Writer: J.P. Martin – Director: David Cass, SR.
Actors: Melissa Gilbert, Lindsay Wagner, Lindy Newton, Brian Wimmer.
From IMDb Message Boards- “Why haul the water?”, my response:
As I kept reading this question it occurred to me that hauling the water isn't about the water, it's about the act of hauling the water. It's the discipline. It's like Mr. Myagi teaching Daniel karate by getting him to do all sorts of chores in Karate Kid, like getting up at 6:00AM and working in the garden. You teach one, you teach many. And, you don't get a nice pair of Italian shoes or a sports car by sleeping in until noon! You choose. There were some moments that really left me wondering what she was thinking. When Lulu goes into Natalie's room and is trying on the shoes and Jess walks in on Nat and Lulu, and Lulu says', I know what I want and it isn't just expensive shoes, Jess doesn't say anything and turns and leaves. Several things went through my mind. Was she thinking and grieving, "dear god it's like looking in the mirror", "I missed my chance, I'm not letting you miss yours, or was it, "she doesn't get it".
The question still haunted me until I found some notes on some reading I did several years ago. I was reading Fairbairn and the Origins of Object Relations, pg. 11; "Fairbairn's schizoid infant believes that his love is bad because it has not been validated." That is I think, that one's ability to love even an animal, despite their seeming badness, has to be nurtured, pg 255; "In the triangle, the child appeared to be doing most of the work", and pg 257; "as Fairbairn saw it, the badness of an object was not a projection of the child's sadism, it was a reflection of a mother's unavailability. In short, the real mother, not some fantasy, now emerged as central to psychopathology". "What ranked as crucial for the child was the establishment of a satisfactory object relationship during the infantile dependency." "The traumatic situation, according to Fairbairn was the one in which the child felt he was not really loved as a person and that his own love was not accepted or acceptable." This I think is what the returning Vietnam Vets experienced, what many WWII vets experienced and you could even relate it to men who get into hunting and killing animals. This is mentioned in the film, they "shoot horses". It is easy to see that after awhile Lulu begins to get that the horses need her and Jess and Sam, even though she wants to move on to bigger and better things.
So why haul the water? Fairbairn wrote: "to renounce object seeking would be tantamount to psychic suicide" and he goes on to talk about loss of ego. He also states that "the net result is that the child tends to transfer his relationships with his objects to the realm of inner reality". Lulu would be on the brink of a psychic disaster if she didn't fulfill Jess's wishes. Was she a slave to it? Didn't Jess say, "I always want to know what is in your heart". Lulu can internalize what is happening with the horses and know she has some stability and security in her life. I think that when I was reading this I came to understand the desire to kill firstborns in biblical times. Was it bordering on psychic murder? What happens when you have instability is that one can become a compulsive object seeker, acquiring all sorts of baggage along the way. We see this with Lulu after Jess gets injured. She realizes Jess is not invincible so she sets her eyes on Natalie.
Of course, to love is better than to hate and kill, as many children and adolescents who suffer from parental deprivation or abuse end up in prison for life and Natalie's emotional problems are not that serious. First of all Natalie has become a successful attorney, thinking owning an expensive sports car and shoes would fill the gaps in her life. Was she doing the same thing by writing the book and giving the money to Lulu? Can we ever fill that emptiness? Would anything you do ever fill that loss? What would happen to Natalie if she had just left and never gone back? A piece of her mind would always be with Jess and Lulu, wondering. What about Jess? She gave up her life to keep Maggie's dream alive, she gave up her memories of Maggie to help the horses and Lulu. Seems Jess is getting the short end of the deal. Natalie is still young and can have her own family and comes back to really simply get free of the dysfunctional schema. Who wouldn't want to be like Natalie? Jess is the real heroine here, the Christ, she has made the ultimate sacrifices so that others could be free. She is deeply depressed because of it. Does she find some satisfaction in having written the book? Is it enough? I am also reminded of Matrix and Matrix Reloaded, now. Neo is faced with similar problems when he is asked to decide which pill he wants to take. Lulu is faced with similar questions, what kind of life does she want for herself. Will it bring her the happiness she wants? Are we all destined to be like Jess in the end? Sacrifices in the name of love. Eric Fromm wrote about this in his book, Sane Society and The Art of Loving.
I have seen lots of movies like this where the heroine (erroneously labeled in my opinion as I guess it sounds better than Christ), fails to find, someone to take the place of their loss, or his or her intervention that keeps one from falling into the Christ trap. Jess was Lulu's intervention. And sometimes too many objects can be as much of a problem as none at all. I think this is the essence of addiction. Are we happier if we live life like a loose garment, keeping our expectations low. Is that what happened to Jess? Expectations that are too high can be a problem too!
Why ride the horses?
I think that's a more important question. I was emotionally incited when Natalie comes down the stairs in her riding suit and then is riding her horse that's been trained to jump rails. That's where humans and I part ways when it comes to animals. There is a big difference in training people to take care of themselves and others to training horses to do tricks or even work for their keep. Where this film and Natalie fall a little short in passing themselves off as really altruistic to the horses. Think about it. Jess has just shown Natalie a herd of wild horses she is trying to save, then Natalie goes home and decides to get hers warmed up and out for a jaunt around the corral. Maybe Jess feels the same way about her life, but she chooses not to trap Lulu that way.
And, is Lulu a reflection of Jess's teenage dreams, or her mother's or did it come from their psychic connection that ultimately brought them together. Entangled Minds, Dream Telepathy and Mind to Mind talk about this. What I would have been interested in is how they expect Jess to think any other way, how does an adult cope with the child mind of a parent, especially if they don't have a child? Is the adult child really manufactured as a result of this relationship? Did Jess take Lulu in just to get rid of Maggie's dream she too wished to escape but Natalie shows up and fowls it up, then decides to leave it all but Sam won't have any of it. Then there's Jess again sitting at the table while Sam is giving her a hard time about her suspicions of Nat that Lulu really planted in her head and Sam sheepishly reaches into her bowl and grabs a couple of cookies, while it seems to me that Jess is just sitting there wondering when everyone is going to wake up. I could take that scene to new heights. A light finally goes off in Sam's head but he and Nat slip into the old script anyway. Do they stay together?
I was just never convinced at anytime in this film, that Natalie had anyone other than self at the heart of her interests, everything she did seemed perfunctory, Rand like. Her digging for water was all about making herself feel better rather than any real attempt at helping the horses. That objectivist kind of attitude of which Jess is on the receiving end, the one who is suppose to be objective about sacrificing her life for the good of the rest. Who wouldn't be depressed! Is Jess really altruistic or does she simply lack the self-love that Nat seems to possess, that pushed her into sacrificing her own life choices to fulfill someone else’s dream? Isn't she a prisoner?
Well acted, great cinematography, very thought provoking.
