Pros: Great performances from Kate Winslet and Melanie Lynskey, coupled with a compelling story and solid direction make this film one of the best of the 90's.
Cons: Jackson shortchanges us at the climax by using onscreen cards to tell us of the story's aftermath
Heavenly Creatures: WingNut Films/ Miramax Films Rating: USA: R/ UK: 18/ Australia: M
By the end of 1992, New Zealand filmmaker Peter Jackson stood at something of a career crossroads. He’d already helmed three feature length films--Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles, and Dead Alive--all of which had garnered major recognition from cult film freaks and horror fans worldwide. However, it appears as though Jackson felt it was time to step up to the next level, tackle a film more grounded in reality, and make a movie with a budget and some mainstream appeal. The end result is his 1994 film Heavenly Creatures which is probably his most captivating movie to date.
Based on a true story (the film uses actual passages from Pauline Parker’s diary for the voiceover narration sequences), Heavenly Creatures tells the tale of two young women living in Christchurch, New Zealand in the early 1950’s (this would be Jackson’s second film set in that decade—the zombie comedy Dead Alive was also set during that time period as well). Pauline (Melanie Lynskey: The Frighteners, Ever After) is a dour, frumpy young woman who keeps to herself. She does well in school, but she doesn’t seem capable of associating with the other girls. This all changes when Juliet Hulme (Kate Winslet: Titanic and in her first starring role here), a vivacious and outspoken young woman of English descent winds up in her class. Pauline and Juliet become fast friends—wiling away their days by comparing their illnesses (Pauline had a bone disease as a child, Juliet a respiratory illness), discussing their crush on Mario Lanza, working on a medieval romance novel, or visiting the Fourth World (a mythical land of their own creation—later referred to as the Kingdom of Borovnia in reference to their novel).
Each of the girls finds something in the other that’s missing from their own lives, and as the film progresses, the relationship between them becomes increasingly more vital to each girl’s existence. These young women are the poster children for co-dependency, in a way—but Jackson never presents it in an overly sensationalistic way. Yes, both girls are prone to hysterical melodramatics (even in the happiest moments, they rush through life full speed ahead, cackling and giggling madly) but they (and their relationship itself) are presented in such a way that you can’t help but sympathize with the perceived direness of their situation.
As the film progresses, the girls’ families each notice a change in their daughters (which is particularly interesting the Hulme’s case—the mother is more involved with her extra-marital affairs than her daughter, and the father seems more concerned with his job at the university), and soon it’s decided that they should no longer see each other. This event throws the film into high gear as these two young women, each who desperately needs the other, hatch one misguided plan after another in order to be together—finally culminating in a plot to murder Pauline’s mother.
Jackson’s direction here is what we’ve come to expect from the man who’s given us a film like Dead Alive--meaning it’s frenetic, in your face, and on the edge for much of the film. However, Jackson also demonstrates that he understands how to create and sustain tension—which is witnessed by the film’s climax. Here, the audience knows the outcome is inevitable (partially because this is a true story, and even more so because Jackson has foreshadowed the event by showing us the aftermath in the opening sequence) and yet the film takes quite a bit of time from the moment the events are thrown into motion until we get to the actual murder itself (Jackson even throws in several shots of clocks and a few false starts as well, all in order to increase the tension to a fever pitch).
It’s difficult to view this film and think of it as a restrained picture, but in comparison with the rest of Jackson’s filmography, it’s the least over the top of the bunch. There is an air of mania and melodrama running throughout this film—both on the part of the girls, and the parents as well (who become obsessed with the idea that the girls are heading toward a lesbian relationship—quite the societal taboo in those days)—but Jackson seems to keep it under control for the most part. There is a lesbian undercurrent to this story, yet it’s never sensationalized (nor is it ever really explored at all. Any of the interludes between Juliet and Pauline tend to have the feel of sexual experimentation as opposed to out and out lesbianism). Of course, that’s not to say that the romance wouldn’t have blossomed, but that it’s not really the point of the film—although a lesser filmmaker might have focused on it.
Instead, Jackson chooses to show us the world viewed through the eyes of his main characters-be it the real world they’re so ill at ease in, or the magical kingdom of Borovnia, where life-sized claymated characters from their novel cavort about madly, Mario Lanza is a saint, and Orson Welles the personification of Satan himself. It’s a testament to both Jackson’s direction and his work on the script that there are no unsympathetic characters here. Often, in films of this kind, the murderers or occasionally even the victim are portrayed in an unsympathetic light so that the director and screenwriter can manipulate an audience’s emotions—but that’s not the case here. It’s easy to identify with Pauline and Juliet, and it’s also quite easy to identify with Pauline’s mother throughout the film.
Another reason why it’s so easy to identify with these characters is because the performances are so good. Melanie Lynskey has a great screen presence and a real gift for conveying emotion through looks and simple gestures. When she glowers at the camera from beneath those bushy eyebrows, you know exactly what she’s thinking, and it gives the performance an added dimension. Kate Winslet is beguiling as Juliet, the extremely outgoing young woman who, while angry at her family’s neglect, smiles and giggles her way through it all. Some have pointed out that both performances seem a bit over the top, but the pitch seems right—these are teenage girls, in an era when teenage girls were far more giddy than they are today.
If the film does have one flaw, it’s that Jackson takes us right up to the murder, shows us the death of Pauline Parker’s mother, then reveals the aftermath of that scene with several onscreen cards telling us that both girls were arrested, found competent to stand trial, sentenced to several years in prison, then eventually released—with the condition of their release being that they never see each other again. Personally, I find this part of the story just as important as the murder itself and the events that led up to it. I would have liked to have seen the girls’ reactions in court (no doubt, both would have made off to the magical land of Borovnia in order to elude the real world around them) and a scene showing their mental state at their paroling. Ending on the murder makes sense—it leaves the audience agitated—but I felt that the rest of the story was equally important, and that Jackson shortchanged the audience by not showing us the rest and simply telling us about it instead.
Finally, one interesting sidenote: At the time of this film’s release, it was discovered that Juliet Hulme is now living as best-selling crime novelist Anne Perry. In an interview on the Today show, she seemed as miffed about the motivation behind the crimes as those of us who’ve seen the film.
In the end, Heavenly Creatures is an intriguing and potentially terrifying film. It’s a movie that highlights the notion that even two normal people, when thrust together at an unusual time in their lives, can bring out the worst in each other. Perhaps the most horrifying idea presented in this film is that out of the two girls, there was no leader—no ‘bad seed’ who turned the good and innocent child into a monster capable of committing cold blooded murder. Instead, we have two normal young women—a bit overly emotional, but not much different from the average teenager—who, through some weird twist of fate, feed off of each other. And, in the ultimate ironic twist, the whole tragedy might have been avoided had the parents not interfered and tried to keep the two friends apart. For anyone who believes the phenomena of children murdering their parents is a recent one, I present this film. Here, we have a case of matricide—occurring in the early 1950’s, a period widely regarded as one of the last great innocent and romantic eras. If it can happen then, it can certainly happen now.
At any rate, despite Peter Jackson’s misstep at the climax, Heavenly Creatures is a fantastic film—easily one of the best and most underrated offerings of the 1990’s and well worth checking out.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.