MovieChat Forums > Signs (2002) Discussion > The "They're really not aliens" interpre...

The "They're really not aliens" interpretation

posted 5 years ago by Wuchak (8742)
61 replies | jump to latest

It's possible that the aliens aren't really extraterrestrials -- as we conventionally understand 'em, at least -- but rather demons from the underworld (the dark spiritual dimension) invading the physical realm to take as many victims as they can. The idea that they are aliens is just a mass deception and, remember, the devil is the "father of lies."

There are many clues:

- The spaceships are never seen, just lights in the sky (the devil's also called "the prince of the power of the air" in the bible).
- The "aliens" look decidedly demonic and have sorta cloven hoofs.
- The primitive method of repelling the aliens is discovered in three cities in the Middle East and is holy water, which is ordinarily used by Catholic & Episcopal exorcists against demonic manifestations (Shyamalan, by the way, attended Catholic & Episcopal schools).
- The three cities in the Middle East could represent Father/Son/Holy Spirit.
- The daughter, Bo, was said to be a "gift from God" who was sensitive to impure water. People's mouths dropped when she was born as she was spoken of as an angel. Her name in Old Norse means "to live" and she was the messenger from God (an angel) able to discern the weapon of life needed to defeat the demonic menace.
- The way the "holy water" affects the "aliens" is reminiscent of the way a cross/crucifix affects vampires or a demon-possessed person in movies.
- The dog and bird were clearly possessed.
- The crop circles are occultic symbols and possible portals from the underworld.
- The crop circle in the Hess cornfield resembles a pitchfork.
- When the disillusioned minister cries out to God that he hates him he actually displays his faith; after all, he has to believe in God to have a conversation with him, voicing his ire. Suddenly his son recovers from the asthma attack and the news announcer declares that the "aliens" are retreating. You see, FAITH sends the enemy fleeing with their tails between their legs.

Also, we see evidence that the demons are personal in nature. The "alien" locked in the vet's pantry was linked to the guilt and disillusionment that haunted the vet after the death of the minister's wife.

Keep in mind that when the film debuted, Shyamalan was known as the king of the plot twist, yet the revelation that the aliens’ weakness is water wasn’t exactly a mind-blowing turn seeing as how the earth is 71% water and technologically advanced extraterrestrials who can travel the galaxy would know this. Moreover, the aliens curiously have no physical weapons and are easily trapped by a pantry door. It stands to reason that Shyamalan hid the twist in the movie. That twist is that the aliens are really demonic in nature.

I'm not saying you can't view the movie as a literal extraterrestrial invasion flick, but rather that the underlying demonic reading is a legitimate way of viewing the material because it all ties together and links to the story arc of the disillusioned ex-minister finding redemption. Also, I'm not suggesting that you have to believe in God to appreciate this movie, which is obviously not the case. I don't believe in androids traveling back in time, but that doesn't prevent me from appreciating the "Terminator" flicks.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Or, it could have been just another stupid alien movie.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

I think the evidence shows that it's really about demons, which naturally ties into the protagonist's struggle with God/faith.

But people are more than welcome to view it as a malevolent alien visitation flick, if they want.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 5 years ago

I dig this take. I always felt that this was an exceptional movie with a dumb ending. This interpretation is an excellent fix for that. I must rewatch it now.

[–] TandyMan (11109) 5 years ago

I read a big blog all about this some years back and I can no longer see the movie in any other light. It seems very clear and direct to me that this is what the movie is actually about. The fact that there's such huge segments of the film all about faith speaks volumes. To say nothing of M Night's religious background. And the fact that Mel signed on for it. Mel doesn't do schlock alien movies. This is an excellent and clever film whose true message continues to escape most people who view it.

[–] Nate Adams SA23 (902) 5 years ago

No ships can be explained by teleportation. And demons cannot exist on our plane in a large scale, they in another dimension. Also they know all about water and the aliens didn’t.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

Fallen angels entered our plane to have sex with women in Genesis 6:1-4, so there's a biblical precedent. Also, during the future apocalypse demonic spirits will be released from the Abyss to torment people, as detailed in Revelation 9:2-6. Furthermore, satan "came to" Christ during his temptation in the desert (Matthew 4:3).

they know all about water and the aliens didn’t.

As I noted, the water is a type for holy water.

And how would aliens not know about water when the Earth's surface is 71% water, which they would readily observe from space?

[–] Nate Adams SA23 (902) 5 years ago

The Bible verse their is referring to “sons of God” who were actual humans from the lineage of Seth. There’s multiple ‘sons of God ‘ references in the Bible and in this instance they refer to humans. There’s also plenty verses about angels and them not having human desires or sexual needs, which would include the fallen angels as well, they don’t have the equipment.

As someone below said, normal rain is not holy water. I stick to my theory that this was refugee aliens who took over their slave ships and became pirates to survive. They got bad intell about this planet from the Hutt cartel who mostly operate in desert planets.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

There's been much debate on who the "sons of God" are in Genesis 6:1-4. You argue they were human males of the lineage of Seth. I disagree and here's why...

The Hebrew for "the sons of God" in Genesis 6:2,4 is ben elohim, which is also used in Job 1:6, 2:1 & 38:7 wherein the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings, which is why the Septuagint translates ben elohim as "angels" in the Job verses.

Genesis 6:4 offers support for this by glaringly CONTRASTING "the sons of God" with the "daughters of men." The former are angelic in nature whereas the latter are human. This explains why the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha also interpret ben elohim -- “the sons of God” -- as angels in Genesis 6:2,4.

If these “sons of God” were fallen angels, why did they procreate with women? The biblical data suggests that they wanted to taint the human bloodline in order to block the “seed” that the LORD prophesied would come through the female and “crush” Satan’s head (Genesis 3:15). The “seed” is a reference to Christ, the Anointed One, who came “to destroy the devil’s work” (1 John 3:8).

In order for this to never happen again, God condemned the “sons of God” who committed this act, as shown in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6.

We know that this particular judgment only came upon the fallen angels who “sinned” and not to all fallen angels because there are evil spirits active on Earth to this day, albeit in the spiritual realm (Ephesians 6:12). This is supported by the fact that Jude 1:6, noted above, is solely referring to the fallen angels who “abandoned their proper dwelling.” What does this mean? It’s likely a reference to them leaving the spiritual realm—their natural habitation—to manifest in the physical realm in physical form for the purpose of polluting the human bloodline and thereby preventing the birth of the Anointed One.

You can draw your own conclusions on Genesis 6:1-4 and the movie's subtext; I was just offering a valid interpretation.

[–] Nate Adams SA23 (902) 5 years ago

I have seen this argument before but it’s twisting the scriptures for what it’s not. Your translation is correct but the word was used interchangeably as well. There’s many examples of this in the Bible regardless of your translation. But the main issue here is that these angels were definitely not sons of God anymore and were called flat out devils or fallen angels. The angels who stayed loyal to God in heaven would never do anything to disrespect God in this manner as they were all witnesses to how God cast out Satan and his followers. Only for them to now be called sons of God. If you need biblical texts for this you will have to wait till I get up for night shift but I like this topic.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

Actually I'm not "twisting the Scriptures" since (1) the pieces of the scriptural puzzle fit together; plus (2) what I detailed concerning the Hebrew phrase ben elohim, aka "the sons of God."

As noted, the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha -- uninspired books from the 400 silent years between the testaments -- interpreted ben elohim in Genesis 6:2,4 as angels (obviously in rebellion). This was over 2000 years ago. Today, respectable theologians like John MacArthur support this interpretation, not that I'm a follower of MacArthur (but he's a'right).

The following passages also show that the ben Elohim refer to angels:

One day the angels (ben Elohim) came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.
- Job 1:6

On another day the angels (ben Elohim) came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them to present himself before him.
- Job 2:1

Which angels came to present themselves before the LORD? Neither verse says but it was likely the archangels — the ruling angels — reporting to God, like Michael and Gabriel. Both verses add “and Satan also came with them,” as if to say that it wasn’t just the heavenly archangels who reported to God, but the disgraced archangel as well. This shows us that, fallen or not, Satan still has to regularly report to the Sovereign LORD and give account.

Christ himself referred to evil spirits as "angels" when he noted "the devil and his angels" in Matthew 25:41. Observe that he didn't distinguish that they were fallen angels. Why? No doubt because the context reveals that he's referring to rebellious angels.

Just the same, we know "the sons of God" in Genesis 6:2,4 are angelic beings -- see Job 38:7 -- in light of the fact that they're contrasted with the "daughters of men," but we also know from their actions that they're fallen.

Yet believe as you will.

[–] Nate Adams SA23 (902) 5 years ago

I see you are quoting apocryphal books there, please stick to the Bible rather. Those books have been discussed so much as mythological. many of these views come from that point of view. For instance there's a book of Enoch in there but Enoch never wrote a book at all. So many false teachings around aliens and demons come from these books. I stick to the Bible only as any answer I need is in there with diligent study.

Last point, "the sons of God" part would be weird to describe them like that as they are not "the sons of God" anymore, they are fallen angels. In fact, God just called Satan a serpent earlier in the Garden of Eden, and now he calls them "the sons of God" I doubt God would create that confusion.

Like I said, it's a phrase used with multiple descriptions or possibilities. You are a " son of God". or me or anyone else, but that doesn't mean we are now angels. In fact the bible goes out of it's way to describe angels as heavenly beings whenever they show up. They are not called "the sons of God" again but angels, and one your point above, when Satan does show up for that meeting in the book of Job, God calls him out immediately. He may sneak in as an angel but he certainly was not. He was fallen. "the sons of God" title was long gone for him.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

No, I did not quote any apocryphal books. I merely stated that those apocryphal works interpreted ben elohim -- "the sons of God" -- as angelic beings to show that this interpretation goes back well before the incarnation of Christ. Hence, you can't argue that what I'm saying is "too new to be true."

As far as sticking to the Bible goes, I offered adequate proof that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2,4 likely refer to angelic beings, obviously in rebellion. By contrast, what scriptural proof have you offered that "the sons of God" are men descended from Seth? Nada.

they are not "the sons of God" anymore, they are fallen angels.

Wrong, they're sons of God who are fallen. Consider your hypothetical son: If he rebels and renounces you for life would that mean he's no longer your son, born of your seed? Would he no longer be a "son of man"? Obviously not.

This is why I quoted the Bible verses from Job 1:6 & 2:1. Both state that the ben elohim -- "the sons of God" -- came to present themselves before God and satan was one of 'em. Observe that it doesn't say:

"the angels (ben Elohim) came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them... although satan isn't really a ben elohim"

And satan didn't "sneak in" to the meeting. He's a fallen archangel still accountable to the Sovereign LORD. See 1 Kings 22:19-23 where satan is likely the "lying spirit" since he's the "father of lies."

Genesis 3 doesn't call satan a serpent, but rather describes the creature as a "beast of the field." Obviously satan possessed the innocent creature in order to effectively tempt Eve. In the New Testament the demonic conglomerate called Legion possessed a herd of pigs (Luke 8:30-33).

As to your last point, Christ himself called evils spirits "angels" in Matthew 25:41; he didn't even distinguish that they were fallen (although they were)

[–] Nate Adams SA23 (902) 5 years ago

I wish I can do the quote thing too so bear with me...

These are some verses where the sons of God refers to men, or children of God or some variation of it, I tried to get ones that have correlation with our topic here.
Matthew 5:9
Luke 6:35
Luke 20:34-36
John 1:12-13
John 11:52
Galatians 3:24-29
Ephesians 1:5
1 John 3:9-10
Revelation 21:7

The section below I took from
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_724.cfm

Furthermore, the Old Testament does contain references to the sons of God as being human beings.

In Hosea 2:1 we find the following description of the sons of Israel: You are the sons of the living God. Here the phrase sons of God definitely refers to humans, not angels.

Deuteronomy 14:1 reads You are the sons of the Lord your God. Again another reference of the sons of God to humans.

God also calls Israel His son. When Israel was a youth I loved him and out of Egypt I called My son (Hosea 11:1).

Isaiah 43:6 The Lord, speaking of Israel says to the north, Bring My sons from afar.

What I base this whole view of is the context of Gen 6 and what happens before and after that chapter. We have the fall of Adam and Eve and then Cain killing Able. Cain is banished as a result and Seth is born to continue Adam's legacy.
Cain goes and establishes a city where immediately murder is committed and it goes downhill from there. Seth and his descendants stay on their own in some form of seclusion. They gain a reputation for being Godly still until they see that the daughters of Cain are quite hot. These two sides eventually with time intermarry and things get worse from there.
Gen6:5 God sees this and is not happy.

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Note, he doesn't talk about fallen angels or aliens or anything, his issue is with the human condition and the sin he now sees.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

When did I ever say anything about aliens pertaining to Genesis 6:1-4? You have a tendency to argue your position by putting words in the other person’s mouth. All I said was that the “sons of God” (ben Elohim) in verses 2 & 4 most likely refer to angelic beings who manifest in the physical realm to copulate with women, which is supported by ben Elohim clearly referring to angelic beings in Job 1:6, 2:1 & 38:7. As they say “Scripture interprets Scripture,” which is a hermeneutical law.

You provide a nice list of believers being referred to as “sons of God” or “children of God,” which I have no issue with, but the context of this discussion is the Hebraic Scriptures and, specifically, the phrase ben Elohim. This exact phrase isn’t used for human beings in the Old Testament, although Hosea 1:10 (not 2:1) and Deuteronomy 14:1 come close, as you point out (again, I don’t have an issue with saints being referred to as sons or children of God).

Yet Job is the oldest book of the Hebrew Scriptures and therefore its usage of ben Elohim in reference to angelic beings – three times – is the precedent, which isn’t to say that ben Elohim absolutely couldn’t refer to people elsewhere if the context pointed to this. But, again, Genesis 6:2,4 TWICE CONTRASTS "the sons of God" with the "daughters of men," which suggests that the former are not human. This was the interpretation of documents from the intertestamental period, including some copies of the Septuagint (1st century BC), which translate the Hebrew 'sons of God' into the Greek 'angels of God'. Moreover, this interpretation makes sense of otherwise puzzling verses, e.g. Jude 1:6 & 2 Peter 2:4.

You’re welcome to your interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, but I strongly lean toward this position based on the all-around evidence. You can read the various theories in this erudite thread: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8867/who-were-the-sons-of-god-bene-elohim-in-genesis-62

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

Concerning the movie, it is fantasy and my opening post offers an interpretation of the subtext based on clues in the film. On the surface it seems to be about an alien invasion while subtextually it’s about a demonic assault and, more importantly, one man’s faith.

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 5 years ago

Demons are repelled by water????

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

Water in the movie is figurative of holy water, which is typically used by Catholic & Episcopal exorcists against demonic manifestations (Shyamalan, by the way, attended Catholic & Episcopal schools). The daughter, Bo, discerned this weakness and is later likened to an angel; ‘Bo’ means “to live” and so she’s the “angel” who brought the family the weapon of life. The “primitive method” discovered in three Middle East cities is holy (pure) water and the three cities represent Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 5 years ago

But... how are these repelled by plain water?? Rain, lakes, oceans??

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

I haven't seen the movie in like seven years, so I don't know offhand if that is a legitimate plothole or if Shyamalan was able to explain it away somehow.

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 5 years ago

Well, it's probably because it really is an alien story and that Earth's specific composition of it, is their foil. Not to say that they don't have some type of sustaining liquid on their planet. It's just comprised of different elements than Earth's life liquid.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

You're welcome to interpret it that way, which is indeed the (obvious) surface interpretation, but -- as TandyMan points out above -- there's more than enough support for the demonic subtext.

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 5 years ago

I'm not buying it. But, like you said, we are all free to come to our own conclusions.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

It's all good.

[–] samoanjoes (56793) 5 years ago

I don't think so. Bo would drink water constantly which was never blessed.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

But she was clearly sensitive to impure water, which is unholy water. The "primitive method" discovered in three Middle East cities is holy water with the three cities representing Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

Graham (Gibson) shares the story later in the movie that his daughter, Bo, was likened to an angel when she was born and everyone's mouths dropped. An angel is a messenger from God. Moreover, her name means "to live" in Old Norse. This suggests that she was the 'angel' who discerned the weapon of life the family needed to survive the demonic assault.

[–] BurningSun (717) 5 years ago

I’m sure this is exactly what M Night Shamamamamamalan wants us to think. “Wow, the symbolism! What ever could it mean? Such a genius he is!”

There is a lot of symbolsim point that the aliens are representitive of demons or even angelic figures pushing Mel Gibson away/towards the name of God. However, it’s just bloated symbolism.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

He did it to give more depth to the typical alien invasion plot (which can be entertaining but those stories aren't something people can relate to beyond the ones who claim they were abducted by aliens). This angle made the movie more interesting because it's more relevant, unless of course the viewer doesn't believe there's a spiritual dimension.

Without this interpretation there's no plot twist and Shyamalan was known as the king of the plot twist. The idea that aliens who have advanced technology and can travel the galaxy prey upon a planet that is 71% water with no physical weapons is underwhelming and nonsensical. It's a lame revelation, but no plot twist. Thus, it stands to reason, Shyamalan hid the twist in the film.

[–] cv1cv (470) 5 years ago

Wuchak, read up on "holy water". The water that killed the alien in the Hess home was ordinary tap water. Anyone with a minimal knowledge of Catholicism knows that holy water is water that has been blessed. But if that's not enough to inform you, did you ever see The Exorcist? Father Karras explains it. So spare us your repetition of "I said it's holy water." It's not holy water.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

Since all genuine believers are "priests" in the New Covenant era (1 Peter 2:5–9) any genuine Christian who takes ordinary tap water and blesses it -- voila -- it becomes "holy water." An official Catholic or Episcopal minister is unnecessary.

Secondly, I'm interpreting a fantasy MOVIE by M. Night Shyamalan. It's a piece of art with a message and not reality. Water in the film is figurative of holy water, which Catholic & Episcopal exorcists use to repel demonic manifestations. Keep in mind that Shyamalan attended Catholic & Episcopal academies.

The method to repel the 'aliens' was discovered in three cities in the Middle East. This "primitive method" is a typical reference to holy water with the three cities representing Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

The Hess daughter, Bo, also discerned this primitive method. She was clearly sensitive to impure (unholy) water and used water to repel the aliens. Graham called her a "gift of God" and likened her to an angel. Furthermore, her name means "to live" in Old Norse. Thus she's the messenger of God (angel) who discerns the weapon of life the family would need to cause the demonic creatures to flee.

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

Can you define genuine Christian?

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

Someone who believes the message of Christ and perseveres; the opposite of a nominal Christian or a hypocrite, aka pretender.

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

It´s interesting that you mention "holy water" though since holy water isn´t Biblical.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

But the movie (which is fantasy) brings up the topic and poster cv1cv noted it. So I responded to his/her question. The bible doesn't say anything about "holy water" (which is why I wrote it in quotation marks), but the concept would apply to anything we consume to live -- which would include what we drink -- and relates to this verse:

For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
- 1 Timothy 4:4-5

This reveals the purpose of "saying grace," which is to (1) thank God for the food & drink and (2) consecrate it by the word of God & prayer. 'Consecrate' means to "set apart as sacred" or "make holy" -- i.e. purify -- which explains the English Standard Version's translation of verse 5: "for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer." So by speaking the word of God & praying over what you consume -- that is, blessing it -- you are by faith purging any potential impurities. Say, for instance, a restaurant is inadvertently serving contaminated food and everyone gets sick who ate that particular food except the believers who prayed over their vittles and actually believed.

This explains how a believer walking in faith could unknowingly drink poison and not be hurt by it (Mark 16:18).

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

Wuchak do you believe in OSAS?

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

The Scriptures definitely support the doctrine of eternal security 100%, as observed in John 10:28-29; however, the Bible clearly does not support the doctrine of unconditional eternal security. This is verified by numerous passages. For instance, the biblical writers warn believers of the “deceptiveness of sin” and the dire consequences of an unrepentant sinful lifestyle and the ensuing falling away, such as Paul (Galatians 5:19-21 & 6:7-8), Peter (2 Peter 2:20-21), Christ (Luke 13:1-9 & 8:13) and the writer of Hebrews (Hebrews 10:25-27).

Those who rigidly advocate the “once saved always saved” doctrine argue that, if people fall away from the Lord, they were never really saved in the first place. They contend that such people merely dabbled in Christianity and their faith was never really sincere; consequently, any positive changes in their lifestyles were superficial, the result of practicing some Scriptural principles, but not actually knowing the Lord.

Surely this is true, but the passages noted above (and several others) also show that Christians can abort their salvation if they choose to neglect their faith. After all, if it takes faith to be saved it naturally follows that people cannot be saved if they come to a point where they no longer believe (see 2 Timothy 2:11-13 & Titus 1:16).

I should stress, however, that there's a difference between a believer "stumbling" into sin and getting back up (1 John 1:8-9) and someone who has proudly "fallen away" and has no intention of penitence.

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

Sounds like a diplomatic response. What do YOU believe though?

"After all, if it takes faith to be saved it naturally follows that people cannot be saved if they come to a point where they no longer believe (see 2 Timothy 2:11-13 & Titus 1:16)." There are some scriptural counters to both though, I´d also argue that the Titus quote is not necessarily clear cut since, "claiming to know the Lord" wouldn´t be descriptive of someone who is saved and has the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. I don´t really want to get into a scriptural back and forth since I´ve had my fair share of arguments about it, was just curious to know what your personal view was.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

I believe what the balanced Scriptures teach on the topic, which is why I cited those passages.

The Greek word for "claiming" in Titus 1:16 means "to agree, confess, publicly declare," as noted here https://biblehub.com/greek/3670.htm. This fulfills half of the criteria for being saved according to Romans 10:9-10.

As for the other half, only God & the individual knows what s/he really believes in his/her heart. But we can generally identify those who are not genuine by their systematic "fruit," as shown in Matthew 7:15-23 where Christ twice pointed out that those who falsely speak for God (i.e. "false prophets") can be "recognized by their fruit," which brings to mind Titus 1:16 -- people who profess to be Christians but deny Christ by their actions, their regular ongoing behavior.

This isn't referring to someone who misses it and humbly 'fesses up, which is "keeping with repentance" (Luke 3:8), but rather someone who is stubbornly living in sin as a lifestyle with no concern of penitence, which explains why Christ called them "evildoers" or those who "practice lawlessness" or "workers of iniquity," cf. https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-23.htm.

Even in the event that a believer falls into a lifestyle of sin, the LORD offers much mercy & grace before cutting him/her out of the kingdom, as shown in the afore-cited Luke 13:1-9 (note the parable from verse 6 onward).

Chew on those passages I shared from the different New Testament writers at the beginning of my previous post. They're pretty unmistakable.

The awesome news is that salvation is guaranteed if one perseveres in faith https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+1%3A22-23&version=NIV.

[–] cv1cv (470) 5 years ago

Wuchak: Well OF COURSE if you alone define the elements of a fictional universe you will ALWAYS be correct. A three-year-old can do that. (And by the way, no one "blessed" the glasses of water in the film). My definitions in such a scenario are as good as yours, and I don't define holy water as something that any ol' Christian can create. Give us an interpretation that is based on WIDELY accepted terminology because your definition of the term is not widely accepted. The bottom line: You have created an untenable explanation of the events in the film that is only internally consistent with your idiosyncratic definitions. And that's why the vast majority (if not all) of professional film critics disagree with you. Your rambling thoughts are much ado about nothing.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

My opening post offers an interpretation of the subtext of the movie based on actual clues in the film. On the surface it seems to be about an alien invasion while subtextually it’s about a demonic assault and, more importantly, one man’s faith. Many others have noted this over the years since the film was released, so I'm not the only one. It's hidden in the film, to be sure, yet still fairly clear.

But you're welcome to believe what you want about the movie. It's a piece of art, after all, and viewers have the right interpret it as they see fit (which doesn't necessarily mean, of course, that their interpretation actually corresponds to the movie).

As far as "holy water" goes, it is only actually biblical in the sense noted above in my response to BillySlater, the post beginning with the words "But the movie (which is fantasy) brings up the topic." As far as the movie goes, holy water isn't actually mentioned, but the girl was sensitive to impure (unholy) water and the "primitive method" to repel the aliens discovered in three cities in the Middle East could be interpreted as holy water with the three cities symbolic of Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

[–] cv1cv (470) 5 years ago

Wuchak: You missed my point entirely. Your argument hinges ENTIRELY on your definition of holy water. Without that idiosyncratic definition (which does not agree with the wide consensus of what is considered a reasonable definition), your interpretation falls apart. I'm not concerned about what holy water actually is or whether it's Biblical. My point is that you confabulate a narrow definition of "holy water" as a cornerstone of your interpretation of the film (basically stating that all water is holy water, making it an utterly meaningless concept). And an interpretation based on a meaningless concept is an absurd interpretation. As I said, your argument has no internal consistency. In this discussion you repeatedly reference holy water as a key factor in your interpretation. Thus your logic is: The creatures aren't aliens, they are demons because they are harmed by holy water; all water is holy water. So if all water is holy water, where is the argument that the creatures are demons rather than aliens that are harmed by water???? Utterly absurd.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

You are the one who wanted to get technical about "holy water," referencing Catholic beliefs, so I got technical on the issue.

As far as the movie and its interpretation are concerned, it comes down to what M. Night Shyamalan conveyed in his film with the understanding that works of art can transcend the limitations of their creator's perception.

My interpretation of the movie -- conveyed in my opening post -- only mentions holy water once. In other words, it's merely a single factor amidst several clues.

This is just a friendly, interesting interpretation of the movie based on evidence in the film itself. It's for viewers to consider and nothing to fight tooth-and-nail over. You reject it and I'm perfectly fine with that.

I'd say more about the water angle but, like I said, I need to view the movie again since I haven't seen it in over seven years (yes, I posted my original comment seven months ago, but that's simply because I copied-and-pasted it from my review). I naturally don't remember all the details to properly debate the water aspect and other particulars at this time, but keep in mind it's all tied to one man's Christian faith struggle and his redemption. That is the story arc.

Have a good one.

[–] cv1cv (470) 5 years ago

Wuchak: You defended your "interpretation" FOUR TIMES in this thread by bringing up holy water. So tell us, if all water is holy water, how does that distinguish aliens who are harmed by water from demons who are harmed by holy water? You're evading that question because you simply don't have a defense. Next I suppose you'll be claiming that people all over the world, including those shown in the film, quickly blessed all the water before throwing it on the creatures. And your "I haven't seen the film in years" defense is equally absurd. You don't need to remember any details about "blessing the water" from the film to explain yourself. Your "friendly" interpretation certainly isn't "interesting", and in fact is stupid. Just admit the fallacy in your thinking and we can move on.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

And yet numerous others have come to this same interpretation based on the same clues provided by Shyamalan in the film itself. If people like you want to ignore this evidence and insist that the movie's just about an invasion of aliens from other planets, it's all good. It IS that on the surface, but the subtext reveals that the story could be viewed as a demonic invasion from the Underworld and this links to the protagonist's struggle with Christian faith.

I only spoke of the holy water issue (four times, according to your count) in response to other posters. My lengthy original post only mentioned the holy water issue once. It's only one factor amidst several clues. So you are the one who is obsessed with this particular element, not me. In fact, in your previous relatively short post you mentioned water 12 times and in this one 7 times. So your putting "FOUR TIMES" in emboldened capitals shows that you are projecting your own issues on to me.

"I haven't seen the film in years" defense is equally absurd.

How is it absurd? Seven plus years is a long time and so I understandably don't remember the details on the water issue. Isn't it logical that I should rewatch the film before commenting further on this issue? Shouldn't I be sure of the facts of the film before debating further?

Now chill, my friend; life on earth is not dependent upon how precisely the water was Kryptonite to the aliens/demons in this flick.

I promise to rewatch the movie when I get a chance (maybe tomorrow night) and return here with what I discover. If I was wrong on anything, I'll readily admit it. Cool?

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 5 years ago

The alternate interpretation is elegant and helps the movie's end make more sense. It is very strange how so many don't want it to be better. The emotional rejection of it is odd and perhaps born of hatred of all things religious. That or the trendy Shayamalan-hate is too hard to shake off.

You don't have to be religious to see how much better this approach is to the film.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

Well said, Anubis.

[–] cv1cv (470) 5 years ago

Wuchak: You evaded the question yet again. So here it is for the third time: If all water is holy water, how does that distinguish aliens who are harmed by water from demons who are harmed by holy water? After you refresh your memory about all the blessing of the water that occurred in the film, please enlighten us.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

And, I repeat, to properly answer your question I need to give the movie a rewatch, which I'll do likely Tuesday night. So give me a couple of days and I'll address your point.

If all water is holy water, how does that distinguish aliens who are harmed by water from demons who are harmed by holy water?

I never said all water is holy water. I said if a genuine believer -- who is a priest in Christ -- blesses water it becomes holy, as illustrated in this verse:

For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is MADE HOLY by the word of God and prayer. - 1 Timothy 4:4-5 (ESV)

The verse is speaking of consumable items, which would include non-saline water. So I was specifically talking about water blessed in this manner, not "all water." And I only noted this because you wanted to get technical about "holy water" in the Catholic sense. So I technically wasn't relating what I said to the events in the movie, but in response to your claims about "holy water."

Speaking of which, do you know how water in the Catholic Church becomes "holy water"? Simple: The priest blesses it. I'm saying THE SAME THING -- based on Scripture -- with the only difference being that all genuine believers are priests, according to the Bible (1 Peter 2:5–9).

After you refresh your memory about all the blessing of the water that occurred in the film

I actually never said there were any depictions of people blessing water in the film. I merely shared how water is "made holy" from a biblical perspective in response to your technical claims on the topic.

Yet no blessing of water had to be shown in the film to conclude that it likely occurred assuming the peripheral evidence supports this conclusion. For instance, the movie doesn't show the characters regularly eating & drinking, but it's assumed it happened.

[–] cv1cv (470) 5 years ago

As I predicted, you are now saying that people all over the world, including the Hess family, quickly blessed the water before throwing it on the creatures. So Merrill quickly did a blessing of the water (off camera of course) before he even knew that the water would harm the creatures. Actually, no I didn't predict it. I said jokingly that you would say that. I didn't think even you could come up with such a stupid explanation for your idiotic interpretation. And since the rest of us on this board are allowed to have nonsensical speculation like yours I'll offer an interpretation better than yours that involves my own wild confabulations. The events in the film didn't really happen in the universe of the film. The character Bo was dreaming it all. And in fact, Shyamalan didn't actually write the script. He dreamed it. And Shyamalan's parents dreamed that they gave birth to him. So Shyamalan doesn't really exist. And if he doesn't exist, none of the actors that he dreamed he cast in films exist. And since those actors don't exist, no one who has ever known any of them exists. And since they don't exist, all of humanity doesn't exist. So the best interpretation of the film is that people don't exist, and the film never actually occurred. Now, I challenge you to refute my interpretation, BUT . . . you have to accept all of my assumptions since the rest of us must accept all of your assumptions, no matter how illogical. If you successfully refute my interpretation, I'll walk away from this discussion. An earlier comment I made sums all of this up: a third grader could come up with this nonsense.

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

Again, I never said there were ANY depictions of people blessing water in the film. I merely shared how water is "made holy" from a biblical perspective.

Anyway, I rewatched the movie with my wife and she didn't see the demonic subtext. So I overstated how “glaring” the clues were that substantiate the underlying message. Obviously in the past seven years I magnified the data that lent credence to the aliens/demons parallel. Nevertheless, this is still a legitimate reading. Let me explain...

When the film debuted, Shyamalan was known as the king of the plot twist, yet the revelation that the aliens’ weakness is water wasn’t exactly a mind-blowing turn seeing as how the earth is 71% water and technologically advanced aliens would know this. Moreover, the aliens are curiously trapped by a pantry door and have no physical weapons? It stands to reason that Shyamalan hid the twist in the movie.

Just take a look at the aliens: They look decidedly demonic (with cloven hoofs). Furthermore, there is never confirmation that the creatures are beings from another planet, just dubious info from various sources, like the TV news. We never see actual spaceships, but rather lights in the sky; and the crop circle in Hess’ cornfield resembles a pitchfork. I’m not going to repeat all the evidence I shared in my opening post, but here’s a good article https://bit.ly/3bDZiBN

As for the water issue, it could be read as a type of holy water (notice I said "type") used by Catholic & Episcopal exorcists against demonic manifestations (Shyamalan, by the way, attended Catholic & Episcopal schools). Bo discerns this weakness and is later likened to an angel; ‘Bo’ means “to live” and so she’s the 'angel' who brought the family the weapon of life. The “primitive method” discovered in three Middle East cities is holy water with the three cities representing Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

You’re welcome to interpret the film as you see fit; thanks for the debate.

[–] cv1cv (470) 5 years ago

"Overstated" is an understatement. And incredibly, you're still wiggling around trying to make a case for holy water. The horse was dead after your first post; but knock yourself out beating it. My interpretation is far better than yours. In fact, my six-year-old granddaughter's interpretation if better than yours.

[–] captainbucky (15252) 5 years ago

I’m hip

[–] Wuchak (8742) 5 years ago

Cool, Captain.

[–] captainbucky (15252) 5 years ago

To the whole scene

[–] GotWood84 (384) 5 years ago

Listen don't take this personally, but when I come back, I'm sitting over there.

[–] captainbucky (15252) 5 years ago

Whatever turns you on