** How accurate was "Heavenly Creatures" meant to be? [jp]
Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson have both stated that they intended the film to portray known facts as accurately as possible.
** How accurate was it? [jp]
Overall, Walsh and Jackson did an exemplary job, especially in the dense way they communicated cultural values and community attitudes. The physical locations and artifacts and objects were all outstanding in their precision, as well. However, several important plot simplifications were made, and some of these resulted in quite serious distortion of important fact. A few characters and situations were made up. Of equal importance, the filmmakers made some significant omissions of fact, inevitable when a story this complicated is brought to the screen. However, their omissions actually have a significant impact on the overall tone of the film, and on the impressions carried away concerning the character of the girls' home lives, the nature of the girls' relationship and of other important relationships, the possible motives for the murder, the chronology of the planning of the murder and even about the murder itself. Although the film presents a tight, consistent set of facts (which still carry enormous ambiguity) and it is an outstanding effort, it is the omissions from the film which lead me to give it a grade of B for accuracy.
** What information is given in the printed epilogue? [jp]
This is the text of the printed epilogue from "Heavenly Creatures:"
In the hours following Honora's murder, a police search of
the Rieper house unearthed Pauline's diaries.
This resulted in her immediate arrest for the murder of her
mother. Juliet was arrested and charged with murder the
following day.
After Pauline's arrest it was discovered that Honora and
Herbert Rieper had never married. Pauline was therefore
charged under her mother's maiden name of Parker.
In August 1954, a plea of insanity was rejected by the jury
in the Christchurch Supreme Court trial, and Pauline Yvonne
Parker and Juliet Marion Hulme were found guilty of murder.
Too young for the death penalty, they were sent to separate
prisons to be "Detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure."
Juliet was released in November, 1959 and immediately left
New Zealand to join her mother overseas.
Pauline was released two weeks later but remained in New
Zealand on parole until 1965.
It was a condition of their release that they never meet
again.
** Is the information in the epilogue correct? [jp]
Yes, in every detail presented (except the legal phrase is detained during Her Majesty's pleasure since it may also please Her Majesty to release you). There was some confusion (possibly deliberate) about the 'conditional' nature of the girls' release, according to statements made by New Zealand Prison authorities to the press at the time, but Jackson's version is correct. The information in the epilogue does not tell the whole story, however, and the real-life events are, perhaps, even more poignant and tragic. See section 7.3.
** How old was Honora when she ran away from home with Bert? [jp,sb]
In "Heavenly Creatures," Pauline says to Honora: "Nana Parker told me you were only 17 when you ran away with dad." I have yet to find a source for this statement in real life. Pauline's statement in the film was physically impossible, in real life, because Honora Parker was born in England and did not emigrate to New Zealand until she was 18. According to Herbert Rieper's trial testimony, Honora was 45 when she was killed, Herbert was 61, and they had lived together for 23 years. (Some previous statements made by Herbert Rieper indicated that the couple may have been together for 25 years-- this would have made Honora under the age of majority at the time she and Herbert Rieper took up together, so numbers may have been changed). That would have made Honora 22 (20) and Herbert 38 (36) when they started living together, in 1931 (1929).
** Was Pauline's flashback accurate? [jp]
Essentially, yes. Herbert Rieper testified that Pauline was struck with osteomyelitis when she was 5, and that he had visited her in the hospital.
** Was Juliet's flashback accurate? [jp]
No. Juliet was sent to the Bahamas "for the good of her health" but after WW II when she was 8, not during the War when she was 5, and there is no evidence she was hospitalized there.
** How accurately were the girls' ailments portrayed? [jp,jb]
The facts presented in the film essentially matched those presented during the trial, though the extent and seriousness of the girls' ailments was probably more extreme in real life than was portrayed in the film. Pauline had suffered from extremely painful osteomyelitis at the age of 5, and was reported to have nearly died. It was also reported that her bout with this disease was her first memory as a child. She was hospitalized for 9 months and underwent very painful treatments very bravely. Even changing the dressings was reported to be very painful. She underwent a series of operations over the span of nearly 3 years to "drain the muck out" ("discharge" according to medical reports). She was left permanently, though not severely, handicapped by this disease and she experienced chronic pain throughout her childhood and adolescence, for which she took pain killers. She was advised not to perform strenuous sports, and was excused from PhysEd. Pauline may also have been affected, emotionally, by her illness and by having to be isolated in a class all by herself for two years after being released from the hospital. Her academic achievement didn't appear to be adversely affected by this isolation, though. Juliet had been very sickly, on and off, as a child with various respiratory ailments, some very severe, including a very serious case of pneumonia when she was 6. At that time, she almost died. Juliet did contract TB, as shown in the film. But, Juliet also had additional, significant medical problems not shown in the film. Perhaps most significantly, she had been severely 'bomb shocked' as a young child. This is an almost archaic term for extreme psychological trauma encountered during wartime. If Juliet had been a soldier, it would have been called 'shell shock.' Juliet and her family lived in London during the Blitz of WW II and this and other family conditions had a severe emotional impact on Juliet. 'Bomb shock' is a slightly catch-all psychological phrase, but her mother did tell consulting psychiatrists that the two of them were caught out unprotected in London during an air raid and suffered a near miss. Bombs and bombing, WW II and death (this was during the frenzy of the cold war, after all) actually held a significant place in the girls' testimony and interviews. Oddly enough, her childhood experiences probably would have made Juliet a prime candidate for what would now be called 'post-traumatic stress disorder.' Juliet was separated from her family more times than depicted in "Heavenly Creatures" and her behaviour upon being reunited with them was one of extreme overdependence, both not shown in the film. Hilda Hulme testified that Juliet was very difficult to discipline and was demanding and prone to temper tantrums. These things were only alluded to in the North American release version of the film. There was also considerable indirect evidence entered into testimony during the trial of Juliet having continuing, more severe psychological problems. These problems were mostly connected with Juliet's being separated repeatedly from her family. However, it should be borne in mind that the defense strategy was to have Juliet declared criminally insane, so some (perhaps more than some) of the psychological testimony may have been biased toward exaggeration of her problems. Herbert Rieper's testimony about his daughter's character was pretty straightforward and tended to paint Pauline as a moody but quite ordinary girl with no serious psychological problems before she met Juliet Hulme. However, it was also clear from his testimony that Herbert Rieper was, in many ways, a typical father for his times--he actually knew very little in the way of details about his daughter's health or her personal life.
** Where was Juliet sent "for the good of her health?" [jp]
Before she was sent away for the good of her health, Juliet was sent away to the North of England soon after her brother was born. Then, after contracting pneumonia for the second time, Juliet was indeed sent to live with another family in the Bahamas for 13 months, but she was aged 8, not 5. Then she was sent to the North Island of NZ, where she lived with another family. She was apparently institutionalized, eventually, because of another breakdown of her health, before her family moved to Christchurch. Soon after the Hulme family moved to Christchurch, Juliet was again sent away because of her health, according to Hilda Hulme's testimony, to a boarding school in the North Island of NZ. Juliet returned to Christchurch before the events shown in "Heavenly Creatures." In all, Juliet spent a total of about 4 1/2 of her first 11 years separated from her family 'for the good of her health' and for other reasons.
** How accurate were physical details in the film? [jp]
The film was absolutely outstanding in this respect. There were almost no anachronisms (see 3.1.27), and attention to known detail by the filmmakers concerning the time, the place and the events etc of the case was superb. Locations, sets, costumes, props--all were pretty much spot on. Walsh and Jackson really did their homework in writing the script, and then all the professionals involved in the film turned it into a precise recreation, by attention to detail.
** Did the girls really pretend to be Biggles? [jp]
I have not been able to find an explicit reference to Biggles in existing quotes from Pauline's diaries.
** Did the girls really invent all of those characters? [jp]
Yes, and then some. This was one of the significant simplifications made by the filmmakers, and it is an understandable one. The police reported seizing fourteen school exercise books filled with stories written by Pauline and Juliet (handwriting was from both, according to testimony) from the Rieper house. There were also innumerable letters written by both girls which contained their stories, apparently written over a much longer period of time than simply the time spent by Juliet in the sanatorium. According to court testimony (which also simplified the whole thing significantly) the girls eventually constructed two imaginary kingdoms/dynasties. Juliet's, more or less, was the one shown in the film. Hilda Hulme testified that Juliet first wrote as Charles II, Emperor of Borovnia. She then became Deborah, the Emperor's mistress, and they had a son, Diello (Dialbo according to some news accounts. Dialbo is a rather obvious anagram of Diablo, Spanish for "the Devil."). Diello was crowned King of Borovnia by the girls in a lavish Coronation ceremony in December 1953. Pauline first wrote as Lancelot Trelawney, a Cornish soldier of fortune, who eventually wed the Empress of Bolumnia (Volumnia in some accounts) and thereby became Emperor of that Kingdom. They had a daughter, Mariole. Many other characters were also mentioned as having had their identities assumed by Pauline or Juliet at one time or another: Nigel, Philip, Justin, Dominic among them. The tales gradually became more and more violent in a kind of gory one-upmanship, eventually featuring extreme violence, sadism, bondage, the rape of maidens and the torture of knights, according to testimony. The question is, would these stories be viewed any differently today? Were they really an indication of serious mental imbalance? Or, just the products of healthy imaginations?
** Did the girls really invent 'the Saints?' [jp]
Yes, the Saints shown in the film are accurate, and Mario Lanza figured prominently in trial testimony. However, in real life there were also many more Saints, the status of being a Saint was given and revoked often, and the whole interpretation of the meaning of 'Saints' was debated by psychiatrists and lawyers extensively. James Mason was undeniably the most important Saint in real life, not Mario Lanza. The girls also had the concept of Gods, a state higher than being a Saint, which was not made part of "Heavenly Creatures." Among the Gods were: Rupert Brooke, Caruso, Julius Caesar and Charles II. It is probably fair to say that the concept of 'Saint' was much more complicated in real life than the way it was depicted in the film, and it probably changed with time. From Pauline's diary entries, in particular, it would appear that the concept of the Saints gradually became more and more sexual and erotic as time progressed, and it appeared as if Pauline eventually used them as a code or euphemism for erotic fantasy and/or sexual activity (see 7.4). The importance of the Gods seemed to increase with time. Also, the girls differentiated between Saints and Gods and promoted and demoted from these categories. In fact, the whole religious/theological structures created by JMH and PYP were largely glossed over in "Heavenly Creatures," which is understandable because they were really quite complex.
** Did the girls really have a shrine at Ilam? [jp]
Yes, although they apparently erected it as a monument to "dead ideas" as well as a place to worship the Saints and their Gods. Trial testimony mentioned that they also interred small dead animals there, such as dead mice. Medlicott testified it was a temple to Minerva. Its significance may have been overstated in trial testimony. According to trial testimony, the girls would spend all night at the shrine and would conduct 'religious ceremonies' to Raphael, their favourite angel and Pan, their favourite God, on the lawns of Ilam in the middle of the night. It is true that religious and theological musings made up a significant part of the girls' writing and conversations, and this was omitted from the film. They had much more to say about the nature of the "Fourth World" and its religious significance, the nature of the Gods there, death, Heaven, life after death etc than was portrayed in "Heavenly Creatures."
** Did Dr Bennett exist? [jp,lfr,sb,mc]
Yes. He was a general practicioner, active in the Christchurch Marriage Guidance Council and friend of Henry Hulme. He was consulted privately by Dr Hulme in early December 1953 and again in May 1954 concerning the girls' relationship. This is an important fact, and explains the filmmakers' portrayal of Henry Hulme as a man with a manipulative streak and many hidden agendas. However, these incidents may have been more complicated than they were portrayed. At Dr Hulme's suggestion, Honora Parker did take Pauline to be examined by Dr Bennett a week after Dr Hulme's first consultation, just before the start of Christmas holidays that year (which were very eventful and stressful, as described in section 5). According to trial testimony, the Hulmes did not subject Juliet to "psycho-analysis" as Dr Bennett had told them there was no need, and it might even prove to be damaging to one so young. However, it had apparently been decided by Dr Bennett and the Hulmes that it was alright to subject Pauline to examination, although his examination could hardly be called a psychoanalysis. In addition, Honora Parker may have played a more active role in the decision to examine Pauline than was portrayed. In his trial testimony, Dr Bennett admited he got little more than "yes" or "no" from Pauline in his examination, although he had no hesitation in 'diagnosing' her as a homosexual. Dr Bennett eventually acted as a witness for the defense, after he had performed "extensive" examinations of both girls following the murder. As a professional and trusted family friend, he may have played a key role in convincing the defense to enter a plea of 'not guilty by reason of insanity.'
** Did Rev Norris exist? [jp,se,sb]
I haven't been able to confirm the existence of Rev Norris, but Juliet's maternal grandfather was an Anglican minister.
** How accurate was the portrayal of the school? [jp]
Except in a very few small details, the school was portrayed very accurately (see section 3.1.5). All uniforms shown, for example, were exact (there is a school photograph with Pauline recreated exactly in the film). The opening hymn "Just A Closer Walk With Thee" would not have been part of the girls' school experience (see 3.1.19). Grades would have been reported as percentages and also as rankings in class, rather than using 'As and Bs'.
** How accurate was the Riepers' home? [jp,G&L]
This was the only physical location that no longer existed. The filmmakers had to recreate the Riepers' home from photographs and the living memory of neighbours. The Riepers' home was located right downtown in an area that had mixed residential and small-business buildings and was probably slightly less clean and residential and a bit more gritty than depicted.
** How accurate was Ilam? [jp,jl,ad]
The filmmakers shot on location in Ilam and its grounds. The house is virtually the same on the exterior as it was in 1954, as it is owned and maintained by the University. Peter Jackson stated in an interview that Juliet's 'balcony scene' was a special effect because the balcony has been remodelled (glassed in) since 1954. Interiors had to be reconstructed (see 3.1.7 and 5.4.1).
** Are Pauline's diary entries real and accurate? [jp]
Yes, they are real, and yes, with certain provisos, they are reasonably accurate, though many used in the voiceover were edited for dramatic impact. The diary entries used in the film are among the entries entered into evidence at the trial. There are also many existing diary quotations that were not used in "Heavenly Creatures" and these have also been collected in section 7.4.3. The only caveat, of course, is that the existing quotations may not actually be representative of Pauline's diary entries. This is a point made emphatically by Glamuzina and Laurie in their book. Naturally, the police would have abstracted the entries most directly related to the murder, and the psychologists would have abstracted diary entries which would tend to support their points of view. We may get a distorted view of Pauline from these quotes.
** Do Pauline's diaries still exist? [mf]
Michelanne Forster: "I was told [in 1989] by the [New Zealand] Justice Department and the [Christchurch] police that Pauline's diaries no longer existed."
** Did the girls make plasticine figures? [jp]
Jackson maintains that Juliet made plasticine models and these were displayed on the mantle at Ilam, according to several eye witnesses. It isn't at all clear that both girls made plasticine figures of their characters; this may have been a clever and effective artistic device used by Jackson to bring the girls' imaginations to life for the audience. Anne Perry (Juliet Hulme) denies that she made plasticine figures as part of role-playing games. There is considerable documentation to support the notion that Pauline Parker made plasticine figures to represent fantasy characters in exactly the way shown in "Heavenly Creatures" and that there were elaborate ceremonies performed with them.
** What 'character' references were left out of the film? [jp]
Jackson left out many contemporary 'character' references abstracted from Pauline's diaries and from the girls' writings and statements after the murder which tended to paint the girls in an unflattering light. Some may be found in section 7.4, though caution should be exercised in taking reports at face value, especially from secondary or tertiary sources. And, when it comes to statements made at trial, the motivations of those making the statements needs to be weighed carefully, too. For example, it was stated in testimony that the girls had listed the Ten Commandments and had kept a running tally of which ones they had broken. By the time of the trial, Pauline noted she had broken all ten, while Juliet had broken nine out of ten. This exercise was taken to be extremely telling, and damning, during the trial, but more complete diary entries for the day make the whole thing seem quite childish and quite ordinary (see 7.4.3). The girls were accused of having blackmailed Walter Perry over his relationship with Hilda Hulme but there is compelling evidence that this is an incorrect interpretation of the events. Pauline did make a half-hearted attempt to steal money from Herbert Rieper's shop, but she did not succeed. The girls did perform petty shoplifting at Woolworths and other stores. They apparently did steal and pawn some items from Ilam, as shown in the film. Pauline and Juliet made statements about becoming prostitutes to earn money for their escape, calculating what could be earned and what would have to be done to earn it. Much was read into these statements during the trial, but they seem quite naive, ludicrous and fanciful in hindsight. There is absolutely no evidence that these 'plans' were ever considered seriously by either girl, let alone that any were carried out. On the other hand, much more conventional, and practical, plans such as checking steamship departure dates, finding out the cost of fares, trying to find jobs to earn money were pursued. This makes the whole issue of the few, off-the-cuff remarks about prostitution seem insignificant, the point rather belaboured. Trial testimony noted considerable evidence of juvenile delinquency such as lying, cheating, blackmailing, thieving, shoplifting and truancy but, in hindsight, these may have to be weighed by the contemporary attitudes of the community before coming to any judgement about their seriousness. In their interrogations after the murder, both girls made clear statements to the effect that they had no regrets and considered the killing justified, on many occasions. These need to be examined and weighed carefully, in my opinion. Some of the existing statements may have been quoted out of context and there is always the issue of the girls indulging in mind games with their interrogators. For example, Dr Bennett testified to this exchange with Juliet Hulme:
FO Bennett: "I asked Juliet about hell and she said:" JMH: "No. There is no hell The whole idea is too primitive and too inartistic."
FOB: "Do you believe that in heaven or paradise you'll meet all the people you knew on earth?" JMH: "Of course." FOB: "Then you probably will meet Pauline's mother." JMH: "I suppose so." FOB: "With blood on her face." JMH: "Well, she wouldn't arrive in that state. Anyway, she'll be in heaven and we'll be in paradise. Even if we didn't meet her, it wouldn't matter. She wasn't a happy woman. The day we killed her she seemed to know and she didn't seem to bear any grudge." FOB: "Do you have any regrets?" JMH: "None whatever. Of course, I did not want my people to get involved in this, but we have been so terribly happy since. It was well worth it."
FOB: "Who then are the best people?" JMH: "The best people are those who fight against all obstacles in the pursuit of happiness." FOB: "Even to murder?" JMH: "Oh yes, if necessary."
These and many other quotations in a similar vein, presented in testimony by Medlicott and Bennett both, paint a picture of an extraordinarily callous person. Of course, it is equally possible that Juliet was a girl seriously disconnected from reality, and not necessarily a cold sociopath. In any event, this testimony inflamed the public and had a direct consequence in the sentencing. And, of course, there is the evidence about the relationship between Juliet and Pauline, which was quoted and misquoted and edited heavily in press reports. Much of the available evidence has been collected in section 7.
** Was Pauline's encounter with 'Nicholas' accurate? [jp,jb,G&L]
There were diary references which suggested that Pauline had two sexually-significant encounters with a boarder, referred to as 'Nicholas' in the trial, and these were vaguely similar to what was depicted in the film. However, 'Nicholas' played a much bigger role in real life than was depicted in "Heavenly Creatures." He apparently spent two nights in Pauline's bed before being discovered by Mr Rieper but Pauline's relationship with him lasted much longer and had a significantly different tone to it (much more intellectual) than the version we see in the film and the time line of her relationship with 'Nicholas' was quite different. One psychiatrist was careful to point out in testimony that Pauline only wrote of one incidence of completed intercourse. Evidence was presented that Pauline frequently slipped out of her room at night during 1952 and 1953, sometimes meeting with Juliet and sometimes with boys. Some of Pauline's trysts were with boys (University students) from Ceylon (Sri Lanka), and this inter-racial aspect was used by the prosecution to support their description of her as "immoral, criminal and bad."
** Did the girls really go to see "The Third Man?" [jp]
Alas, no they didn't. Pauline actually didn't refer to Orson Welles by name in any of the diary extracts which still exist, but by his "Third Man" character name "Harry Lime." It was as "Harry Lime" that he was tabulated in her table of the Saints. This is an interesting fact, and illustrates the influence of pop culture on the girls. Orson Welles supported himself in the early 50s, among other ways, by 'milking' the tremendous popularity of Harry Lime. There were serialized radio shows, some written by Welles, based on the Harry Lime character and these were very popular, world-wide. The shows played in the U.K., the U.S. and were even translated, by Welles, into French for the French/euro market. Also, Anton Karas' 'Harry Lime' theme was an extremely popular recording on the radio. Pauline does mention that she had seen pictures of Harry Lime, too, so the girls also devoured film magazines, no doubt. The film the girls actually saw was "Trent's Last Case" (British Lion/Republic), directed by Herbert Wilcox, screenplay by Pamela Bower from the novel by E.C. Bentley and starring Michael Wilding, Margaret Lockwood and Orson Welles. It was released in July 1953, so it still took a year to get to Christchurch NZ, but this is a bit smaller delay than the three years implied by "The Third Man" in "Heavenly Creatures." So, the use of "The Third Man" in "Heavenly Creatures" was a little bit of justifiable artistic license on the part of Jackson.
** How accurate is the portrayal of Pauline's home life? [jp,sb]
The filmmakers chose to soften and simplify the portrait of Pauline's home life considerably, even compared to the bland picture of the Rieper family that was painted in trial testimony. This was a critical decision on the part of Jackson and Walsh, and it has quite wide-ranging implications insofar as understanding the possible reasons for the murder. For example, Pauline's infant sister, Rosemary, who was born with severe Downs' syndrome when Pauline was 11, was not shown in the film. Rosemary was finally institutionalized in 1951 or '52 and she is discussed in section 3.2.10.1. Herbert Rieper testfied that Rosemary was visited regularly and brought home from time to time. It's possible that Rosemary was a severe burden on the family in general, and on Pauline in particular, in the years she spent at home, although it was reported that Pauline was extremely fond of Rosemary. Rosemary, and the financial burden and responsibilities and demands of her care, could have been an extremely potent source of tension between mother and daughter, and she was omitted from the film. The degree of poverty in the family was probably not portrayed to anywhere near the extent that the real-life Pauline would have perceived it. The family was literally living on the edge of solvency most of the time and money issues would have been a neverending source of concern and serious conflict. Every little expense Pauline would have wanted to incur, especially if it was to keep up with Juliet in some way, would have been the source of a family fight. To an adolescent particularly, the accumulated effect of being left out of social events and not belonging because of lack of money is galling: how many parents have heard "it isn't fair" from their teenagers, refused permission to do something or buy something because the resources weren't there? No doubt Honora heard it day in and day out from Pauline. There was evidence in trial testimony that Pauline hid significant expenses from her parents; for instance, she bought a horse without her parents' knowledge (Juliet had one...) although this isn't shown in the film. Herbert Rieper testified he relented and allowed her to keep the horse, thinking it would distract Pauline from her friendship with Juliet but obviously there must have been a huge explosion when he and Honora first found out about this horse. Remember, trial testimony among other things made it very clear that Honora was the disciplinarian in the Rieper home. And class issues, though presented reasonably well in the film, were probably far more exaggerated and significant in the real-life Rieper household, especially because Honora was actually born in England herself and would have been steeped in British class consciousness. The amount of class tension between the working-class Riepers and the well-to-do Hulmes would have been palpable in most of their dealings with each other. It wouldn't stretch the bounds of reason to imagine that vicious working-class cynicism and contempt could have been directed quite maliciously and relentlessly at Pauline. Especially if it was perceived that she was trying to rise above her station in life. And that contempt would have come principally from Pauline's working-class family, especially if their lives were inconvenienced by Pauline's shirking her family duties in the frivolous pursuit of 'bettering' herself with the Hulmes. Just by default, there would have been a huge amount of resentment of the Hulmes by the Riepers, and no doubt Pauline became a very convenient surrogate target for the Riepers' bile.
** How accurate is the portrayal of Juliet's home life? [jp,lfr]
Similarly, the film glosses over many, many of the complexities in Juliet's home life which were brought out in trial testimony. In particular, the role of Walter Perry in the whole story was much greater than shown in the North American version of the film, although it appears as if many of these issues were included in the Wellington premiere version of the film. And, of course, most of the dynamics within the crumbling Hulme family weren't portrayed in the film, since the filmmakers chose to portray the story consistently from Pauline's perspective. This was probably a wise choice, artistically, because it gave the film a self-consistent and very compelling voice, and it was certainly true that most of the direct physical evidence presented at trial concerned Pauline and her thoughts and attitudes. Still, it may have led to a distorted perception of the Hulmes by audiences. And, it may have led to the minimization of elements which were very important ones as far as the motives for the real-life crime are concerned.
** How accurate is the portrayal of the girls' relationship? [jp]
Many important physical 'facts' related to the girls' relationship were presented in a commendably non-judgemental and accurate way by the filmmakers. All of the physically-verifiable points discussed previously in section 3.1.11 were drawn from court testimony presented during trial and were presented reasonably-accurately in the film, with a couple of exceptions. This would include at least some aspects of the night with the Saints, incidentally. But, significantly, the filmmakers chose to ignore many issues raised in testimony and recorded in the literature. This may have been done in an effort to present a self-consistent portrait of the girls' relationship, or even because the film could have become unbalanced with too much background exposition. There is also the suspicion that the filmmakers may have left out those pieces of evidence which did not fit the filmmakers' picture of the girls' relationship.
** Which points were portrayed inaccurately? [jp,lfr,jb]
The most glaring inaccuracy was the character of the girls' relationship during the crucial last few weeks before the murder. The reader is referred to section 3.1.11 for a more detailed account. The other quantitatively inaccurate aspect of the girls' relationship, and this is almost unavoidable in a film representation, was the amount of time they spent together and how that changed as the months went by. To their credit, the filmmakers did a reasonable job of portraying how their families saw the girls, and they used this as an indirect way of informing the audience about how much time the girls spent together.
** What was left out of the film? [jp,sb,lfr]
The filmmakers left out things the girls did together which were too complex to be digested easily or categorized neatly. They are without a doubt extremely important pieces of the puzzle if an accurate assessment of the girls' relationship is ever to be constructed, but they are hard to classify, especially in the context of an already-ambiguous film. For example, the filmmakers chose not to show the girls' many escapes to the country, obliquely referred to in the "Donkey Serenade" scene (which was a real event, accurately depicted). According to court testimony, the girls frequently skipped school together (truancy was extremely easy to detect at their small school) and rode to the countryside. The girls' obvious truancy would have been a concrete piece of evidence available to the parents, proving that their daughters were spending an inordinate amount of time together. It could have been a very important part of the equation of the parents' response to the girls' relationship. Truency could have been concrete evidence used by Honora to justify punishing Pauline, for example. Skipping school was a very big deal in both households; it was a very public (and illegal) act, especially in this small community. Hilda Hulme was on the Board of Directors of CGHS. Finally, the existing quotations from Paulinie's diary portray a much more complicated relationship than the one portrayed in the film, and one which evolved over time. Also, although reference to physical intimacy is, in a strict and formal sense, oblique and almost 'coded' in Pauline's diaries, it really is pretty clear to most readers that there was a much more significant physical component to the girls' relationship than was depicted in "Heavenly Creatures." The filmmakers chose to stick with those passages with the 'hardest evidence' and didn't include episodes where physical intimacy wasn't stated explicitly. They were obviously swayed by the statements made by Pauline and by Juliet to the psychiatrists, which show an incredible naivit� when it came to sexual matters. Obviously, this kind of evidence doesn't fit in neatly with a Borovnian fantasy narrative or, for that matter, with either of the two options presented to us by the filmmakers: a neat picture of the girls as knowing, adult lovers, or as loving sisters. The trial testimony and the other material is dramatic and compelling evidence in support of an extreme emotional dependence of one girl for the other, and for an intense relationship which is hard to categorize in all its facets.
** What are the overall differences: film vs. real life? [jp]
To modern sensibilites, the overall impression made by the evidence presented in court is one of a relationship based on both girls trying to satisfy very deep emotional needs that weren't being filled in their respective families. And, perhaps curiously, that it really was a relationship with a very large intellectual and spiritual component. It seems pretty clear that their relationship was probably much more complicated than a superficial crush or puppy love or even 'simple' romantic love. There was more evidence presented in testimony than in the film that the girls had a physically-intimate relationship. Many aspects of their relationship really did fall pretty far outside the bounds of a simple mature sexual or romantic attraction. So the main difference between the film and the evidence presented in real life lies in the complexity and the tone of the girls' relationship. The film effectively conveyed the desperate longing of one girl for the other, but it may have missed the mark slightly in all the girls' different needs for each other. Trial evidence suggets that Juliet had many other aspects to her need for Pauline other than the lonliness brought about by her being sent away "for the good of her health." And trial evidence also paints a picture of Pauline as a girl beset by considerable external personal and family problems, which Juliet and her family helped relieve. In some aspects of their personal relationship, one gets the impression from some post-trial analysis and from viewing some trial testimony in hindsight, that Pauline was more the leader and Juliet more the follower, while the opposite seemed to be true in other aspects. The public, as will be clear from the material collected in section 7, viewed Juliet as the manipulative and domineering mastermind of the whole affair. Dominant-submissive pairing is a classic component of "folie � deux" but whether or not this was an appropriate diagnosis will be left to the reader to judge.
** On the other hand...? [jp,lfr]
Who really knows? Clearly, understanding the girls' relationship is key to undestanding the murder, but all the evidence presented in the trial should be filtered through the culture, events and times before being considered seriously. It can only be a distorted, incomplete set of data from a source so far away from the here and now. And there is no doubt that other relationships were just as important in their combined influence. So, it is certainly conceivable that Jackson and Walsh may have presented a more accurate picture of some aspects of the girls' relationship than the one that emerged from the trial. The filmmakers' artistic vision is certainly more coherent and consistent than the muddled testimony of the many psychiatrists who testified in court, and it paints an emotionally-believable portrait. It just might not be anywhere close to the whole story, however. "Heavenly Creatures" is one opinion, not the final word.
** How accurate was the portrayal of the murder? [jp]
As mentioned previously, most facts related to the murder which were shown in the film were accurate, on the whole, compared to evidence read into court testimony. Unfortunately there were also facts related to the murder which weren't shown explicitly in the film and these missing facts have a rather profound effect on the perception of this crime. Jackson attempted to convey the missing pieces of information indirectly, but he was only partly successful in his attempts, judging from the perceptions of many viewers.
** What facts were omitted from the film? [jp]
The film's murder was in agreement with a subset of the facts revealed by the post mortem and investigation. The most glaring difference between the murder shown in the film and the real-life murder deduced from the full set of forensic evidence was the extreme violence of the real-life murder, which was far in excess of the film's version, horrific as that may have been for most viewers. One important detail not shown in the film was the fact that Honora was found lying on her back. Coupled with the nature of her injuries (see 7.2), it was clear that she had faced her assailants through most of the attack. It was also clear that she had fought back against the attack. The next most important omission concerned the emotional state of all three principals. There was evidence entered into testimony of a violent argument between Pauline and her mother immediately preceeding the murder, and Juliet may have also participated in this argument.
** Why would Jackson 'edit' the murder in the film? [jp]
The most obvious reason for 'editing' the depiction of the murder is simply that it would not be possible to get a completely graphic, explicit rendering of the murder past censor boards. Jackson has experienced this problem before in his previous films, and he was also attempting to distance himself a bit from his reputation as a master of the gore-fest. So, he had to make a difficult artistic decision, and he chose to attempt to convey the horror and brutality of the murder a little indirectly, though he has stated that he wanted the murder to be horrific and anything but entertaining. Jackson used clever innuendo (listed below) to imply those 'facts' he chose to leave out. The innuendo may have been just a bit too subtle, though. The extremely powerful impact of the murder scene in "Heavenly Creatures" upon the audience is proof that Jackson succeeded in portraying, in part, the spirit of the crime, but some of the bare facts of the case carry an impact that is even greater.
** What 'innuendo' did Jackson use? [jp]
Primarily the physical state of the girls when they approached the tea shop in the opening sequence of the film. Without showing the actual murder in detail, this was Jackson's opportunity to imply the extraordinary violence of the crime. The patterns of the spatters and the quantity and placement of the blood were reasonably-close representations of the evidence entered into trial; if anything, he may have exaggerated the amount of spattered blood slightly on Juliet's face. There is an incongruity between this image and the image of the murder shown later at the close of the film, and it is up to the audience to interpolate between the two (see 4.8). In the murder sequence, Jackson has Honora cry out horribly. Many viewers commented to me that Honora's cries were very distressing to them. This is a very subtle but important reference to the events in the real murder. Similarly, Jackson also showed Pauline crouching behind Juliet when Juliet picked up the brick, and the sound of Juliet's blow, in particular, was another very important piece of innuendo. Pauline's tone of voice was also a muted piece of innuendo pointing to the possibility of anger during the murder.
** What is the narrative gap in the murder scenes? [jp]
The murder scene is presented in two pieces in the film. The immediate aftermath of the murder is shown at the film's opening. The murder itself is depicted at the film's close. Comparing the scenes in the film with the detailed forensic evidence of the case, it becomes apparent that there is a time gap between the two scenes.
** What is the evidence for the narrative gap? [jp]
Very simply and graphically put, Honora Mary Parker exhibited forty-five separate wounds to her head, neck, face and hands. The murder scene in the film showed a very small fraction of those wounds being inflicted. Hence, the audience was not subjected to a graphic, real-time depiction of most of the violence inflicted against Honora. What we saw in the film, horrible as it may have been was, indeed, just the beginning of Honora's murder.
** What did Jackson leave out? [jp,jb,mk]
The evidence supplied by Honora's wounds implies that she did not die quickly, or meekly, or painlessly. The autopsy dryly referred to wounds on her fingers, interpreted as having been obtained when she tried to defend herself. Audrey Amos, a policewoman who saw Honora's body, said her fingers were practically severed by blows from the murder weapon--a brick, remember. It was speculated that Honora was conscious and she may have fought back, or at least may have tried to avoid her daughter's blows, for some time. Jackson's 'hommage' to these facts are Honora's terrible cries during the murder scene and the brief shot of her crouching on the ground with blood trickling down her face, her arm half-raised. Twenty-four of the wounds on Honora's face and head were consistent with their having been caused by extreme-force, crushing blows from the murder weapon, i.e. the brick. Under cross examination, the pathologist stated that some blows may have cause more than one wound. In "Heavenly Creatures" we only see 7 blows being struck, 4 from Pauline and 3 from Juliet. Even taking into account the multiple-wound-per-blow idea (simple physics would probably make more than 3 wounds per blow very improbable), this is still a serious undercount of the number of serious wounds. Since there were minor wounds, too, the implication was that there were many more blows, some glancing. Try counting to twenty-four, slowly. If there were that many blows to Honora, it would create a different impression of the murder than does the few blows shown in the film. The pathologist testified that it would have taken only a few of the major head injuries to render the victim unconsciousness. This tends to make the murder appear to be a situation of gross 'overkill', but the situation may not be simple to interpret. This may be one reason why Jackson did not show all the facts. Glamuzina and Laurie tend to de-emphasize the violence of the murder in their analysis (actually, they refer to it as 'the killing' throughout their book) and they argue that repetetive 'overkill' is more common in juvenile homicides and does not necessarily imply the same thing as it would in an adult homicide. They cite studies which show children having unrealistic ideas about what is required to produce death, and also that children often express deep fears that the adult, who has been omnipotent to that point, will get up again and seek revenge for having been injured. Finally, even though the real murder was extraordinarily, shockingly violent (and seen to be those things at the time--one reason for the continuing emotional reaction the murder produces in those who remember it) it may not have been brutal. Brutality speaks more to the state of mind of the murderers, and that remains unknown.
** So the overall effect of the narrative gap is...? [jp]
...a severe toning down of the violence of the murder. We are left with a vastly more sympathetic portrait of the girls from the film's murder than we would have obtained had the whole murder been recreated graphically, in real time. Or, had we been present at the murder as witnesses.
** What are Anne Perry's comments about the film? [jp]
Anne Perry has been severely critical of the film "Heavenly Creatures" in her public statements, although she states she has not seen it (see 7.8). In a Feb '95 interview with the NY Times she claimed the film offered a grotesque and distorted portrait of herself and that her relationship with Pauline Parker had been misrepresented by the "idiotic movie-makers." A to-and-fro series of press volleys followed, between Perry and Walsh and Jackson. Perry has since softened her criticism of "Heavenly Creatures" somewhat, while maintaining the substance of her statements about the murder itself. Followup quotes:
Walsh: "We don't appreciate being referred to as 'idiotic movie-makers.' In all the interviews we've done for the movie, we've treated her with absolute respect." (Feb. 18, '95)
Walsh: "We tried so hard to get the research right. Fiction was our enemy. We wanted to tell their story from a humanitarian perspective to New Zealanders who've seen the girls as monsters all this time." (Feb. 18 '95)
Walsh: "I can understand Perry('s)...revisionist approach. Forty years on, she has a career to protect. She's rebuilt her life..." (Feb. 18, '95)
Perry: "That was an unfortunate quote and I don't remember saying it--it must have been in the heat of the moment. From what I've been told, I don't feel the movie was grotesque and distorted at all--as the Times said. It is all extremely painful. What others see as fair and objective is not the way you see yourself." (Feb. 18, '95)
** What are Anne Perry's statements about the murder? [jp,se]
Anne Perry's public statements since July '94 concerning her memories of the "Parker Hulme" murder case are listed here without comment and without full attribution (all sources are listed as articles in this FAQ). It is left up to the interested reader to argue for or against Ms. Perry's interpretation of evidence, or to accept or reject new evidence she may present.
[sb] I have now had a chance to look at all the stuff and I've come to an understanding of it that satisfies me, at least, for now. I do think that the answer lies very much in the character of the real Honora Parker, and it is hard to be sure what that really was. I do agree that some kind of abuse is unlikely, it would have come out somewhere. It seems to me to be likely that what was really bugging Pauline was not the threat of her relationship with Juliet being thwarted in itself, but her aspirations to another sort of life and to the realisation of her artistic ambitions, at least partly through her relationship with Juliet and Juliet's parents. Given the times, Honora Parker might well have been a very dull, ignorant and hostile working-class NZ housewife. She was probably a lot less sympathetic than Sarah Peirse's portrayal, and may have poured scorn on Pauline's aspirations, probably with more venom or at least irritation than we see in the film. This might be a bit of a class conflict reading: Pauline aspiring to a more "refined" existence, and her mother reacting with scorn and possibly anger at Pauline getting above herself. Thus she is the "obstacle" Pauline describes her as in her diary, not so much to her relationship with Juliet, as to her ambitions and aspirations. In this reading, one can see the girls' idea of their relationship in the light of a partnership of two geniuses (the diaries etc. support this I think), each supporting and understanding the other in a way no outsider can, and not as a primarily "romantic" partnership. Thus it is essential for Pauline to get away from her own ignorant clod of a mother, and join with Juliet, and Juliet's parents, as the latter, and especially Dr Hulme, are seen as supportive of the finer things of life, including art and scholarship etc., and will not laugh at the girls' ambitions and aspirations. Another layer of prejudice here could be the Hulmes's Englishness, Pauline not wanting to be seen as just a rough colonial, possibly Honora laughing at her pretensions etc. I must say the evidence strongly suggests that neither girl felt any remorse after the murder, even while realising it was wrong. The evidence seems to suggest that even after being arrested they were "happy" at achieving their goal. None of this is in the movie of course. I can only suppose that they had both somehow in their minds relegated Honora Parker to some sort of non-human status, someone not deserving to live, despite recognising that murdering her was wrong in some sort of technical moral sense. This reading makes sense, to me, of AP's comments now, and her anger at the film's reading. She says that the real reason has never "come out"; that she didn't expect to get anything out of it (I was very puzzled by this when I first read it); and it wasn't this great "I can't live without you". All this makes more sense if we assume that she thought she was helping Pauline to get rid of an obstacle to her (Pauline's) future plans and ambitions, that she was helping her as a good friend, and also as a fellow genius: her comment at the time that they were apart from the law supports this last bit. And of course she wouldn't get anything out of it, in the same way as Pauline would, as it was Pauline's obstacle to a better life being removed, not an obstacle to their continued relationship. Obviously I am attempting here to enter into the logic of their world, rightly or wrongly. I do actually agree that in some sense the girls were in love, whatever the physical relationship may have been, and whatever its future may have been, were it allowed to run its course. But if what I am suggesting above is the construction they put on it themselves, then or since, one can understand AP's anger and frustration, then and now, at the way the relationship itself has been foregrounded as a sort of adolescent romance gone wrong.
[eg] Here is what made this movie so completely tragic. The two girls commit this murder because of who they are. The very qualities we prize in tham lead them to tragedy. We fall in love with their intelligence and their imagination. We like their friendship because it gives them happiness. Yet, the same friendship and the same intelligence we prize lead them to murder. It's almost exactly like Julius Caesar. We like Brutus because he is so straight and narrow. Yet his rectitude leads to the murder of Caesar and his downfall.