I don't see how anyone can think Simon was supernatural - Session 9 (2001) Discussion

[–] jackiefoxybrown 12 years ago

Yes,even when I didn't really comprehend the film initially I never thought that the movie had any supernatural aspects to it at all.However,I can understand how some ppl can interpret the film as supernatural with the deep voice of Gorden,but if they wanted to they could have made the voice sound whiny and high pitched. The tone of the voice is just emphasis on how the troubled minds of the film hear the constant egging on to do bad things.

reply

[–] Reallusion1 11 years ago

That was not a woman's voice.

reply

[–] StarskyandChinaHutch 12 years ago

Don't be narrow-minded. If you're going to debate it you should at the very least be open to alternative persuasions.

reply

[–] FourthYear 12 years ago

Some people can sadly only see things literally. The "psychological/ supernatural" argument is wildly beaten to death here, and to each their own, but yeah, I think it comes down to this:

If this movie is about someone getting "possessed by Simon," then this is an awful and stupid movie.
If it's about psychologically falling apart, then this is an awesome and intelligent movie.

And since the director/ writer isn't a FearNet-writing moron...

reply

[–] StarskyandChinaHutch 12 years ago

Well, it's a damn good thing they kept it ambiguous then.

reply

[–] MovieBeth 12 years ago

The beauty of this film is that many things were left ambiguous. The viewer is allowed to "use your imagination".

Yes, if this was just another demon possession flick, none of us would still be thinking about it over a decade after the movie's release.

reply

[–] Foxbarking 11 years ago

The beauty of this film is that many things were left ambiguous. The viewer is allowed to "use your imagination".

No disrespect intended personally, but this is the most tired cliche in film making right now. There are so many films with ambiguous endings and everyone says that the ambiguous ending is what makes the film good since it is left up to the viewer to use their imagination.

The problem is that this has become the accepted way to end a movie that the writer is incapable of ending any other way. While ambiguous endings are good and have their place, they are used way too often in horror and mystery films today. It has become so overdone that the definite endings are now the rarity.

Although using one's imagination at the end of an ambiguous ending is a good thing, sometimes it's nice to have a film that has a definite ending. This film had a lot of promise, but I wasn't looking for an ambiguous ending. I've had my fill of them. I would have liked to have seen some resolution worthy of the amazing buildup this film had.

I still give this movie a really good rating, but come on, it would be nice to have some movies that actually have endings again.

reply

[–] ChanceX74 11 years ago

You would prefer, perhaps, spoon-fed narratives? There are plenty out there for you to pick from should that be your fancy.

This may be, in your opinion, the most tired cliche in film making right now but it should be noted that this film is not from right now nor was ambiguity commonplace in film productions that weren't foreign in 2001.

Holding an older film to today's trends in order to label them as part of something that wasn't commonplace at their inception is... interesting if not logistically flawed.

reply

[–] novimovieman 12 years ago

Allowing people to have their own opinion means:

If this movie is about someone getting "possessed by Simon," then this is an awesome and intelligent movie.
If it's about psychologically falling apart, then this is an awful and stupid movie.

"The unexamined life is not worth living for man." Socrates/Plato

reply

[–] verycoolnin 12 years ago

Listen to the commentary. They wanted to make it supernatural at the start then they said it would be better if everything was left ambiguous.

reply

[–] Reallusion1 11 years ago

Simple. Simons voice spoke in the same roon that Mary's chair was in. The tapes of the old events played as the new events occurred. The demon said it prowled on the weak and wounded. I understand that you think its all symbolic, but the same reasons you think it was symbolic could easily point to something demonic. Many people seem to hate anything spiritual because of their personal ideals. Neither synopsis is better than the other.

reply

[–] vojkan087 11 years ago

How closer can we be to true demons than some psychiatric disorders, like psychopathy, SPD or DID.

Isn't mental disorder something that ''lives'' only in weak or wounded?! Even those with genetic predisposition to psychopatic behavior usually have to have a social trigger for them to become predators.

I think this movie is exactly about that...Those who claim this movie is a ghost story is claming it to be shallow Halloween scare flick, and it is so much more...Generation obsessed with Vampire diaries, wizzards and witches can't grasp the deeper meanings in movies, or true horror of mental ilness, I get it...but you could try sometimes.

reply

[–] Reallusion1 11 years ago

A subtle demonic possession isn't cheap. Its not nearly on the same level as some simplistic slasher. I'm easily open to the notion of psychological causes in movies, but with the undeniable supernatural implications, this seems to be demonic. I'm not the one failing to see how demonic influence goes hand in hand with severe mental damage.

reply

[–] kurt-2000 11 years ago

There were too many coincidences occurring through out the movie for it to simply being a movie about people having mental breakdowns. Generator outside going down right when people were in key locations? That's an entity setting up everyone at the same time. Kid just happens to be in the tunnel when the generator goes down, and the tape machine hadn't played Session 9 yet. Everyone was in a critical spot.

Mary's sub-conscience entity would have had to possess Gordy, or Simon was the murderous entity. So this was a movie about a paranormal attack on Gordy.

At first glace at this thread, I thought the OP was suggesting that the security guard set up the story line of the film when he said: "...the former inmates do return here..." But that would suggest Gordy was a former inmate released back out into society, gets married, then murders his wife and baby, puts silver dollars on the floor to set up one of crew members, happens to turn off the generator just at the exact right time when everyone was in place, just happened to know two of his crew were in tunnels when the generator was turned off, just happen to set Mary's session box in a place his crew member would find it, etc.

reply

[–] kinaiscute 11 years ago

Exactly! You just summed up exactly why this is not simply a psychological movie. What stood out to me was how Mary's other personalities claimed they lived in her eyes and mouth indicating that they were exclusive to Mary. Simon spoke as if he did this all the time with many different people. I don't know how anyone can deny the supernatural aspects of this movie.

reply

[–] kurt-2000 11 years ago

You neglected to debunk all the coincidences I was referring to, so you need to go back and re-read. No one turned off the generator just at the right time, when everyone was in a vulnerable position at the facility. That was paranormal. Simon was an entity that possessed people and preyed on the weak like all evil entities do. Should we discuss all the coincidences that occurred that couldn't have been created by people?

reply

[–] beierfilms 11 years ago

I always find threads like this interesting because they seem to go in contrast to the intent of the movie. There are a great many films which drop hints as to more than one possible explanation but leave the final choice up to the viewer. This is clearly one of those.

Yes, most things in the film point to Gordon being crazy and Simon being symbolic but there are plenty of odd coincidences that are clearly meant to get the view to CONSIDER that Simon might be something more. This film is effective because it cleverly walks that line where the audience is unsure of what Simon is and why Gordon murders his wife. The "wounded and weak" bit is a great example of this. It can certainly be read symbolically BUT it's certainly interesting that both Gordon and Mary were LITERALLY wounded before they went nuts and were taken over by Simon.

According to the wiki page, the filmmakers actually filmed footage of a homeless woman living in the hospital who was responsible for a lot of the "super-natural" phenominon. When they finished editing the movie, they realized that this took away from a lot of the tension so they cut her out to allow more of a possibility of Simon as a super-natural being.

Given this, it's odd that you are so against anyone noticing a touch of the supernatural here.

reply

[–] lazarillo 11 years ago

It is ambiguous, but if you notice NO ONE IS LISTENING to the tapes when Simon starts talking. The voice that talks to Gordon doesn't necessarily have to be THE Simon that the tapes refer to when Mike is listening to them earlier. So if Simon is not the EXACT same entity as what Gordon hears, it doesn't have to be supernatural and may just be symbolic.

If he is the same entity though, it would be supernatural. The key is whether "Session 9" is really playing when there's no one there to hear it or if the whole thing is in Gordon's head (as half the movie is by that point). The "Session 9" does refer to Mary and her other alter egos, but since Gordon was hanging around the hospital at night, he COULD have listened to the tapes himself and incorporated them into his own insanity.

I think it's very intentionally unresolved. It's kind of like another great scene in "The Shining" where the ghosts seem to somehow open the pantry door, but there are other possible explanations. . .

reply

[–] wishiwasapopstar 11 years ago

I thought they pretty much told you it was supernatural at the very end of the Simon interview. Simon says he lives inside the weak and the wounded, then the psychologist asks Simon why Mary listened to him and he replies with something along the lines of "Because they all do." Implying that he regularly convinces people to commit acts of murder.

Seemed pretty supernatural to me.

reply

[–] vojkan087 11 years ago

Not quite.
It was a metaphore...in other words, agressive alter ego lives in weak and wounded people, where it develops to protect the original identity from being hurt further.That is D.I.D. and that is why it is such a complex diagnosis, some would say controversial.

Also, you can hear Billy, protective but not agressive alter ego, saying he lives in the eyes.

Princess, her childish alter ego, lives in the mouth.

reply

[–] kurt-2000 11 years ago

Billy is the reasoning side of the brain, Princess is the emotional side. Simon is the sub-conscience taken over by an entity.

reply

[–] vojkan087 11 years ago

''Billy is the reasoning side of the brain, Princess is the emotional side. Simon is the sub-conscience taken over by an entity.''

And this makes more sense to you than>

Billy is the reasoning side of the brain, Princess is the emotional side. Simon is the agressive, destructive side - enraged with those who hurt the original id.

How does this sound impossible to you?!

I am impressed by your attempt to twist the logic to fit the ghost story...

reply

[–] kurt-2000 11 years ago

Vojkan: I'm impressed that you avoided my challenge for someone to explain how the generator could go down right when everyone was in their most vulnerable position, not to mention just before Mike was going to listen to Session 9 just before the power went down. Coincidence? That's a pretty big one. Not to mention all the other unexplained coincidences.

Left brain = creative side
Right brain = analytic side

Sub-conscience = inner minds eye that can't be controlled by an individual, unless possessed by an entity.

This isn't complicated Voj

reply

[–] MovieBeth 11 years ago

The movie leaves the end game up to the individual to decide what exactly was the driving force. My own interpretation is it was not a demon or possession, but that the hospital building was the nail in the coffin for the asbestos crew. Was there something more to it then just madness? Yeah, the film gives off that vibe, but I don't think it had to do with possession or demons.

If all had been answered for us, then this film would not have achieved the following that is has for the past 13 yrs.

reply

[–] kurt-2000 11 years ago

But remember the generator going down right at a point in time when everyone in the building was in a different location and vulnerable. The down generator is also the reason Mike didn't get a chance to listen to Session 9. Way too convenient for the killer. Had to be demonic possession.

reply

[–] kurt-2000 11 years ago

But remember the generator going down right at a point in time when everyone in the building was in a different location and vulnerable. The down generator is also the reason Mike didn't get a chance to listen to Session 9. Way too convenient for the killer. Had to be demonic possession.

reply

[–] vojkan087 11 years ago

I avoided the generator thing because it just wasn't a proper argument. It is a dramatic effect, artistic element to bring up the atmosphere, and it eventually did nothing...so why would it be important. Did all of them die during the blackout? Do you have any reason to believe the blackout is a work of a ghost?

As I said, power went down in my building just as I was walking down the stairs...more than once. Was ghost trying to kill me, again and again? Am I living in a haunted building?

What other unexplained coincidences?

I, on the other hand, am impressed by your attempt to sound all scientific in explaining to be 101 of brain function while using the ''unless possessed by an entity'' sentence...WOW! ''Entity'' does sound much more serious than ''ghost'' or ''demon''.

THERE ARE NO GHOSTS THAT CUT POWER, just deal with it.

reply

[–] kurt-2000 11 years ago

THERE ARE NO GHOSTS THAT CUT POWER, just deal with it.

Why would the writers put this scene in a key location of the story line. You make no sense. Not to mention all of the crew members being in vulnerable areas of the building when the power goes off. It's amazing how much of this story line you ignore to support your own views. Still waiting for you to explain how all the coins got into the wall, and who would know this character would just happen to be walking down the hall. More story line you decided to ignore? Writers place this information into stories for a reason.

reply

[–] ChanceX74 11 years ago

There is also the matter of Gordon wandering off in a daze and winding up sitting, spaced-out, at the potter's field. Inside, at that exact moment, Mike finds the Mary Hobbs file stamped with "Deceased #444" on the folder. We cut to Gordon talking on the mobile to what is presumably dead air (since it is later revealed what transpired at his home before this point) as the camera pans down and reveals an overturned broken grave marker right where he's sitting. The number on it? (Gasp!) 444.

People can argue dramatic effect all they like, this specific scene is just a little too convenient and too coincidental to imply anything but some sort of meta-connection to the events as they are unfolding in the narrative as opposed to some rather in-your-face symbolism.

In order to maintain the dramatic effect theory, it would have to be a tight knit and coincidental constellation of events placing him at the grave right at the moment Mike finds the file purely for the benefit of the audience. In order to push the theory that that Gordon had access to all the tapes and files and then incorporated them into his psychosis, one would have to ignore that we are shown Mike being the only one to find anything pertaining to Hobbs or insist that Gordon had unfettered access to them off screen (then also ignore that, even during the revelation of unseen events near the end of the film, any such scenes of Gordon having access seem notably absent).

Those arguing that no one was there to hear the Session 9 tape are conveniently forgetting that Mike went down there to specifically listen to it, had it set up and starting to play, before the generator issue removed him from the room. Of course the tape would continue playing from that point when the power came back on back on if it's already been set to do so; it isn't going to pause itself waiting for someone to come along and hear it.

As for the cut homeless woman, it was always intended to be a red-herring but they rightfully cut it because it would have disrupted tension. There is even dialogue by the security guard in the very beginning about how former patients would find their way back there because they had nowhere else to go. The audience was expected to assume events were being caused by a mentally disturbed prodigal patient before the narrative revealed, or at least inferred, otherwise.

reply

[–] kurt-2000 11 years ago

Those arguing that no one was there to hear the Session 9 tape are conveniently forgetting that Mike went down there to specifically listen to it, had it set up and starting to play, before the generator issue removed him from the room. Of course the tape would continue playing from that point when the power came back on back on if it's already been set to do so; it isn't going to pause itself waiting for someone to come along and hear it.

That means nothing. Maybe the entity didn't care if the recording came on later, just as long as human ears didn't listen to it. Clearly enough evidence is written into the script for two reasons. Either an entity was the driving force for the murders, or the writer/director wanted the paranormal to be a STRONG possibility for audience theories. For anyone to suggest the paranormal is 'out of the question', is just being dishonest. period.

reply

[–] ChanceX74 11 years ago

That means nothing. Maybe the entity didn't care if the recording came on later

You misunderstand me. That no one was there to hear the Session 9 tape is a moot point. It's moot because the power went out when it had been set to play and would have automatically started once the power came on again anyway. that's straight cause/effect.

I'm not sure what you mean about an entity not caring; that's what was going to happen regardless:

Start tape.
Power out - Tape off.
Power on - Tape on.

This would occur no matter who was or wasn't in the room and would even occur with no one in the room so it really can't be used to validate or dispute anything.

reply

[–] kurt-2000 11 years ago

This is just my personal opinion, but I think the point you just made above supports my premise that an entity is at work, or the writer/director wouldn't have included: Start tape.
Power out - Tape off.
Power on - Tape on.

I'm not trying to second guess your views, but filming the final session after the power came on was the chilling event found in most paranormal horror films. I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with people believing that this is a simple murder mystery with no evil entity, but so much is included in this film that leaves viewers with the impression that an entity is behind the voice.
So could people on this board at least agree that viewers were baited by the director to believe that two theories about murder motives could be valid.

reply

[–] ChanceX74 11 years ago

I believe this is the point at which we arrive at running in circles. I'll keep saying the tape proves nothing because the player, once set to play, is only at the mercy of the entity called electricity. You will keep insisting that this somehow proves something completely unrelated to whether the player is receiving electrical power or not.

So could people on this board at least agree that viewers were baited by the director to believe that two theories about murder motives could be valid.

I believe I have stated this very thing on more than one occasion; neither premise can be entirely ruled out and, honestly, an argument could be made that both exist simultaneously.

reply

[–] Danimal_77 11 years ago

He's clearly a religious person and that's why he's drawn towards the "entity/possession" angle and not the psychological one.

reply

[–] haunt_freak 10 years ago

Not necessarily. I'm an atheist and I can entertain ideas of supernatural nature. It's called suspension of disbelief.

=============
ARE YOU A PARTY ANIMAL?
http://www.facebook.com/business.trip.film

reply

[–] kurt-2000 11 years ago

"...but if you notice NO ONE IS LISTENING to the tapes when Simon starts talking."

This supports the theory that Simon is an entity, since Mike conveniently walks away without listening to Session 9 and then he's murdered. Had he listened to Session 9, he could have gotten out of the building and escaped. Another generator coincidence and supports a paranormal argument.

reply

[–] Red_Dust 11 years ago

Am I missing something? If Mike had listened to session 9, what would give him the idea that Simon supposedly possessed Gordon? Mike didn't know he killed his wife. He only knew what Phil told him, the fake memory of Gordon hitting his wife because he was suppressing the memory of what really happened. What would make Mike want to escape after listening to session 9? I must be missing something. He couldn't have just come to the conclusion that Gordon was now possessed. What would give Mike the idea that Simon was an entity anyway? The doctor thought it was an alter made up by her own subconscious. If you are going to say Simon's voice gives it away, well that is not a valid argument because in real life some people with
DID/schoziphrenia can imitate a different voice auite well. They could have just made Simon's voice a real male to add to the spooky effect.

I still don't know how to interp this movie which is why I am reading theories to see which one makes the most sense. Your theory was good but there is no reason why Mike would have escaped after listening to session 9.

reply

[–] kurt-2000 11 years ago

"If Mike had listened to session 9, what would give him the idea that Simon supposedly possessed Gordon? "

Because Mike then would have had a choice as to whether he should leave the building or talk with the other crew members. He was listening to these tapes for a reason. Mike knew strange things were going on, and this would support a specific suspicion that the building is an unhealthy influence.

reply

[–] jackiefoxybrown 9 years ago

I know this thread is old now, but the sense of realism is what makes this movie so friggin' scary. When I first saw this I was scared out of my mind.
I was actually paranoid that I might start hearing voices because I was going though a particularly tough time and could have been considered "weak" and it scared the bejeezus out of me.

reply

[–] beierfilms 9 years ago

I think it's interested how angry some people get about a supernatural interpretation. It seems pretty clear that a big part of what makes this film interesting is that the filmmakers deliberately leave room for interpretation. The movie isn't vague or pointlessly ambiguous but it does ask a few key questions of its audience and allows them to answer those questions for themselves.

I personally don't really understand how anyone can think that a little bit of ambiguity wasn't intended by the filmmakers. Especially given interviews in which they state they removed certain elements from the screenplay (like a homeless woman responsible for the creepy sounds), because the movie was more effective when they allowed for more interpretations as to what was really going on.

It's similar to the film Total Recall

SPOILERS!

Obviously that film's ending is meant to be ambiguous, presenting the audience with two possibilities (one being a dream and one being real life), but we're not ever meant to know the truth 100%.

reply

[–] northernlad 11 years ago

Haven't watched this movie or been to this board in years, but I knew coming back here tonight I'd still find this argument going on. I don't see why people have such a problem with other people believing it was something supernatural like a demon, which is what I believe.

I just don't get why anyone would try to tell someone else what to think. You think what you want but allow others to do so as well.

If you love someone, set them free. If they come back, nobody else wanted them either.

reply

[–] vojkan087 11 years ago

''I don't see why people have such a problem with other people believing it was something supernatural like a demon, which is what I believe.''

Personally, I always have a problem with people being stupid...

reply

[–] kurt-2000 11 years ago

Evasiveness won't help your argument. Everyone dies when the generator goes down. That's a big coincidence.

reply

[–] stranger_uk-1 11 years ago

No one dies when the generator goes down, Mike goes out and re-fills the generator, the generator comes back on and the kid walks out to the van, I suppose you could argue about when Phil is killed. He kills everyone after the generator is back on but it also happens to be after Phil confronts him about stabbing Hank.

reply

[–] kurt-2000 11 years ago

Everyone is in a vulnerable position when the generator goes down, and that's the common denominator. Session 9 is never heard because the generator goes down. Two of the men were in tunnels when the generator goes down as well.

reply

[–] Red_Dust 11 years ago

Mike listening to session 9 was not a threat to Gordon because Mike didn't know his life was in danger and that Gordon had killed Hank or his wife.

reply

[–] cinecephale 11 years ago

I think the film is interesting and haunting because it is ambiguous. There is many possible readings, including a supernatural element. There are a lot of coincidences that could point that way, like when Gordon hurts himself while the recording is about a knife, or how he uses Mary's room, sits on her tomb when Mike sees the number of her file, etc. I don't think the director wanted it to be clear-cut : supernatural or not, horror or not. Maybe the place isn't haunted, but Gordon is haunted by the place, it triggers something in him, something that was already building maybe, but that expresses itself there.

reply

[–] kurt-2000 11 years ago

Mike wasn't an idiot. He was doomed to die also, because of his potential to figure out what's going on. Thus the reason the entity killed him. Plus the Session Tapes were easy to find, so perhaps the entity was playing cat and mouse with Mike until the end.

reply

[–] solidturtle 11 years ago

You're the one being stupid with your rash generalizations and inability to properly analyze a film.

A supernatural explanation doesn't make the film stupid, and the two answers don't have to be mutually exclusive. Simon can be an entity that possess people through a process similar to one going mentally insane. This raises the film's central question and main point of ambiguity: Is possession real or is it mental illness? The fact that film provides you with this question is proof of it being multi-layered.

In the end, trying to simply figure out which is which for the purpose of tying a neat bow on the narrative just does the movie a disservice and ignores the subtleties of the film. Would you prefer a flat picture, with an explicit answer and nothing to analyze and question, or one that provides a certain level of ambiguity that can be discussed and analyzed via the various layers provided? Because when you say you have a problem with people thinking the other way, then one would think that you would prefer the former.

reply

[–] reaseltbim 11 years ago

Next thing You are going to say that the girl in the Exorcist was not possessed but only on drugs? right? Or she had an illness, The Exorcist in NO WAY can be about a demon.

You don't have to be religious or believe in ghosts to watch movies and realize they are about possession or ghosts, They might not exist in real life but they surely exist in movies.

I find it ironic that you say the generator turning off at the exact moment they were vulnerable was " It is a dramatic effect, artistic element to bring up the atmosphere" So a Director can do things for dramatic effect, Have voices around to create suspense, but he cant have a ghost in a movie because "Stupid and unrealistic"

It must be boring to watch supernatural movies with you.
What do you think about vampires Witches or werewolf movies?
I would LOVE to hear your take on any kind of supernatural movie and see you come up with realistic excuses hahaha

reply

[–] kidicarus1983 11 years ago

Yeah my opinion is that the movie intended for it to be a supernatural possession of the emotionally weak Gordon. From the beginning when he walked into the place it latched onto him. At the end when they were looking for Hank, he was drawn to Marys room. Just my interpretation. The other theory isn't stupid by any means and certainly not wrong either though.

reply

[–] northernlad 9 years ago

Personally, I always have a problem with people being stupid.

Probably explains why so many people have a problem with you. Go figure.

It'd be a better world if people would stop trying to dictate what other people think...especially when it comes to fiction.

I gotta go feed that thing in Room 33.

reply

[–] T-eschberger 10 years ago

I hate it when people think anything supernatural in films like this somehow make it "less than" by default. The brilliance of the film is that it's strong enough to support both theories.

People really need to stop thinking of horror as something dirty and artistically weak.

reply

[–] gotmyorangecrush 10 years ago

Thats wasn't my interpretation at all. I absolutely think it was a demon, one that possesses people that are weak and broken down.

Still Shooting With Film!

reply

[–] verycoolnin 10 years ago

I found it to be a great horror movie with an ambiguous ending because that's what they wanted. Plain and simple. You guys can argue all you want. In the end, it's just a movie.

reply

[–] BePatient 10 years ago

The voice. The voice Gordon hears is clearly the same as the one we hear on the tapes as Simon. It seems incredibly unlikely that Gordon would in fact have heard the tapes, so how could he know what Simon sounds like? He couldn't, which suggests a spirit. But maybe the actual voice we get to hear when it speaks to Gordon isn't meant to be taken quite that literally. Who knows? (I haven't read the entire thread, so excuse me if someone mentioned this already.)

reply