MovieChat Forums > Silent House (2012) Discussion > Biggest flaw I've yet to see discussed (...

Biggest flaw I've yet to see discussed (spoilers)

posted 13 years ago by xlangamesfl
15 replies | jump to latest

First off let me just say the movie was fun. You guys are hating on it but it felt like going through a haunted house and I found it very entertaining. Even if the ending is predictable that doesn't take away from the ride. But then again when it comes specifically to horror I've always been able to just turn off my critical thinking and enjoy what I'm watching.

However, the only thing in this move I truly don't understand is events that take place off screen that we don't see. I get this is all in her head but we are following her. So we get to see everything she "sees" even if it is manifested. With that being said, the father knocked out in another room and later tied up just doesn't make sense. The film gives an example of her "imagining" things when her uncle is dragged into the room and insta-shot later we see it is her doing the dragging.

But that's ok because we see she is at least physically in the room to do that. Her father getting knocked out in another room and later tied up happened when? When did she place the pictures on the bed then later on the floor in the hall way?

I like how the film is playing out her delusions from her point of view, but this isn't a supernatural movie. She isn't a witch or anything. On one hand it's really cool it's all in one shot (pretty much) and we follow her through this nightmare, but on the other hand by following her all the way through it makes it impossible for certain things to have occurred.

[–] troyjack 13 years ago

That didn't make sense to me either. Just watched this last night and that was the main problem I had with the movie... I don't understand how he would've gotten tied up if she was elsewhere in the house.

[–] MoremiAdeyinka 13 years ago

Hmm , yeah...but in terms of the photos, I think she pre-placed them while her dad was out and her uncle was downstairs...then she probably headed out to sit by the water and "think" about what her plans were, which is is the opening scene where we're introduced to her.

[–] IrishEyes1989 13 years ago

That is such a good observation. I did not think about that at all. It would be interesting to watch the film again with knowledge of the ending and try to catch little details or flaws that would have been difficult or impossible to spot on initial viewing.

[–] man-in-the-mask 13 years ago

I explain it the same way I explain the twist in High Tension. What we are seeing is the movie told through the eyes of a crazy person. What we see is NOT what actually happened, we see what the main character is seeing. So any impossibilities are explained away, because this is just what is going on in her head, not what actually happened.

[–] jinstonchung 13 years ago

If you go along with Freud. We are only seeing the perspective of her ego, the conscious self. Obviously not everything we see is reality. Her being in the bedroom is not reality. Her ego is imagining that she is in the bedroom cleaning as her father ordered her to do, while her id (the military man) is attacking her father with her actual body.

This also explains all the other things that happen. During the time where she thinks she is hiding and running, her actual body is moving the dad and attacking the uncle.

[–] Bens_Basement 12 years ago

The 'single-shot' style of camerawork really detracted from the story and actually hindered the film. They should've shot it as a straight up film, so the cracks (and plotholes) could've been filled in.

http://benendsbasement.blogspot.com/

[–] zombieeducation 12 years ago

I actually disagree that this is a hole, based on the model already presented that we are seeing her conscious self, not her unconscious mind, and that is obviously splintered. We see hints of that when she walks into the bedroom and sees the little girl playing with the beer bottles, obviously this is where her breakdown truly becomes its worst.

I also thoroughly enjoy the observation that the beginning of the film could be her sitting down to plan-- this is further emphasized by her father's observations that she hasn't done any work on the room. Which means she is most likely been in her own world for awhile.

While I don't think this was expertly done by any stretch-- there are many more interesting explorations of mental illness and breakdowns-- I do think it isn't the steaming pile the critics on IMDB make it out to be...

And I know this is from another post, but to the people who demanded their money back... seriously?! The filmmakers went through excruciating work to put this together... you watched the film, which is essentially ingesting their work-- asking for a refund at this point is like demanding a refund from a burger after eating the whole thing, downing it with a coke, and then saying "that wasn't what I ordered but I ate it anyway, I want a refund."

People who consume and THEN refund annoy me to no end. If you didn't like the film, give it a bad review, tell your friends it sucked if you need to, but don't consume something and then demand a refund... it was YOUR CHOICE to watch the movie, if it was bad because of improper projection, rude audience members, or otherwise something unrelated to the film, fine-- in fact that's understandable, but you were promised a film, it was delivered-- whether you like it or not is a matter of personal preference.

If all the films you could possibly dislike were refunded because of personal preference there'd be nobody making movies anymore.

(Sorry had to get that off my chest)

But yeah, it did strike me as a bit odd that she was in a different room during some events, but then when I realized we were watching her psychotic breakdown, it gave the film a lot of freedom (or, I'm sure some will argue, excuses).

[–] SWLinPHX-2 12 years ago

Well said about the stupid "asking for a refund" B.S. zombieeducation... I totally agree! They are paying to see such-and-such movie made by so-and-so and then later decide what they think or if they were entertained. They got exactly that: the movie they wanted to see and the ability to rate it for themselves.

Remember at the end, how she kept switching from attacker to victim? Begging her daddy in the chair and then forcing him the beer bottle? I do think it is hard to believe she tied him up (unless she drugged him first). But she was doing things in one conscious while being the victimized girl in the consciousness we saw. We see things through her point-of-view, but only that one side of her, the scared & traumatized victim.

Didn't this remind any of you of "Hide And Seek" with Robert DeNiro and Dakota Fanning? Same idea, theme and dual personality.

twitter.com/swlinphx

[–] bing-57 12 years ago

> but you were promised a film, it was delivered-- whether you like it or not is a matter of personal preference. If all the films you could possibly dislike were refunded because of personal preference there'd be nobody making movies anymore.

That is so very wrong. I don't think there are too many people that demand a refund for every movie that they simply don't like. A movie usually has to be truly awful for people to ask for a refund.

You can't just say that you were promised a film and got one so tough noogies. That would be like saying that you ordered a steak and you got a random hunk of beef so and that should be good enough. If you don't get what you expected and the quality you expect, that is the reason to get a refund.

And yes, if enough people demand their money back for a particular writer or director's movies, that person won't be hired to make movies. Good riddance.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] mver 12 years ago

@bing-57: I have gotten a refund for a movie before but it was less than halfway through. I would never have the nerve to ask for one if I'd seen the entire movie. If it sucks,get up and walk out and by all means ask for a refund, but don't expect to get something for nothing!

[–] bing-57 12 years ago

> I would never have the nerve to ask for one if I'd seen the entire movie.

The problem is that you may not know the movie sucks until the end. When you order a steak, you can tell from the first bite whether the steak is good or not. The last bite of that steak will taste the same as the first.

That is not the case with movies. The end of a movie might be drastically different from the beginning. In fact, I'd say that most movies are purposely designed to have a completely different feel at the end than at the beginning and it puts you through many different emotions along the way.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] marct009 12 years ago

I am thinking and it is a pretty loose theory, that the father was already attacked and tied up before the film started. Everything we see is in her head right up until the Uncle brings her back to the house. I can't remember the Uncle leaving or if a reason was given? I'm sure someone can enlighten me.

That maybe able to answer the OP query, however, I understand my theory would bring a load of 'problems' as well.

Fair play this movie has improved in my mind since reading through different theories. The film must have done something right to generate this much debate.

Overall it was a let down in my opinion, I did have high hopes for it, so maybe my expectations was too high.

[–] livan063 12 years ago

"but on the other hand by following her all the way through it makes it impossible for certain things to have occurred. "

Wrong. We are being told the story through her eyes. That is why it's presented as a single take. For that 80+ minute period, anything we see is simply what she is seeing, and therefore she represents an unreliable narrator. Anything she sees, says, or does does not necessarily have to be truth. This concept is what makes the film work and what makes it so great.