On Hell and Draggin'

No, not to a movie like that!

John, I am so happy for your responses. Thank you!

No one believes Raimi because 1.) the movie begins with a Spanish-speaking couple stating their son had stolen a necklace from a [gypsy], and in the next scene the boy is dragged into hell. 2.) It is explicitly stated that the demon Lumia is called upon by [gypsies] to do their dirty deeds. 3.) Why would the story reference [gypsies] so much if we are not meant to construe the characters as such? Those characters didn't have to be of vaguely Eastern European or Central Asian extraction either. It's not like the Raimi's couldn't have chosen another group of people to showcase--or have created a fictional people. (J.R.R. Tolkien did!)

I'll concede to the house argument; though, considering the entire movie takes place over the course of only seventy-two hours and there is never a mention of exactly when Mrs. Ganush's loan payment is due or the date of her imminent eviction, my theory may be a bit stronger than yours.

Medical bills, hell! That crazy-@$* woman had power to summon evil creatures from the netherworld to torment folks that she felt had embarrassed her. Forgive me if I am wholly unsympathetic.

I look forward to future exchanges. (I hope you read this response!)

Raimi in no way even hinted toward your level of analysis. He simply responded to the interviewer's proposal that some Romani may take offense to "the portrayal of gypsies" in the movie. (P.S. I listen to Nashville Public Radio, but it was not an interview at our local station.)

I envy your faculty for remembering detail. I am still reluctant to follow your red herring theory. After all, we all observe Mrs. Ganush cursing Christine (rather, the owner of the button) using the button as a medium for the curse, if you will. Else, why would giving the button away help?) That much is unambigious. The curse is hardly a diversion. That seems much too complicated a device for this film, which has so much in common with its predecessors.

Let's consider that context:

Your argument is unshakably compelling [if] we neglect to consider Raimi's style. In Raimi films, non-supernatural power wielding characters commonly perform feats that otherwise don't occur in real life--all presented as a form of physical comedy. Mrs. Ganush, on the other hand, wields supernatural powers to some extent. Summoning demons, ventriloquistic coughs, a gypsy breaking into a compact car--none can be that far-fetched in this context. In a more general sense, horror films tend to unsettle us (e.g. the element of surprise in general, the volume and the type of sounds, camera angles, lighting, set pieces) whether or not the bad guy is around. The rustling leaves could have been a marker of the Lamia's presence, or they could have simply formed an easily discernible cue (i.e. a code to which we are conditioned to react even on the subconscious level) for us to get the willies.

Also, Rham Jas explains the Lamia as the demon most commonly used by (specifically) the gypsies to exact their revenge. Why take care to analyze the potential ambiguity of his initial questions without considering the potential relevance of that simple later statement?

John, I'd love to read your impressions of my other stories. Care to peruse my print?

Am I stretching?  Perhaps a bit.  There are one or two things I am not entirely sure about.  For instance, I am not 100% sure that the creature in the parking lot is not the real Mrs. Ganush. Perhaps she really did have a mad brawl in the parking garage and ended by trying to curse Christine.  Crazy old ladies who are cruelly thrown out of their homes sometimes go nuts and do crazy things.  It happens.

But I am QUITE sure about the general thrust and intent of the film -- that the person primarily responsible for the damnation of Christine is Christine.   Mrs. Ganush may or may not have done some bad things; she may or may not be a wicked sorceress; but Ganush's bad choices are not the focus of the film.  Christine's choices are the focus, and her choices continue to be relevant long after the supposed curse is placed upon her.

You quote me the title of the film.  Take another look!  It is  called "Drag ME to Hell", and not "Drag YOU to Hell."  It is not about Mrs. Ganush damning Christine ... at least not primarily.  It is about Christine damning Christine.  In a broader sense "Me" represents the members of the audience, who identify with Christine and get invited for a journey to Hell along with her  This was my impression when I first saw the film -- before I even considered the possibility that Mrs. Ganush in the parking lot may have been just another phantasm.  It is the impression that remains even if I am wrong about that particular theory.  My brother, sitting next to me in the theater, had the exact same impression.  We have read interviews with Raimi (who wrote, directed and produced) and he has explicitly confirmed this view of things.

Raimi, in interviews, discusses how Christine "succumbs to the sin of greed and makes a choice of her own self-interest at the expense of this old woman" and about how "one bad choice leads to another and another and another until she really becomes quite a despicable character at the picture's end."  He further states that the picure had to end the way it did, because she had become so despicable that it would have been unacceptable to end the picture any other way.  (He does not say that her fate was inevitable because of the button switch, or because Ganush dies early in the film -- it seems the issue for him is simply that she deserves it).

From another interview:   Christine "is really a despicable character" but "hopefully the audience can buy into the illusion [that she is a good person] because they've got so many things they can identify with .... [W]hen it's important, she's cruel to this old lady for her own betterment.  She sins with greed and forces her out of the house, hiding under the rules of the bank ....  She's a nice person.  We are all nice people but we are all sinners too.   And I wanted you, the audience, to make this choice with her, when the old woman was unpleasant looking , was absurd ...." "Alison Lohman has a very positive charm that helps you stay with her despite all the terrible things that she does."  Ganush "is not the villain of the piece.  She's really the victim."

"The story is an absolute fabrication.  The only aspect that we even considered doing research for was who would be the demon that Alison Lohman's character calls forth:  the old woman."  He then describes his research on the "Lamia" and his ideas that the various mythic incarnations represented a single entity. 

NOTE how he identifies the "old woman" with "the Lamia", and then blames Christine for summoning her.

"I really wanted the audience to go on a journey of sin with the character.  ....  Because really, this is a morally bankrupt character."

From yet another interview:   Mrs Ganush is not really the villain but "a victim of the other woman's greed".  "I think it is cute little Alison Lohman who is really the source of evil in this picture,.... [S]he is the one with the corrupt soul."

I have not provided links because I'm not sure they are welcome on this site.  But I'm sure you can google key phrases.

It is also worth noting that Raimi has denied, in interviews, that he was merely trying to repeat his "Evil Dead" schtick.  He says he was trying to do something different.

And yes, I agree that the end result is a scary goat demon.  However, that scary goat demon, if we only look at that aspect, has little if anything to do with any of the mythic incarnations.  It most resembles the Sabbatic Goat drawn by Levi.  However cool scary goat demons are, they are not beautiful women, nor are they baby-eating hags, nor are they shapeshifting serpents or serpents with female torsos; and they only vaguely similar with the quadruped reported in some bestiaries, which has goat hindquarters, bear claws, and a woman's head and breasts.  But if we include other mythic themes, such as illusion, shapeshifting, deception, temptation, and the power to remove her own eyeballs, then we're starting to see the mythic inspiration.

I agree that Rham is not important, but only for the same reason that Ganush is not important.  It is Christines' choices, nor Rham's, that count.  But if we believe Sam Raimi that it is Christine's choices that matter, then Rham is a far more significant accomplice in Christine's damnation than Mrs. Ganush is.

"You will come begging to me" does not imply redemption at all.  It is merely a gloating boast and a prediction.  It says nothing, one way or the other, about whether the request will be granted.  Note that the prediction comes true even if the speaker is the Lamia.  Christine DOES come begging to the Lamia.  She offers her kitten as a sacrifice to the Lamia, and then grovels before the Lamia at the sceance, and then finally tries to appease the Lamia by offering the Lamia another soul in her own place.  These are things, of course, that she should not have done.

Sure, crime and punishment is not limited to Judeo-Christian theological perspectives, but that does not mean these perspectives are not relevant to one's intentions and interpretations.  Raimi is Jewish and I, viewing the film through Christian eyes, seem to have understood him well enough.  Meanwhile you, who argue that such perspectives are irrelevant, seem to be out of the loop, and are reduced to disbelieving Raimi when he says what his intentions are.

Slightly rude response, that.

If Raimi is lying about his film, and I am pulling straws in my interpretation of his film, then it is a somewhat remarkable co-incidence that my initial interpretation of the film, before I read any Raimi interviews, just happened to match Raimi's lies.  Or perhaps you think I am lying about my initial interpretation as well.