lawsuit against the unspecified person or situation which caused the terrible accident. Most of the parents he sees agree to join the lawsuit (a lot of these scenes with the parents are drawn out and could have been easily condensed). The lawyer finally encounters one man who gives him a hard time. This is perhaps the most dramatic conflict that comes up during the film. But this one towns person's opposition to joining the lawsuit is completely vague. Why is he so against joining the lawsuit? Why is so angry at the lawyer? Because he feels the lawyer is profiting at the expense of the townspeople? Even so, is it really believable that he doesn't want to get to the bottom of what happened as opposed to simply dropping the whole case?
The ending of the film is even more unbelievable. The negligence lawyer never seems to have a definitive plan to try the case. He alludes to various factors that caused the accident, such as a faulty guard rail or a defective bolt inside the bus. A real negligence lawyer would never have taken such a huge case in the first place without feeling that he could be successful. It almost seems like he thinks that he uncover the 'truth' during the discovery process. A real lawyer would have already had some tangible evidence (already uncovered) that would have convinced him to go forward. Furthermore, when the young survivor lies in her deposition, stating that the bus driver was driving too fast, the seemingly smart lawyer folds up like a deck of cards and decides not to cross-examine her. A real lawyer could have made mince-meat of her but he chooses to quit the case and leave all his clients in the lurch. In real life he probably would have been hauled in front of an ethics board.
And why does the young survivor decide to lie in the end? Why does she lie knowing that she is accusing the innocent bus driver? Why does she want to case to 'go away'? Is it that she's so traumatized by the accident that she simply wants to forget about it? Everything is left so open and vague in this film that we never understand any of the characters' motivations.
Lastly, there's a lot of lame talk (mostly over the phone) between the lawyer and his drug-addicted, rebellious daughter. Seemingly there's supposed to be some kind of parallel between the lawyer's personal angst and the angst of the townspeople (this is the lawyer's defense when that one townspeople berates him before the climactic deposition scene). All this conflict between the lawyer and the daughter is gratuitous and simply does not work cinematically. We hardly ever see those two characters together and their conflict is basically a separate story which has no real place in this film.
The Sweet Hereafter basically lacks substance. It congratulates itself for displaying the raw emotion of grief but lacks a central antagonist to engage us. An examination of grief in itself is not enough to sustain an entire story. Whenever conflicts do arise in this film, they are episodic, unclearly motivated and for the most part, lacking the ring of truth. If you're strictly into atmosphere and mood, this is the film for you. But if you're looking for a strong story arc with convincing conflicts, you will not find it in 'The Sweet Hereafter'.