Painfully obvious in the first 10m what's going on *SPOILERS*
-
ZaZeus — 9 years ago(October 15, 2016 02:52 PM)
You caught early on that Elias was going to torture his mother and burn her alive due to his ongoing delusion about his dead brother? I sure didn't.
Actually part way through the film I also deduced that he was going to end up killing the mother. It just made sense. Lukas was obviously not alive anymore; the boy was delusional and the mother afraid of him. It's a horror movie, so that's the obvious next step. -
rocko90 — 10 years ago(January 01, 2016 08:02 PM)
Yeah. I knew as soon as she was ignoring him it was that generic twist yet again. I thought that it was going to be a different twist given how obvious it was like we thought Lukas was actually alive but was neglected sort of thing.
The movie was meh overall.
I apologize for any spelling/grammar mistakes. I'm on my phone 90% of the time. -
lavashop — 10 years ago(January 04, 2016 06:09 AM)
The horror is not in the revelation that there is no more Lukas.
The horror of the film is to be subjected to torture under someone so close to you.
To be so helpless in helping Elias, who is completely gone over the edge.
Elias brought his world to us and for a while, even the viewers believed it thoroughly.
That's the true horror. -
DarthSil — 9 years ago(June 20, 2016 09:38 AM)
I didn't catch the twist either. The film managed to get me so wrapped up in the other aspect of the story, I barely noticed the obvious.
Good movie.
"A little Consideration, a little Thought for Others, makes all the difference."
Eeyore -
TwoFourSixOOne — 9 years ago(July 06, 2016 07:19 PM)
I figured it out during the name game but it didn't make me enjoy the movie less. After figuring it out, I viewed the movie as Mama slowly losing her sanity dealing with the trauma of the accident and dealing with Elias' delusions. The only thing I didn't understand is how the mom didn't get Elias psychiatric help.
-
jonvena — 9 years ago(July 08, 2016 05:21 PM)
I didn't get why she would let both boys alone while spending a few days on a surgery and recovering from it. Even if only for 24 hours. Would anybody responsible mother let her children, 9 year olds, alone in an out-of-the-way countryside house with no one to babysit or look after them?
-
ashingtray — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 11:24 AM)
This movie was never about the twist that the other boy is dead.
The Director did made it obvious at the first place only the brother could see the brother and not anyone else. It was obvious in most shots, so it's obvious the Director wasn't hiding it.
The power of the movie OR if you call it the Twist is that the dead brother appears to be a real Ghost, and not his imagination, and it is reveal at the final act dialogue that the mom was playing along at first to imagine the dead brother was still there, and that got the alive brother confused, and thus he was convinced that the mother was fake, who just had a plastic surgery, who you can tell from the plot reveal that she might have done it due to her insecurity after the divorce and as a not-so-famous tv personality. The "accident" they have been referring at the scene where the mom was talking with the police was indicating the death of the other son.
This is one of those rare movies where I hated watching it at first, because I thought the same, why was it so obvious that the brother is not real, and I surely thought that the rest of the movie was boring because I already knew the twist.
But then i changed my mind at the end, when the movie reveal that Ghost are real, with the wide shot of the mom's spirit walking out from the house, thus the dead brother was real as a "ghost" and not an imagination of the alive brother.
I thought this was unique and brilliant, a movie where I thought I hate, but then changed my mind at the very end, and thought it was a brilliant film. Very rare such feeling I have for a film, thus I think this film is pretty innovative and unique on it's own. Definitely worth more than 6.7 stars! I give it an 8 atleast! -
Giraffe_Monster — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 11:57 AM)
I don't think Lukas was a "real" ghost
When they're fighting, they bose get a nosebleed.
They shower at the same time, and they're also both on the trampoline.
It's all in Elias' imagination, he's not actually there. It's just Elias' messed up psyche.
Fine, fine, I'll leave! But first I'm going to bother these peanuts! Hmm? Yes? Hmm? HMM? -
ashingtray — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 01:33 PM)
then how do you explain the last scene where the "ghost" of the mom appears and then reunite with the 2 children?
there is no point of the Director to reveal "ghost" at the end of the movie if his intention wasn't to reveal the 'real' twist, that ghost exist in the world of his movie.
he purposely made it obvious for everyone to know that the boy is already dead at the beginning of the movie.
the reason why i like this film so much is because like most everyone here, i thought i was clever enough to spot that the boy was already dead and it was all the other's boy imagination. but dialogue at the last act of the movie reveal that the mom at first play along with the alive brother, asthough the dead brother is still there, which messes up the alive brother's logical sense when the mom no longer wants that, which made the alive brother paranoid of the mom. I don't even think the dead brother knows he is dead, because dialogue reveals that he is also sad that the mom refuses to talk to him. This is a very interesting setup that Director has made to the film.
Just because the Ghost bleed doesn't make it an imagination. If imagination can be physical "nosebleed" why not ghost? Is imagination more physical than Ghost? -
Giraffe_Monster — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 03:44 PM)
Just because there's a "ghost" doesn't mean that people in the movie can't suffer from mental health issues, right?
The mother's spirit is there to show that she was the first to die in the fire, and she exits the house.
Later on, Elias (now dead as well) joins his mother and his brother in death.
Elias was imagining Lukas because that's the only way he had to cope with his loss.
The whole movie is about messed up ways of dealing with grief: the Mother turned herself to plastic surgery, and neglected Elias. Elias, because he had no one to look after him, retreated into a fantasy where his brother was still alive, but clearly it's always been Elias battling against himself.
Besides, your theory is flawed: why is Elias the only one able to see Lukas? Why can't the mother see him too, since they're all related? But that's not all.
You're saying that Elias is the only one who can see Lukas as a ghost, and we only see Lukas when Elias is around.
Then, how come we, the audience, can see the Mother in the end if there's no character there "watching her"? Elias is in the burning house, so
Fine, fine, I'll leave! But first I'm going to bother these peanuts! Hmm? Yes? Hmm? HMM? -
ashingtray — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 07:22 PM)
Just because there's a "ghost" doesn't mean that people in the movie can't suffer from mental health issues, right?
Same goes with if someone have mental health issue doesn't mean they can't see ghost no? Nobody says anything of the boy not having mental health issue, yes, he does have mental health issue, but it's because of the influences from the ghost brother.
The mother's spirit is there to show that she was the first to die in the fire, and she exits the house. Later on, Elias (now dead as well) joins his mother and his brother in death.
There's no shot that supports that anyone else is burned from death besides the mom. And it's obvious the wide external shot of her walking out, she's heading to look for someone. If she was the first to die, she would just wait outside the house and for the ghost sons to come out, and she wouldn't walk towards left of the frame, exit frame, and then we cut to the boys running in the fields. Cinematically the sequence of shots are to more leading audience that the Mom is leaving the house to look for somebody. If it was as you describe the Mom dies, ghost comes out, the children dies, ghost come out, the shot should follow by the kids running out from the house after the mom comes out, rather than cutting to the fields sequence where the kids are already outside, then introduce the shot of the mom coming to the fields.
The whole movie is about messed up ways of dealing with grief: the Mother turned herself to plastic surgery, and neglected Elias. Elias, because he had no one to look after him, retreated into a fantasy where his brother was still alive, but clearly it's always been Elias battling against himself.
Even that is true, it's not what we are discussing about, we are discussing about whether Lukas is a real ghost or an imagination of Elias. If it was an imagination of Elias, and supposed to be the twist at the end then the filmmaker is too dull to hide it, which if you look back at the movie, all the shots the Director was clearly illustrating that Lukas was definitely not seen by others, which the Director wanted everyone to clearly know that, and not wait for that twist to reveal. The clear twist which the end shot of the mother's ghost is to shock the audience that "ghost" are real. When the Director shows the last 2 sequence of "GHOST" it immediately gives the audience that "GHOST" are real in this movie, why would he do that only at the end? Because that is the twist. A mere imagination of Elias was what is obvious to EVERYONE, thanks to all the other movies such as Sixth Sense and The Others to educate us, which the Director clearly knows, so he adds on the third layer, the psychology of a boy who could see Ghost, and encouraged by the Adults, who then backouts from it, confuses the boy of what is real or not real anymore, that leads to the misunderstanding of the mom not being the real mom. This is an update version of the similar theme of Sixth Sense and The Others which is good. Imagine, this is the intention of the Director; he wanted you guys to think this is just another Sixth Sense and The Others type of film, but with a NEW twist.
Besides, your theory is flawed: why is Elias the only one able to see Lukas? Why can't the mother see him too, since they're all related? But that's not all.
Twins are known to have a strong bond, even when one dies, that explains the stronger connection as compared to the mom.
You're saying that Elias is the only one who can see Lukas as a ghost, and we only see Lukas when Elias is around.
Then, how come we, the audience, can see the Mother in the end if there's no character there "watching her"? Elias is in the burning house, so
Duhh.. because clearly the rules of the filmmaker's world in this movie is that Audiences CAN see Ghost. Audiences as the Judge, we see ALL. In every movie, the filmmaker have to set the rules of the World in the movie, in this case, Audiences can see Ghost, that explains why after death of the Mom, she becomes a Ghost, where we can see it too, as how we had been seeing Lukas. Think about it, why would the Director finally reveal the Mother's Ghost? For abstract reason? That would be so amateurish filmmaker to end a film, in an abstract way.. So nope, the Germans are innovative filmmakers, they make film that reaches a higher artistic value for very good reason, and I strongly believe the last 2 sequence of the mom's ghost clearly ellaborate to us that all this while the Ghost of Lukas was real, and you can't blame Elias for acting how he was and suspicious of the mom, especially when another person lied/told him at first that they could see Lukas as well. If only the mom didn't play along at first and told Elias that Lukas is not there, then he might not have misunderstood or suspect the Mom was not the real Mom. Elias and Lukas ghost were too affected by the thought of "Every Mom knows". -
Giraffe_Monster — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 02:10 PM)
There's no shot that supports that anyone else is burned from death besides the mom.
Yes, there is. In the end, when the twins get back together with the mom, and when she starts to sing, all of them are dead already.
The very last shot, after this, is the embers/flames in the air, from the fire, which hints at the fact that everyone died in the fire.
Besides, if you pay attention to the lyrics that the mother sings, it makes it all EXTREMELY obvious, something about God watching over them in heaven, or something like that.
They're all dead in the end, that much is 100% obvious.
If she was the first to die,
she would just wait outside
the house and for the ghost sons to come out
No, she wouldn't, because she's not a real ghost. She leaves the house, and leaves the frame because it's all
symbolism
: it means that the mother has died and has
moved on from the plane of the living
. That's why she exits the frame, towards a place that we can't see, offscreen.
If it was as you describe the Mom dies, ghost comes out, the children dies, ghost come out, the shot should follow by the kids running out from the house after the mom comes out, rather than cutting to the fields sequence where the kids are already outside, then introduce the shot of the mom coming to the fields.
Again,
no
because what we're seeing aren't "real" ghosts.
When the mother exits the house, we're still seeing what's "real", with the firefighters putting the fire out and all that. That's reality.
Do you know why the sequence cuts, instead, to the fields? Because when the movie started, Elias was playing by himself, pretending that his brother was there, alive and playing with him.
In the end, we go back to the same scenario because now both brothers are dead, and they join their mother in death. Only in the end do we see them together after they died. During the course of the movie, Lukas is purely imagined, and the mother coming out of the house is purely symbolic.
Even that is true,
it's not what we are discussing about
, we are discussing about whether Lukas is a real ghost or an imagination of Elias. If it was an imagination of Elias, and supposed to be the twist at the end then the filmmaker is too dull to hide it, which if you look back at the movie, all the shots the Director was clearly illustrating that Lukas was definitely not seen by others, which the Director wanted everyone to clearly know that, and not wait for that twist to reveal. The clear twist which the end shot of the mother's ghost is to shock the audience that "ghost" are real.
That's exactly what we're talking about here.
You're right about one thing; the twist of the movie isn't the fact that Lukas was dead all along. Like you said, during the whole movie it's made pretty obvious by pretty much ALL the shots that something is wrong.
What keeps the viewer guessing, though, is the following question: "wait, is it the brother that's messed up, or is something really going on with the mother?"
However, I can guarantee you this: the "mother's ghost" isn't the twist, either. For one, A LOT of people completely missed that on their first viewing. Do you really think that the supposed "twist" would be something easy to miss?
What would be the point, then? If the viewer misses the twist, he will feel like he invested all his time in the movie for nothing. Twists are supposed to be obvious and right in your face, especially if they come up at the very end of the movie.
The "ghost" thing is not the twist.
It's actually the exact opposite
.
The twist of this movie is simply the fact that there was NOTHING supernatural going on. The twist is that this is in fact a very real and tragic story.
The mother was the "real" mother all along, and all this happened because both Mother and child didn't know how to cope with their grief.
Have you seen/read the interviews where the directors discuss the movie, the themes, and everything else? Like I said, the whole point of this movie is DEATH, and how people face it in different ways, and how it messes them up and the others around them:- Elias refuses to admit that Lukas is dead, and descends into an unhealthy obsession;
- the Mother, after the accident and divorce, turns to plastic surgery to hide the toll that it has taken on her, and in the process she neglects her son.
That's all there is to it. Think about it. Don't take me wrong, but for a movie like this to have the twist being "omg, ghosts are real in this world!" is pretty dumb and does absolutely nothing for the story.
This story isn't about spirits, ghosts, supernatural things or alternate realities where ghosts are a real thing. That's not what this movie is, that's not the movie that the directors wanted to make. This movie is as "real" as it can get.
And like I said previously, it's all made extremely obvious that Lukas is all part of Elias's imagination: - that's why "they" get the same bloody nose (Elias was struggling physically against himself);
- that's why they're always do
-
ashingtray — 9 years ago(October 11, 2016 04:22 AM)
Yes, there is. In the end, when the twins get back together with the mom, and when she starts to sing, all of them are dead already.
How is this shot support that they are "burned", it only shows they are dead, but not burned. Our debate is whether the two children were "burned" along with the mom.
The very last shot, after this, is the embers/flames in the air, from the fire, which hints at the fact that everyone died in the fire.
Again, No, it only indicates the house is burned, still nothing to support that the two kids are burned along with the mom. This similar question has been discussed several times here, so proves again, there is no solid shots that lead to the point that the kids were burned.
Besides, if you pay attention to the lyrics that the mother sings, it makes it all EXTREMELY obvious, something about God watching over them in heaven, or something like that.
They're all dead in the end, that much is 100% obvious.
Yes they might all be dead, but back to the main debate; was Lukas just an imagination of Elias or Lukas was a real ghost?
No, she wouldn't, because she's not a real ghost. She leaves the house, and leaves the frame because it's all symbolism: it means that the mother has died and has moved on from the plane of the living. That's why she exits the frame, towards a place that we can't see, offscreen.
Oh-wait, so now you are saying even the mom is not a Ghost? Just a symbolism that the Director trying to illustrate? Hhaha, maybe all ghost movies, all ghosts are not 'real' ghosts but symbolism of the directors!
Do you know why the sequence cuts, instead, to the fields? Because when the movie started, Elias was playing by himself, pretending that his brother was there, alive and playing with him.
In the end, we go back to the same scenario because now both brothers are dead, and they join their mother in death. Only in the end do we see them together after they died. During the course of the movie, Lukas is purely imagined, and the mother coming out of the house is purely symbolic.
Duhh Begining movie- Ending movie- same scenario, that's like basic film school theory. But that's not the point, you keep saying all these elements leading that the both brothers are dead, which are not strongly supported but just of you merely saying it. So Lukas is an imagination and Mother at the end is Symbolism? Then what is Elias at the end? Both? And Lukas? Is he now still an imagination at the end or has morph into symbolism just like his mom?
Another scene to support the fact that Lukas is not a mere imagination; remember the scene where one of the boys spied at the mom, and when the mom woke up, the boy quickly ran back to his room and hide by the wall, and as the mom comes in to check on him, she opens the door, and we see one of her sons in the bed sleeping, and another by the wall. So clearly the one that she could see is Elias on the bed and Lukas is by the wall.
So now, according to your theory if Lukas is the imagination of Elias, that means his imagination of Lukas has manifest into a physical form and spied at his mom, and then remains a manifestation by hiding by the wall as he sleeps on the bed as his mom checks on him?
Doesn't this scene feels redundant then, cause it's the only scene where Elias imagines his brother walking around without him while he is sleeping? So it's a dream? Please don't tell me it's a dream, just because there was one dream sequence, that would be the easy way out to explain things, and I wouldn't think the directors would put in so much trouble to craft this scene if not to illustrate the 2 brothers exist as separate forms.
Check out this frame again to remind yourself:
http://fgmxi4acxur9qbg31y9s3a15.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/assets/uploads/goodnightmommy1000_4_.jpg
It clearly means that she is dead, and is "moving on", hence why she exits the frame, which is supposed to represent the "real world", and crosses over to the other side.
Whatever you called it, ghost or symbolic, or even a Spirit, clearly the movie illustrates a world where when a person dies "The Mom", they manifest into some physical form where audiences can see, so why not that Lukas has always been a person who has died and is manifest into physical form where audiences/Elias(because of his twin bond) can see, aka Ghost? The interesting part is the last symbolic scene as you have described, that shows the audiences the Mom in a surreal existensial form, that it is possible in the movie, that makes one question so Lukas is not a mere imagination but a real ghost that Elias could see, thus it has made this movie so much more interesting of the psychological state of Elias who has been confused by existence of his brother, that lead to the misunderstood of his mom not being the real mom because the mom agreed at first that she could see him. This to me is so much more interesting.
That's funny, because the directors aren't German they're Austrians.
Opps-yea my bad.
Anyway do consider reading the -
The_Yellow_Wallpaper — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 11:07 PM)
I don't think it was meant to be a 'twist.' I don't understand why people are so proud of themselves for 'figuring out' a movie.
If the plot is deliberately explained in the script in the first ten or so minutes of a film, it's not a twist.
everyone deserves one good scare.
