MovieChat Forums > Oculus (2014) Discussion > Really good, some flaws (SPOILERS)

Really good, some flaws (SPOILERS)

posted 3 years ago by Ace_Spade (9552)
28 replies | jump to latest

I enjoyed the film a lot. It was creepy, didn't rely on jump-scares (alone) and had a good relationship between the two main characters - both quite well-performed as both adults and children.

The design of the film is good, too, and I particularly enjoyed the mirror's look. It's got a good feel to it.

One of the best things about it is that the exact nature of the monster isn't really clearly known. It seems to want to kill and possess souls, but outside of that we don't know what kind of entity it is. That and the insanity-attack it seems to bring against its prey gives the film a very Lovecraftian vibe at times.

Complaints:

1. This one is minor, but I'd have liked a bit more "is this all just insanity" before the supernatural elements came in. Tease us more with the possibility that this is just a family going nuts and not a demon (or whatever)

2. I know this is contrary to not knowing the nature of the creature, but I'd have liked a couple more defined rules about the mirror. It was so open-ended as to what it could do. It could mess with phones, yet Kaylee used her phone to "prove" reality and unreality. It had a sphere of influence, but it was a moot point because it could make you hallucinate yourself running away. A bit more clarity on its powers (not its nature) would have been welcome.

EDIT:
When I first wrote this post, I included a bit about how I wasn't 100% satisfied by the ending, wanting it to end with the timelines merging more, messing about with time, having the child and adult versions of the characters help each other, and/or reveal that the adult timeline was pure projection.

I thought about it for a moment, and the problem with all that is (in addition to layering in a sci-fi time-twist element far too late in the film) that this was what I was thinking was going to happen during the movie. It's too predictable.

Although the ending as-is isn't outside the box for this kind of malignant evil horror movie, it wasn't what I was predicting would happen, it felt like a great conclusion to the story(ies) and the fact that the two timelines mirror each other seems relevant to the story somehow... Something about reflections...?

Anyway, I liked the movie a lot and I think it deserves more acclaim than it seems to have acquired.

[–] tph890 (489) 3 years ago

I also really enjoy this movie. It’s a great creepy ride that rewards the rewatch. One of my Halloween season favorites.
One theory I came across on these boards a while back was that only one of the timelines was real, and that the other was a manifestation of the mirror, and it’s up to the viewer to choose which is which.
I think that, cinematically, the dual synchronous conclusions work very well, but I also wonder how much the mirror actually manipulated reality, to the extent that it might actually create false memories (which is hinted at a bit through the brother) along with in the moment hallucinations.
Also, I thought the acting was fantastic. I really bought into all of the performances.

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 3 years ago

Yeah, I'd like to rewatch it. Maybe I will, take some notes this time. I think that a rewatch would benefit from knowing how the mirror affects them so you could track the multiple realities and possibilities more.

I read the theories on these boards (moments before posting) about the different timelines and that several other people had arrived at a similar conclusion to mine: one timeline (usually the adult one) is fake. I don't think it's supposed to be, but I think myself and others kinda want it to be the case so that the horror of the ending doesn't come true. That says to me how affecting the film kinda is, because we're almost activating defense mechanisms to avoid the trauma. Maybe another way the film taps into mental health/PTSD?

Because so many people were guessing that, though - that just says to me that a confirmation of timeline shenanigans wasn't the way to go. I like that it can be ambiguous, though.

This is also kinda why I wanted a bit more clarity on the powers of the mirror. It would make it more fun to guess what was real and what wasn't if there was some more guidance there. I don't need all the answers, just a bit more clarity.

[–] tph890 (489) 3 years ago

The film definitely taps into the mental health angle, which in my opinion is one of its strengths. I think the supernatural aspects of this film are real, but they also contribute to real-life insanity in the characters who are affected by the mirror.
I get what you’re saying about wanting more clarity about the power of the mirror, but I think we—the audience—can’t really know because we only learn from the brother and sister, and even they don’t know (because they are eventually bested by it).
I like to think that the mirror is some sort of conscious inter-dimensional being that only appears to be a mirror to us, and isn’t necessarily malicious but is naturally destructive to the human psyche, like mental radiation poisoning. But hey, that’s just me.
Definitely give it a rewatch, you won’t be disappointed.
And as far as the timelines go, I think that both are filled with illusions and time-warps, but that both are ultimately valid, and the tragic ending is indeed the truth.

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 3 years ago

The mental health aspect is good. I think it's a good example of using a film (deliberately or accidentally? I don't know) to talk about something without turning it into a commercial, PSA, or piece of propaganda. I came away from the film pondering what it must be like to have something like paranoid schizophrenia and/or memory loss or false memories. The movie doesn't talk about any of that, but I'm thinking about it now. I don't know if this was intended by the filmmakers, but there it is, all the same.

Just to be clear, I love the unknown nature of the mirror. It has that H.P. Lovecraft vibe. Some aspects of the movie actually reminded me of Color Out of Space, based on the Lovecraft story. I recommend that film. It's, uh, upsetting is the best word I have to describe it. So I definitely don't want clear answers on the mirror.

What I did want was just a little more clarity on some of the rules of engagement. I don't need everything spelled out. I don't need them laying out "It can only be destroyed by such-and-such," or "It can't reflect the colour red, so if you see red, we're in the real world!" But just a wee bit more to know how they might destroy it.

The reason I wanted more info on how to fight the mirror, resist it, or destroy it was because it would raise the tension. When I know exactly what can happen or should happen if they do X,Y,Z, I find it makes a movie like this more tense and engaging because I know the stakes. When movies don't have clear rules, it can range from a bit distancing to really infuriating (X-Men: Apocalypse - the mutants' power levels are "whatever the writers need right now," and it's SO FRUSTRATING).

Although, yeah, because the whole narration is unreliable, we don't get to know for sure anything.

For my money, I agree: the ending is as-presented. I think the timeline blur was visible past-and-present, but the kids of course have no way of knowing what they're looking at. They don't know the twentysomethings they're seeing are themselves, so by the time they realize this, it's too late.

As to what the mirror is, I picture it as a conduit to a Something in another reality. The Thing on the other side warps reality. I don't know if it's even deliberate. Maybe it's feeding on souls. Maybe it's just causing hallucinations because its nature is insanity.

I think the mirror's origin was some Cthulhu-esque cult master who made the portal and probably regretted it.

Oh, and I did think of something I thought the ending should have contained to make it just a *smidge* better. I'd have liked to have seen the cops wrap up the crime scene, get Kaylee's body out, and then show another crack in the mirror right where she was hit. Imply that the siblings lost, but they at least scarred it a *bit* once more.

[–] tph890 (489) 3 years ago

“The mental health aspect is good. I think it's a good example of using a film (deliberately or accidentally? I don't know) to talk about something without turning it into a commercial, PSA, or piece of propaganda. I came away from the film pondering what it must be like to have something like paranoid schizophrenia and/or memory loss or false memories.”
^^—I’m with you here, and I do think it was intentional by the filmmakers. The mind-trip aspect is a big reason why I’m a fan of this movie.
I have to agree that a lack of clear rules does constitute as a flaw, but I feel that it’s a minor flaw. The movie is pretty tense as is, in my humble opinion.
And your idea for the ending is certainly triumphant, but it made me think of the opposite: what if there never was a crack in the mirror?
But now my brain is just spinning, I’m gonna have to give this one a rewatch too sometime in the near future.
Cheers and thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 3 years ago

I hope it was intentional, but intentional or not, it worked. The mind-trip makes the movie stand out. If it was just a monster in a mirror that could suck them in or send out zombies to get them, it's just another Bloody Mary type thing. As-is, because it messes with their minds, we can't even know if the monster is even targeting them. I keep coming back to Lovecraft, but there's a possible interpretation where the mirror-being isn't trying to hurt them and doesn't care, but its otherworldly presence is enough to warp reality and cause them to do the things they do. In some ways that's more terrifying to me: it's not hating people or feeding on them, it's indifferent to them.

So, real quick, I think part of the reason I liked the idea of the additional crack wasn't just to make the heroes win a little bit, but just to show the scars the event left on everything.

That out of the way, your idea of the other crack not being there either is kinda genius, and would've been really quite a nasty punctuation mark on an already nasty ending. That would've been brutal; watching the heroes fail so utterly and then taking away their one, tiny victory, too. Cap off, sir. Great idea.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

One theory I came across on these boards a while back was that only one of the timelines was real, and that the other was a manifestation of the mirror, and it’s up to the viewer to choose which is which.

Hmm, I never considered that at all. I'll have to think about that on my next rewatch.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

1. This one is minor, but I'd have liked a bit more "is this all just insanity" before the supernatural elements came in. Tease us more with the possibility that this is just a family going nuts and not a demon (or whatever)

Interesting observation. I feel like Flanagan intentionally expanded on this storytelling technique later on; I think the Haunting of Hill House was an excellent example of ambiguity. Most ppl just presume that the supernatural element is genuine. I do too, but I think the show works very well being interpreted as an elaborate representation of deep-seated trauma, not unlike The Babadook.

2. I know this is contrary to not knowing the nature of the creature, but I'd have liked a couple more defined rules about the mirror.

Agreed. I consider this my favorite horror film but I do admit it does one of my most disliked tropes with horror: the inconsistently omnipotent malevolent entity. That said, it's possible that this was intentionally lovecraftian as you mentioned. Just something beyond human comprehension. I don't think it's actually conscious though, so I sorta see the erratic nature of what it can do as just being random. As opposed to be some typical horror movie antagonist just seems to throw the heroes a bone here and there in service to the plot.

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

I don't think I've seen a lot of Flanagan's works; I haven't seen Haunting of Hill House. I think because people are predisposed to believe the horror is real (in the context of the film, anyway) it would have been that much more interesting if it messed with me before going, "Yeah, it's real."

Horror isn't the only genre with plot omnipotence granted to baddies. There's a lot of it in thrillers, too, where enemy spy organizations have surveillance cameras EVERYWHERE and can "hack" into a person's entire life in minutes. I remember there was an eye-roller moment of bad guy superpower in Fringe where one baddy shakes the heroes' tail, including surveillance and tracking devices, with such perfect countermeasures that I was a bit angry at an otherwise wonderfully well-written show. There's a point in Breaking Bad (one of the only moments I thought the show was poorly written) where a bad guy evades a trap with no possible way to logically anticipate it.

Got a bit off-track there. Yes, it's Lovecraftian and preternaturally beyond the heroes, but the film gave us some rules already. The main reason I wanted the rules is actually so the tension would be higher. If we know the rules, we get tense when we can see them being bent or how the heroes are about to stumble up against them.

Very interesting that I think of it as some kind of Intelligence and you're thinking of it as a phenomenon. That's another feather in the film's cap, because either interpretation is super-interesting.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

Regarding Hill House, yeah to be fair, there's no doubt that it's a supernatural story when you're going in for sure. I do appreciate stories that manage to mess with the viewer in that sense. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I also like stories that are kinda surreal; like, is all of this happening, or is this allegory or something?

Hmm, in all my years of using that made up trope name, it never occurred to me that it can also be problematic in other genres too LOL. Re: breaking bad, are you talking about Gus in the parking garage? lmao, I remember reading about that; maybe it was a thread with you in it then. Great observation if that's the case. That was just in service to the viewer really.

Regarding rules, that's a good point. You can see the characters grapple with the threat instead of negative things just randomly happening and there's nothing they can do about it. I never really thought about it that way.

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

That's a good point. It's not really fair of me to impose my version on the movie. It's not trying to fool me. I do think it could have been an interesting way to introduce the idea of the mirror messing with your head, though, because if the viewer wasn't certain what was real, we'd feel a bit like the characters. Still, it works as-is, and yeah, it doesn't need to change.

Yeah, I was talking about Gus in the parking garage. It probably was me; I think I'm one of the only people who has gone on multiple rants about it. They needed to stretch out the conflict longer and Gus - who has *never* hesitated before getting in that car before - suddenly "senses" the bomb like he's a Sith Lord. Dumb thing is, with everything heating up in his operation, it would have made sense for Gus to have just left a guard at the car who stymies Walt from even planting the bomb.

Rules are needed in the movie or we have no stakes. Think about how well The Matrix lays down its rules, or how we get an implicit sense of how useful Gandalf's magic is going to be in Lord of the Rings. Those films stay very consistent with how effective certain strategies are, so we feel tension more when the heroes are confronted with bad guys because we know where they can win and lose. I'd contrast this to X-Men: Apocalypse. In that film, the eponymous villain can use his thoughts to literally turn opponents into dust... unless he's fighting the equally-eponymous heroes. Once he's in a showdown with the X-Men, he doesn't turn people into dust anymore. It's frustrating watching that movie because it's *never* clear what can and cannot happen other than whatever the writers need/want for a scene. Now, as to Oculus, it does lay out a bunch of rules, but it kinda messes with them later. So, it's pretty good, I just wanted a *bit* more clarity.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

They needed to stretch out the conflict longer and Gus - who has *never* hesitated before getting in that car before - suddenly "senses" the bomb like he's a Sith Lord.

It's so true. It's like catching a gamer using a wallhack. It could have been more creatively done than to just use it as a way to artificially inflate Gus' badassery.

I really liked that breakout you explained, with the Matrix/LOTR examples to establish the necessity of these rules for tension.

Quite fittingly, I actually was one of the few who enjoyed Apocalypse. And I think part of it might be that very zaniness that's frustrating you. I used to liken Apocalypse as a saturday morning cartoon brought to life, and I think that's why it was exciting for me. Its presentation of powers and power scaling were some of the best (for me) when it comes to comic book films. But as you pointed out, it's not really coherent. I think maybe it hits a certain level of acceptability to me: just enough of bullshit, but a whole lot of style not unlike the comic book source.

Unrelatedly, new matrix spoiler, I thought it was badass that New Smith in the new Matrix film was impervious to NPH's slowmo hacks. But I was so pissed off that there didn't seem to be any reasonable explanation for why. Not even an attempt at one.

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

Exactly. There should have been a slip-up by Walt, a reasonable move by Gus, or both that would show us why he didn't get in the car.

If you enjoyed Apocalypse, fair enough. I kinda like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and that film is as flawed as X-Men: Apocalypse, if not moreso. I did like seeing Nightcrawler again, and despite everybody dumping on her, I thought the actress who plays Jean Grey did fine.

I didn't see the new Matrix, but I am curious about it. I read the spoiler anyway, because I didn't care that much. Let me ask you a question about it...

So, one of the reasons I didn't see Resurrections was because I was worried they were going to walk back the ending of the original films and use the fourth film as a way to make a political statement. I don't see "woke" everywhere, but I hate paying for a movie and getting a public service announcement telling me why white guys suck or replacing the old heroes with new ones while coincidentally (?) switching up the demographics.

Mostly, however, I was worried that they'd just come up with a bunch of dumb stuff that would wind up with a lesser ending than we got. I love the first Matrix movie, the next two are a mixed bag...

My questions about Resurrections are: is it worth watching? Does it wreck the previous films' ending? Is it preachy, or is it still in philosophy-overdrive, S&M, punk rock, sci-fi/cyberpunk, kung fu film, action movie good stuff that the original films had?

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

Re: The Matrix...

Despite the initial concerns, I don't really think there was anything "woke" here, or any commentary on race or gender. But even so...I know everyone's different and all, but I honestly feel that this movie is a bunch of dumb stuff that ends up creating a lesser ending lol. And this is coming from a guy who really didn't like either of the two sequels to begin with. (I liked Revolutions, but superficially as an action movie. But after the first film, I don't really appreciate the additional world building that they provided to complete the story.)

Interestingly, I found the first 15-30 minutes of the new movie to be quite interesting. It's not really quite clear what's happening. Was the original trilogy real? Who exactly is Thomas Anderson? Etc. It would have been absolutely controversial if they took that route with this movie, but I think I would have appreciated it more. By the time the movie revealed its primary plot, I was like wait, is this really all it is? They came back for this?

Is it preachy, or is it still in philosophy-overdrive, S&M, punk rock, sci-fi/cyberpunk, kung fu film, action movie good stuff that the original films had?

So definitely not preachy, but I think it's a lower budget, uninspired shell of what the original films captured. It's still enjoyable if a viewer just takes it for what it is, with low expectations. It's not necessarily a bad movie; I just don't think it comes close at all. Maybe they needed the magic of both Wachowskis...

(And for the record, I'm totally a fan of them. I love Ninja Assassin, Speed Racer, and for some reason, I really liked Jupiter Ascending. But man, disappointing.)

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

Thanks for this info.

It's impossible to know these days if something is "woke" or just "has a female/minority lead character". People throw that term around so flippantly. It's almost never used accurately. It's particularly dumb because people mistake progressive ideas or themes as being automatically woke, but it's possible to just be trying to send a wholesome message of legitimate togetherness. People overreact; you probably know this.

I'll probably not bother with it, then, if it's just going to be a middling stab at what were already pretty dodgy sequels. I think the sequels are uneven, although I did find the ultimate ending to be more or less a satisfying place to take it.

As to the Wachowskis, they can flop as many films as they want; they'll always have The Matrix. That movie is such glorious, artistic greatness that it's almost a full career by itself. The Animatrix is really, really cool, too, though, and the other sequels were...okay. But I also love Cloud Atlas, which I think is pretty underrated. CA is responsible for one of my all-time favourite conversations on then-IMDb message boards. I saved a transcript of it when they shut the boards down. It's on moviechat here, if you're interested (https://moviechat.org/tt1371111/Cloud-Atlas/58c84d52b591530ffd698b9a/I-wish-the-crappy-stories-werent-in-this)

Speed Racer's cool, too. I thought it did a good job of being that live-action anime thing. I get why it flopped, because it was basically made for people who fit into the Venn diagram sliver between "fan of Speed Racer," and "fan of updated, kinetic graphics and CGI." I haven't seen Jupiter Ascending or Ninja Assassin. I do have Sense8 in my Netflix cue, though.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

People overreact; you probably know this.

After being on moviechat, more than ever :D

Yeah, sounds fair. I don't even have any desire to sell the movie to anyone really. It's rather disappointing.

Cloud Atlas has long been on my list of movies to watch. The premise sounds so epic and it's something I would have liked to write myself. Glad to hear you love it! I'll have to keep your link around for whenever I do since I'm pretty bad with knocking out my film queue.

I only watched Speed Racer because my friend fit in that sliver, and he highly recommended it to me. Over the years, he's recommended things to me that I had no interest in checking out, and they've always worked out XD. I love the kinetic graphics and CGI part, and I really enjoyed the strange aesthetic that they made out of it. I even tolerate the family-movie, kooky antics, that I often can't stand. But I think it's cause the movie is so wholesome, but also dark and dramatic, but at the end of it, has a lot of heart too. Even if it's cheesy as hell, it just works. That ending montage of his thoughts, as he's finishing the race in a spinning, psychadelic climax gets me every time.

Jupiter Ascending is an attempt at like grand sci fi fantasy or whatever. Lots of worldbuilding. I'm not a big sci-fi person. Maybe that's why it worked for me? It was fun. Entertaining characters. Easily accessible to a "casual" viewer. Shifted between grandiose scenes with silly things like the DMV parody, but it felt very natural in how it integrated its humor with the drama. Ninja Assassin is a bloody, over the top action adventure, with exciting, unrealistic action sequences. I think you'd get a kick out of it. I also appreciated how it took our modern-day romanticized concept of the ninja, and just ran with it while ultimately still keeping the movie "grounded". I put that in quotes, because there's nothing realistic about the movie lol

Sense 8, I'll get to someday, I'm sure lol.

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

Moviechat is great for a lot of reasons, but "a majority of users who are well-balanced, politically and socially," is not one of them. I come here for good conversations and some users are just... not good at that.

If you like the rest of the Wachowski's output, I think you're gonna love Cloud Atlas. I think it's probably their second-best movie after The Matrix. Of course, I haven't seen all their stuff, but I'd even say it's great compared to movies generally, not just from the filmography of the Wachowskis.

I'm in the sliver, too. Speed Racer was so much fun, it was just crazy, and it hit the throttle and just went for broke. Casting knocked it out of the park, too.

I might check out Jupiter Ascending. It's reception was not warm, so I gave it a pass. But maybe...

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

If it helps, I think you'd get a sense of you'd like Jupiter within the first 20 minutes or so if I recall correctly. But yeah, no promises there XD

Wonder if I can get my gf to watch Cloud Atlas with me. That would be a good way to get me to watch something XD And esp if you think it's great in general too!

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

Yes, I highly recommend Cloud Atlas.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

When I first wrote this post, I included a bit about how I wasn't 100% satisfied by the ending, wanting it to end with the timelines merging more, messing about with time,

As much as I love a good time travel story, I did appreciate how the movie pulled this off. I liked the fact that we saw two stories unfold, two separate tragedies, though they ended up mirroring each other; the mirror can't be stopped. And to go along with what you were saying earlier...even though we saw something clearly supernatural happen. I think a person could still extrapolate some themes from that. You could still interpret the corruption of the family's ruin and the son's homicidal behavior as all symbolic of familial ruin and the mental illness impacts upon the two children.

I didn't carry it so far as to interpret that the narrative structure itself was like a mirror lol, but that's an interesting thought.

Anywho, glad you enjoyed it. I look forward to reading your convo with the other guy. And I should probably get around to rewatching this. I haven't watched it a lot because it hits me on such an emotional level. (ironic, since I used to watch Midsommar like once a month lol)

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

Yeah, time-travel might have worked, but I like it better as-is. Less predictable is better, and I'm okay with the movie not giving me what I wanted (the mirror's defeat).

It's definitely got some psychological trauma symbolism there, but it's not quite allegorical, because "confront your fears" is part of moving past PTSD (for example), so the idea of the trauma being unbeatable doesn't work on that level.

I'm not sure if the mirroring structure is intentional, but I think it works.

Yeah, I liked the film a lot. I enjoyed Midsommar, too, although Midsommar kinda felt like it was never quite as good as The Wicker Man, which is very similar. But I did love the bright, sunny horror movie - that's very cool - and the slow, deliberate pacing is cool, too.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

It's definitely got some psychological trauma symbolism there, but it's not quite allegorical, because "confront your fears" is part of moving past PTSD (for example), so the idea of the trauma being unbeatable doesn't work on that level.

Good point. This was actually one of my frustrations with a more recent horror movie. I still enjoyed it, but I felt like it lacked the catharsis to be expected from a trauma metaphor. Instead, you just got a more standard horror movie-dark ending.

I still haven't seen The Wicker Man (the original, I'm sure you mean?). Due to its inspiration for Midsommar, I keep saying I want to check it out but I honestly am not into movies like this to begin with. I watched Midsommar because a close friend told me to without any sort of forewarning. I just ended up really enjoying it.

Edit: I think the reason why Oculus' ending works for me as it is, is because I basically consider it a tragedy. (I just saw your suggestion of having a second crack appear on the mirror.) Maybe that's why, even with the trauma reading, I'm okay that the movie ended so bleakly. This is basically the bad ending you get sometimes unfortunately.

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

It's not that the trauma-symbolic version couldn't work with a dark ending (because that sadly happens to a lot of people with that in their lives) but rather that I'd need to feel they could have beaten the Mirror. As-is, it plays as an Eldritch Thing From Beyond, which is cosmic horror. That's great, but it muddies the metaphor (not that it's allegorical).

Yes, I mean the OG Wicker Man. It took me ages to find. It's revered, but I guess not enough to be easily accessed. Although, in this era of streaming, it's probably a LOT easier to track down. If it's not your genre of choice... yeah, I don't know if you'd dig it. The main character in Midsommar goes through a VERY different set of personal problems than the lead in The Wicker Man, so if you're relating to the characters (which is likely) TWM might not hold the same enjoyment for you. It might be worth a try. I'd say maybe find a trailer and give it a watch to see if it appeals on some level.

I read Oculus as cosmic horror, but tragedy works, too. My understanding is that "true" tragedy (for the literary snots among us) requires the main character to be the instrument of their own downfall. Macbeth schemes, murders, and succumbs to black magic until he is undone. Kaylie does seem to have the same tragic flaw that struck down Oedipus: hubris. She thinks she can beat the mirror, and instead of just burying the thing or chucking it in the ocean, she tries to fight it and loses because of arrogance. So, yeah, I can see thinking of it as a tragedy.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

Hmm. You make a very good point. My stance on the film is kinda incoherent then. Because no matter the outcome (positive like hill house, or negative like Smile), there would need to be at least the idea that they could succeed, otherwise the metaphor breaks. But the movie doubles down on the cosmic horror angle, that there's nothing they can do about.*

Yeah, Wicker Man looks like it's 3.99 on a number of streaming services. Might take the plunge to check this one out. And you guessed it. For a long time, I wasn't sure why Midsommar resonated with me so. I mean it's beautiful, well-acted, etc. but why I loved the film way more than I would have thought. Ultimately, I realized I think that the movie resonated with me, through Dani's navigation through her grief, vulnerabilities, and toxic relationships with other people.

Oh! to be clear, I wasn't thinking of tragedy in the traditional sense haha. I actually didn't see the movie was a result of her own hubris, but you're absolutely right. She and her brother survived the mirror, and it was only through her own hubris, that the past repeated itself. I'm not sure why that didn't click to me before. So I may have used the right word here for the wrong reasons :D

*And walking away from the problem would muddy the metaphor too lol

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

Yeah. I like the idea that it's dealing with trauma, though... I don't want to throw out your approach to the film entirely, because I think it adds some good depth to the movie. So...maybe it's like a "soft metaphor".

Hm... that's very interesting. I saw Dani's grief, but I didn't get the same sense of the toxic relationships. I saw more a cult that preyed on her vulnerability. I know what you mean - her relationship with her boyfriend was falling apart and his friends didn't like her (and most of them were varying degrees of prick, too), but I might have said that her last-minute imposition onto the trip without considering the friends' opinions or feelings was not the best behaviour either.

I think what's really interesting, though, is how powerful Midsommar is, and how nuanced its story is. Depending on one's perspective, we can see an emphasis on cults, brainwashing, and the effects grief has on the human psyche - vulnerability and so forth. Or we could see toxic relationships crushing and stifling somebody until she breaks and lashes out at them.

It's a great movie. So much nuance there.

Sorry, I misunderstood about what you meant with tragedy. It works either way: either as a movie with a sad ending or as a movie with a central hero's tragic flaw bringing about that sad ending.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

I probably shouldn't have pluralized the word "relationship"; I was mainly thinking about Dani and her boyfriend. You're right; I think the movie was largely about how the cult preyed on her vulnerability. But I think a large part of that vulnerability is demonstrated through her relationship with him. We see her desperation, how easy she is to manipulate, etc. [Also, iirc, she doesn't impose on the trip. Christian pretends to extend an invitation to her to assuage her worries (which, in itself, sets the stage for how manipulative he is, with her, and with his friends.)] I think that's the part I connected with instinctively. I wasn't surprised later on when I realized Aster referred to Midsommar as a breakup movie lol.

Agreed! I think the nuances, and the varying interpretations that can emerge around this movie (and Hereditary too) are part of what make these movies incredible. There's this great quote I love from a book that comes to mind:

“If a painting really works down in your heart and changes the way you see and think and feel, you don't think, 'oh I love this painting because it's universal' 'I love this painting because it
speaks to mankind'. That's not the reason anyone loves a piece of art. It's a secret whisper from
an alleyway. Psst, you. Hey kid. Yes, you. An individual heart shock. . . .A really great painting is
fluid enought to work its way into the mind and heart through all different angles, in ways that
are unique and very particular.”

No sorries needed. lol I find that when I use the term tragedy, I usually think of a story in which the character's fall is inevitable and they have no agency of their own. But at that point, it's just a philosophical discussion about the nature of free will lol. So the misunderstanding is on me haha.

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

Dani's relationship did leave her vulnerable for sure. One of the things I think is so great about the set-up for Midsommar is how it's such a human level of mistake that sets up a lot of the later horrible outcomes. The boyfriend wants to break up, but he can't/won't rip off the band-aid because he feels bad and guilty, just as he feels guilty into letting her come along. She needs help and is becoming co-dependant with the boyfriend, but because she's still in so much pain, she can't/won't let go either.

I think you're right... Christian offers, but she turns it down at first before accepting later...? Am I remembering that right? But, yes, I stand corrected: she doesn't impose as much as she might have. That just adds to the awkward truth about the whole thing: people who won't speak plainly in an awkward, failing relationship and wind up spiralling. Just, in real life, it doesn't usually end up in a cult ritually sacrificing half the couple.

I have to watch Hereditary. I haven't seen it yet. It's on my list.

You're not wrong, either. Classical tragedy often has that fate/free will element, too. Oedipus Rex is one of the strongest examples of the template for tragedy and it has hubris and the tragic flaw, but it also absolutely investigates fate and free will as a major theme.

[–] ADBruno1985 (3492) 2 years ago

So, since your main issues was that it should've been more extreme one way or the other, you could rethink that as it's hitting the sweet spot right in the middle for you