Where the Crawdads Sing (2022)

[Mike Blakesley]

This is one of those movies that's based on a popular book, and it seems like most people who are coming to it have read the book. But it's also a mystery thriller, and I assume it might erase about 90% of the thrill to know the answer of the mystery before the movie even starts.

Having said that, I will say that I watched the movie with my wife, who HAD read the book but did not tell me the story. So, I got the full effect, which was considerable. It's a pretty good mystery that leaves a lot of clues around, but there are always good counter-clues that make you go "but wait, what about..."

The movie takes place during a courtroom trial for murder, and is told via flashbacks.

I suppose the best thing about this movie is the setting. It takes place in the marshes and swamps of North Carolina, which if you've ever been there, it can be a very spooky place and I can't imagine the trauma of getting lost there. Let alone having to live there in a run-down shack with an abusive alcoholic father who drives the entire family (except the youngest girl, Kya) away before leaving the girl alone to fend for herself. Growing up isn't easy for a teenage girl left on her own; it seems like every young fella in the county is "only after one thing," or that's the drift you get from this story anyway. But not to worry, there is a kindly couple of convenience store owners who sort of take Kya under their wing (why they didn't just invite her to come and work in the store and live in the back room is a good question, but there are a lot of questions in this movie).

Anyway, eventually the town's super-hunky star quarterback finds himself dead, and nobody can figure out who did it, but a lot of signs point vaguely to "that marsh girl," as Kya is known around town. So she's picked up and charged with murder, and the resulting trial finds David Straithairn playing a lawyer who, despite being retired, takes pity on the "marsh girl" knowing that she's had a rough life, and offers to defend her.

I won't tell any more of the story because I don't want to give away the ending here, but there are some big questions, the biggest of which WILL be a spoiler, so if you haven't seen the movie, stop reading right here where I'll tell you it gets 3.5 out of five stars from me. If you ignore those plot holes, it's a pretty good pot-boiler which gets the job done, but it's not going to make any top ten lists. OK, now on to the questions below. Remember, there are SPOILERS ahead.

.

.

.

Spoiler ahead!!

.

.

To me the biggest questions are: Why didn't one of the older kids take the young girl with them when they cut out? How could they leave the youngest kid to live with that maniac?

2. As noted above, when the convenience store people took such pity on the kid who was now living alone, why didn't THEY take her in, or find somebody who would?

3. And the biggest question --and here is the spoiler, so FINAL WARNING: the very end of the movie reveals a necklace, given to the murder victim by the young girl, Kya, which gives you the answer as to who killed the guy. But earlier in the movie, he and Kya had a screaming, vicious breakup, in which he tried to rape her and she threatens to kill him. So why in the name of all that's holy is he STILL WEARING THE NECKLACE SHE GAVE HIM?

This the kind of stuff that makes you wonder why books get popular. If they have these kind of dumb plot holes, they don't deserve to be popular. But, there's no accounting for taste, right?

[Marcel Birgelen]

Apparently, the book is around here somewhere here, at least according to the wife. I've never read it though and neither did she. So, we went in blank. All in all it wasn't something you'd place in the best-movie-of-the-year category, but it wasn't a bad movie either, which is already something those days... The wife especially liked the atmosphere, but some of the same questions Mike had did come up in the process of watching it.

Below is how I made sense of those "plot holes" Mike mentioned. So, be warned, spoilers ahead.

Why didn't one of the older kids take the young girl with them when they cut out? How could they leave the youngest kid to live with that maniac?

I personally found this part of the story to be one of the most unbelievable parts. Why would everybody just abandon a nine (?) year old girl in the middle of the swamp? Not everybody in their family seemed to hate her. Even her abusive father still seemed to care about her, somewhere deep down there. Maybe the book does a better job at explaining it, but I guess the movie simply needed the plot to happen and the plot was a young girl stuck in the swamp...

2. As noted above, when the convenience store people took such pity on the kid who was now living alone, why didn't THEY take her in, or find somebody who would?

I guess the only legal way of them (the black couple) taking her (the swamp girl) in would be for them to adopt her. The movie hints at the fact that this was not going to happen in that time and place. As for them not looking for other people to take her in: I guess that's just what "swamp girl" didn't want and they had this kind of mutual understanding of the situation.

3. And the biggest question --and here is the spoiler, so FINAL WARNING: the very end of the movie reveals a necklace, given to the murder victim by the young girl, Kya, which gives you the answer as to who killed the guy. But earlier in the movie, he and Kya had a screaming, vicious breakup, in which he tried to rape her and she threatens to kill him. So why in the name of all that's holy is he STILL WEARING THE NECKLACE SHE GAVE HIM?

Yeah, that same question came up with me too. Why would anybody want to wear something that him would constantly remind of a broken relationship? He also was engaged to that other woman, wouldn't she have an opinion about that too? Maybe she was completely oblivious to it... But I guess it was to show what kind of abusive, narcissistic prick he was, in line with the rest of the story: All men are a*holes. Wearing that necklace gave him power over her, showing her that he still "loved" her and that he still dominated her. The clear purpose was to make the character as unlikeable as possible. But obviously, the necklace had to be there, because it was a big part of the last reveal of the story.

[Mike Blakesley]

My wife has another theory about the ending of the movie. She is speculating that the protagonist didn't commit the crime at all, but maybe it was committed by "Jumpin," the black guy who owns the convenience store. Supposedly there are a few "clues" that he might have either done the deed or helped her do it, and the thing with the necklace is just a diversion. But I didn't get that impression at all, she just told me that tonight and I thought it was interesting.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Well, that was actually my wife's first theory. But I guess the hints in the movie are just too obvious to simply ignore.

[Frank Cox]

He wore the necklace up to the end because he was still obsessed with her. You can infer this from the fact that there had to be some kind of a midnight "come hither big boy" that got him out to the location of the murder. The necklace didn't bother the fiancee because she didn't know the significance of it.

The outsiders were interested in taking the land that the house stands on for some other purpose. Later on she paid the back taxes and that subplot didn't go anywhere after that so I don't see how that whole thing advanced the story at all. When the "bad boyfriend" showed up I thought he was there to hoodwink her out of the house but that didn't come up at all.

And the police boat at the beginning had low profile blue led emergency lights.

It's a pretty good movie, though. I liked it.

[Mike Blakesley]

Later on she paid the back taxes

The property tax bit was kind of amusing to me. I'm curious what the yearly property tax would be on a typical house and land. When the notion came up of her paying the back property taxes (I'm guessing maybe it was about 10 years, at least?), I was expecting to be in the thousands of dollars. The story takes place in North Carolina, in the '50s and '60s, and I'm not sure what property taxes are like there, but in Montana where we have no sales tax, $800 would maybe take care of your property taxes for ONE year... possibly.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Something that would've cost $800 back in 1950, would now be an equivalent of almost $10,000.

The average property tax of NC seems to be 0.77%, let's just assume it was the same back in 1950 to 1960.

If her home and land was worth like $250k now, it would've been worth around $20k in 1950, so that year the property tax would've been about $154 for one year.

If we apply an average inflation of 3,5%, it would look like this:

1950: $154.00
1951: $159.39
1952: $164.97
1953: $170.74
1954: $176.71
1955: $182.90
1956: $189.31
1957: $195.93
1958: $202.79
1959: $209.89
1960: $217.23

Sum: $2,023.86

The numbers being used here are obviously just raw assumptions, but I think they're pretty conservative. So, I guess the figure of about $800 would indeed be on the low side, as it also does not include any fines or interest.

What I found less believable while watching the movie though, is the fact that anyone who would pay the back-property taxes would just acquire the land and the properties on it. While I'm sure there are procedures to forfeith certain property if someone doesn't pay their property taxes, simply handing it over first-come, first-serve seems a bit too much like movie magic to me.

[Frank Cox]

That part of the story just dead-ended, though. Nobody was scheming to take the property; I don't see why they bothered to include that part.

[Mike Blakesley]

While I'm sure there are procedures to forfeith certain property if someone doesn't pay their property taxes, simply handing it over first-come, first-serve seems a bit too much like movie magic too me.

In Montana if you don't pay property taxes for 3 years, then the county can put your property up for a "tax auction," where people can bid on the tax liability. The winner then receives a tax lein on the property, NOT the property itself. There are then other hoops that have to be jumped through, including giving the owner time to redeem his property, before the lienholder is declared the owner of the property. Each county has its own set of rules. I know our local city now owns a nice shop building that it wound up owning because the guy who built it decided he was one of those "freemen" who didn't need to pay property taxes, business licenses, etc. and the city basically got it for the price of the taxes and a few legal fees, thanks to his bull-headedness.

[Frank Cox]

I got the lot that my lobby is on through a tax sale. The building next to mine was a wreck and the owner stopped paying taxes on it and vamoosed when his tenant (an income tax preparation outfit) moved elsewhere so the city ended up taking the title for unpaid taxes. Since the building was a wreck I waited until they tore it down, then I hot-footed it down to the city hall and said, "How much do you want for that lot since I want a bigger lobby." In the interest of "development" they sold me that lot for a token amount and I could finally make a lobby big enough for the customers to not have to stand outside in line all the time.