MovieChat Forums > Possession (1983) Discussion > What's with people claiming that she gav...

What's with people claiming that she gave birth to the thing?

posted 18 years ago by metaspheres
25 replies | jump to latest

I have been reading in a number of comments and reviews that Adjani's character actually gave birth to the creature and that consequently, she is having an "incestuous" relationship with the thing. WTF?

I have seen this miserable, blasphemous film a number of times and nowhere does it appear suggested that she gives birth to the monster. One comment I read claims the subway scene as a flashback of this alleged birth, but this is obviously crap, as the film follows a very linear plotline and she is wearing the same blue dress before the scene, and afterwards she discusses the hideous miscarriage with the husband.

So, how is it quite a few people are coming to these ridiculous conclusions?

I have also noticed that most reviewers and commentators completely neglect any mention of the comedic aspects of the film, such as the bungling, incompetent private detective who cannot even keep his presence a secret and ends up having to literally chase Adjani to her front door since she is clearly aware of being followed. For me, this was one of the most hilarious scenes in any film I have ever seen, and yet this scene is ignored by literally all the major reviews, and probably all the minor ones as well.

And what of the dandy-like behaviour of the clearly bisexual Heinrich character, who actually makes a couple of passes at Neill who doesn't make a secret of the fact that he doesn't swing that way? Incredibly, this vital aspect of the Heinrich character is totally ignored.

And of course it is revealed to the audience when the head of the private detective agency meets with the husband after the murder of the investigator, that he and the detective were living together and apparently in love. When he discovers his lovers body in the apartment, he freaks out and attempts to kill Adjani.

Another scene that is ignored is where Neill appears to be in a hotel undergoing some kind of "The Wall" experience, grunge, mess, overdose, hallucinations and all. I say hotel because it doesn't seem like his place and a woman, who I always have assumed to be a housekeeper, appears, and he requests of her knowledge of how long he has been there. One might assume this to be a flashback, but after this scene he appears in the same grungy clothes, albeit clean-shaven, to take care of his kid. An important and vital scene totally ignored by commentators.

It is not the film itself which begs the question "WTF?" but the complete and seemingly intentional ignorance of commentators who flagrantly sidestep any mention of the most interesting aspects that warrant such a legitimate query.

Thoughts?

[–] rgibson103 18 years ago

Another scene that is ignored is where Neill appears to be in a hotel undergoing some kind of "The Wall" experience, grunge, mess, overdose, hallucinations and all. I say hotel because it doesn't seem like his place and a woman, who I always have assumed to be a housekeeper, appears, and he requests of her knowledge of how long he has been there. One might assume this to be a flashback, but after this scene he appears in the same grungy clothes, albeit clean-shaven, to take care of his kid. An important and vital scene totally ignored by commentators.

I could be wrong, but I think that's Margit, Anna's friend whom she kills later on. Seems like if Neill's character were cheating back it'd probably be with her if it did happen. Yeah, Bob gets largely ignored by both parents because they're too busy wrecking each others lives.

—Ray

_____
"The wisest man is therefore he who loafs most gracefully." ~ Lin Yutang

[–] metaspheres 18 years ago

He was definitely cheating on his wife with Margit, but I don't think that's her. I'd have to watch the movie again to be sure, but I'm fairly certain the person was not Margit since throughout the movie she wears a cast. That scene in general, for me, was probably the most surreal because it just didn't seem to fit. But I suppose I keep looking the film the wrong way, i.e. that it's an experimental work, and not in any way a straightforward narrative. What can I say, I prefer narrative. :)

[–] leopold622002 17 years ago

- metaspheres, do you really think he was cheating with Marge? W/ all due respect, he HATED Margit. And if he were on drugs, what type of drug was it? Heroin? Cocaine?

[–] ethermusic1981 11 years ago

It was pretty obvious he was cheating with Margit.

[–] dfutrelle 12 years ago

99% sure it's a hotel maid and not Margit.

[–] omega_21 18 years ago

"I have seen this miserable, blasphemous film a number of times and nowhere does it appear suggested that she gives birth to the monster."

Anyone who begins a commentary with this kind of words don't desserve to be read... "stupid" "useless" that's the point... !

[–] metaspheres 18 years ago

No, I would never want my posts to be read by the likes of one such as yourself, who cannot even grasp the basic principles of proper grammar and spelling, and not to mention basic civility.

In the future, do the world a favor and keep your cretinous incoherency to yourself and avoid harassing others.

[–] Caractacus23 13 years ago

"No, I would never want my posts to be read by the likes of one such as yourself, who cannot even grasp the basic principles of proper grammar and spelling, and not to mention basic civility.

In the future, do the world a favor and keep your cretinous incoherency to yourself and avoid harassing others."

Bravo! I like how you handled that hambone...but, if you don't mind, I do have a question of my own (one which pertains to the same remark with which that person had previously taken issue):

"I have seen this miserable, blasphemous film a number of times and nowhere does it appear suggested that she gives birth to the monster."

If you regard this as a "miserable, blasphemous film," why have you chosen to watch it at least twice (I think its fair for me to regard the phrase "any number" as alluding to an integer greater than one)? Did you see it at a stage in your life where you appreciated movies of this sort, and now you no longer do, perhaps?

[–] Bitter_Almonds 18 years ago

Hahaha. I think they got this movie confused with The Brood. Great analysis.

Do The Mussolini! Headkick!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] conedust 17 years ago

Agree with you 100%, re: the origins of Adjani's hideous lover. We know that it is "hers", in that she keeps and cares for it, but beyond that, the film doesn't anywhere seem to suggest that the creature is literally her physical offspring - her child.

Agree also that the surreal haemmorhage/miscarriage scene clearly occurs in the film's linear present moment. We don't know how real the event is, but it's not a flashback.

That said, Adjani's character does talk opaquely about creating something monstrous. While this can be read any number of ways, it provides reason to suppose that she has somehow authored her own purgatory. Still, as you say, the incest angle that some critics have mentioned doesn't seem present in the film, no matter how we construe her words.

I disagree, however, with some of your other criticisms of "the critics". The film's humor and sexual politics have been noticed and discussed by many other writers.

***

P.S. Yeah, Sam's character spends some time in a hotel. He goes nuts for a few weeks after learning of his wife's infidelity. We see a maid in his room when he comes out of the fugue state. After recovering his wits, he goes back home to find that in his absence, his wife has abandoned their son, Bob.

P.P.S. There's absolutely no reason to suppose that Sam's character has been having an affair with Margit prior to the events portrayed in the film. He hates her. He may or may not make love to her when she comes to comfort him in his bedroom (I imagine not), but even if so, this seems a moment of desperation more than part of an ongoing fling.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] conedust 17 years ago

That seems reasonable enough. But if we take the film on its own terms, as a self-sufficient work of art, there's no clear evidence that Anna's episode in the subway results in the creation of the creature. And, as you describe it, Zulawski himself is somewhat ambiguous about the function and meaning of the scene as filmed.

Ultimately, I think we agree that the creature is something that Anna has, at least in part, created, but that it's a bit misleading to call it her "child".

For what it's worth, I see the monster as a literalized metaphor more than as a real-world being. It represents the idea of sexual infidelity, both in terms of of Anna's anguished self-loathing and of Mark's betrayed revulsion.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] askmonroville 11 years ago

Obviously there are people not paying attention to the movie. It IS a flashback, as the scene happens while she is confessing to her husband WHY she has been acting the way she has. She even tells him that she's been caring for the miscarriage and nurturing it. As another poster put it, she gave birth to a monster created from faith and happenstance (chance). The scene in the church implies immaculate conception, but I think she is in essence impregnating herself with a manifestation of what she wants her husband to be. As the same poster put it, it's all about allegory and symbolism, and it's not meant to be taken as a logical, linear film.

You can read more here (specifically from GleamingMemory):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082933/board/thread/53430677

[–] loumanpro 17 years ago

In the film she literally gives birth, however it's obviously meant figuratively in the grand scheme of things. Those who consider it incestuous are missing the simple point: that her new lover -- at least the parts she loves -- are a product of her imagination. As this story is based off actual events of Zulawksi's life, I suppose this makes the most sense in the very end, when we see the "completion" of the monster to be a double of Neill's character, suggesting that her giving birth to it means she merely projected Neill's image onto the men she was with, thus making them more a product of herself and her past love than of something external.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chrisasiama 16 years ago

I always thought the scene with Sam in the hotel was like watching a drug-addict going cold turkey.

Sam's character craved Anna's love like a heroin addict craves for the drug. When that love was taken away at the start of the film Sam has withdrawl symptoms.

Possession is a strange film with many comedic-aspects. The scene where Sam Neill hijacks a cab at gunpoint always cracked me up and the way he kills Heinrich is like watching a slapstick movie. Heinrich himself is such an over-the-top creation that you have to laugh when you see him.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DilvishW 16 years ago

She fairly plainly explains that she had a miscarriage in the tunnel ( the scene is a flashback, she always wears that dress). She says that she miscarried "faith" and that ever since she has been protecting and guarding her faith (the squid monster).

[–] tanishal22 11 years ago

It's called a "figure of speech"-she wasn't speaking literally!

[–] monty-57 16 years ago

"I have also noticed that most reviewers and commentators completely neglect any mention of the comedic aspects of the film..."

One part that always cracks me up is the scene where he chases her through the street after having bitch-slapped her a few times and having given her a very bloody lip.

He bellows obsessively, "I'll follow you!"

Her retort back to him, "You woudn't dare!", with her wearing those funny, funky sunglasses with blood and spittle dribbling out of her mouth, is priceless!

Incidentally, I happen to live near the street corner in Berlin (Lortzingstrasse and Graunstrasse) where this scene takes place! And it isn't by design! I only discovered it a few weeks ago upon re-watching the movie! In the film, Adjani walks right past my place after witnessing the accident with the car sliding off the flatbed truck.