> The Lamia is only the demon who completes the curse.
Only completes? The demon practically IS the curse - tormenting her, and tempting her to sin, throughout the entire 3-day, 72-hour trial, from the time it descends on her from the skies at 8:45 Wednesday morning (its descent symbolized by the buzzy-fly violin music continuing from the credits before spiraling down), to the time it drags her to Hell exactly 72 hours later, at 8:45 Saturday morning.
> The implication from the opening of the film was that the boy had stolen
> jewelry from Ganush and that she cursed him.
Sure, one can CHOOSE to believe that. The film gives the viewer that option, though it actually provides no evidence for it. But Ganush's name is not even mentioned in the opening sequence. Based on the information actually given, it is illogical to conclude with any certainty that Gypsies cursed the boy at all, much less that, assuming it was a gypsy curse, the gypsy who did the curse was a 40-years younger version of Mrs. Ganush.
San Dena (apparently a Gypsy herself) does not seem to agree with you. She has no interest in blaming Gypsies. First, she blames the boy demanding WHAT DID HE DO!, and refusing to believe them when they say "Nothing". Then, after the Helldragging, she blames the Lamia. She waits 40 years for a rematch with the Lamia. The idea of holding a grudge against some gypsy sorceress never seems to cross her mind.
> But the fact remains that she was willing to curse Christine in the first
> place, and that alone is enough to place her in a more negative light than
> Christine.
Yeah. She calls her a "bitch" in Hungarian and tries to pull her hair. Then she leaves, now a broken woman, and dies that same night. By that time, Christine and the Lamia a/k/a the "demon version of Mrs. Ganush" a/k/a "symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder" are already duking it out in the parking lot, in an exaggerated over-the-top repeat of the incident at the bank, and is playing tricks on her with buttons, creating a fantasy that encourages her to blame her victim.
> I don't believe the movie gives us any reason to doubt that the old lady
> was the one who actually cursed her. If they had wanted to let us know
> that, they didn't do a very good job of it.
I have no idea whether Raimi necessarily wanted everyone to "get it", or whether everyone necessarily needs to "get it" for the film to work on some level. I "got it" on first viewing, so the film worked fine for me. I can only speak for myself. Raimi, in some of his comments, seems to hope some of the audience will "get it" on an unconscious level, and that this will help make the film more scary.
> Plus, there was also the fact that the lady's daughter told Christine that
> she deserved everything that was coming to her. She must have had prior
> knowledge of the curse.
Look again. The grandaughter tries, unsuccessfully, to get Christine to accept responsibility for her actions. She scolds her for lying and denying responsiblity; she brings her downstairs to confront her with the consequences of her evil actions. Ilenka's words, "You deserve everything that is coming to you", do NOT suggest that Christine's problems are caused by her being the innocent victim of an evil gypsy sorceress. Rather, they suggest that Christine's problems are connected to her own wickedness.
Yes, Ilenka seems to have some knowledge of the "curse". She is a seer, as she demonstrates ("You used to be a real fat girl ... I can tell"), in an attempt to demonstrate the futility of lying. But (like San Dena) she never says the curse was caused by gypsies, nor is there any indication of "prior" knowledge.
Of the 3 seers she consults, Ilenka is the most up front with her about her problem. But even the sleezy Rham Jas suggests (at first, before suggesting the alternative of blaming gypsies) that her curse may have been caused by her own dark deeds.
> I just find it stupid that Raimi would think Christine has such a dark
> soul. When it really came down to it, she was unwilling to trade her
> button to even an old dying man.
No, dude. It had not "really come down to it" yet, at that point. She still had til morning. And what do you mean by "EVEN an old dying man"? Does that make it okay somehow? Better him than her? And even after hesitating with the old man, she was still determined to give the button to SOMEBODY. She still had not accepted the correct answer to the question "Who deserves this." The correct answer was "I do." She has no right to ask ANYONE to pay for her own sins.
When it "really came down to it", what she did was flee from her own beloved to prevent him from returning the button to her. And when she did that, she fell on the railroad tracks and the Devil claimed her soul.
Christine's lack of repentance is a theme throughout the entire film. There is a scene where she is considering repentance, but the demon distracts her in the form of swirling leaves, whispers something in her ear, and sends her to Rham Jas instead. At the Seance, when confronted with the demon, she tries to shift the blame to her boss.
reply
share
13 years ago
[deleted]
nystulc
13 years ago
> Was it the demon or just the angry ghost of Mrs. Ganush that attacked
> Christine when she was cursed and later on too?
If you like. But if there is a real version of Ganush, and a "demon version" of Ganush, as Lorna Raver's words seem to indicate, then I cannot see any need for an angry ghost, one that ALSO acts like it wants to devour Christine.
One of the traditional forms of the Lamia, at least in relatively modern Greek folklore, is that of a slovenly old hag. In the opening credits we see the demon mist assume many forms, including the name "Lorna Raver".
reply
share