Clearing something up - D.I.D, Simon and the ghost story.
-
Duragizer — 13 years ago(April 02, 2013 11:03 PM)
Agree completely. There was absolutely no supernatural element to this movie, they made it seem that way at the beginning, but after watching completely there is ZERO indication that anything supernatural was going on. That mental hospital was just that, a mental hospital. That's it, there were no spirits or demons possessing people. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to watch the movie again because they are delusional.
I love the opinions of conceited blowhards. If only they were as reciprocal
Life is like a box of chocolates. A cheap, thoughtless, perfunctory gift that nobody ever asks for. -
ru1041 — 12 years ago(July 05, 2013 11:19 AM)
I agree. There was nothing supernatural about this. There were times when strange noises, etc. occurred but they were always explained to be real, birds, etc. You would expect a movie set in a mental hospital to be about vengeful spirits and ghost. I think that is what makes this movie so good, it is not about a haunted place, it is about a haunted mind.
-
teddhath553 — 13 years ago(March 05, 2013 10:46 PM)
spoilers, I'm sure
In the film's commentary, Brad Anderson said that Simon was able to take control of Gordon because he was "weak and wounded," which implies that although Mary Hobbes had DID, she may have also been possessed by something else. Anderson also said that the original script was to have more of a paranormal/ghost feel to it, but he realized that it's far more terrifying to think about mental disease as something communicable. The asylum had been through such traumatic events and held such troubled people that it held one (if not many) of the evils and was finally able to release it when the crew came in and began working. The asylum (or Simon) realized that Gordon was weak and took advantage of his weakness, driving him slowly insane with the rising tensions in his home and at work (being forced to do a huge job in a very limited time, which Gordon promised so that he could secure the job).
Also, there was a completely scrapped (yet still filmed) sub-plot where one of the released patients came back to the asylum and although she wasn't sane, knew that Gordon killing his friends wasn't right, and she killed him. If you watch the title scene where the chair in the hallway starts upside down and slowly around, somebody stomps by at the far end of the hallway. That was this woman. Once her story was cut from the script, we are left to assume it is a ghost, but once we learn that he is "weak and wounded," we are left to assume it is Gordon roaming the halls.
I've seen this movie many, many times. I've also listened to the commentary a few times, as it's my favorite movie. Brad Anderson and crew did a fantastic job of creating a tense, "who-done-it" film set it an actual abandoned asylum that was demolished shortly after filming wrapped. While shooting Session 9, many of the film's crew and actors had strange feelings, heard voices and thought the building(s) to be truly haunted. Even the soundtrack was scary, full of dread and strange tape-warble and blips. I own the soundtrack, much of which was created on location by Anderson and crew dragging bass drums up and down the hallways, letting the asylum itself create it's own music.
So, in summation, it's both a ghost story and a psychological story. It doesn't have to be just one or the other. -
ulrik_sorte — 12 years ago(June 22, 2013 06:46 AM)
First of all I have to say this is one of my favorite movies, and I struggle to understand why people dislike this film. When it comes to all these theories I agree with OP about the medical condition being the basis for this movie. However, I never thought about Gordon being a former patient.
When watching the film with this in my back head, I noticed Gordon really seemed as is he had been there before. Firstly, his reaction when Bill explains hydra therapy tells me he could have some experience with it. And some minutes later, Bill tells Gordon to hold up, after Gordon just startet leading the way. This could be signs of him knowing the place. But then again, how could Phil not be aware of this after knowing Gordon a long time? If Gordon was thrown out in the 80's, it would have been over 10 years, so I guess its possible. -
MovieBeth — 12 years ago(June 25, 2013 02:02 PM)
There is nothing in this movie whatsoever that suggests that Gordon was ever a mental patient anywhere, let alone at this hospital. This theory is what some have come up with to try and explain his sudden madness, but I don't think we can legitimately project that as its not in the movie at all.
Hydrotherapy was not a treatment that was ever used during Gordon's lifetime. It was used in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century but discontinued once medications came on the scene, so its not something Gordon would have first hand knowledge.
Gordon was not in to Bill's reminiscing about the hospital's history. He was on the edge with his business which would have folded if he failed to get the asbestos contract to clean up Danvers. He wanted to get through the survey so he could make the deal with Bill; Gordon cut Bill off several times when he went off in to a tangent about the hospital. What was on Gordon's mind was the deal of his life since if didn't get that deal, his life would have crumbled around him. As it turned out, his life crumbled anyway because he made the deal.
The million dollar question is, why did it? Well, his life was on the edge because he was one deal of way from loosing his business and his livelihood. Also, he was sleep deprived because of daughter's earaches and her crying keeping him up at night for a very long time. These two things are reason enough for someone to crack and it happens all the time. Throw in the very bad vibe of the hospital, then, you have what happened. -
stranger_uk-1 — 12 years ago(November 12, 2013 07:36 PM)
While watching the movie I too thought one of them must have been a previous patient because of the way they brought up some of the patients sometimes returned but I believe the sub plot about the woman who used to be a patient was the reason for this. When this was taken out the viewer in trying to find a reason takes this as being the case especially because a character also says who would want to live here I would rather live on the streets and Gordon decides to live there when he has 'trouble' with his wife.
-
mandiapple — 12 years ago(July 05, 2013 03:33 PM)
If there was no supernatural element at play, then why was Gordon seemingly so attracted to the locales where Mary had been, such as her grave marker (above which he deliberately sat down), and later, why did he appear to move into her old room in the hospital? I read this as him being driven by the same entity which had been inside Mary, repeating its own history again and again within the hospital itself.
I like your theory, and I agree that Gordon and Mary both suffered from DID, but I do believe there was something else that Mary had brought with her from her home setting, to the hospital, and which had stayed there after her death, waiting for "the right kind of person" to come along. -
soo_z_g — 12 years ago(July 15, 2013 02:21 PM)
I'm not at all discounting your theory as a possibility. But do you realize that the Wikipedia summary of this movie says that Simon encourages Gordon to murder his wife and daughter? This movie is from 2001. If Wikipedia's summary was a true error that was provable by fact and correctable, wouldn't someone have requested it be changed by now? When I read the Wikipedia, I thought, well, I'm not certain it actually was Mary's same Simon who influenced Gordon, but it's certainly a good possibility. After all, the film is called Session 9, and Simon is introduced in Session 9. Why would the filmmakers choose that title if Mary's story wasn't clearly intertwined with the film's present events (and not just as an example of D.I.D.)? I think there is too much evidence that Gordon was influenced by Mary's Simon (as some of the other posters above have pointed out about the grave, etc.) to completely discount that theory. After all, Gordon wasn't listening to Mary's tapes. Mike was. Gordon didn't know anything about her. Why would he be drawn to her grave if there wasn't something supernatural pulling him there? I agree with Zando777, who said, the movie is about "the ambiguity and horror of mental illness, and how it parallels traditional tales of demonic possession. To the point where it's essentially impossible to distinguish between the two."
-
cinecephale — 12 years ago(December 09, 2013 10:17 PM)
I don't think it is a "ghost" in the traditional sense, but the film implies we are all able of the worst, that we are somehow haunted by something horrible that lies far in our inner worlds.
Gordon doesn't have multiple personalities, but Mary's story reveals something about him anyway, how he refuses to see what he has done. Simon could be his inner voice, like it is for the terrible things Mary has done. -
waterloggedfrog — 12 years ago(March 07, 2014 10:19 AM)
I think Simon was some kind of supernatural presence. For a few reasons: the generator always going out, the coins leading conveniently to the crematorium, the fact that Mike just so happens to find Mary's files in a gigantic hospital like that(having worked in several hospitals, I can say it's extremely difficult to find someones files on PURPOSE), also gordon just so happening to go bonkers as soon as they go to this hospital that also just so happens to have housed someone that went bonkers in a similar manner, gordon sitting right over mary's grave (out of like 700+ graves i think), at the end when asked where it resides simon says in the weak and wounded, also what are the odds that gordon coudl perform a lobotomy like that? I know mike gave a very crude explanation, but I find it kind of hard to believe that gordon could successfully perform one after hearing a seconds long description of the procedure. But that's not really here nor there, I think it's just probably something I need to suspend my disbelief for. Anyway, I find all these reasons to be compelling indications as to some type of supernatural involvement. Either that or they're just examples of poor/contrived writing. I think, however, the director has left it ambiguous on purpose and to say without a doubt that it is, in any way other than your opinion, one way or another would be presumptuous.
PS: About DID; I find a DID explanation almost as unrealistic as a supernatural one. I don't believe in the supernatural in real life, by the way. DID is extremely rare, so rare that whether or not it actually exists as it is popularly portrayed is a contentious subject. As far as I can tell, there has never been a DID-murderer or serial murderer. And how is Gordon's experience in keeping with DID etiology? Current literature speculates that it is most commonly found in young adults after an extremely stressful/traumatic experience. Gordon wasn't a young adult and the only thing traumatic he had experienced was the new addition to his family. Now I'm not trying to trivialize parenthood but I don't think that's a traumatic/stressful enough event to cause a heretofore stable man to turn into a cold, calculating psychopath. I also don't think Gordon was a former patient of the hospital. That would be an interesting twist, but I just don't see enough evidence to support it. Henry says that Gordon had been in the abestos business since before he came over here (to the US I think) and he does seem to have migrated from overseas because he had an accent. That's speculation, of course, because Henry might have been lying or Gordon might have been lying to him to cover up having stayed at the hospital.
So in conclusion I think you could convincingly argue for either side (supernatural or mental disorder), I think the supernatural explanation is a more fulfilling explanation. Maybe because I've seen too many DID scary movies here recently (Hide and seek, pandorum, identity, secret window, etc)and it frustrates me that writers just latch onto this extremely rare disorder and then blow its signs/symptoms way out of proportion . -
FourthYear — 12 years ago(March 11, 2014 08:44 AM)
That this conversation is still going strong 13 years after the movie's release is a testament to how well it was presented, how perfectly vague (or direct) it was, and how a movie's merit shouldn't be based on how shiny it is, how well acted by David Caruso, or by the box-office but how well
it sticks with you.
Carry on! -
reaseltbim — 12 years ago(March 28, 2014 10:07 PM)
The only thing that this post And this movie shows me is that the director of the movie is a HUGE troll.
This guy trolled everyone that ever watched this movie. If this movie is only about mental sickness then WHY on EARTH add so many creepy moments or moments that felt supernatural?
Why have Simon at the end be a different voice?
Why put SO much Emphasis on the opening of the box?
Why have the creepy whispers that some of the characters heard around?
Why have the electricity go off?
All those things were added to troll the hell of the audience. Is that simple.
He was making a movie about D.I.D but decided to mess with people watching it so he added all these other horror things just to confuse everyone.
the director is a troll, and anyone that got confused by the movie got trolled. -
kurt-2000 — 11 years ago(August 13, 2014 09:13 PM)
I agree with your comment: why have the electricity go off?
Point well taken, and I like that.
People get passionate about this film because it never got the recognition it deserved, and it's a very creative concept. The debate here is valid, and it's a great concept that's built into the writing and direction. Some films deserve more respect, and then there's some films that get too much attention. -
FourthYear — 11 years ago(April 09, 2014 04:47 AM)
The only thing that this post And this movie shows me is that the director of the movie is a HUGE troll.
the director is a troll, and anyone that got confused by the movie got trolled.
I disagree. I can see that logic for someone who sees two stories, but I probably watched
Session 9
five times before I even heard about IMDB. I never once considered this movie to have anything supernatural - I completely (and still do) consider it a movie about mental collapse. The supernatural view was first seen by me here.
So, to your point, the director is only a troll if
you
think he was trolling. I think he made a great, straight-ahead psychological horror. Art is interprative, and I'm not sure "trolling" existed in 2001, but I understand your point.
I'll always go back to this main point, though.
A movie about mental collapse amidst stress in an ominous setting: That's cool and unique.
A movie about getting possessed by an unseen force in an ominous setting: That's been done a hundred times before this. -
reaseltbim — 11 years ago(April 09, 2014 10:05 PM)
trolling because of all the shots and all the moments when it would make you think it was a ghost movie.
Moments where it made it seemed like there was a paranormal explanation behind some things. But what made me say "Trolling" Was the emphasis he gives of the opening of the box and the reactions of everyone in the place.
He chose to make the opening of the box a big deal and ever show how everyone reacted like something was wrong even if they were not in the same room or if they knew what was going on.
As well as the whispers and things like that. He definitely made at least a couple of shots to feel like there was something else going on