MovieChat Forums > Drag Me to Hell (2009) Discussion > Christine wasn't THAT bad of a person......

Christine wasn't THAT bad of a person.....


One thing that angers me about the movie!

There are people on here saying that Christine deserved everything she got. Err, sorry what? She denied a woman of a LOAN... I really don't think she deserved to burn in hell for ETERNITY for this. I'm pretty sure everyone of us have done something just as bad OR worse than this in our lives! Do we deserve to go to hell too?

And also, by saying she deserved to be sent there, is like saying she is as awful as murderers and rapists, who obviously DO deserve it! And yet, just by doing her job (regardless of why she denied the woman - even if it was for a selfish purpose, which I'm pretty sure a few people have done in the past) she is sent to hell, to burn for eternity! Grrr...

Rant over, thank you :)

reply

That's why I hate this stupid, wretched movie.

Raimi fanboys can't pull their face off his crotch to do anything but praise the man, regardless of how poor this *beep* movie was.

reply

Christine seemed like an ordinary, fairly decent woman.

Well, it does somehow seem like the movie and its message is that she was a rotten person deep down inside and as the old hag's granddaughter explicitly said "you deserve everything that is coming to you", justifies what happened.

If she deserved it, most of us deserve it, by the way. I'll go With NO, SHE DID NOT DESERVE IT.

reply

First, let me start off by saying, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Having said that...

After watching the movie, I turned to my wife and said, "you know, this was really *beep* up." Christine didn't do anything wrong. The old woman was well beyond reason with her loan request, and instead of taking personal responsibility for her situation, she instead decides that Christine is to blame for why she can't get the loan and curses her. Christine truly did nothing wrong, but was damned simply because the old woman wouldn't accept that it was her own actions that got her into the mess she was in.

In my mind, this exemplifies our society's fixation on directing blame outwards instead of taking responsibility of our own lives. Why shouldn't someone else bail me out? I've been in that situation where I lived outside of my means, and it was a hard lesson, but I learned it, too charge of my life and turned it completely around.

Christine was a good woman with a good life that all went to hell because of an old woman with no sense of self-reliance.

So, while I really enjoyed watching the movie, and laughing at the scenarios, I really hated that one aspect of the film.

reply

Or perhaps the ending is supposed to be ironic because she denied the woman the loan which would help gypsy and then when she needed help she wouldn't accept the gift? Like she never helped the gypsy so in the end no one helped her.

reply

There are people on here saying that Christine deserved everything she got. Err, sorry what? She denied a woman of a LOAN... I really don't think she deserved to burn in hell for ETERNITY for this. I'm pretty sure everyone of us have done something just as bad OR worse than this in our lives! Do we deserve to go to hell too?

Saying Christine *deserved* to go to Hell is ridiculous. Christine wasn't evil, and didn't do anything malicious or motivated by "greed", as people are claiming. The terms of the contract were between Mrs Ganush and the bank; Christine didn't set the terms, and Mrs Ganush was responsible for either meeting the conditions or bearing the consequences. It wasn't Christine's responsibility, and therefore Christine wasn't to blame.

Christine *could* have extended charity to Mrs Ganush, but it would have been at a cost to herself. By not doing it, she failed to be generous, but that didn't make her evil, as some people here are claiming. It's Mrs Ganush who is in the wrong, by behaving vindictively and inflicting something truly evil on Christine for not giving Mrs Ganush what she wanted.

I think a lot of people get this film wrong. It seems audiences, American ones especially, have become used to looking at films in a very black/white way; it's not a question f whether Christine was "evil" or not. Part of the horror of this film is that the curse is set in motion by Christine's actions, but not deserved by them -- people don't always simply deserve the ill that befalls them. And then Christine is dragged into Hell long before the Lamia comes, by her increasingly-desperate attempts to save herself forcing her to blur the boundaries of right and wrong and do things that were never before in her nature.



You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

> Christine *could* have extended charity to Mrs Ganush, but it would have been
> at a cost to herself.

How does that make it not evil?

> It's Mrs Ganush who is in the wrong, by behaving vindictively and inflicting
> something truly evil on Christine for not giving Mrs Ganush what she wanted.

Mrs. Ganush dies early in the film, a victim of Christine's cruelty. It is not entirely clear she does anything to Christine at all.

What happens after that is rather ambiguous. Is it Ganush's ghost? Or the demon taking the form of Mrs. Ganush?

In the very beginning we see the camera, accompanied by buzzy-fly violin music, descend from the clouds to Christine's car on the Freeway. This suggests that the demon (last seen as a fly) is descending on Christine from the clouds. Christine makes an "o" with her mouth, symbolizing her greed and ambition, and presumably thereby allows the demon to enter her and start corrupting her. But she has not even met Mrs. Ganush at this point.

Christine gets dragged to hell exactly 72 hours later.

reply

How does that make it not evil?

"Evil" is a pretty hefty word to throw around so freely. It's not "evil" because it's simply not. Christine didn't sign Mrs Ganush to the loan, nor make the terms and conditions that Mrs Ganush agreed to. She was simply the one at her desk when Mrs Ganush came to the bank about an action about her defaulting that had been instigated elsewhere. Christine did go to her boss on Mrs Ganush's behalf, but Mrs Ganush had already had two extensions on her payment and Christine's boss made it clear he wanted her to default the mortgage. Precisely none of that is Christine's doing.

"Evil" would have been if Mrs Ganush was entitled to assistance, or if it was reasonable for Christine to give it to her, and Christine chose not to do it. That *might* have constituted "evil".

But "evil" because she didn't give Mrs Ganush a third extension on her loan, against her boss's wishes and at a professional cost to herself? No.

Mrs. Ganush dies early in the film, a victim of Christine's cruelty. It is not entirely clear she does anything to Christine at all.

Wow, you're going a long way to justify a tenuous point of view. Mrs Ganush called the Lamia down on Christine. After that, she didn't need to be around for the scenario to play itself out.

What happens after that is rather ambiguous. Is it Ganush's ghost? Or the demon taking the form of Mrs. Ganush?

Neither. Mrs Ganush crops up in Christine's dreams and waking nightmares because she's the one who invoked the curse.

buzzy-fly violin music

Umm ... okay. The violin throughout the film, and especially the main theme, reflects both the Romany aspect of the story, and the medieval tradition that the violin was the Devil's instrument -- represented in a number of classical pieces, but famously in "The Devil's Trill" by Tartini, a virtuoso violin piece which the main theme echoes. The story crops up in American country songs too, like "The Devil Went Down to Georgia".

Christine makes an "o" with her mouth, symbolizing her greed and ambition

I think you're reading waaaaay too much into that. Christine's pronunciation exercises set up her "farm-girl come to the big city" motif, which is reflected in why she's anxious to establish herself and get the promotion, and hence is less willing to go out on a limb for Mrs Ganush.

The fly is a recurring motif in the story, and a cinematic way of bringing us into the location for the opening of the story proper. If this is all about a demon getting into a girl on the expressway, then why the preface scene of the boy who tole from the gypsies and was cursed for it? Why the scene with Mrs Ganush in the parking lot and the stolen button? I can accept that Mrs Ganush being in the car could be another waking nightmare, but the business with the button is what effects the curse.



You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

> "Evil" is a pretty hefty word to throw around so freely.

It is nothing more than a synonym for "morally wrong". I agree that what Christine did to Ganush was morally wrong.

> Christine didn't sign Mrs Ganush to the loan, nor make the terms and conditions
> that Mrs Ganush agreed to. She was simply the one at her desk when Mrs Ganush
> came to the bank about an action about her defaulting that had been instigated
> elsewhere. Christine did go to her boss on Mrs Ganush's behalf, but Mrs Ganush
> had already had two extensions on her payment and Christine's boss made it
> clear he wanted her to default the mortgage. Precisely none of that is
> Christine's doing.

You left out something VERY important. Her boss EXPLICITLY gave her permission to grant the extension. She believed that the Bank should do the right thing in this case, and was given permission to do it. Her reasons for not doing so were entirely selfish.

> "Evil" would have been if Mrs Ganush was entitled to assistance, or if it was
> reasonable for Christine to give it to her, and Christine chose not to do it.
> That *might* have constituted "evil".

That is precisely what happened. Note that there was no (legitimate) risk to the bank, as there was plenty of equity on the home. There was no need to foreclose RIGHT NOW on a sick woman, in the middle of a serious health crisis, who had made every payment for THIRTY YEARS!!!

The bank was going to get paid. They could afford to wait. Christine decided to crush this little old lady for one reason and for one reason alone -- to prove to her boss that she could be cruel and heartless, in the hopes that this would earn her points for a promotion.


reply

It is nothing more than a synonym for "morally wrong".

"Evil" is several orders of magnitude beyond merely "morally wrong". There's a kond of double-handedness in using it for its hyperbolic language, and then saying, "Naah, it's not so bad." I would argue that the horror of the film is in part the severity of Christine's punishment for something that explicitly wasn't evil, as such. She was set up for it by Mrs Ganush who was understandably upset but, in a fit of pique, caused a scene, threw herself to the ground, and then accused Christine of "shaming" her. Christine was doomed the minute Mrs Ganush walked into the bank.

I agree that what Christine did to Ganush was morally wrong.

Please, don't agree with something I didn't say, and then attribute it to me. I said Christine had failed to be charitable; even "morally wrong" is pushing it, and "morally wrong" does not equate to "evil".

You left out something VERY important. Her boss EXPLICITLY gave her permission to grant the extension.

Were we watching different films? He specifically tied the situation to the question of whether she was ready to "make the big decisions", and made it clear the bank wanted to acquire the "trapped equity" in Mrs Ganush's home. If you agree that Christine wanted initially to help Mrs Ganush, then how do you account for the fact that she changed her mind after assuring the boss that she could handle the situation?

Perhaps it's how you feel banks should behave in real life, and if so I certainly wouldn't disagree with you, but it does seem you're misremembering the film to bolster a pre-existing opinion over what was actually said. It was the boss who pointed out that Mrs Ganush had already had two previous extensions, and made it clear this was not a position that the bank favoured. Christine didn't just "decide" to "crush this little old lady".



You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply


"Evil" is several orders of magnitude beyond merely "morally wrong".


Nope. Just a synonym. Check a dictionary. And that's what I mean when I use it. So don't play word police. You have no authority to tell me what I mean by the words I use. You may choose your words; let me choose mine.


Were we watching different films?


He explicitly gave her permission to grant the extension. It was her decision. She had the authority. She even admits it to Clay, at the end.


He specifically tied the situation to the question of whether she was ready to "make the big decisions", and made it clear the bank wanted to acquire the "trapped equity" in Mrs Ganush's home.


Yes. He mentioned the "trapped equity". But he still left the decision to her. And the "trapped equity" is not something the bank is entitled to. It's a purely speculative value in any event, and to the extent it is more than that, it is cheating. When one forecloses, one is supposed to pay the value of the house, not less than the value of the house. In theory "trapped equity" should never serve as a financial incentive for foreclosure.

Same with the bank making a sizable amount in "fees" (which Mr. Jacks also mentioned). These fees are supposed to merely reimburse the bank for the costs of foreclosure. They are NOT supposed to serve as a monetary incentive for foreclosure. If they do serve this purpose, they are excessive.

What Mr. Jacks' comments really show is that the banks' legitimate interests were not threatened in any legitimate way. There was no need to be cruel to a dying old woman.


If you agree that Christine wanted initially to help Mrs Ganush, then how do you account for the fact that she changed her mind after assuring the boss that she could handle the situation?


She was maneuvering for a promotion. She thought, based on what she saw as Mr. Jack's hints, that by showing how tough or cruel she could be she could win brownie points for a promotion.

Does not change the fact that he gave her permission to do the right thing.


Perhaps it's how you feel banks should behave in real life,...


They do behave that way in circumstances like this one. Yes, even in real life. The cruel destruction of helpless old ladies is bad publicity. And they really did not have much to gain by cruelty in circumstances like this one. They could have given another extension at no real cost or risk. Their money was safe.


Christine didn't just "decide" to "crush this little old lady".


That's exactly what she did. She even admits it at the end of the film. It really was her "call"; just as Mr. Jacks said it was.

This is not really debatable. It's right there in the script. Not only at the beginning, and at the end, but also in the middle, when she visits the psychic granddaughter, and tries to lie about it, but the psychic granddaughter knows she is lying, ... because she's psychic. It is amazing how many viewers try to deny it.

Raimi's goal was to get viewers to identify with Christine. It worked too well with some of you.

reply

Well, I agree -- Christine is just human, and all humans, good and bad, will at times do something bad to other people in exchange for advancement. Even if that just means looking the other way and failing to help. Anyone here who says otherwise is being dishonest, to us and perhaps to themselves.

I know Sam Raimi has said that his story is about how greed and selfishness come home to roost, but let's be frank, if he's worked in Hollywood longer than 15 minutes he HAS to have done things worse than Christine just doing her job and denying the extension.

For me, the story is really about something ele -- a curse taking someone as it promises it would. People who are cursed don't always deserve the curse. I like that the movie is unsentimental enough to have the curse proceed along its trajectory and drag Christine to Hell as planned. Because, well, sometimes bad things (or in this case, incredibly bad things) happen to good (or at least not so bad) people.

And remember it's just a movie -- but all around the world right now, even as you read this, horrible things are happening to innocent people.

reply


Well, I agree -- Christine is just human, and all humans, good and bad, will at times do something bad to other people in exchange for advancement. Even if that just means looking the other way and failing to help. Anyone here who says otherwise is being dishonest, to us and perhaps to themselves.


I don't know what you are saying, or who you think is denying it. But ...

I agree that Christine is human; and humans sometimes to bad or evil things.

Christine, however, did not just "look the other way". She took charge of the situation, in order to do the wrong thing for her own benefit. But yes, humans sometimes do that too. Humans do all sorts of things.

Yes, her motives are "understandable".

However, it is ludicrous to suggest that anyone who says they would do the right thing in this situation, or that they SHOULD do the right thing in this situation, is lying or being dishonest.


I know Sam Raimi has said that his story is about how greed and selfishness come home to roost, but let's be frank, if he's worked in Hollywood longer than 15 minutes he HAS to have done things worse than Christine just doing her job and denying the extension.


Firstly, I have no idea what sins you are accusing Mr. Raimi of.

Secondly, Christine was not just doing her job. Granting the extension (as she had authority and permission to do) would have been doing her job, and doing what was right, both at the same time. It really was her greed and ambition that tipped the scales, just as Mr. Raimi said.


For me, the story is really about something ele -- a curse taking someone as it promises it would.


The "curse" never literally promises anything; and the evidence never really backs up what Christine chooses to believe. It is Christine, not Clay (who has the button), who gets dragged to hell at the end. And we see evidence of the demon descending to Christine from the clouds at the beginning of the movie, exactly 3 days (72 hours) before her helldragging, before she even meets Mrs. Ganush.

reply

One day Narcissus was walking in the woods when Echo, an Oread (mountain nymph) saw him, fell deeply in love, and followed him. Narcissus sensed he was being followed and shouted "Who's there?". Echo repeated "Who's there?". She eventually revealed her identity and attempted to embrace him. He stepped away and told her to leave him alone. She was heartbroken and spent the rest of her life in lonely glens until nothing but an echo sound remained of her. Nemesis, the goddess of revenge, learned of this story and decided to punish Narcissus. She lured him to a pool where he saw his own reflection. He didn't realize it was only an image and fell in love with it. He eventually recognized that his love could not be reciprocated and committed suicide


This is classic narrative where character gets punished for his personality and attitude. Notice the irony in his punishment.

Another similar narrative is in Metamorphosis where Gregor gets punished for hes weak character by turning into insect.

Christine also gets punished for her weak character, and that same thing gets her further in trouble.

Point is to identify with the character so you can face your self by laughter or fear.

reply

I see lots of religious and moral debates surface because of the movie and I think people just take it way too seriously. We're talking about a Sam Raimi horror-comedy here with constant OTT content just like the Evil Dead series. It's the only kind of movie a concept like hell could be used in a "believable" way, because frankly, the idea of heaven and hell is so utterly morbid, gothic and medieval that it's impossibe for me to take it seriously for even a second. It's one huge black comedy motif and the final scene was just icing on the cake.

Of course Christine didn't deserve such a cruel fate, but that was just part of the "fun" as far as I'm concerned.

reply

You have actually knowingly done something as bad as throwing an old person out of their own home?
Wow, that's - awful. I sure never have done anything bad as that.

Mind you, I do agree that we all do horrible things that make people suffer, eg. by buying stuff made in sweat shops. That's a hell of its own and, yea, bad. Most are only half aware though, some are utterly unaware.

In the movie though Christine had a clear choice, she knew what she was doing, and she chose her promotion over an old woman's home.
I would have chosen otherwise in her place. So please don't claim we all have done something as bad.


reply

[deleted]