My interpretation
-
T_Josham — 15 years ago(February 06, 2011 03:24 PM)
You did better than me then, I figured the monster she'd created was the devil ala Rosemary's Baby and the end of the world was the due to the devil walking the earth.
One thing though, if the monster was the physical representation of guilt, shame etc. then why did she murder the detectives to feed it? -
thorbin — 13 years ago(September 09, 2012 11:30 AM)
Keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen, that the OP titled the post "my interpretation".
That is what can be fun with movies, in that we can add a bit of ourselves through our interpretation (ie what we see or want to see). Yeah, it is a commentary on divorce the director (in the audio commentary) pretty much states this. BUT, if one wants to see this as a demented variation on THE OMEN, then why put the man down for seeing it that way? There is nothing saying that POSSESSION is a more personal, creepier version of THE OMEN while underlying a secondary/primary message of the destruction of the nuclear family (which is further emphasized in the end when it is implied that a nuclear war is breaking out). I guess it is fitting that the bringer of "the end of the world" is Sam Neill (who played Damien in OMEN 3).
Most of the best movies out there (ALIEN, STAR TREK II, PLANET OF THE APES, CONAN THE BARBARIAN, DIE HARD) have fairly straight-forward "surface" stories, whereas with a little bit of observation one can see a secondary objective/commentary that makes the movie that much deeper and better (the idea that one must fear their own kind more than anything foreign; Kirk and Khan having blond, blue eyed sons with diametrically opposed family lives [among other things, like a commentary on mortality - everyone is wearing a "red shirt"]; commentary on race relations; various philosophies and the hypocrisies of institutionalized beliefs; John McClane/Wayne fighting against a group of villains composed of every country we fought a war with in the 20th century). -
Mohsen-Qassemi — 12 years ago(November 10, 2013 02:00 PM)
I believe this film has nothing to do with Polanski's type of films. Polanski is really delving into the supernatural. The baby in "Rosemary" is really, according to Polanski, Satan's son. Take, for instance, his "The Ninth Gate." It also deals with demonic creatures and again Satan.
However, this film, in my opinion, is much more profound and more European-style. It reminded me of "Don't Look Now" (1973).It's all a complex metaphor associated with sexual desires, infidelity, failure in marriage, etc. I have seen the film only once and I couldn't help reading others' opinions here which were really inspiring.
To sum, I recommend you not try to interpret the film literally because it complicates everything. I mean that monster shouldn't bee seen as a "monster." It has to be a metaphor.
Mohsen Qassemi,
Birjand,
Iran. -
Child_OfThe_Moon — 13 years ago(October 04, 2012 03:39 AM)
Sorry Ken Slaggbut I think you missed the point of this film - it is an allegory for divorce. The "monster" is actually the product of Adjani's internal guilt, shame and deep sexual desires that have been physically manifested into the external reality. The monster evolves into a replicate of her husband - her idealized husband. Adjani's own doppelganger appears in the form of her lookalike - the school teacher Helen, who is the idealized wife, in Sam Neill's eyes.
At the end, when the monster goes back to the house (After Adjani and Neill are killed) the boy begs Helen not to open the door and then promptly drowns himself in the bathtub - the "idealized" husband and wife are reuniting but the boy senses that it is a doomed marriage, as he already knows the troubles of his family life. That is the symbolic meaning behind the whole world ending at the film's end: they are a dysfunctional family unit destined to end destructively. Nothing in this film is literal. Like I said, it is an allegory.
I think even that is only a surface interpretationas Anna (Adjani) explains after the scene where she goes insane, hers is a struggle between chance and faith. Anna's lack of faith in the marriage and her inability to commit to it (her 'disease') rubs off onto Mark, and he ends up sacrificing his sanity and the welfare of his son for the chance that his wife will return to normal. Instead of having enough faith in the situation to accept the divorce, Mark denies her disease by dismissing her violence/insanity and refuses to believe she is a murderer, and consequently ends up personifying the disease himself by mimicking her behavior.
Even though Anna realizes she is in an ongoing battle between meaninglessness/chance and belief/faith, she can't make a choice because she doesn't know which is which; she could have faith in a new man and his ideas (Heinrich himself symbolizes faith/belief in God), or she could have faith in what she already has, by remaining with her husband. Anna's preoccupation between which path is the right one to take seems to be what drives her mad. When Anna harms Heinrich in order to keep the disease alive, Mark loses his fear of Heinrich and kills him, further solidifying his belief that faith is weak/hopeless and chaos/chance is the only reality. This causes Mark to spiral further into madness until the end, where he rejects Anna and his diseased self/the monster by killing them. However, he has also rejected Helen (another symbol of faith), opting instead for a belief in neither/the middle ground (he chooses Margie).
It seems that Mark has made the right decision, in the last scene when young Bob, influenced by his diseased parents, seems to sense danger, while unsuspecting Helen goes to open the door. But instead of opening herself up to harm's way, we see Helen invincible to the evil forces that await her. So in the end, either faith does hold some miraculous protective power, or it is the harbinger of evil in disguise. -
GleamingMemory — 13 years ago(October 04, 2012 03:56 PM)
"This causes Mark to spiral further into madness until the end, where he rejects Anna and his diseased self/the monster by killing them."
I don't believe Mark killed Anna and the monsterwas she not killed by the shootout by the police? The monster escapes, right? Goes back to the apartment where Helen is?" -
shuttlebug — 13 years ago(December 02, 2012 04:02 AM)
It's so weird on this message board that people feel so concrete about their interpretations. I don't find anything simple about this movie, whether it's an allegory for divorce or about an actual demon or about straight-up people experiencing psychosis/mental collapse I just don't find it plausible that someone can be like "This is what it's all about. It's that simple. There ya go, now you've got 'Possession' all figured out, on to the next movie." It's not simple because it's an extremely intricate movie with immense complexity. There are scenes that are edited into the film that throw you off once you feel comfortable with one idea/interpretation. The narrative becomes incoherent, will begin to make some sense, then fade out of focus again there are moments in the film that feel so deliberately random and chaotic that it makes me feel that it's impossible to pinpoint everything down so easily, so cut and dry, you know?
I just love discussing the film without achieving an objective to "figure it out completely" but more to just reflect and analyze the possibilities it's like a mirror within a mirror, within its reflection is an endless loop of interpretations. I have my own personal interpretation, and that alone makes the movie really frightening and scary for me. I found it entertaining on that level because it functions well as a horror film, which is what drew me to own/watch it, but it's also so complicated that you cannot possibly categorize or box this movie up into one explanation, one genre, one theme, one allegory, one metaphor, etc. I like how the OP just says "this is my interpretation" instead of saying this is "THE" interpretation because we can go back and forth on this board forever if we want to claim that someone isn't "getting it" when they're actually providing a solid possible interpretation. That's what is fun about the movie but equally frustrating as an audience.