Clearing something up - D.I.D, Simon and the ghost story.
-
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 -
Foxbarking — 11 years ago(June 09, 2014 02:52 PM)
As far as the plot of the movie, I agree with you. It is clear to me that this movie is not supernatural. Your assessment makes sense that Gordon had to be a former patient in the asylum due to the deja vu moments, the pictures of his family, and the others. I agree with you assessment of the plot, but not on your assessment of DID.
I would encourage you to read this:
Sinason, V. (2012).
Trauma, dissociation and multiplicity: Working on identity and selves.
New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group
and if you don't have access to it in a library:
http://psychcentral.com/lib/dispelling-myths-about-dissociative-identity-disorder/0009785/2
First, one of the main reasons it was changed from multiple personality disorder to dissociative identity disorder is that the personalities are not distinct and separate personalities as Hollywood would like you to believe. They are generally distinct emotional states of the same personality. The states generally have the entire complexity of a certain emotion. For example, one state may be the only one that expresses any anger. Because the subject was unable to deal with things angrily, those emotions were diverted into a different state. Technically all of the "personalities" are simply different states of the same person. It is a therapist's job to integrate those emotional states into one complete being.
Gordon does not remember his agressive actions - also something DID patients do. The ''wake up'' part.
This is Hollywood hogwash and has no bearing in documented cases of DID.
Furthermore this movie has "Simon" or Gordon's "Simon" telling Mary and himself to commit violent crimes. A DID patient will never suddenly gain a memory that was hidden by a different personality or state. If the personality or state was unaware of the memory when it happened, they would remain unaware, generally even if the identities are integrated. But even if they do, the identities have to be integrated through therapy and it would not spontaneously happen as it seems to have happened with Gordon. This is completely unrelated to DID and someone showing such symptoms would be more likely diagnosed with schizophrenia. The whole point of dissociative identities seems to be to create different states of personality that are capable of dealing with emotions that the other personalities are incapable of dealing with. If Simon is indeed a dissociative identity, then he would be the identity that is able to deal with the violent nature the other identities are unable to deal with. That alone would preclude Simon from telling Mary to hurt anyone, because he would not exist if she were capable of doing so. Simon would be doing the violent acts himself without any input from the other identities.
Therefore, this may not be supernatural, but it is anything but a textbook case of DID. -
StarryEyedGreen — 10 years ago(August 05, 2015 05:19 PM)
What I really like about
Session 9
is, aside from the creepy score and great acting, it's mysteriousness and ambiguity, so I don't see the need for one right theory.
However, I believe the supernatural element does exist in the story and much of the "evidence" written above for this are excellent. I'd like to point out on a less serious note that the supernatural theories are presented more politely
I have seen the supernatural, specifically demonic, and psychological elements intermixed in a movie before, for example
The Excorcism of Emily Rose
.
The two elements can coincide because- possession and mental illness can sometimes be confused for the other,
- the vulnerable and exposed state mental illness can possibly lead to higher risk of possession
In
Session 9
, Mary has three alters and one of them only presents himself to the doctor in
Session 9
of Mary's meetings with him, and I agree with excellent supernatural theorists above that Simon is possibly a separate and evil entity (demon) that causes Mary, and then Gordon to murder people.
-
eire1975 — 10 years ago(September 23, 2015 01:43 PM)
There is a logical an rational reason for the electricity going off. It's an old building with an old wiring scheme. Old buildings + old panels+ large electrical equipment= electricity going out. I own an old bank building, our panel is old, when I have too many things plugged in, the same thing happens. The outdated panel can't handle the current load. I'm kind of shocked (pun not intended, well maybe a little) nobody brought that up yet.
-
NorthernLad — 10 years ago(October 09, 2015 11:51 AM)
Nah, I'll go on believing what I want to believe regardless of what you say. It was supernatural. Simon even tells us at the end that this is the case and this isn't the first time he has stepped in when he says, "They always dothey always do." Of course he's referring to his victims letting him take control.
I gotta go feed that thing in Room 33. -
beierfilms — 10 years ago(November 17, 2015 06:47 PM)
It's interesting to me how some get strangely angry at any mention of the supernatural. Honestly, the OP is "shocked and appalled" that someone might have a different interpretation of a film which works pretty hard to allow for multiple interpretations. There's a lot of films with ambiguity to them yet I'm not "appalled" when someone has a different interpretation of the top at the end of Inception than I do.
I wonder if people who seem to have such an extreme reaction are perhaps bringing in their own personal vendettas against the supernatural into their viewing of the film. I'm only speculating but I've often seen die-hard skeptics to be as radical as fundamentalist Christians in their unwillingness to listen to other ideas.
I'm not saying I believe that one has to believe there's a supernatural element to this film. I'm only saying that it's obvious the filmmakers intended there to be more than one way for the film to be taken. The only "wrong" interpretation is the belief that there's only one interpretation for the movie.
There's a well known novella called
The Turn of the Screw
(and a great film adaptation retitled
The Innocents
) which had a similar controversy surrounding it. Without spoiling too much, half of the readers of the story leave with the impression that it's a story about a haunting and the other half believe it's a story about protagonist going slowly insane. Most modern critics have since become content that the story wants us to consider both options and decide for ourselves. That's what makes that story interesting and that's what makes Session 9 interesting.
I personally wouldn't have been so captivated by a film had it been a movie about a former mental patient who goes crazy again and murders his family. I also would not have been so captivated by the film if it had been just a story of a haunted hospital. The movie is interesting because it walks the line between these interpretations and that uncertainty gives it a level of real terror. -
NorthernLad — 10 years ago(March 14, 2016 10:32 PM)
It's interesting to me how some get strangely angry at any mention of the supernatural. Honestly, the OP is "shocked and appalled" that someone might have a different interpretation of a film which works pretty hard to allow for multiple interpretations. There's a lot of films with ambiguity to them yet I'm not "appalled" when someone has a different interpretation of the top at the end of Inception than I do.
I wonder if people who seem to have such an extreme reaction are perhaps bringing in their own personal vendettas against the supernatural into their viewing of the film. I'm only speculating but I've often seen die-hard skeptics to be as radical as fundamentalist Christians in their unwillingness to listen to other ideas.
Thank you! So well put! You know I personally don't care if they chose to believe the issue in the movie is more organic, more of a matter of Gordon's mental instability. Yes, I can see that as a point of view and I think it's one of many facets that makes this movie great. There are different ways of looking at it and it only makes the movie more entertaining to me.
I just don't like it when these people close out all possibilities. I for one believe there to be a supernatural cause. And I also agree with you about the personal vendetta argument. I have a friend who is almost religiously atheist. It's bizarre at how devout she is about it. She went as far to argue that The Exorcist had no supernatural theme whatsoever, it was all mental instability. This of course is nonsense.
Anyway, I digress, but I've noticed this same pattern in these posts. It can't be supernatural related and how dare you even suggest such a thing! Such a shame to be so closed minded.
American Horror Story Season 6: Donald Trump