Nothing brings ‘em in like a promise to host a study group on Session 9. It’s not that I think I’m some kind of authority on movies (well, not much) but I wasn’t completely confused by this and I could see how someone might be.This actually began life as a different post. I found some very angry discussions on a message board with flaming between the “Simon as entity” and “Simon as alter” people; the alter people were the angrier ones for the most part, and I wondered why, so I put up a post asking someone to come over and explain. Nobody did, but that led to me getting a ton of hits for “Session 9 explain.” So this post was born, which doesn’t go with most of the rest of the blog, but it is the post that gets the most hits. Lots of people see Session 9 for the first time every single day!
I’m going to presume I know what the key misunderstandings are but it’s impossible to cover the whole movie without sitting beside you and explaining it as it goes. It’s incredibly complex for a haunted house movie, which is due in part to the fact that the director, Brad Anderson, competently makes other movies besides genre movies. He’s looking to tell a story here, and this one happens to be scary, but he also did a delightful indie romantic dramedy called Next Stop Wonderland which I’ve watched even more times than I’ve watched Session 9. Okay, movie art and then the list of spoilers.
10. Simon possesses Gordon the first time Gordon goes to Danvers. We know this because the voice we hear say “Hello, Gordon,” during his first walkthrough is the same voice we hear when Simon speaks on the 9th tape of Mary’s sessions with the doctor.
9. Right after Gordon goes home from successfully bidding on the job, on Friday, his wife spills a pot of boiling water on his leg which makes him stab her and the baby to death. Gordon then dissociates, meaning his personality splits into alters and the person he is when he is at work doesn’t know the person who killed his family and who continues to roam the asylum at night.
8. As Gordon is getting out of the car to go kill his family, the camera does a close up on the jar of peanut butter in his bag. Hank (Josh Lucas) sees the same jar of peanut butter on the floor when he goes in after hours to steal the rare coins. This is a clue to who has lobotomized Hank. Gordon.
7. Gordon has been staying at the asylum since Friday.
6. The coins and jewelry Hank finds are from the crematorium, which means he has found his “fortune” by combing through cremains. Ew.
5. Phil (David Caruso) really does talk to Amy, who really does think Hank ran off to Miami.
4. When Mike is listening to the tapes and the film cuts to Gordon in the patient cemetery, Gordon is standing right over Mary’s grave.
3. When Craig comes in to replace Hank on Friday, everyone in the crew is already dead (except Hank, who is barely hanging on to life but lobotomized.) Gordon killed Jeff, Mike and Phil the day before, on Thursday, after Phil found Hank. The Phil we see on Friday is merely Gordon’s hallucination, the part of Gordon’s mind who knows he killed the others and attacked Hank. We know this because Phil disappears when Craig comes in, and Craig says “who are you talking to.” Then Craig is killed by Gordon when he notices Hank lying on the floor. We then see Gordon flash back to the killings the day before as well as the memory of killing his family on the previous Friday. However, Gordon, like Mary, immediately forgets again, because his mind can’t handle what happened, and that’s why we see him trying to call his wife on the phone again.
2. Phil’s problem with Hank is a red herring. Gordon definitely lobotomized Hank, because we see that scene as part of Gordon’s flashbacks on Friday. The red herring is strong, because even the imaginary Phil who talks to Gordon on Friday still is made to seem a little guilty at first. Perhaps Gordon himself believes Phil attacked Hank until he has the realization in flashbacks of all that he himself has done. The argument over calling Amy on Thursday is probably because tensions are so high and Phil doesn’t realize just how far gone Gordon is, so Phil gets frustrated at the suspicion being turned on him. He and Gordon are old friends, so Phil doesn’t quite understand that he can’t reason with Gordon anymore; also, he is confused because he thought Hank was in Miami. Certainly if he realized that Gordon was about to snap and kill everyone he would have backed off and handled the situation with more care.
1. The film is deliberately ambiguous on the nature of Simon. I think Mary had a split personality and Gordon did too, but the taped voice of Mary as Simon matching the voice Gordon hears makes me think Simon possessed them both. A lot of people think Simon was not an evil entity, but an alter. With that interpretation Mary’s story on the tapes was only supposed to be a clue to what happened to Gordon.
P.S. I don’t know what the backstory is on this video, but these guys liked the scene where Phil says “fuck you” so much that they re-enacted it and you can watch it here on YouTube. If you just got through watching Session 9 you can likely use a little humor.
And here is David Caruso saying it:
Edit: May 2011
If there is anything in particular people don’t understand that I haven’t brought up I’d love to know what it is. Maybe we can figure it out together. initforthekills@yahoo.com
P.S. April 2012
Thanks to reader Charles C. for giving us a link to deleted scenes which confirm that Simon was to have been an evil entity, and his take on why the movie is better for having been left ambiguous by the exclusion of these scenes:
Simon’s parting words that he “lives in the weak and wounded” tell us quite a bit, as both those descriptors fit Mary and Gordon (quite literally, in the “wounded” aspect). This fits well with Mary’s role in the deleted moments: Simon no longer lives in Mary because she has grown beyond her weakness, ultimately confronting Simon and killing his current manifestation.
As you said, they wanted to be ambiguous, and the deleted moments do seem to be beating you over the head telling you it’s a malignant spirit. I think there’s a fair amount of support for that idea without a “freed” Mary returning, so maybe that’s why they were removed. They don’t explain why she was presumed dead either – perhaps that’s another reason the extended ending was cut.
Nov 8 2012 – In the screen grab below, check out this awesome bit of foreshadowing that reader Khaotikai pointed out! This text (“Suddenly it’s going to dawn on you”) can be seen in the patient room that Bill shows Gordon and Phil when they first visit the hospital to bid on the job. This is where Bill explains that the patients are allowed to decorate their rooms in a collage as a form of therapy. Also, I watched the entire movie again today after finding the screenshot and clarified a few things in the original explanation. That’s the fun of a blog! It’s a living document. Thanks to Khaotikai and to everyone who continues to contribute to the discussion.
Alex said:
I love this explanation.. makes sense with everything I noticed. the phil character definitely muddied the water as he had a very obvious hidden agenda that often conflicted with Gordon’s role as the group leader. The only part I’m not completely sold on, is the idea that they’d all been killed already and the last day was imagined. some of the scenes were very personal and did not involve Gordon, so it’s harder to believe that they were imagined by Gordon. Thanks.
Wednesday's Child said:
No, the last day was Friday. They were killed on Thursday, and Phil was a hallucination on Friday. Hank wasn’t dead yet, but lying on the floor lobotomized. Thursday is the day you’re thinking of, where the conversations were too personal to have been imagined.
Michelle Mien said:
You did a good job on explanation, it helped me understood the movie a lot. But I wondered how Gordon did not get caught after he killed his wife and child, I meant many days have passed already and no any cops show up and investigate about the murder, which is unbelievable. And does the ending means Gordon was locked in a madhouse already?
Wednesday's Child said:
I don’t think the question of why the cops weren’t called was addressed. I do agree it seems unlikely that nobody would either miss them or discover the bodies. All we really know is that he killed them the day he successfully bid on the job and that he was staying on the asylum property after that. At the end we see that he has put up pictures of his family on the wall in one of the old patient rooms during his time squatting there. A lot of things about the ending of the movie are purposely ambiguous and I know you’re not the first to think Gordon may have already been locked up. Thanks for commenting.
goaliegrrl said:
I think Simon is neither an alter nor an evil entity (that is, an evil-for-evil’s sake, person-possessing demon), but the universal embodiment of the fact that all humans are capable of snapping and committing horrific acts. It brings to bear that none of us are immune, from little girls to loving husbands.
It never occurred to me that the last day might be imagined. I always assumed Gordon had finished his grisly work and then Craig showed up sometime later the same day. Did I miss something?
Thank you for clarifying the point of dissociation. It makes it so much easier to put Gordon’s behavior in perspective thinking of it in terms of a definitive moment, rather than a progressive, slippery slope.
One of the creepiest things for me is that little three-note twitter Gordon hears (i.e., looking down from the roof/as he sits on the fallen tree talking to “Wendy”). To me, it’s like, “Cuckoo! Cuckoo!” I think maybe it symbolizes Gordon’s rational mind (whatever is left of it) trying bridge the psychic rift, to inform him that he’s lost his marbles, paving the way for Gordon to realize what he’s done..
Wednesday's Child said:
Gordon killed everyone but Hank on Thursday, the day before Craig came in, and the Phil that was still walking around and talking on the day Craig came was only in Gordon’s mind. Also, I never noticed the cuckoo but I’m sure that it was intentional and symbolic. Excellent find on your part there.
Jon said:
But if Simon isn’t a literal entity, how do you account for Gordon hearing him say, “Hello Gordon” when he first walks into the asylum? I suppose you could interpret it as a figurative film-making technique–that the director was metaphorically implying that the same disorder that affected Mary was beginning to affect Gordon. Personally, I prefer the evil-spirit theory. Strictly from a storytelling perspective, I don’t like the idea of a regular, innocent guy going crazy and chopping up his friends and family. It’s just depressing and doesn’t really teach me anything. I find the idea of an ambiguous demon much more intriguing.
Wednesday's Child said:
I’m also more comfortable with demons than a human killer, at least in terms of my movie enjoyment/level of disturbance!
Maxson said:
I know I’m late to the party here, but I think Gordon being a “regular, innocent guy” who goes insane is precisely what the filmmakers were going for. There is very rarely such a thing as an inherently evil, murderous villain in the real world, if such a thing exists at all. Life wears on us, shapes us, bends us, and sometimes breaks us. I think the look on Gordon’s wife’s face as he stares at her from his van betrays a certain weariness and sadness, even though she strains a smile for him before walking back inside. Their life wasn’t perfect; we know that Gordon was hurting for money. So Gordon was unhappy before he murdered his family, and this unhappiness, this weakness, made him susceptible to the Simon “virus,” if you will. In this sense I prefer the “alter” interpretation of Simon. Simon represents the culmination of the evil that can fester within any of us given the right kind of pain and sadness over time. The last line of the movie delivered by Simon reinforces this idea.
Priya said:
I completely agree with you and I think the writer/director tried to highlight how Gordon’ transformation was an extreme one. I recall Hank telling Gordon’s nephew that Gordon was the zen master of calm, noone had ever seen him freak out. I think it was meant to signify precisely what you said, “none of us are immune, from little girls to loving husbands”.
kp said:
I loved the way this movie unraveled and made one think deeper into the movie; wasn’t just another slasher movie. I believe that ‘Simon’ was an evil entity. to support the facts above I also want to point out that the first time he was at the asylum he heard a voice. this is the first time that we know of, that Gordon started to hear the voice. he heard this voice before his wife spilled boiling water on him to trigger his killing spree. he heard the voice during a time when he was not under any immediate stress or pain, like when he had the boiling water spilled on him. I believe this is supporting evidence to the fact that he was possessed and didn’t just have a mental breakdown. there was no reason for him to hear voices at that time except if from a spirit like entity.
Wednesday's Child said:
Yes, exactly. He heard the voice of Simon the first time he went to the asylum, and then he went home and killed his wife. I read that the filmmaker wanted it to be more clear that it was an entity, but changed the movie later to make it ambiguous, and therefore more interesting. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Koren said:
Well, he was under the immediate stress of having his business go under if he didn’t get the job. Losing your job is all the more stressful for a man when they have a new baby to support. I think that was his ‘weakened state’ in where Simon took over.
Jessie said:
Thanks for the explanation, the movie seems more clear now…. One of those I’d like to watch over to look at things while they’re happening, knowing the outcome. My only confusion was Mike’s character was not well defined, I wonder why he was so obsessive about listening to the tapes, merely because his father was the state attorney? Doesn’t seem very rational I wonder what his motive or intentions were.
Wednesday's Child said:
I wonder about Mike too. He was played by the guy who wrote the script, so maybe he just wrote himself in as a way to communicate the information on the tapes to us by playing them, even though it didn’t make sense for the character.
Definitely he seemed like he felt bad about not finishing law school, and his heart may not have been in the manual labor he was doing (which is why he was sloughing off listening to the tapes instead of working).
Maybe he represented a triumph of evil over the intellect, because he was the egghead of the group and was perhaps compelled to listen to the tapes by Simon. Also, intellectuals like Mike had debunked the satanic panic abuse stories, but then here was a real demon in the asylum having the last laugh.
Maybe he could have done more to help with the Gordon situation if he had been paying attention, but he didn’t seem to want to get involved with the dynamic between Gordon and David Caruso’s character. In that way he could have been a nod to the bystander effect, when people realize something is going very wrong but they think someone else will deal with it? This is such a complicated movie.
Sean said:
Actually because Mike was so intelligent as well as intuitive, the entity known as Simon purposely distracted him. If you remember when he went to fix the breaker for the first time it was as if an unseen force was directing him into the room and then of course to the evidence box of Mary’s case;(i.e. by flashing the lights from his lamp). This also is further evidence that Simon is an entity of some sort and not just another alter ego. I must say i thoroughly enjoyed the simple subtleties in this movie, it made it more of a mystery. It is definitely a refreshing change of pace from the obvious possession movies and blood/gore slasher movies they keep pumping out.
John said:
I have watched this film twice and one theme that hasn’t been touched on is the possibility that Gordon, in his earlyer years, was in fact a patient at Danvers and was turned out onto society in a not so ready state? Mabey he actually knew Mary and had bonded with her?. His standing by her grave, bits of the past comming back to him. Trying to sort out the past from the present, his mind crumbeling apart. Mary killed her family, Gordon kills his. Mabey theres a tie in between the boiling water on the stove, in a stainless steal pott, that his wife spilled on him and the hot baths they forced on patients in the stainless steel baths that are shown in the film. Gordon couldn’t handel it on the outside, and needed the job not so much for the money but to go home Danvers and the security he had when he was there?
Wednesday's Child said:
I suppose it’s possible that the character had such a backstory, but wouldn’t his nephew have known about it?
Layla said:
But his nephew also didn’t know that his aunt was dead because he asked Gordon how she was doing when they sat on the tree.
Wednesday's Child said:
For reasons that aren’t clear, nobody knows she is dead. Somehow he killed his wife and child on Friday and went and stayed in the asylum for a week without getting caught.
Sean said:
The sad thing is this stuff really does happen in the real world. People kill entire families and then live in the house with the dead bodies for weeks before anyone notices. I really don’t find it to be that far fetched for it to have gone unnoticed for only a week, now if it was a month then yea id have to call BS on that.
frieswketchup said:
What did Mary do that was so bad? Did she kill someone? Were those scars on her chest from falling on a broken doll or whatever??
Wednesday's Child said:
Yes. She got the doll for Christmas and her brother got the knife. Her brother caused her to fall on her doll, which explains the scars, and then Simon took over and made her stab her brother and their parents to death.
Jacob said:
What about the guys who we see Phil talking to?
Nice explanation, btw. Thanks
Wednesday's Child said:
I think they are there in the story to add to Phil’s red herring status. Also, they are probably either bothersome kids he had to run off (as he explained they were, even though that makes us suspicious as intended), or they are his pot dealers. Seriously, he had to be getting it somewhere, unless he was growing it, and why not buy from punk kids, because the older you get the fewer people you know who still smoke. Thanks for reading, and come visit again!
Sean Anderson said:
Yeah, the two guys talking to Phil were pot dealers. It only makes sense that he was smoking pot by himself (hiding it) and at first didn’t wanna talk about why he was talking to the two young kids.
I love yer explanation about what actually happened. I stumbled across this website right after seeing the movie because I didn’t know what actually happened. If you listen to Mary’s tapes all of her altars sounds like Mary, but just doing other voices. However, the Simon character is obviously another voice/person entirely. It’s not Mary’s voice at all. The Simon voice kinda reminded me of the bunny from Donnie Darko. I know it has nothing to do with that, it just reminded me of him. Anyway great write up. I’m sure a lot of confused souls will be wandering through here.
Wednesday's Child said:
Thanks for commenting. Glad I could help. It is a confusing story. Yeah, I think this post gets more hits than any other thing I’ve written on this blog. Did you watch it on Netflix instant, or is it one of those that gets shown on TV all the time? I don’t have cable, so I don’t know exactly how Session 9 seemingly gets new viewers every day.
Obviously, I like the Simon as evil entity explanation, but what makes the movie a new classic is that it’s ambiguous on purpose. That always makes something have more staying power in people’s minds. I can see the comparison soundwise between Simon and Frank the bunny.
Carlos T said:
Session 9 has great comments and punctuation, so it appeared into my week recomendation. Thanks the explanation,
Billychic said:
I really enjoyed reading your review/explanation! I was thinking “yeah, you could look at this a myriad of ways…” and one can. However, I was leaning toward the entity theory as well, since it would explain the Simon voice as something more than just a device so the viewer can “get” that they both snapped in the same manner.
This is a magnificent film, I have been meaning to see it for a while.
Have you seen The Devil’s Chair? Different flick altogether, but there are some brilliantly done psychological elements that I think are similar, and it’s also in a big-ass creepy building with a chair. The payoff isn’t until the end, but it’s worth it (again, another big reveal).
Thanks for the reading!
Wednesday's Child said:
Thanks for reading! Yeah, I like the entity theory best. Some people hate it, and I think it has something to do with rejecting the supernatural in real life too, because I’ve seen online discussions about it get heated. Regardless, the more horror films I watch the more I realize that the most interesting ones are the ones whose endings are ambiguous.
The Devil’s Chair I have not seen. That’s the one about the people who go to an asylum while tripping and one of ‘em gets killed, right? I guess if it can be compared to Session 9 and you liked it (if you liked Session 9 as much as I did we must have somewhat similar tastes) then I’ll watch it.
Commentator said:
The voice of the psychiatrist in the Session tapes was Phil’s. Gordon may have been Mary; the female voices of Mary’s personality were artificial-sounding; the male ones sounded real; the photos toward the end also suggest that. That raises any number of permutations of plot not covered here.
One possibility: Gordon was “Mary”; when he got the job to clean up the asylum he had been in as a young man, his illness was reactivated.
Phil was Mary”s failed psychiatrist working whatever jobs he could get afterwards, which would explain the tension between them (both knew who each other had been in the asylum days, whether consciously or unconsciously)
Wednesday's Child said:
Actually, the doctor’s voice was done by an actor named Lonnie Farmer, but you’re not the only person I’ve encountered online who thought it was David Caruso. Although I don’t happen to agree with your plot interpretation, I think it speaks to what an effective tool ambiguity in film making can be, since it encourages the viewer to become part of the story telling in his or her own mind. Very interesting post!
Dylan Avery said:
At first I thought the psychiatrist was the same actor who narrated the Freck suicide scene in Scanner Darkly.
Alas, I was wrong, but they sound REALLY similar.
Wednesday's Child said:
Interesting comparison, though.
Charles Cosgriff said:
Hi, how are you?
Just finished watching Session 9 on Netflix. Things like Danvers and Willowbrook State School are intriguing to me, so when I saw Session 9 was filmed there, I had to take a look.
After finishing, hit the net to look around for info, and came across this, and I think you have it right about Simon being an evil entity. Wikipedia mentions some support for the concept, as apparently there were some deleted scenes on the DVD. I dug them up on YouTube and although I assume you already have a physical copy, here’s a link:
Even if we’re not to consider the deleted scenes canon (I thought they were hinting that Mary was not dead at a few points in the movie, like how the #444 tombstone was broken, and a bit odd it never followed up), it definitely shows at least originally they intended to make it clear Simon was a malignant entity.
Simon’s parting words that he “lives in the weak and wounded” tell us quite a bit, as both those descriptors fit Mary and Gordon (quite literally, in the “wounded” aspect). This fits well with Mary’s role in the deleted moments: Simon no longer lives in Mary because she has grown beyond her weakness, ultimately confronting Simon and killing his current manifestation.
As you said, they wanted to be ambiguous, and the deleted moments do seem to be beating you over the head telling you it’s a malignant spirit. I think there’s a fair amount of support for that idea without a “freed” Mary returning, so maybe that’s why they were removed. They don’t explain why she was presumed dead either – perhaps that’s another reason the extended ending was cut.
Anyway, nice write up! I think I’ll keep an eye on your blog. Take care!
Wednesday's Child said:
That was a great explanation of why the ambiguity was the best thing for the movie. Can I add it to the post up top as a P.S. from a reader?
Also, thanks for the video link. Hope to hear from you again.
Charles Cosgriff said:
Oh, absolutely, I’d be flattered!
Andrea said:
I’ve seen Session 9 several times, and it is one of those movies that I can watch over and over. Every time I watch it I feel like I understand bits of it better. I’m so glad to have found your blog, though, because you really cleared up some things I never quite got. This is one of my favorite movies to introduce to someone when they are looking for a good horror movie, because so much of it is psychological, and that is far scarier to me than hack and slash.
Wednesday's Child said:
I wish I had someone to show it to who hadn’t seen it so I could talk about it with them, ya know, without having to type it all out. (Not that I don’t love the continuing discussion on this post!) Also, so we could say to each other, “Oh my God did you see that?” and then drink some more wine. Because I’m sure I haven’t noticed everything. I don’t have any other horror fans in the neighborhood, though, besides my husband who doesn’t have the patience for Session 9 for some reason. I’m gonna recruit a non-horror fan and trick them into watching by telling ‘em it’s an arty film. Which it sort of is. Thanks for stopping by!
Lilly said:
Has anyone, besides me, considered the possibility that Mary and Gordon are related? Shows a younger Mary with brother in photo. Same coloring, could be…
John said:
I don’t understand the over sell of the Phil red herring. When they all asked if they had really heard Amy, why did Phil so vehemently object. It seemed a little over the top if Phil did in fact talk to Amy to object to Gordon calling her. It would have only cleared his story.
Wednesday's Child said:
That’s a good point. Maybe it’s uneven writing. Maybe storywise Phil needed to emotionally abandon Gordon for the final act to play out, and maybe it just represented the way that things were distorted and spiraling way out of control. It definitely does add to the confusion for the viewer.
BTW, the reason I’m sure Phil talked to Amy is because he says that Hank told Amy he found his fortune, meaning the coins and jewelry from the crematory. There’s no other way Phil could have known about the find.
Laura said:
We are led to belive Phil may have been the one who got to Hank when he went to get the coins in the night and discovered all the coins on Hank – later in the film Phil has one of the silver dollars that he was going to flip to see who gets lunch. Also he was very insistent about going to find Hank on his own and knew where to find him
Parlor of Horror said:
I don’t know, movies that need a ‘bible length’ explanation just don’t do it for me. If a director can’t communicate all this in the film, why do I need the explanation afterward?
Rob said:
I really do have to agree with you here. In short, I found this film a bit of a mess. The film was full of so many ‘irregularities’ that I don’t even think the director knew himself what the hell was going on, so instead just through the ‘vague’ card into the arena so that it became everyone’s problem to decipher it all and not just his. The idea of a director leaving a movie vague, so the audience can make up its own mind, just doesn’t wash with me. That’s bad film-making in my view. I don’t mind a film that is unclear all the way through but I don’t accept it then being unclear at the end.
I came to this blog for help because I thought I must be stupid or something and have missed what the hell this film was supposed to be about but, the more I’ve waded through this blog, the more I’ve realized that no one really knows for sure, although I think the original post at least gave it some structure of sense, for which I thank you. Subsequent contributions and questions have also helped but, since there is no clear, definitive explanation then it is all mostly subjective.
Ultimately, I am left feeling that this movie was a waste of my time, if only because so many things just can’t be properly explained. Some of these have already been mentioned. Some of the main gripes I have are:
- why Phil made such a huge deal out of believing Jeff could have seen Hank on the stairway. Put yourself in Phil’s shoes and I think we all would have at least accepted the possibility. I guess this was the director just trying to pile our suspicion onto Phil, which is all very well, just don’t do it in an unrealistic way.
- why did Phil go wandering off for miles down passageways and seem to know exactly where to find Hank?
- what was all that with Mike secretly going back to keep listening to the tapes? Just so the director had something to hang the rest of the film around? Far too flimsy I’m afraid.
- I also had a real problem believing that Hank had somehow been left to wander around lobotomized. For a ‘zombie’ he didn’t half manage to get a long way from the stairway to where Phil eventually found him in a relatively short amount of time. Anyway, why would Gordon even have left him lobotomized and not instead just killed him like he did with everyone else?
- Why did Phil have one of those coins?
- Jeff runs out the building screaming in terror, he runs to the van and … has a biscuit … like you do. Then, Gordon comes running up to him, absolutely covered in blood and wielding a knife, and Jeff, er, goes to hug him? I think any one of us would have spotted a knife-wielding bloody psychopath running towards us long before Jeff apparently did and would have reacted very differently.
- Where did all Gordon’s ‘pictures on the wall’ come from? I guess he was supposed to have taken them from home after he’d slaughtered his family. Otherwise, surely we’re not supposed to believe that he always had them on him? So, if he deliberately took them from home, after killing his wife and child, does that not suggest that he was a ‘fruitcake’ from the point of the murders, so there wouldn’t have been any slipping in and out of sanity as he appeared to do after that?
Anyway, I’ve ‘analysed’ this movie enough. Overall, I find it very frustrating that the director left too many questions and possibilities and I didn’t even find the movie creepy. So, it only gets a 5/10 from me and I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.
I’m still yet to see a better, creepier film (and one that makes complete sense) than Peter Medak’s ‘The Changeling’ from 1980, starring George C Scott.
“How did you die Joseph? Did you die in this house? Why do you remain?”.
Brrrr. It still give me the chills just thinking about it. Check it out on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUKE_CGOjnE
Take care all.
Wednesday's Child said:
I can say that the “Mike and the tapes” subplot was probably meant to be a checkmark in the Simon as entity category, because when Mike went to check the breakers on the first day, after Jeff told him about being afraid of the dark, a light turned on over the the box of tapes which then fell off of a stack of stuff as if he was meant to find it, and then he acted as if he was compelled to watch as if by an outside force. Also, when Mike is killed there’s a voiceover from an earlier conversation about being in the wrong place at the wrong time; you could say that Mike contributed to Gordon’s stress levels and rampage by slacking. (I also find it ironic and sad that Mike dies before hearing the end of the tapes, but I particularly liked and identified with that character being a slacker pseudointellectual myself.) Then again, as you say, all of that could just be put down as clumsy exposition.
I get that liking ambiguous movies is a personal choice issue. I can’t answer any of your other questions, other than to say that I think the Jeff character was meant to be a dumbass, hence why he would stop and eat a cookie.
I agree that The Changeling is awesome and scary; it’s one of my favorites of all time.
onfoodandfilm said:
I love this movie. It is terrifying… in a very subtle way. I missed it in the theatre unfortunately so the first time, of many, I watched it was at home on DVD. It’s the only movie I’ve ever stopped and turned on all the lights… even the lights upstairs. It is that unnerving. Great discussion here.
Great post! (and excellent blog!) Oh and I love ‘The Machinist’ as well.
Wednesday's Child said:
Hey, thanks! I like your blog too, and somehow I missed when I first started reading it (just looked at the about page for the first time today) that you had made a ghost movie starring Mira Sorvino, so now I can’t wait to check that out.
When it comes to Brad Anderson and Session 9, I love the discussion this post has produced, but I’m always afraid he’s gonna appear on this page (unlikely) and be like Marshall McLuhan in Annie Hall: “You know nothing of my work…” Session 9 is definitely the scariest movie of the 00s, and probably of the 90s too! And it is so layered; there’s so much more to say about it than what’s been said here.
onfoodandfilm said:
LOL hilarious about Annie Hall, another favorite. I don’t think that will happen! If anything, he would love it. And I will be curious to see what you think… just be honest. It is a love it or hate it movie, people are passionate on both sides!
Wednesday's Child said:
Well, The Presence is now in my queue, so I’m gonna post about it soon. I did read somewhere that it was a polarizing film, but I think that’s a positive thing, since people aren’t apathetic about it! Thanks again and keep in touch.
Deuce said:
Simon is definitely an evil entity, Gordon is squatting in Mary’s room, standing over her grave, dealing w the same shit she is, committing the killings as mike listens to the taPes, it makes a deal with people who are weak or in a tough spot. Gordon wanted to have a child, couldnt, made a deal got the baby, but paid for his deal w the “devil”(another path I thought maybe could be perceived). It posses the weak of mind, then it manifests when theyve been physicLy hurt.it’s all too much coIncedence..
Layla said:
It could also be that since Gordon was so desperate to get the money for the job, he made a deal with the devil and killed his baby. Phil had talked about these satanic rituals when he said why they closed down the asylum.
Amber said:
Okay I have watched this so many times, trying to figure out what was going on. I noticed clues throughout the movie…but could not quite put them together right. I still don’t understand why pictures of his family and friends were in that room on the wall at the end he was looking at. But other than that, what you said seems to make a lot of sense! Thanks! =]
Wednesday's Child said:
Thanks for reading and commenting! The pictures were there as a clue to indicate that he had been staying in the asylum, because that’s what patients used to do with their family photos.
Chris said:
Hi al,
I just discovered this movie and its awesome. Allmost no gore, no slashing but just psychiological horror.
It all starts with the setting, the mental institute and i think that it is there where gordon gets posessed by the demon / entity.
He is allready weak (he NEEDS the job, allmost a mental break through) so he is the perfect candidate for the entity. As soon as he gets home he kills his family and goes back to the institute where he slowly kills the rest of his team and on the last date the newly arriving colleague. In the end (as i saw in the extended ending) mary kills him and so dies the entity trapped in the dead body of gordon.
Wednesday's Child said:
Hey, thanks for reading and commenting! The cult of Session 9 keeps growing, with good reason.
jack said:
Hello,
some thoughts:
1. Hank was led to the money like a trail of bread crumbs (the money then comes pouring out of the wall but when we see the backside of the wall the ‘incinerator’ is empty. So OK we’ll give them a pass for not understanding that money doesn’t pour upwards).
2. Hank was attacked the same night he went back to collect the money from the incinerator. If he had been lobotomized when he was attacked, he would not have been able to tell Amy he was leaving or to collect his things from Amy’s. Therefor, he was either lobotomized later (after having been attacked!?!) or Phil (David Caruso) lied about his talk with Amy.
3. Phil has a coin like the coins Hank found. He flips it in the auditorium while Hank drops his in the stairwell.
4. When Jeff (cousin) finds Hank in the stairway, Phil is way over the top in denying that Jeff could have found Hank.
5. In an odd bit of dialog, Mike (lawyer) tells Jeff to put has mask on to which Mike replys “Fuck off, I’m not your princess dude”
Wednesday's Child said:
Nice catch on the princess reference!
Kathy said:
“2. Hank was attacked the same night he went back to collect the money from the incinerator. If he had been lobotomized when he was attacked, he would not have been able to tell Amy he was leaving or to collect his things from Amy’s. Therefor, he was either lobotomized later (after having been attacked!?!) or Phil (David Caruso) lied about his talk with Amy.”
As I understood it, Hank told Amy about leaving for Miamiand going to ‘casino school’ before he went back to the asylum to collect the loot.
Wednesday's Child said:
Yes. He went home from work, told her he was leaving, went back to the asylum to get the coins, and Gordon attacked him.
profl said:
Thanks for the blog – it totally confirmed most of my interpretation. TotaIly think Simon is an external force – a la the Shining. have to say, until the very end of the movie, I assumed that all the coworkers were “alters” of Gordon. This stopped making sense when the photos on the wall showed most, if not all, of the work team. I am still confused about one thing- why does Phil have the coin? Also, I think Danvers is probably a Rebecca reference. The movie definitely has multiple references to The Birds.
Wednesday's Child said:
It’s an interesting comparison to Rebecca, but Danvers State Hospital was a real hospital built in 1874. It’s more likely that Mrs. Danvers in the book, written in 1938, was named after the hospital, but it’s probably a coincidence. I never thought about them being alters throughout the movie, but after they are killed Phil appears as an alter. I think the photos were on the wall because Gordon was hiding there and the crew was like family to him so he put up their pics.
profl said:
Phil has the coin to flip, when only Hank and Gordon should have those. This is why I started thinking that maybe the work crew were all alters from the start.
However, I came to the same conclusion about the pictures you did, which is why my alters theory goes out the window
.
Still bothered by the coin, and still a bit bothered by the version of Hank Jeff and Phil see. I assume he is not completely dead, but lobotomized and near death.
Wednesday's Child said:
Yeah, Hank’s been wandering around lobotomized since the night he went back to get the coins out of the crematorium.
anthony said:
Soooo they didn’t get the 10k bonus?
Wednesday's Child said:
Ha!
anthony said:
lol just messing around. saw the movie last night and found your website to get an explanation on the movie and i just want to say your explanation was perfect and very helpful. the whole thread on this website is great! thanks.
Wednesday's Child said:
Glad to help! Thanks for stopping by.
Victor De Leon said:
man, this clears up a lot! thanks!
samdaman said:
I like to think that Simon is not a demon, but is the voice crazy people hear in their heads. I know now that’s not it, but if I close my eyes and pretend:
When Gordon first hears Simon he is already on the edge of going crazy, with stress and the baby and whatnot. Then he hears about what the patients had done and sees the rooms, and for the first time the thought creeps in his head somewhere that he could do something like that and end up staying here.”It wouldn’t be so bad…” He doesn’t acknowledge this thought, maybe doesn’t know exactly what the thought is, but it comes through as Simon saying hello for the first time. It’s more than just a voice, it’s a disturbed feeling as well.
I prefer that way of looking at it, because it’s more like Simon potentially lives in all of us if we don’t take care of ourselves, instead of a lone demon causing mischief. Simon is the dark side in people that tells us to do bad things, and if he is strong enough to speak to you then you’re in trouble. Seems scarier that way. Also, it makes this a movie about how this guy (and many of the patients) went crazy, which I like more than ‘ghosts did it’.
I also kinda like the idea Gordon used to be a patient, although it would take out some of the impact when we first hear Simon, because that would mean Gordon was already precrazy and probably heard this voice before.
Wednesday's Child said:
Well, Simon’s neither a demon nor a voice, or he’s both a demon and a voice. He’s the Schrodinger’s cat of horror villains, since the film doesn’t explain which he is. And I like your explanation for why you like the crazy idea better than the demon one.
robert said:
One thought about Phil character – I believe that he lied about talking to Amy and learning about Hank’s departure. We know that he holds a grudge about his coworker and when Hank doesn’t show up he probably uses this opportunity to get rid of him. He convinces Gordon that Hank’s gone for good and needs to be replaced. That’s why he is so upset when Gordon wants to call Amy to verify the story.
And have you noticed that when upset Phil repeats his story and claims that Hank went to Miami he pronounces it exactly as “My Amy”?
Wednesday's Child said:
Whatever his problem is with Gordon wanting to call Amy is not adequately explained, but it makes him look suspicious as hell. It’s funny that it sounds like “My Amy” because there is an old song called “Miami, My Amy.”
Khaotikai said:
Anybody else get the Half Life reference with Gordon (Freeman) hearing a voice that sounds like G-Man? Haha.
But seriously man, love the blog. I had an idea throughout the movie that they were all going crazy, but there were too many holes in that one.
I kinda was put off from the movie because of my bad experiences with indie films, but when they are first looking through the asylum, I noticed the cut-out on the wall that said “Suddenly, it’s going to dawn on you.” That shook me. The whole film I kept thinking about it in my head. Probably the most prominent symbolic prop in any movie I have ever seen.
I’m in love with this movie now lol.
Wednesday's Child said:
Whoa. That is a cool observation. I’m gonna go through and get a screen grab of that sign, thanks!
Shah said:
Loved the movie! Surprising how we all end up on this blog..
I liked the explanation about a Simon in each of us..Phil’s coin flip is way confusing and makes me wonder if we are missing something here from our conclusion that Gordon got possesed, killed wife/ daughter- killed everyone else.. Why he didnt kill everyone on the 2nd day or 3rd day.. Was it that he would get taken over at a certain instigator? Great job in explaining tho.
Matt said:
My first impression was that Gordon and Mary were one in the same.
That Gordon was a patient there and coming back to do the job brought back those repressed memories.
Mary was the alter.
Chad said:
Gordon would have had to kill everyone long before Craig Mannis shows up. When Gordon notices that Phil has an old coin, when they are flipping to see who would go to pick up lunch, Phil is already dead. Phil never found the old coin. Gordon is remembering something from the night when he killed Hank when Hank tried to come back to retrieve the coins.
Leda said:
Hi all. Great blog and explanations, btw. I understood almost everything in the movie except one thing that I am struggling with. Namely, the coins. The scene where Hank finds the coins did not seem to fit in with the psychological thriller aspect of this movie. When he was running away, saw the empty jar of peanut butter and the ghostly apparation in the background, I couldn’t decide if this was Gordon or a ghost. I guess my question is, where did the coins come from (besides the obvious answer of the crematorium) and/or who put them there lure Hank? If Hank found the coins, went home to tell Amy, and came back, then that scene doesn’t really make sense. Right?
Wednesday's Child said:
It seems that Hank found the coins during the day, then went back in that night to get them.
Chad said:
The coins were not placed there on purpose. They were piled up inside the furnace. Hank probly didn’t tell Amy about the coins, only that he was leaving. He came back later that night to retrieve the coins and was going to skip town. He was attacked that night by Gordon, who was living at the hospital. Gordon never returned home after his wife spilled hot water on him. He had killed his wife and child the same night his wife spilled the hot water.
Later in the movie, Gordon sees the coin in Phil’s hand and believes that Phil is the one that hurt Hank. There is no explanation of how Phil got the coin, because at this point the whole crew is already dead.
Wednesday's Child said:
Excellent reply! You nailed it.
Sean said:
I also would like to add that you see coins laying around the asylum, i think this could be because hank is walking around lobotomized with the coins slowly dropping them all over the place; his mind seemed to be on replay of that night ( due to the metal rod in his brain). My proof of this is when Jeff sees hank and runs to tell the others you see him drop the coin in the stairwell.
Adam said:
I think that the coins were definitely placed there on purpose. Not only was there a breadcrumb trail of coins leading to the wall, but there were coins sticking out of the wall on the OTHER side of the mortar, implying that someone had been shoving the coins into the wall to hide them there or something. The idea that Hank is walking around leaking coins is appealing and makes it likely that Phil could have also happened to find a coin, however I also like the idea of the director giving Phil the coin to strengthen the red herring of Phil being the murderer. Also on the topic of the coins, I feel like they should have some kind of symbolism behind them that I can’t seem to find.
Chad said:
I figured the coins and other personal items had piled up inside the furnace when bodies were cremated. Rings or other metal items would have survived the furnace, but nothing else. You would think stuff like that would be removed first, but maybe the workers at Danvers didn’t care, and put bodies into the furnace clothing and all.
If my memory is correct, there was a paper packet with a glass eyeball, and a ring that had a tag tied to it. The tag on the ring and the paper packet should not have been there.
jdw237 said:
It’s possible that the crematorium wound up toward the end being a dumping ground for patients’ belongings. It’s also possible that a worker from the hospital stashed all those items there himself and then never got the chance to come back and get it. Hence the coin trail.
confused_but_stoked said:
OK, grand explanation which definitely confirms what we (my girl & I – thank god i was with her or i would have shit myself) were thinking regarding the *entity theory*. However, why the hell did they put the scene in where Phil has the coin, and why is Mike so adamant/right away intrigued (i.e. not doing any work) by the “hobble case”? Its almost as if Mike is on the job just to dig into the case and find out if the lawyers who originally counter-sued in the 70s were wrong (or something of that nature). sorry for the ramble its 4am and we just read all 78 posts, lol
Rob said:
You made me laugh when you wrote that you’d been through all 78 posts about the movie. I think everyone on here did the same thing. It takes quite a while! I really wasn’t sure about the film by the end of it, and by the fact that this discussion page has proved so popular, it would seem that many others were also left with questions that they wanted answers to. I’m not sure that it makes the movie a good one just because lots of people are asking questions about it. I actually felt a bit frustrated with it. But I did still enjoy it.
The best thing I got out of it was that it had a sense of dread all the way through it that kept me on edge. I was always expecting something terrible and terrifying to happen at any time. That never really happened for me and I’m probably glad it didn’t. There was already enough tension in the movie as it was, just from continually expecting something awful to happen.
Anyway, as for answering your questions, I have no idea. Sorry. I remain very confused about that movie, but fascinated that it has drawn so many people to this discussion page.
Wednesday's Child said:
Thumbs up for being scared by this movie! I think Mike might be there just to move the story along. He is played by the screenwriter, so he may have put himself in the role of being the mechanism by which we find out about Mary. Of course, the evil spirit in the building might have made him obsessed with the tapes. He finds the tapes “by chance” while walking through a room to turn the power back on, I think the box they are in just falls over and gets his attention so that points to supernatural involvement.
eckels_chick said:
Glad to have found this as well. Just watched it on Netflix, had never heard of it, but definitely plugged a nightlight in, in my kid’s room when I went to bed that night because I was freaked out being in the dark! I always seek out explanations for movies when I’m left creeped out and it seems to calm the mind a little. Thanks for the great summary, I definitely think I could watch it again now and appreciate it more than I did the first time. There’s no way I would have caught that the voice was the same from the opening clip – I recall that part now, but I sort of just noticed it and then forgot it, which led to missing the whole darn point eh?! Thanks blogger!
Wednesday's Child said:
Thanks for commenting!
Justin said:
I really like and agree with your assessment of Session 9 with the exception of one point: I don’t think either Gordon nor Mary was actually possessed by “Simon.” I think Simon is simply the malevolence that exists in us all which only manifests itself when a “weak and wounded” person is pushed to their limit. I think the fact that the voice on the tapes and the voice in Gordon’s head are the same is simply a storytelling device. We need to keep in mind as well that the voice on the tape is still Mary, just speaking as one of her alternate personalities. However, that’s just me. The movie is certainly ambiguous enough that it’s open to interpretation, which just makes it more creepy.
Wednesday's Child said:
Yes, its purposely ambiguous, so we’re both right. That’s why I like movies that force you to draw your own conclusions. Thanks for your comment.
Barbrey said:
Gordon was definitely in a weakened state when he first heard the voice. I think people underestimate the sometimes huge effects of sleep deprivation on the psyche, which anyone who has had a colicky baby can testify to!
I loved your timeline, Wednesday, and Chris’s further clarifications. The ambiguity in the movie was great. I do like what a few people mentioned and that is that Gordon had been a resident once of the asylum and repressed memory syndrome was coming into play. I don’t think that was it, though would have liked it if it were!
Re the photos of the family and the coworkers, I wondered about that too but can only assume Gordon had them all along, or took some more with him after the murder of the family, and the c-worker pics could have come from the murdered corpses just as well as from Gordon. In the latter cases, however, Gordon could not continue in denial if he was taking away the photos after the murders, so I think it was Simon as evil entity that collected the pics – for his wall – like a serial killer will collect fetish objects to remind him of his kills.
Macabre, no?
Barbrey said:
Just to clarify – simon as evil entity working through a dissociated Gordon.
Wednesday's Child said:
The idea of Simon collecting the pics as trophies is a new and disturbing twist on the story I had not thought of. Interesting. Thanks for your comment!
Ed said:
hi there, just watched session 9…
I ran through some comments here, couldn’t read all (there are so many!) but read the entire post.
anyways, I really enjoyed the film, and like I always say, they [films] are for entertainment only, it’s not about personal experiences, beliefs and whatnots.
as for a horror movie genre, the Simon character sure fits as a demon and that’s how I figured after the whole film.
at first, I thought that Phil might have been Simon all along. when Gordon first hears the “Hello Gordon”, right after I swear I heard Phil saying “it’s me”. and his [Phil's] attitude is simply unreliable – always angry at someone, his phone call looks so fake, he plots against Hank, talks to thugs, always disagreeing with Gordon – and further more he determined to “take over” Gordon’s rule as the “boss” (of himself as assuming his body).
Phil tries to convince Mike about him “taking over” control and that Gordon is no longer in charge. whilst, Jeff is left alone to go into the dark and plug the power back in. that looked on purpose, like Phil wanted him to do that — not to overcome his fear but more of an evil prank to see him suffer. he also urges Jeff to stay there in the impending darkness when looking for Hank.
on the other hand, thinking of it as mere psychological thriller (as in “good guy gone bad” like others said above), I also see Phil as his “twisted” ego – even more on last Friday, where we clearly see him as an hallucination.
I don’t know, Phil is more likely a key character here than it looks.
Chad said:
As far as the phone call being fake… I dunno. I think the phone call was real. Hank may have told Amy a little bit of information and then hit the road, expecting to pick up his coins from the asylum and then leave town. But he never made it.
I think the Phil we see throughout the movie is Phil seen through Gordon’s eyes. At the end of the movie you see Phil almost scared after he’s discovered what Gordon did.
ChristinaBlue said:
I think that “Simon”, is somehow in the building, not necessarily an entity. As if the building was “alive” maybe? I couldn’t help but notice how in the beginning when the box was cut open, one of them cut their thumb. Then the asbestos in the other ones face. It was like for everything they did to the building it was reciprocated. So I couldn’t help but wonder maybe since Gordon was the leader of the group who was going to clean/destroy the asylum, it was him who got affected/ possesed by simon, (maybe Mary Hobbs spirit?). When he visited the hospital initially the spirit/evil from the institution saw that he was “weak and wounded”. Gordon was on the brink of losing his company and his marriage. So, as the last quote in the movie says ” I live in the weak and the wounded”. Gordon then was possessed, went home killed his wife and then eventually his co-workers.
On the other hand though it was called Simon to Mary H. (the mental patient) but it could have been anything to Gordon – he didn’t name his or it wasn’t revealed. I guess we just assume that because the voice sounded the same.
Kirk said:
Simon was a entity.. when the lawyer dropout found the box (evil spirt made it so with the light shining on it) he opened it and when he cut it open gordon cut his finger at the same time then he ripped it open then phil got dust n his eyes at the same time.. basically pointing out thar the box was evil like some kind of pandoras box. I dunno lol.. i do agree that the mike was there to study the case just because he knew about this case from his dad and he jus randomly stubbled on all her files and tapes.. no he wasnt there to clean asbestos he was taking notes like he was tryna to prove a point.
Dr Monk said:
Watched Session 9 with my college aged son last night and like many sought out some “fill-in -the -blanks”. My question when I came to the site was that we saw everyone being killed(I think) except for Phil. Then there is the scene when Craig arrives and Gordon appears to be talking to him, but Craig doesn’t see him, we don’t right after that either. then Craig is knocked off quickly.
Your blog and comments helped me greatly with the timeline…as a psychiatrist, I seem to have an issue that no one else does-people with multiple personality disorders are almost always known to have been victims of early severe abuse, physical/sexual sadistic in nature. So, while, I have no problem with the different thoughts on the “nature” of Simon…I was wondering during the whole movie about the roles of the various other alters, what the trauma had been (or even if it wasn’t explicit) it was just dropped and the idea of “possession” or “snapping” of a weak soul just kind of didn’t make sense. Which, since this was supposed to be such a psychological movie…did I miss something there? The Mike, the law school drop-out, was trying to figure it out, too.
I suppose, people like me can just assume a whole back story as being Mary’s weakened state, just as Gordon’s was by familial pressures and stressors.
I did wonder, if perhaps, since we never really saw Phil killed and there was a lot of power struggles between him and Gordon…if he was an alter-ego of Gordon’s. That they were “flip sides of the same coin”. I had some of the same thoughts as others have mentioned of his vehement reactions to things…but also thought maybe it was also just a story tactic to lead us to suspect him as the “bad guy”.
But what was the deal with him calling “Gordie, come back, I have found THE ONE” ?
Also, the hallucination of Phil, what did people make of him.did he look like a doctor to anyone in his white coat, saying, “wake up, Gordon, wake up and SEE…and Gordon arguing, I DO SEE, ostensibly as a psychiatrist might at the end of a
session with a dissociative disorder patient. Just some
tired ramblings of a shrink. I’ll probably watch it again,
though my husband also had no patience for it, thought
the ending was stupid. My son had a good grip on it
and next time he’s home maybe we can watch it together.
Great blog!
Wednesday's Child said:
You said: But what was the deal with him calling “Gordie, come back, I have found THE ONE” ?
Now I have to watch it again to figure this out. I don’t even remember that part. This movie is so confusing!
Cindy Simmons said:
I watched Session 9 and mezmerized by the ambiguities. When we first meet Gordon we can tell he is damaged and desperate. We find out later that the pressure of family life has somehow affected his business decisions and personal relationships.
Simon introduces himself to Gordon and almost immediately Gordon is in Mary’s room looking at the photographs/pictures on the wall. He sees a picture of a large family and then, next to it, a picture of dead people. He then is in his van looking at pictures of his family as if seeking the same type of therapy that Mary sought with her pictures on the wall. This could be the first sign of how easy Gordon can be manipulated.
Gordon might be tired of his wife and child and wishes he could just be rid of what he thinks is causing his unhappiness so he kills them. The failed law student talks about lobotomizing an individual and then Gordon lobotomizes Hank. Phil suggests that Gordon is going to hit him and then the next day Gordon “admits” he hit Wendy.
The first time we hear the dialogue between Gordon and Wendy he offers the flowers and then appears to make a sexual overture which she rebuffs. It sounds as if she screams before the pot of boiling water is dropped – as if he attacked her for her rebuff. Compare this to Mary killing her brother. What really created the rage in Mary to repeated stab her brother? Don’t parents usually put their children to bed before they go to bed? Was her brother trying to do more to Mary in the dark than play hide and seek? Where did Mary get such energy and strength to kill her parents after her brother – unless she was angry at them? Maybe Mary was betrayed by her family. Maybe Gordon felt betrayed by his family – by the baby that wouldn’t stop crying and had separated him from his wife. Does Gordon think that his coworkes – which he considers to be the father – have betrayed him?
Of course, the second time we hear Wendy and Gordon’s dialogue it does seem as if she spilled the boiling water on him before he attacks her. Did anyone find it odd that you could see the stove through the front door?
The law student makes a comment that people don’t get away with claiming mental insanity for murder; that people are cognizant of their actions during murder. Is he describing Gordon – that he knew what he was doing but using Simon as the excuse or approval to act on his actions? I don’t know.
Wednesday's Child said:
I never interpreted the scene where he murders his wife as anything other than she accidentally spilled the boiling water on him and he snapped and killed the family. For the rest, I don’t know but you make some interesting points.
Gina said:
thank goodness for this because i needed to brush up on the characters and who each on of them was and i actually learned more about the movie after reading your blog thanks a bunch
Wednesday's Child said:
You’re welcome!