I don't see how anyone can think Simon was supernatural
-
jackiefoxybrown — 10 years ago(November 02, 2015 03:29 PM)
I know this thread is old now, but the sense of realism is what makes this movie so friggin' scary. When I first saw this I was scared out of my mind.
I was actually paranoid that I might start hearing voices because I was going though a particularly tough time and could have been considered "weak" and it scared the bejeezus out of me. -
beierfilms — 10 years ago(November 17, 2015 05:57 PM)
I think it's interested how angry some people get about a supernatural interpretation. It seems pretty clear that a big part of what makes this film interesting is that the filmmakers deliberately leave room for interpretation. The movie isn't vague or pointlessly ambiguous but it does ask a few key questions of its audience and allows them to answer those questions for themselves.
I personally don't really understand how anyone can think that a little bit of ambiguity wasn't intended by the filmmakers. Especially given interviews in which they state they removed certain elements from the screenplay (like a homeless woman responsible for the creepy sounds), because the movie was more effective when they allowed for more interpretations as to what was really going on.
It's similar to the film Total Recall
SPOILERS!
Obviously that film's ending is meant to be ambiguous, presenting the audience with two possibilities (one being a dream and one being real life), but we're not ever meant to know the truth 100%. -
NorthernLad — 12 years ago(October 10, 2013 06:40 PM)
Haven't watched this movie or been to this board in years, but I knew coming back here tonight I'd still find this argument going on. I don't see why people have such a problem with other people believing it was something supernatural like a demon, which is what I believe.
I just don't get why anyone would try to tell someone else what to think. You think what you want but allow others to do so as well.
If you love someone, set them free. If they come back, nobody else wanted them either. -
vojkan087 — 12 years ago(October 14, 2013 03:05 PM)
''
I don't see why people have such a problem with other people believing it was something supernatural like a demon, which is what I believe.
''
Personally, I always have a problem with people being stupid -
stranger_uk-1 — 12 years ago(November 12, 2013 07:19 PM)
No one dies when the generator goes down, Mike goes out and re-fills the generator, the generator comes back on and the kid walks out to the van, I suppose you could argue about when Phil is killed. He kills everyone after the generator is back on but it also happens to be after Phil confronts him about stabbing Hank.
-
kurt-2000 — 12 years ago(November 20, 2013 10:20 PM)
Everyone is in a vulnerable position when the generator goes down, and that's the common denominator. Session 9 is never heard because the generator goes down. Two of the men were in tunnels when the generator goes down as well.
-
cinecephale — 12 years ago(December 09, 2013 07:51 AM)
I think the film is interesting and haunting
because it is ambiguous
. There is many possible readings, including a supernatural element. There are a lot of coincidences that could point that way, like when Gordon hurts himself while the recording is about a knife, or how he uses Mary's room, sits on her tomb when Mike sees the number of her file, etc. I don't think the director wanted it to be clear-cut : supernatural or not, horror or not. Maybe the place isn't haunted, but Gordon is haunted by the place, it triggers something in him, something that was already building maybe, but that expresses itself there. -
kurt-2000 — 11 years ago(July 08, 2014 11:01 PM)
Mike wasn't an idiot. He was doomed to die also, because of his potential to figure out what's going on. Thus the reason the entity killed him. Plus the Session Tapes were easy to find, so perhaps the entity was playing cat and mouse with Mike until the end.
-
solidturtle — 12 years ago(January 27, 2014 10:16 AM)
You're the one being stupid with your rash generalizations and inability to properly analyze a film.
A supernatural explanation doesn't make the film stupid, and the two answers don't have to be mutually exclusive. Simon can be an entity that possess people through a process similar to one going mentally insane. This raises the film's central question and main point of ambiguity: Is possession real or is it mental illness? The fact that film provides you with this question is proof of it being multi-layered.
In the end, trying to simply figure out which is which for the purpose of tying a neat bow on the narrative just does the movie a disservice and ignores the subtleties of the film. Would you prefer a flat picture, with an explicit answer and nothing to analyze and question, or one that provides a certain level of ambiguity that can be discussed and analyzed via the various layers provided? Because when you say you have a problem with people thinking the other way, then one would think that you would prefer the former.