Re: Some interpretations

Hey

I think we are going into too much detail in this movie but everyone has very good points.

I think the most important issue is the things that each soldier did wrong, their sins so to speak. I was impressed by people suggesting the midget was blinded and therefore could not be possessed as its a strong argument. However, watch the flm again and take a mental note of their individual "sins."

I did not think his being blinded had anything to do with it. I reckon that he did not do anything evil, he did not sin and therefore the girl left him alone. Notice how there is no reference to him doing anything "evil." Notice how he starts talking about his mum (a sign of innocence) when he has been cocky throughout the whole movie. I think he did not sin in the eyes of these spirits and thus he did not come under the category of "those with blood on their hands will not return." This view makes sense I believe but again the suggestion about him being blind is an excellent point to make as its logical.

In short, everyone in their unit committed some form of act of evil e.g. stealing cameras/bracelets covering up deaths of soldiers etc However bear in mind that some were killed by accident e.g. Sgt Cook and therefore did not sin or perhaps they did and we just dont know about them. Exclude those killed by accident from our minds and it appears that only the midget is the one who may deserve to survive as he had no blood on his hands when he entered the site and thus was simply allowed to depart from it. It's obviously a rule and is there for a reason. The main flaw in my theory though which some of you will notice is that the signalman (little quiet guy who worked on radios etc) did nothing wrong throughout the movie and likewise to others who are killed at the end.

Also, with the bracelet I dont think its worthlooking into it in too much depth. I think its just a tool by the script writers, firstly to taunt the lieutenant and secondly the noise it makes causes him (and me) to shiver (not sure if anyone else felt that way.) The bracelet was mere nerve wrecking symbolism by the writers to point events in the girls direction, refer to her so-to-speak and to scare the audience basically. I came to this conclusion but the emphasis you guys placed on it is probably correct but all we can do is form our own views at the end of the day!

With the girl, there is no solid proof to suggest which side she is on! She may have been an impartial civilian who supported no one whereas she could have been a bloody sniper for all we know. Theres no point making assumptions about her but my best guess would be that she was an innocent civvie held captive by the VC who was killed by the Lieutenant. Her killing him and the rest of the unit at the end makes sense (in my view) compared to her killing people over an issue of mere theft. Her actions after this, her wrath would be more logical if she were an innocent civillian but then again if this was the case she was simply a casualty of war who was killed in error. Leaving her to suffer without shooting her would obviously enhance this rage. It's also possible that she killed them because of her death and that their sins are irrelevant and are simply used to frighten the men; perhaps their evil acts are of no help to us at all, who knows!

Finally, this is a story of perception so I dont think we will ever find a totally logical answer to everything because it simply does not make sense. My views and the views I have read are all full of holes and so is the plot itself but this is what makes the film so ambigious and brilliant.

There is also reference to mythology which westerners may not be able to understand as Asian mythology tends to be complex. What would be ideal is to get some views of someone who understands the culture, mythology, history etc of Vietnam, south Korea and China. Any oriental fans with good English please pass on your views and enlighten us before we go mad hehe

Hope this helps.