Well made, but some MASSIVE plot holes (SPOILERS).... - El orfanato (2008) Discussion

[–] slimjimpui 14 years ago

1.) It wasn't Tomas who pushed Laura- it was Simon dressed as Tomas. He was trying to lure into another treasure hunt to lead her down into Tomas's "casita". Remember the clues that Laura finds later in the film? Simon put them there.

2.)Who did she see in the cave? Depending on your perspective it was either Tomas's ghost or it was a hallucination brought on by delusional paranoia.

3.)It is intended to allude to the children's cause of death. This tells us that their murder was covered up- and how bad spain had become under Franco's dictatorship. It is supposed to be shrouded in mystery so as not to spell everything out to the viewer- what is worse than patronising exposition?

4.)Benigna is Tomas's mother. She had taken on a fake identity to avoid detection from the police. And she went to the shed to recover the remains of the children. The most popluar theory is that Benigna poisioned the children for tricking Tomas into the cave where he died. Again the character is supposed to be shrouded in mystery because the film makers chose not to explain everything.

5.)There are cases of naturally occuring mummification all around the world. It is a rare phenomemon, but possible if the conditions are dry and at the right temperature. Mummified bodies produce little or no odour and remain well preserved since the time of death. Google "natural mummification process" and you will find some interesting info.

6.)Simon found the detachable doorknob(that he leaves as a clue in the 2nd treasure hunt) to the basement. It had been left by someone(Benigna, I suspect) to discover the awful truth of how Tomas was made to live. As for who pushed Laura, refer to answer 1.)

reply

[–] stick500 14 years ago

those are some good responses to the questions, but I too noticed the unexplainable age discrepancy of Benigna- if I'm not mistaken didn't the old photo of all the kids show Laura and Benigna as kids at the same time? Didn't any of the filmmakers notice that this made no sense??

reply

[–] slimjimpui 14 years ago

When I first saw the movie my immediate impression was that the younger Benigna seemed too young to be an adult, but I think it's just that the actress is a lot shorter than some of the adults she was standing next to in the photo and consequently looks younger than she is. It also doesn't help to differentiate her from the kids due to the fact that the carers and children are all wearing the same uniform.

reply

[–] stick500 14 years ago

ya know I just looked at it again and the person showing Laura the photo says that Benigna was a caregiver at the time of the photo, so she was of course older than Laura- the first time I saw the film I figured she became a caregiver later because the first impression from the photo is that she is simply one of the kids- so I guess the filmmakers did have it right technically, it just didn't appear to match up at first glance

reply

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

This is an error of perception. You need to keep in mind that Benigna is quite small in stature. In the photo she appears to be a child, but she's actually an adult and an employee of the Orphanage.

The photo shows the children AND staff.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

[–] DCompton86 13 years ago

"those are some good responses to the questions, but I too noticed the unexplainable age discrepancy of Benigna- if I'm not mistaken didn't the old photo of all the kids show Laura and Benigna as kids at the same time? Didn't any of the filmmakers notice that this made no sense??"

Except she was an adult - it's mentioned she worked at the orphanage at the time Laura was there as a child. She is a bit shorter than most of the adults in the photo so it's easy to see the mistake.....except for many times it's mentioned that she had a child Tomas in the movie.

"It's better to be hated for who you are than be loved for who you aren't."

reply

[–] Keyheartlion 14 years ago

Sorry, I'm not quite clear on number 3. How exactly is it that Begnina managed to kill all five children and nobody, including the other staff members, noticed? Agreed that we don't need to know all the details, but it's not addressed in the film at all and, while your answer about Franco's regime is plausible, seems to rely on a lot of information outside the film's story. Perhaps because it's a Spanish film they assumed a Spanish audience could piece that together unaided?

reply

[–] slimjimpui 14 years ago

She had evidence of child abuse on her super 8 film. No doubt the other staff "noticed" that 5 children had been murdered assuming it was Benigna who killed them, but she had proof of the staff treating Tomas roughly whereas it's possible that they had no proof implicating Benigna of murder if she poisoned them as we are led to believe. So if any of the staff went to the police with insubstantiated accusations against Benigna, she could have just shown them the frankly disturbing footage she'd been recording for who knows how long- she would have turned the accusation back on them.

Ultimately the responsibility rests in the hands of the staff Principle, who should never have allowed Tomas to be kept incarcerated. That was what sparked the whole tragic sequence of events which led to all those deaths- the Principle was in charge- ergo it was her fault. The reasons that none of this is exposited is that 1.)the whole backstory is a coverup which was never reported or investigated- it only comes to light when Laura stumbles upon the bodies of the dead children and 2.) we see the world through Laura's eyes: we only find out what she finds out and the story only follows what she concerns herself with (primarily Simon's whereabouts and her own delusions regarding his "abductors"). The clues are there and it's a far more rewarding watch when the movie's script leaves some details for the viewer to figure out for themselves

reply

[–] spamtrap-716-194053 13 years ago

I watched The Orphanage this weekend (the movie was recommended to me), and couldn't for the life of me figure out the poisoned/cremated kids part -- motive, suspects, timeline, Benigna free to roam the city, things like that. Your explanation (and others in the thread) clear it all up for me nicely.

The only thing left for me to go look for is why the child Laura is hanging out with the ghosts (and then runs off so the adult Laura ghost can take over care of the Ghost Orphanage). Ghost Laura went "back in time", all the kids are alive in that time including child Laura, so there's a doppelganger of herself, who may now leave. Something like that?

Anyway, this movie was WAY better than I expected. It has the subdued feel of The Changeling (1980), not the constant in-your-face jumps and gore of typical horror movies (so the jumps make you practically jump out of your skin). I was very impressed, and when it hit me WHY Simon died, that hit me pretty hard. Wow. And I scripted the final fade in my own mind just before it happened. That was pitch perfect.

-----------------
Incredibly Handsome Master Of All Villainy

reply

[–] grettahansing 14 years ago

Here's the big problem I found, in addition to all of those mentioned above. Yes, it is clear that Simon must have found the detachable doorknob to get into the basement. BUT the wallpaper all around that door is still attached, as if the door had NOT been previously opened for Simon to go thorugh. I understand that the metal bed piece (or whatever it was)had been moved and blocked that door so that Simon could not get back out, and feasibly he fell through a hole in the top of the stairs to his death in trying to push the door open. But again, there is no hole in the floor now, or the mother would have fallen through on her way down the stairs. And yet again, there is no evidence that the door had been tampered with (no wallpaper had been removed) for him to even get down there in the first place. Too many questions left unanswered, and DEFINITELY NOT a horror movie. I assumed that the mother died at the very end, either overdosing on her medications or perhaps choking, since she coughed many times. I presume that she died and that's when Simon seemed to come "alive," although it was really that she had joined the dead, which included Simon and the other children who had been murdered. Again, WHY were they murdered? That shouldn't even have been brought up if not explained. That could have added a very interesting addition to the movie. The whole move was very disappointing in general. Extremely sad, even though most things just didn't make sense.

reply

[–] MrBelette 13 years ago

"Again, WHY were they murdered? "

It was explained in the movie. The children were responsible for the death of Tomas, Benita's son, so she killed them as a revenge. It seems you were right when you said you were a moron.

reply

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

This is NOT an issue. There is a seam all around the door. It's wall papered, but it's by no means "sealed". Laura didn't have to remove any wall paper to enter the basement either.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

[–] MondayMaria 13 years ago

Since it was Franco-era of 70s with LOTS of turmoil and violence and murders, no one would have been very interested or have time for disappeared handicapped orphans with evidence pointing to staff as to Benigna. So it was forgotten and the older staff prob. dead/moved on somewhere else when everything calmed down again in Spain. And if they did look for her, she had changed her name and could have been living somewhere else until she learnt laura was back.

She went insane from grief and poisoned the kids thinking they wanted to kill Tomas on purpose, duh. Thats why she was shown with raspberries and the sugar.
I think she knew who Laura was from the start, probbaly read about her in a newspaper and decided that "she got away" as she was clearly not over for losing Tomas. I think she could have talked to the boy and given him the doorknob. Told him he was orphan and also told about her sons special place and how he should play the game with his mom to show it. She may have even given the outfit for him to wear. She could have easily slipped in during the party.

Her plan was to show laura what it was like to lose her son. As to why the boy was lieing on the floor dead and made cries for help, maybe as laura shoved the pile back to the closet after it fell on her she accidentally knocked her son from the stairs to the floor of the cellar and he died from head injuries later? I thought it was odd how he just lied on the floor close to the stairs. Then again it would make more sense Benigna would have given him poison before he went downstairs. How else would have he died? His cries and banging on the door would have been heard.

and the natural mummification? The cellar would be ideal place for it. Some poisons would have also helped the mummification?

Anyone else think Benigna's name is very ironic?

reply

[–] gmoxie 9 years ago

My thoughts which are more like speculations between the lines. The hole for inserting the doorknob was there even though the wall paper was not ripped. It had been used many many times when Tomas lived down there. This enabled Simon to insert the knob and open the door. Laura ripping off the wallpaper was more symbolic or a metaphor for revealing a secret.

Simon wanted to leave the doorknob as a clue. So I think he opened the door,left the door ajar, hid the doorknob as a clue, then went downstairs leaving the door ajar (in case he wanted to come back up if his mother didn't find him). When the stuff inside the closet fell and Laura put it back the stuff back in, it fell against the slightly ajar door, closing and blocking it. Or, maybe it was not necessary to leave the door ajar; he could've just pushed it back open (I don't remember which way it opened - into the closet or toward the basement) except that all that stuff in the closet was now blocking the door from opening.

reply

[–] Xchromo 12 years ago

1.) It wasn't Tomas who pushed Laura- it was Simon dressed as Tomas. He was trying to lure into another treasure hunt to lead her down into Tomas's "casita". Remember the clues that Laura finds later in the film? Simon put them there.

This is correct!

2.)Who did she see in the cave? Depending on your perspective it was either Tomas's ghost or it was a hallucination brought on by delusional paranoia.

She said she saw Simon, not another boy in the cave. So Tomas's ghost is completely out of question. I'd lean towards her being deluded than her seeing Simons ghost. Why? Because we never saw Simon's ghost any other time later on in the movie. Why would he appear just one time - and no further if he already was a ghost that early on in the movie??

3.)It is intended to allude to the children's cause of death. This tells us that their murder was covered up- and how bad spain had become under Franco's dictatorship. It is supposed to be shrouded in mystery so as not to spell everything out to the viewer- what is worse than patronising exposition?

This make sense to some extent. People are actually forgetting that the orphanage had more than just 5 or 6 children to take care of. It's only Laura's friends and Tomas who died horribly. So - Benigna WAS the culprit. She poisoned and burne those she believed was responsible for her son's death. The Staff who had many other kids to look after - never found any evidence of the 5 missing children, so they may have even assumed that the kids [who always hung out together] where bathing/playing hide and seek near the cliffs next to the cave and were drowned. Case closed! But I do agree that the movie has HUGE plot holes. The story about how the kids died could have been more developed. This movie had so much potential it's sad the Screenwriter and the Director didn't see it. For instance - when Benigna comes to their home - what is the REAL purpose of her coming to Laura and revealing her sons medical report? It doesn't make much sense. Laura wasn't one of them that tricked Tomas to the cave? Or she would have remembered. So what was Benigna trying to gain in her visiting their home. And what the hell was she trying to do in the ''outhouse'' or that barnyard cottage? That many years after? It's just lines in the sand with no end... very unfortunate because this could have turned out really good.

4.)Benigna is Tomas's mother. She had taken on a fake identity to avoid detection from the police. And she went to the shed to recover the remains of the children. The most popluar theory is that Benigna poisioned the children for tricking Tomas into the cave where he died. Again the character is supposed to be shrouded in mystery because the film makers chose not to explain everything.

Fake identity? I may have missed that notion... recovering the remains is idiotic to do for a culprit that many years later. But then again - you can always develop the theory that she felt remorseful and wanted to redeem her sins. Still - if that was the case - the makers of the movie should have built more story to that. It was just missing a lot of things... You almost ''guess'' all the time. Fine once in a while - but not throughout the movie...

5.)There are cases of naturally occuring mummification all around the world. It is a rare phenomemon, but possible if the conditions are dry and at the right temperature. Mummified bodies produce little or no odour and remain well preserved since the time of death. Google "natural mummification process" and you will find some interesting info.

A little far fetched, but due to dryness - maybe. Even though - when Laura touches Simon - he should ba slightly ''vaporizing'' if he was naturally mummified. But it's a nice theory - and if that was the writer's aim - he should have worked more on that as well. It's stupid to let audience just guess all the time...

6.)Simon found the detachable doorknob(that he leaves as a clue in the 2nd treasure hunt) to the basement. It had been left by someone(Benigna, I suspect) to discover the awful truth of how Tomas was made to live. As for who pushed Laura, refer to answer 1.)

I don't think Benigna put the doorknob there for it to be found. But perhaps the ghost of Tomas did first for Simon to find - and then Simon left it for his mother to find. Why would Benigna put her self at risk so that one day people will know... know what?? And then wallpapering the whole door so it hide the door?? No. no. Again. It does not make any sense. If someone wants somebody to find something. They would perhaps take the doorknob for not just anyone to enter- but not redo the whole wallpaper thing in that room. That kind of thing - one does to HIDE something.

In overall - I give this a clean 6. It could have been developed to so much better - if the writers just took their time on the story first before starting to produce it. And by the way. It's not a horror. Horror and horrifying implies two different things. Even though they come from the same word. See a car crash can be horrifying - so does that mean every car crash with lots of injuries are seen as partially horror movies? Horror means disgusting, disturbing and very much bloody scenes and tragedies which doesn't inflict the type of 'getting one off guard' scariness, but rather the revolting/wanna close your eyes and puke scariness. Very close to GORE! This was a Drama/Thriller.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] skipperaugust 14 years ago

Except for 5, all of your so-called "plot holes" is actually just plot. It just takes a little reading into what happens in the movie and the set-ups that are placed throughout it.

Really, the next time you wanna pick a movie apart for having a poor plot, please comprehend the plot fully before doing so. You're just making an embarassment of yourself with this post..

reply

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

Number 5 only appears to be an error if you're unaware of a process called "Natural mummification." Literally nothing in the OP is a plot hole to any degree.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

[–] green-herbs 14 years ago

Yah I don't think you were paying very good attention to the movie, the first 5 "plot-holes" are explained pretty clearly in the movie, and therefore they are not plot holes at all.

I'm not going into the toilet, Im going into SHOWBUSINESS!

reply

[–] grettahansing 14 years ago

If they are so clearly explained, please take time to let us all in on them because obviously we are not all morons, but they were not clear to us. Why condescend us like that?--as if we're making up the plot holes so many of us see?

reply

[–] bgh122 14 years ago

The first response to the thread clearly explains every 'plot hole'.

reply

[–] Flora-maria 14 years ago

As the above two posters stated, none of those points were 'plotholes.'

reply

[–] pilot2high 14 years ago

I agree that there were many pot holes. When the couple drove up to the house there was one coming off of the highway. There was also a pot hole out in the yard and if anyone uses a lawn machine it will surely mess those tires up.

reply

[–] dana_cazacu2000 14 years ago

The biggest plot hole would be Simon getting into the basement area thing. We see that laura has to tear the wallpaper which means that simon couldnt have gotten there in the first place, but if he has found another way then the poles shouldnt have been a challenge for him

reply

[–] slimjimpui 14 years ago

*spoilers*

Laura only tore the paper to confirm that it was a door that had been papered over. The detached door knob that she was carrying would have easily fit into the slot without the wallpaper being removed because we clearly see that the actual SLOT was never covered over. Simon must've found the door knob shortly after the family moved to the abandoned building and discovered Tomas's cell as a result.

On the day of the party when he "disappeared", he wanted to show Laura what happened to Tomas. When she refused, he thought up another treasure hunt to intice her down to the basement. He opened up the secret door with the detached door knob, removed it and left the door ajar, then proceeded to lay out all the clues(including said door knob) that were intended to lead Laura from one clue to the next. The next step was to confront Laura, dressed as Tomas and give her the first clue(the key held up to the glass). He then ran down to the basement and through the secret door which at this point was still ajar until Laura inadvertently shut it with the poles. There was never an alternative way to gain entry to the basement otherwise Simon would have been able to escape.

reply

[–] tommysize1 14 years ago

surely the key tomas/simon held up at the door was just the one he used to lock her in the bathroom.the 1st clue was errr i forgot....a picture of her and simon?well it wasnt that key anyway.im pretty sure

reply

[–] slimjimpui 14 years ago

"surely the key tomas/simon held up at the door was just the one he used to lock her in the bathroom."

It was the bathroom key, but it was also a clue. If you remember, the first treasure hunt that Simon and Laura played together ENDS with a key(the key to the draw that contains Simon's medical file). When the masked child holds the key up to the glass, it is intended to remind Laura of the previous treasure hunt and inform her that firstly; a new one has begun and secondly; Simon is most probably the child in the mask. The next thing she was supposed to do was look in Simon's bedroom and if she did she would have found the doll he had hidden. In her panicked state of mind however, she doesn't notice the doll and as a result, most of the clues do not get uncovered til much later in the film.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] calimie_niphredil 14 years ago

A horse? More like an angry child.

It was Simón. No amount of denial will change that.

"Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end; then stop."

reply

[–] Tchoutoye 14 years ago

The first clue was the doll found in Simon's bed. But how was Laura supposed to be led to that clue and know that it was a clue in one of Simon's games? When she found the doll it didn't make her think of a game (admittedly she had other things on her mind by then, but still). And how was she supposed know where the doll belonged? She found the dolls' hiding place only much later by accident.

reply

[–] emunah73 14 years ago

Personally I think that the biggest plot hole is that the police or Laura herself through so many days, weeks of searching Simon never used dogs to look for her son. Average skilled dog would find him, scared, maybe dehydrated but STILL ALIVE after smelling his clothes for a while. But of course there would be no ghosts haunting, scary moments, mother's tragedy and so on. Sorry to spoil the fun :)

reply

[–] IpsaThis 14 years ago

Actually, they DID use dogs, but they didn't show it in the film. And since Simon was dressed as Tomas, the dogs were unable to pick up the scent they found on Simon's clothes.

Or.... the ghosts shrouded Tomas' casita with magic smell-blocking ghost crystals, and the dogs were stumped.

There. Fun's back on. :-P

reply

[–] emunah73 14 years ago

Yeah...
In general I think I will finally write one star review for this movie to expose that the supposedly realistic as opposed to supernatural parts of the plot were ludicrous. The ghosts seemed so rational in comparison...

reply

[–] PoppyTransfusion 13 years ago

In general I think I will finally write one star review for this movie to expose that the supposedly realistic as opposed to supernatural parts of the plot were ludicrous. The ghosts seemed so rational in comparison...

Not the fault of the film you might have been chosing to believe it one way and then find it less satisfactory than the other. The ghost story makes better sense and for a better story/film.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

reply

[–] tallard 13 years ago

That's actually why I liked the movie so much, because it presents how it's actually human delusion which creates many of our life experiences... the power of circumstance to make people lose their minds. In this sense, I think it is one of the best 'ghost' movies ever made, because it is the closest to reality. And reality is often much more insane than fiction.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

reply

[–] gmoxie 9 years ago

well said and I agree.

reply

[–] slimjimpui 14 years ago

"Personally I think that the biggest plot hole is that the police or Laura herself through so many days, weeks of searching Simon never used dogs to look for her son. Average skilled dog would find him, scared, maybe dehydrated but STILL ALIVE after smelling his clothes for a while. But of course there would be no ghosts haunting, scary moments, mother's tragedy and so on. Sorry to spoil the fun :)"

*spoilers*

Consider this: as these events took place in an isolated coastal community, the local police force may only have limited resources IMMEDIATELY available to them so while sniffer dogs would have been brought in from a more equiped source, it may have taken several hours before they arrived. In the meantime, the local cops would have conducted what they believed to be a thorough search of the house and surrounding grounds and completely ruled out the area as a possibility. So once the sniffer dogs arrived, they only saw it necessary to employ their abilities over a larger area and one that they hadn't already searched. The house was most probably turned upside down from top to bottom and the only clue that there was a secret room was a small 5mm allen socket on the wall of a downstairs cupboard and who would notice that and think "there must be a secret room". You may argue that this is shocking oversight on the part of the police and perhaps you are right but it's not as though oversights have not occurred in real life investigations.

Another thing you might argue is that "if they had thought of this then they should have shown this in the film and the fact that they haven't means this is an oversight on the part of the film makers" to which I'd say fistly we are meant to see the events through the eyes of the protagonist who is in the hospital with a broken leg while all this is happening. Laura is at that point fixated on what she thought she saw at the cave so that's where the film must focus attention and all we are supposed to know at that point is that they searched the cave and found nothing. Secondly, explaining to the audience how and why the police missed the secret room gives away too much, no matter how discretely they attempt to convey this. If we were to see an expository scene where someone says "we've searched the house and grounds thoroughly, when the van with the sniffer dogs arrives we'll use them to search further afield instead of wasting time on ground we've already covered" that would give the audience TOO MUCH information and the audience could possibly deduce that there was a secret room somewhere in the house too early in the film. We are supposed to be clueless as to Simon's whereabouts just as Laura is, because we are meant to see the events through her eyes.

reply

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

He died the first night he was missing. The banging you hear is him banging on the basement door and the loud crash is him falling to his death.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

[–] grettahansing 14 years ago

But there is no way the door had re-wallpapered itself after Simon went downstairs! I understand that perhaps he had left it ajar, and then it was closed by things getting moved around in the closet. But nevertheless, it still appeared that the whole door was covered as if Tomas had been locked down there with the door sealed up.

reply

[–] grettahansing 14 years ago

EXACTLY!!! That is a crucial problem with the film.

reply

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

No she does not have to remove the wall paper. There's a seam all the way around the door. She did it as an act of realization.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

[–] IpsaThis 14 years ago

I agree with some other posters that most of what you say are not plot holes, but rather questions. Questions that can be answered by the film or those who watched it. It's a bit of a confusing film, so I don't blame you, but I think if you watch it again you'll understand it all much better.

These have been pretty well handled, but I wanted to chime in on # 2. You asked who Laura saw when she was running on the beach. It couldn't be Simon because he was in the basement. Was it Tomas's ghost or her imagination? Was it part of the plot or a cheap thrill?

It was Tomas' ghost, and part of the plot. As we learn later, those that are close to death are the most able to sense those that have died. That's why the psychic lady can do what she does, and it's why Laura was popping pills like a mad woman in the final scenes. She was bringing herself close to death so that she could see and talk to the children. Likewise, when she was running on the beach she broke her leg very badly and could have died from the injury or drowning (not likely since help was nearby and we have hospitals now, but the rules were made a long time ago when something like that could kill you). She was close enough to death to see Tomas' ghost in the cave.

Or maybe she imagined it. But later on she is so insistent that she saw something and that she isn't crazy, plus we know she's not crazy, plus we never see anything else that's just her imagination, so I think it was Tomas' ghost.

------------------------------------------

The other thing I wanted to mention was about Benigna's age. There was a lot of talk about how to determine how old she was (height, uniform, face). I guess she looked young in the old pictures. But for all the confusion that some people had about whether she was Laura's age or just a few years older, and when she worked at the orphanage, no one mentioned that she had a SON that was Laura's age! That makes her at least about 15 years older, possibly many more. Isn't it possible that Benigna was 25 when she had Tomas, 32 when Tomas was killed, and 62 when we meet her 30 years later? I suppose she looks older than 62 and perhaps younger than 32 in the pictures, but I'll let that slide with artistic license. I mean, how the hell does Ewan McGregor turn into Alec Guinness in only 10 years?

reply

[–] happy_stew2003 14 years ago

If you killed 5 kids to avenge your sons death and attempted to keep it a secret for as long as the woman did I'm sure you would look much older than you were too :P

reply

[–] bgh122 14 years ago

I disagree that she saw a ghost at the cave. Everything that happened to her and Simon throughout the events of the movie are explicable without reference to the supernatural. If we take all of her sightings of ghosts as hallucinations and see that the movie's plot still functions then there's no need for the ghosts as an explanation at all as the simpler explanation of grief/shock induced hallucinations already functions.

I can't remember any point of the movie at which 'ghosts did it' was a necessary conclusion for the plot to remain consistent. We have no reason to believe the psychic was genuine; in real life psychics are cold reading fraudsters, so what is there to compel us to see this psychic as anything different? If there is no point at which the plot would cease to make sense were the ghosts inexplicable as anything other than ghosts then we can safely assume they never existed.

plus we know she's not crazy, plus we never see anything else that's just her imagination, so I think it was Tomas' ghost

It depends how one defines crazy. If one defines crazy as 'has lost all touch with rational reality' then no, she isn't crazy, but this isn't a very accurate definition of mental illness. Instead, one should look to her actions to suggest her mental state; she sees ghosts which may or may not exist, believes in a psychic and then commits suicide (that's what was going on with the pills she took at the end of the film and that's why we saw her gravestone at the closing scenes). None of the aforementioned traits suggest a healthy state of mind.

Furthermore, as listed in my above response, if we cannot find a part of the plot that would become inexplicable if the concept that 'ghosts exist' were removed then it's safe to assume that the ghosts never existed and that all the sightings of ghosts were her hallucination. We have no reason to believe the psychic was genuine. As the police psychologist answered when it was revealed that the psychic work wasn't charged, "Not yet". Other than the psychic, who it's safe to assume is a charlatan unless there's a plot point that requires her to be genuine, what else confirms that the ghosts were real?

reply

[–] MorbidPig 14 years ago

'I mean, how the hell does Ewan McGregor turn into Alec Guinness in only 10 years?'

You think Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia were ten years old in A New Hope?

reply

[–] IpsaThis 13 years ago

My bad. According to Wikipedia, it's 19 years. Still a stretch and artistic license. Guinness was 63 for A New Hope, and McGregor was 34 when Revenge of the Sith came out. That's 10 years unaccounted for. Furthermore, Yoda is supposed to be like 900, but no one in their right minds would say he looks older than 880.

reply

[–] gmoxie 9 years ago

I was guessing that Benigna gave birth to Tomas when she was a teenager and left him on church steps or something such that he ended up in the orphanage. So in the photo she is probably in her mid-twenties. So when she goes to see Laura, she was in her mid 50s.

I wasn't sure if the orphanage management knew that Tomas was her son? Maybe yes. Or maybe no. I was thinking that she got the job there so that she could be close to her son but perhaps her relationship was a secret. And that maybe she spent as much time as she could in the secret room with him, and that he LIKED that room -- it was not a prison for him. This movie leaves a lot of questions but perhaps Benigna discovered this room but didn't tell anyone, then fixed it up for Tomas as a private sanctuary for the two of them to spend time together.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]