I have to say that the shot of Jacob smiling is the final shot of the main story. Firstly, because the audience’s mind is already moving on when the montage of the Indian slums comes up, or at least mine was. Secondly, because the Indian side of the story plays very little into the overall story. As an audience, we stay very far away from the situation in India, both figuratively (the story concerns Jorgen & Co. more than the orphanage) and literally (most of the movie takes place in Denmark not India). Over the course of the film, we grow attached to the Danish characters and not the Indian ones and thus we want Jacob to stay with them (the Danes). It is interesting that the movie paints us this perspective because otherwise it would be a much harder choice for Jacob because both seem morally upstanding (i.e. to stay with your daughter and ex after the surrogate father dies or return to the orphanage you started). The film makes this decision easy on the audience by giving us far more time with the Danes. But this seems odd to me, I mean, concerning the narrative it is the satisfying ending/decision because the story does revolve around Jacob, Jorgen & Co. but it makes the Indian children seem like tertiary characters that do not really matter. It is as if the “personal problems/wishes” of a rich man outweigh the “survival” of orphans. Why? Because he is rich? Because Anna is Jacob’s “real” daughter even though he has never met her? Because Pramod is not Jacob’s “real” son despite basically raising him? I do not think the film or the filmmakers are actually proposing any of these questions, it is just a story about a man taking care of the family he never knew he had. But at what cost? Anna and Helene have money; Jacob is only emotional support, if you will. It is as if the movie says, “money is enough to help third world” when we see that they do not care about money. Pramod tells us so. But throwing money at a situation hoping that it will get better is a very Western thing to do. What the Indian’s want, seemingly, is the time and love of someone. This is, ironically, what Jacob gives Helene and Anna.
Therefore, in the end, money is not enough to show that you care. We see this because Helene and Anna have it; they have “bookoodles” of it. What they need it the aforementioned time and love. So the question is. "Who needs it more?" The film says Helene and Anna. But then it does show us that final montage, essentially showing us/Jacob what is being missed out on. Thus, the shot of Jacob is final image concerning the main plot whereas that montage could more or less be the final shot of the “secondary” plot or the meta-plot, the meaning of the film.
Nicely done, Jonathan. I see you thinking yourself into a kind of contradiction here. You suggest that the movie is really about the drama in Denmark, and that the material about the orphanage is tertiary (or at least the relative weights of these locations in the film seem to suggest that). But then, one might wonder why the film should include the material in India at all. Why couldn't Jacob be summoned from some small town in Denmark or elsewhere in Europe, rather than Bombay? It does seem, in fact, that noting the marginal nature of the India material is raising the question about our response to that storyline. It's there for a purpose, naturally. Perhaps to make us more aware of how much easier it is to care about the Danish family's struggles, and not just because they get more screen time.
ReplyDelete