Student entries on *Jindabyne*

Works cited:

Carver, Raymond. “So Much Water So Close to Home.” http://www.nyx.net/~kbanker/chautauqua/carver.htm.

Lawrence, Ray (dir.). Jindabyne. Written by Beatrix Christian. Perf. Laura Linney, Gabriel Byrne. Roadshow Films, 2006.

Entry # 1, by Riley Krembil

Raymond Carver’s story “So Much Water So Close to Home” and Ray Lawrence’s Jindabyne differ drastically in the way Lawrence moves the story from the private to public sphere. Bigger themes of race, and gender are added along side new characters and scenes, but the one thing that remains is an overwhelming feeling of uncertainty. In Carver’s short story readers view the world through the first person narration of Claire. Readers listen as Claire tries to retell a story fed to her by her husband; a story that she fights with him to explain, but she never gets closer to the truth. Claire’s narration attempts to retell a story she is unclear of, which is apparent when she says, “One of the men – my Stuart didn’t say which -” reminding the reader that her knowledge is dependent on what her husband tells her. Though the film follows more than just Claire, as viewers we are constantly left wondering what is going on. The looming shots of power lines, the weird connection Stuart has with the body, and the allusions to the old town which was drowned, all suggest that there is something more, but the movie never answers these questions.

Like Carver’s short story, Lawrence presents his audience with unanswered questions, and feelings of confusion. Unlike Carver’s short story, Jindabyne shows the audience the men’s fishing trip, and what happened when they found the body, but we are still left confused. Despite the addition of this scene, we get the same answers as Claire Carver’s story. When Stuart goes back to the body at night, and touches her face it leaves the audience wondering why? Why does Stuart have this intimate connection with the body? Does he know this woman? Why would Lawrence add this scene? What does this do for the story? Lawrence takes this disturbing moment and connects it to Claire when Stuart comes home and touches her in a similar way. The unexplained motive of Stuart in this scene represents the uncertainty and doubt Claire, in Carver’s story, experiences when retelling her husband’s fishing trip. In both versions the audience knows that Stuart is not the killer, but Lawrence and Carver create doubt in the way they present their plots. Stuart in both versions is under suspicion of something. Something that is never explained by the movie, or the story. Carver creates suspicion in the way Claire Implicates her husband by asking why they had to go fishing that far away when there was, “so much water so close to home” (Carver). Lawrence has Stuart implicated by showing him in a compromising position over the body of Susan and later Claire.

While the movie adds a lot to Carver’s story it is a successful adaptation in the way it maintains the feeling of uncertainty, and suspicion when it comes to Stuart. (C) Riley Krembil 2013.

Entry #2, by Nicholas Cagna

The film adaptation of Katherine Mansfield’s short story, “The Garden Party”, adapted by Ray Lawrence in Jindabyne; once transferred to the screen, the film deviates from the original text in almost all of the fundamentals including plot development with the exception of the theme which remains the same.

The conclusion of “The Garden Party” has only one character in grievance with the death of a person in the community. Laura is the only character in the short story who is present to mourn the death. As such, it can be seen that there is no connection between community members. One of the main characters, Laura, is relied heavy on as a character with sympathy. Laura is portrayed as a character who cares about the death of someone in the community. She is the only character in “The Garden Party” who has sympathy and feels the need to do something about the death. The theme that can be identified in the short story is of caring and grieving. The short story is comprised of a frame narrative where the death of a community member is framed by the story of a garden party. Within the frame, there is the theme of caring and grieving about a death in the community which has no connection to the characters at the garden party. However, while the garden party is ongoing there is the sense of compassion on the part of Laura. Even though there is no familial relation to the deceased, there is still the feeling of grief and sorrow.

In contrast to the conclusion in “The Garden Party”, the film concludes differently. Everyone is present to mourn the death. There is a sense of linkage with the gathering of the community. Even though there is a division between race and ethnicity, this difference does not stop from connecting two different groups in the community to join together in mourning the death. Similarly to the character portrayal in “The Garden Party”, the film provides the audience with a character who is parallel to Laura. Claire’s character is adapted in the film as she also cares and mourns the death of someone in the community. Although Claire is not the only character who feels bad about the death, she is the only character who shows remorse and sympathy. Equivalently, Claire feels the need to do something as well. Jindabyne also adapts a similar theme from “The Garden Party”.  This theme is about caring and grieving as it is adapted to the plot of the film. Similarly in the “The Garden Party”, the film takes on this theme by relating it to the everyday life. Many of the characters who were involved with finding the dead body are desperately trying to return to normal, everyday life; however, this is difficult because they feel guilty. Throughout the film, there is the struggle to display condolence to the grieving part of the community; however, it is reached with the help of Claire. (C) Nicholas Cagna 2013.

Entry #3, by Mariam Engeda: “Sometimes Knowing Too Much Can Be a Bad Thing; Narrative  Focalization in Jindabyne”

One aspect in Jindabyne that differs gravely from Raymond Carver’s “So  Much Water So Close To Home” is the focalizer of the narration and  what this does the reception of Stuart’s character.  The film robs the  viewer of enjoying the moral ambiguity of Stuart’s character by making  him the focalizer of the source of conflict, finding the body of a  dead woman in the river.   In the short story the absence of anyone  other than Stuart and his friends makes the reader question his  innocence and the fidelity of their story. In the short story, Stuart  acts defensively when Claire questions his choice to not notify the  police right away.  And because of Stuart’s reaction, the reader may  begin suspect that he is not as innocent as he seems. But because the  viewer is present with Stuart when he discovers the lifeless body, the same line of questioning is not allowed. The viewer is forced to trust  his innocence. In the film Stuart has a very audible and animated  reaction when he finds the body, which as mentioned above his reaction  does not make us question his innocence, as one would do when reading  the short story; in fact we empathize with him.  He reacts as one  would most likely react if a similar situation occurred.
Carver constantly creates ambiguous moments in the story that allows the reader to question whether Stuart may be culpable. A great example of this is near the end of the story when Claire is having a retrospective moment. When she is having intercourse with Stuart she says she can’t hear him with so much water going. This once again probes the reader to question Stuart’s innocence, just when the reader may have accepted the idea that he is in fact not guilty of the murder.  The film on the other hand, has a lack of similar ambiguous moments that pertain to Stuart’s character. The film’s choice to have Stuart as one of the main focalizers in the film allows us to empathize with him and doing so his soul is safe from the viewer’s prosecution. Lawrence did not want Stuart’s character to be morally ambiguous.  A potential reason why he chose to do so may be because he
wanted the film to be centered more on two themes: a lack of communication within a relationship and the sense of loss in a community. Though this could have effectively been achieved without the focalization through Stuart’s character. In fact the absence of his focalization would have emphasized these themes. If the film chose to have kept Claire as the main focalizer, it would have stressed the theme of lack of communication as the short story did by creating the absence of a central perspective.

Entry #4, by Kevin Sui

In Jindabyne, the film alters the sexual behaviour of Claire from the short story “So Much Water So Close To Home.” The film captures love focused with romance, where the short story captures love mostly with lust. As there is only one occurrence of sex in both the film and short story, how these scenes differ can show what makes Claire different in both texts. In the ending of the short story, she seems to engage in lustful sex without any emotional aspect to it. What this reveals about the short story is that Claire is a figure who is not sexually connected to her husband. However in the film, the sex scene is much more personal, showing both Claire and Stuart connecting their gaze intimately, showing that Claire is still willing to reconnect with her husband. In this scene, we can see the camera shift between both of them while slowly zooming into close up shots that emphasize the emotions they both show.

How else a disconnected relationship is apparent in the short story is the style of narration. While first-person narration often concentrates on the character’s internal thinking and dialogue, the narrator does not input her own opinions into her narration. Each sentence seems to be almost factual, not bearing any extra luggage or emotion. They are short hammershot sentences that only have one purpose, which is to state something that has happened. Comparing to the film, Claire is often shown using an extra long shot while she is carrying out her tasks throughout the day. In this case, the style of factual narration seen in the short story is seen in the film through this third person perspective. Without Claire’s emotion in her narration and a lack of sexual passion in the short story, it defers from the film in the aspect that Claire does not want to repair her relationship, or that she has given up trying. In the film, the love scene is distinctly longer than it is in the short story. In the short story, the sex scene is only discussed within the last three sentences, and the only information that the reader obtains out of this is that Stuart engages, and Claire accepts; there is no further description. However, in the film the scene is significantly longer (about a minute and a half containing almost no spoken words) and contains significantly more emotion. Ultimately, what the sex scenes in both texts show is the short story portrays Claire to be a character who is emotionally detached who seems to be unable to regain her emotional appeal with her husband while the character in the film often shows more emotions with a yearning of reconciliation with her husband. While in both the text and film her relationship with her husband appears to worsen, both the short story and novel show a difference in where Claire stands in her relationship, which is highly contrasted in the love scene. (C) Kevin Sui 2013.

Entry #5, by Kathryn Dyas

The film adaptation of the short story “So Much Water So Close to Home” by Raymond Carver, Jindabyne takes the key theme of isolation from the short story and really focuses in and magnifies it. During the scene where the men are first arriving in the mountains for their fishing trip, isolation and specifically the fear of being alone is highlighted through the character of Billy. When Billy and the men first get out of the car, and take a look around, there is a pan shot showing the vast expanse of mountains and wilderness surrounding them but also showing the electricity towers and wires that run through this expanse. Immediately, Billy takes out his cell phone and holds it up to check for service. The cell phone signifies connection, and by arriving at a remote area and immediately checking for service, Billy shows his need to constantly feel connected to others. Finding he is not connected through his cell phone, Billy leaves the group and walks towards the electricity tower, something that again represents how connected the world is through wires that run through the forest and connect people across large distances. As Billy stands beside the tower and looks out, the camera follows the electricity wires which make it seem as though Billy is following the wires as they go off into the distance. Here, the sound in the film helps create the feeling of isolation as the camera focuses in on the wires and a woman’s voice begins to wail eerily and the sound of the humming from the wires is heightened, becoming louder. This isolation is then seen in Billy, as there is a shot-reverse-shot of Billy’s face who is now following the wires back up to the tower, then the low angle shot of the tower from Billy’s perspective, back to Billy who, judging by his facial expression, is beginning to feel uncomfortable. At this moment, when he is beginning to feel his own isolation and beginning to look very uncomfortable, he looks back at the car where he sees that the men have left him and he is in fact alone. This portrays how even next to something that symbolizes a new means of connection in the modern world, he feels alone, and is fearful of being alone, and feels the need to run back to the car to grab his bag, and to continue to run to catch up with his companions. In one final shot, the camera turns back to the electricity tower in a low angle shot, making the tower out to be imposing and something to be fearful of. (C) Katryn Dyas 2013.

Entry # 6, by Nazaneen Baqizada: “Narration and POV in Jindabyne and ‘So Much Water So Close To Home'”

 

One of the most significant differences between the story “So Much Water So Close To Home,” by Raymond Carver, and its adaptation, Jindabyne, by Ray Lawrence is narration and point of view. In Carver’s story, it is Claire who is the first person narrator. She is also a homodiegetic narrator. In the movie, however, we are shown the different characters’ point of views. The story leaves us with an uneasy and unfinished feeling due to the gaps in Claire’s account. Although the movie fills in these gaps with the different POVs, it still gives us more or less the same feeling and is also unsettling.

While reading the story, I wanted Claire, the narrator, to explain what happened, and why this argument was happening between her and Stuart. However, when she did, I was still left wondering. When narrating, she was not sure of what she was saying. While Claire is a character in the story, she is the verbalizer and Stuart is the focalizer. When she is narrating Stuart’s story, she sounds unsure. For example, when she says, “One of the men-it might have been Stuart-waded in and got her” or “Maybe they played until they couldn’t see them anymore.” Although Claire may not be able to narrate and tell Stuart’s story as well and as detailed as a third-person narrator might have, her uncertainty is essential to the story. She is not at fault. There is no evidence in the story to suggest that Claire is lying to us or is being an unreliable narrator. Rather, it is Stuart who is not to be trusted since we are receiving his account second-hand. What he has told Claire has left doubts and questions in not only her mind, but also in the reader’s. What really happened? Is Stuart telling the truth? There is no other way of us knowing other than through Claire. We are just as much in the dark as she is. While we do know the general story of the incident, and that there is clearly tension between Claire and Stuart, there are still many gaps that leave the reader with an uneasy feeling and wanting to know more.

The movie adaptation, Jindabyne, fills in these gaps by showing different point of views, particularly from Stuart and his friends. We are now receiving his account directly from him. It is no longer completely first person or homodiegetic narration like it is in the story. There wouldn’t be a story without the girl being killed and the men going fishing and finding her. The movie clearly contains these two important events along with other issues such as racism, colonialism, and environmentalism. These issues are presented through other characters. We also get an idea and perspective of why Stuart and his friends did what they did, whereas Claire and the rest of the community are flustered. However, even by filling in these gaps and having different POVs, just like the story, the reader does not get a sense of relief or satisfaction by the end of movie. There are still aspects left unanswered and unfinished. It isn’t exactly a “happy ending.” It gives the reader almost the same feeling as the end of the story does. They are both very unsettling, but it is this feeling that makes both the film and story so interesting and good. (C) Nazaneen Baqizada 2013.