The Others (2001)
I streamed The Others with a bunch of my
international friends. Even before watching it, two out of six of us had seen
it already and highly recommended it (I had never seen it). After it ended, the
rest of us were raving too.
At the beginning, it became pretty clear quickly that there was
some kind of haunting. Specific word choices foreshadowed to the ending of the
family being ghosts, like the housekeeping family alluding to tuberculosis, the
children talking (or avoiding talking) about the day their mom went mad, or the
girl describing Victor's family 'viewing' the house. Yet, the all of these were
done subtly enough to suspend belief until closer to the end of the film.
The point-of-view of the main
character not realizing she was dead was great. It shows stages of grief and
how she got caught in denial. Yet later she says she thought God had given her
a second chance with her children, so she knew all along and so did the
children. The movie kept you thinking throughout it, unsure of the source of
the haunting events and who if anyone were really the ghosts.
This point-of-view a very strange
way to show a movie since most hauntings are told from the perspective of the
living humans. Plus, ghosts are generally seen as the ominous and destructive
ones, like poltergeists. Leaning on the common destructive trope helps suspend belief
for the viewer, especially when things like Victor opening the curtains occur.
We assume he is trying to haunt the children and kill them because of their
photosensitivity, but in actuality it is the children and mom that are the
ghosts closing and locking doors on the living.
Despite adoring this movie, I
thought the plot line with the father was pretty unnecessary. He died on the battlefield
and should have stayed there since traumatic deaths generally don’t naturally
pass on, they haunt where they were killed. But the father came to say goodbye
to his family as if he could move on easily once he did that. Honestly, all
that added nothing to the plot either. The only purpose he served was to get
the mother back to the house from the fog, but she could have just gotten lost
and kept ending up at the house until she gave up.
That being said, I had no other
qualms with the movie. It kept me entertained through and through. It even kept
my fiancé entertained, and he can be very picky with movies, especially with
pacing. If you thought my review of Paranormal Activity was scathing,
you should have heard his. But The Others he thoroughly enjoyed, much to
my surprise given the older movie setting and vibe. The only issue my entourage
had was confusion about whether the kids were actually photosensitive while
alive or not.
Other feedback from my crew was:
An interesting take on a trope and a very original idea. Instead of the house
being haunted, they were the ones doing the haunting, but without realizing it.
For once, the audience gets a haunted house movie that isn’t scary!
Overall: I would watch this again despite knowing the ending. It seems like the type of movie that you’d notice new little things each time you watch it again.
Maddy,
ReplyDeleteI think the second chance part was more a reflection on the day Grace went mad. By second chance, I don't think she was consciously aware that she killed the kids and herself. So, Grace feels since the three of them are still "alive," she was granted a "second chance."
While the part of the film where Charles made his return made no sense, I feel it was essential to put in the movie. This showed the viewers that Grace was aware of her marital issues, such as her husband wanted to leave and using war as an excuse. It was one of the various things that was meant to snap her back to reality.
-Alexis
I think it was the acting and catatonic state of Charles that made me feel he was unnecessary in the movie. But as I think more on it, his death was probably the trigger that made Grace kill her kids and herself, so his return is crucial to her remembering.
DeleteMaddy, yes--watch it again! I liked it a lot the first time, but I loved it the second time, as you'll see from my post.
ReplyDeleteYou pose an interesting question. Was Charles' return necessary? I think it built suspense. The first time I watched the film, his weird behavior mystified me. And I was thrown when he just up and left without saying goodbye. But this time around, I got shivers when he showed up, and I knew he was dead. He seemed *so* dead. One thing I wasn't sure of was whether he knew that Grace had killed the kids. Or did he think she had only hurt them? The answer would depend on whether he knew he was dead. He told Grace, "Anne told me everything about what you did." But at that time, Anne didn't realize Grace had killed her and her brother.
That's true, we get a lot of mention of Anne knowing her mom did something that day, but it is never revealed exactly what she tells Charles so we have no idea if she is aware she is dead or not.
DeleteMaddy - Yasss! Watch it again in a year or two. This was my sixth or seventh time and I still notice little missed nuances with each viewing.
ReplyDeleteAs for Charles and the fog, I mostly agree.
"...she could have just gotten lost and kept ending up at the house until she gave up." Actually, that was what I thought was going to happen and probably the way I would have written it. Which makes me wonder if that old trope is too obvious and not the best choice. Possibly it would have tipped off most viewers too soon that Grace's household was 100% ghost? I'm trying to recall my first impression from 19 years ago ... all I can remember is feeling sad and confused about Charles. Sad for Grace because she's so thrilled and crawling all over him and he's so ... not there. That moment when she bears her grievances over his leaving her alone with Nazis and two disabled children to fight in the war was the first time I finally connected and empathized with Grace. And it gives a compelling context for her crimes. So maybe he really did need to show up. I don't know.
BTW, I mentioned this on Alexis's blog as well ... there are hundreds if not thousands of stories of mothers and widows receiving visitations from soldiers who died on the front lines half a world away. It's not a hard and fast rule in real or fictional hauntings that a spirit who died violently in war (or a car accident or a murder) is tethered to the place where they died. That said, battlefield ghosts are common. (I lived in an apartment within walking distance of the Kennesaw Mountain Civil War battlefield for 2 years. I didn't experience anything weird, but my downstairs neighbor had one humdinger of a story about driving through a soldier on the road late at night). My view on most battlefield hauntings is that they are residual hauntings, echoes of a terrible trauma imprinted on the area, and the fallen soldiers are not stuck there. (I certainly hope not!)
I think that's a good point that an obvious trope may not have been the best choice. I figured by that point that Grace was a ghost, but if someone hadn't then it was a good idea to have Charles come in to imply she could see he ghosts she wanted to. I got the implied sympathy for Grace, but her outright saying it to Charles did make me like her more as a character.
Delete