Masterfully crafted from nearly every technical perspective, The Sweet Hereafter is lauded as one of those “movies you have to see before you die” on nearly every list of its kind. After watching it this afternoon, however, I’m left wondering... Is it actually?

Sweet begins by setting up a narrative based around a tragedy the likes of which no one should ever have to endure. As our small, nameless town reels from the aftermath, however, there may be hope on the horizon in the form of an out of town lawyer. There’s some dissonance in the community on whether he’s here to make things right, or simply seeking an easy target for a hefty retainer though. As we’re shown more of his troubled family history, we're led along that path as well and forced to question whether we truly believe in his cause, right alongside some of the more vehement members of the local community. For those that simply want to mourn in peace and maintain what sense of community and solidarity they have left, a call to action is foisted upon them as more and more of their fellows join the movement. As the drama unfolds, we’re brought to question the integrity of the town itself and the lengths it’s beleaguered members will go to in order to right this wrong. What will their little secrets mean in the end and will they serve to unite, or further divide them along these legal and moral lines being drawn in the snow? Who will remember the truth vs the litigation and how will that affect the citizens’ lives in years to come? Is the financial success of the lawyer and those who participate worth the dissection of their lives and, in the end, what will survive of the community they strive to protect, and what collateral damage will be done to those simply trying to grieve?

If all of that sounds interesting and like a great layout for a subtly disturbing, meaningful, and moving film… that’s because it is! It is also the story The Sweet Hereafter sets up in its first half. Unfortunately, it then feels the need to up the ante, and, in the end, it loses itself and most of its meaning by hinging entirely on one statement, from one character, and never re-examining any of the evidence.

The journey in Sweet is moving and upsetting, but the conclusion is unbelievable and unbelievably heavy handed.

Time for some spoilers…

About 50 minute into the film, we’re introduced to the conflict of the father who is sexually abusing his daughter. This is the darkest of the town’s little secrets and certainly one that deserves some attention. The issue is that the entire film hinges upon this singular plot point.

In a scene later on, we see the girl’s father confronted by the man in town that doesn’t want people to partake in the lawsuit -- partially, it seems, in fear for his own skin if negligence is found on the part of maintaining the bus, as it’s his job, and partially because he just wants this outsider to go away and stop making a mess of their grief. Previously, we’ve seen this man (the father of two now dead children) give Nicole (the abused girl) a sweater that belonged to one of his kids since she babysat them and clearly cared very deeply for them as human beings. We’re shown another scene where Nicole sits next to a local boy who has a learning disability and is having a hard day, showing us that she has a very strong sense of community and caring for the individuals within it. In the scene where the man confronts her father about the lawsuit, he asks after Nicole as a means of checking up on her as the only child who survived the accident. Shortly after this, we are shown her father interacting with her and showing a marked disinterest in her sexually now that she is wheelchair bound. As a child set into this highly abusive situation, she’s clearly upset by this change in mood from her father and exemplifies that in the next scene of the film.

This is all absolutely excellent, but what happens next is… not.

As the only child to have survived the accident, Nicole is interviewed by the lawyer. In her deposition, she lies through her teeth about what happened, all the while staring at her father [he was interested in the money]. In certain ways I love this scene, in others I hate it.

On one hand, she takes direct revenge on her father’s lack of interest in her now that she’s “broken” by throwing the whole lawsuit out the window, without us ever getting any kind of closure on her abuse and still having to walk away from the film knowing that she exists in a headspace where what he did was right and good and normal. The brilliance is that we are forced to watch a vengeful breakup of father and daughter, where daughter doesn’t realize that the relationship was inappropriate and evil, because she was always indoctrinated into it. She partially does it to get back at him not wanting her anymore, and partially to support the man of the children she loved as he wanted the entire litigation nonsense to end anyway. So, she does what she can to get her way. And it works.

On the other hand, I hate this. With the sense of community that we’re shown she has, she wouldn’t simply throw away the hopes of everyone else involved. Moreover, she wouldn’t blame someone that she knows didn’t cause the accident. She outright blames the driver, which she has to know will ruin the woman’s life in every imaginable way, and I just don’t buy that. There is a brilliance here in the narrative structure however, as we’re previously shown the driver interpreting a statement from her disabled husband as “The true jury of a person’s peers, is the people of their town. Only they, the people who have known her all her life, and not 12 strangers can decide her guilt or innocence.” In this scene, the driver of the bus bows out of the lawsuit and decides to rest her head upon the collective grief of her community. It’s brilliant, it’s moving, and it’s subtle… and it’s ruined by the end of the film.

I also don’t buy Nicole’s perjury from a purely banal legal sense. Her lawyer clearly knows she’s lying, and he does nothing about it. She claims the bus was going 72 mph, which I don’t think a school bus is even capable of. Moreover, there was a major character driving behind the bus that day, so he could testify to the speed and save the bus driver from litigation and ostracization. Though he is the loudest voice against the lawsuit in general, he is also the loudest voice for the community and would certainly stand up for one member when another is threatening her livelihood over a complete lie. Nicole claims that she could clearly see the speedometer, which is easy enough to check by simply sitting in the seat she was in using the same model of bus. Nicole has suffered a massively traumatic experience and incomprehensible physical and mental injuries. Yet… none of these options are explored and the lawsuit is just thrown out with no evaluation whatsoever.

It’s really too bad as the film sets up for a very subtle and upsetting narrative ending, but then hammers the story to bits with a heavy handed and discordant piece of vengeance that just feels entirely out of place.

The narrative structure is inarguably brilliant [as are the other technical aspects of the film], but the ending is too wrapped up, too neat, and too contrived to really be meaningful. This is a film that would have done with a thoughtful fizzle rather than a heavy bang. Too bad...