El Orfanato (The Orphanage)

[Pob]

I guess so, but then...

How did Simon get into Tomas' house without the door handle? I suppose he could have used another handle.

Also, how did Simon make the window smash to alert his Mum to the dolls?

I guess once he'd left the treasure trail he just left the door ajar so he could get in. Then his mum accidentally shut it and blocked him in when she was looking for him.

The window smashing was just a coincidence. That's an interesting one, because in the context of the film, you're thinking "oooh, it must be a sign!" But if you think about it rationally, it's just a window dropping shut and breaking. It doesn't happen at any particularly significant time - the film is set over the course of a year, I think. So his mum assigns supernatural significance to a random coincidence.

[El Pibe]

I guess once he'd left the treasure trail he just left the door ajar so he could get in. Then his mum accidentally shut it and blocked him in when she was looking for him.

The window smashing was just a coincidence. That's an interesting one, because in the context of the film, you're thinking "oooh, it must be a sign!" But if you think about it rationally, it's just a window dropping shut and breaking. It doesn't happen at any particularly significant time - the film is set over the course of a year, I think. So his mum assigns supernatural significance to a random coincidence.

One more thing!

I can't remember 100% if I have the order correct, but didn't the doll appear in Simon's bed after Simon was trapped?

[aubergine]

Wasn't the

secret door wallpapered over? In that she had to rip through it to open it, or was it just sealed a bit due to it being forced closed?

I do think, as with Pan, that whether it's supposed to be supernatural or psychological is largely irrelevant though, given that we experience what the main character experiences, whether it truly is ghosts doing stuff or just creations of her imagination, she does experience it, so it's true to her.

I loved the film and I wish I had waited to see it at the cinema first, though I don't think I would have found it half as unsettling had I watched it with other people.

[Pob]

Wasn't the

secret door wallpapered over? In that she had to rip through it to open it, or was it just sealed a bit due to it being forced closed?

I do think, as with Pan, that whether it's supposed to be supernatural or psychological is largely irrelevant though, given that we experience what the main character experiences, whether it truly is ghosts doing stuff or just creations of her imagination, she does experience it, so it's true to her.

I loved the film and I wish I had waited to see it at the cinema first, though I don't think I would have found it half as unsettling had I watched it with other people.

I can't remember the details of the last two points raised, sorry!

Yes, that's what's so good about the films. They work whichever way you look at them, which is extremely clever. Devil's Backbone spoiler:

Devil's Backbone is overtly supernatural though, isn't it? I mean, the ghost actively helps the children and fucks up the bad guys.

[Distinct muttering]

Wasn't the

secret door wallpapered over? In that she had to rip through it to open it, or was it just sealed a bit due to it being forced closed?

I do think, as with Pan, that whether it's supposed to be supernatural or psychological is largely irrelevant though, given that we experience what the main character experiences, whether it truly is ghosts doing stuff or just creations of her imagination, she does experience it, so it's true to her.

I loved the film and I wish I had waited to see it at the cinema first, though I don't think I would have found it half as unsettling had I watched it with other people.

Im pretty sure it was papered over, as the opening credits hint at the ripping of wallpaper later in the film.

Not sure where that leaves either theory though.

[Poet]

I viewed it as very much supernatural. Without that I feel it's a rather extreme stretch to simply assign coincidence and madness on the part of the woman to the whole story.

[Silent Runner]

I didn't think so. I think it was just a door with wallpaper on it that got jammed shut when the mother shoved the junk back other the stairs.

[Pob]

I viewed it as very much supernatural. Without that I feel it's a rather extreme stretch to simply assign coincidence and madness on the part of the woman to the whole story.

But there is really only one coincidence

(the one that leads her to the treasure trail). And by the end, we understand that most of the stuff considered 'ghostly' (the child with the sack on his head at the party, the banging in the middle of the night, how Tomas knows all about Simon and friends, the old lady, the treasue trail) can all be practically explained. The only really supernatural stuff occurs when she is left alone in the house to indulge her own psychoses, without her rational husband to keep her in check. At that point, we see what Laura sees.

[Vin]

I'm still not entirely convinced that the sack head moment in the house was Simón. How to explain the voice and the wee nipper’s strength?

[Pob]

I'm still not entirely convinced that the sack head moment in the house was Simón. How to explain the voice and the wee nipper’s strength?

You're right, it must be a ghost!

[Vin]

Well, in all fairness, I sound pretty fucking ghastly in the morning when I head to the bathroom.

[Poet]

But there is really only one coincidence

(the one that leads her to the treasure trail). And by the end, we understand that most of the stuff considered 'ghostly' (the child with the sack on his head at the party, the banging in the middle of the night, how Tomas knows all about Simon and friends, the old lady, the treasue trail) can all be practically explained. The only really supernatural stuff occurs when she is left alone in the house to indulge her own psychoses, without her rational husband to keep her in check. At that point, we see what Laura sees.

I should watch it again (and I shall!) but the coincidences I'm talking about are more to do with how all the stories fall into place so conveniently so that her supposed psychoses intertwine perfectly with potential supernatural goings on. I can't really comment any more given both when I watched it and the state we were in, but I'll definitely watch it again soon. Then probably agree with you.

[Pob]

I should watch it again (and I shall!) but the coincidences I'm talking about are more to do with how all the stories fall into place so conveniently so that her supposed psychoses intertwine perfectly with potential supernatural goings on. I can't really comment any more given both when I watched it and the state we were in, but I'll definitely watch it again soon. Then probably agree with you.

What I love most about the film is that it's essentially a story about grief seen through the eyes of someone who has lost someone very close to them. That's why I prefer the 'rational' explanation, rather than the supernatural one. I like to see the film as Laura's journey in coming to terms with losing her son.

The key scene, for me, is the one where Laura visits the support group for bereaved people. It's what the film is all about. One woman describes how she said a peaceful goodbye to her son months after he'd actually died. She said she didn't imagine it, she actually did it. Of course, what she really means is that she came to terms his death and let him go.

That's what Laura struggles to do throughout the film. The only way she can handle her son's disappearance is to assign some kind of supernatural reasoning to it. It's not so much about her "going mad", but trying to find a way to cope - something she ultimately, and understandably given the circumstances, fails to do. Woven into all this is the story of the orphanage's dark history, which also plays a key part in Laura's mental state (repressed memories).

It's really is a superbly constructed film which can be viewed in a number of ways.

[El Pibe]

One thing - was Laura ill/dying? I seem to remember one bit where the seance woman showed Laura her arm and there seemed to be something on Laura's arm.

[frumious]

One thing - was Laura ill/dying? I seem to remember one bit where the seance woman showed Laura her arm and there seemed to be something on Laura's arm.

Yes, and said something like "people dying like us [could have meant "Simon and me" or "you and me" or "Simon and you and me" here!] can see dead people".

[Distinct muttering]

What I love most about the film is that it's essentially a story about grief seen through the eyes of someone who has lost someone very close to them. That's why I prefer the 'rational' explanation, rather than the supernatural one. I like to see the film as Laura's journey in coming to terms with losing her son.

The key scene, for me, is the one where Laura visits the support group for bereaved people. It's what the film is all about. One woman describes how she said a peaceful goodbye to her son months after he'd actually died. She said she didn't imagine it, she actually did it. Of course, what she really means is that she came to terms his death and let him go.

That's what Laura struggles to do throughout the film. The only way she can handle her son's disappearance is to assign some kind of supernatural reasoning to it. It's not so much about her "going mad", but trying to find a way to cope - something she ultimately, and understandably given the circumstances, fails to do. Woven into all this is the story of the orphanage's dark history, which also plays a key part in Laura's mental state (repressed memories).

It's really is a superbly constructed film which can be viewed in a number of ways.

I agree in the sense that is why that scene is in the film, to add the alternative point of view, that it could all be in her mind. But I believe after that we are taken on a journey that leans towards the supernatural being real.

I think it is saying that yes, often there is a rational explanation, but sometimes you need to go with the weight of the evidence and coincidences and start to believe.

I guess the film is almost like a acid test to our own personalities. So that leaves me as the romantic believer and you as the hopeless cynic Pob

[Pob]

I agree in the sense that is why that scene is in the film, to add the alternative point of view, that it could all be in her mind. But I believe after that we are taken on a journey that leans towards the supernatural being real.

I think it is saying that yes, often there is a rational explanation, but sometimes you need to go with the weight of the evidence and coincidences and start to believe.

I guess the film is almost like a acid test to our own personalities. So that leaves me as the romantic believer and you as the hopeless cynic Pob

Totally. As a cynic, I loved the way the film didn't rely on you believing in crazy shit happening. But if you're into that stuff, it's there (not saying everyone who saw the supernatural elements actually believes in real-life ghosts, by the way).

Oh, and there is only one coincidence

[Distinct muttering]

Totally. As a cynic, I loved the way the film didn't rely on you believing in crazy shit happening. But if you're into that stuff, it's there (not saying everyone who saw the supernatural elements actually believes in real-life ghosts, by the way).

Oh, and there is only one coincidence

What about all the dead bodies, that might count as a coincidence.

[Pob]

What about all the dead bodies, that might count as a coincidence.

What, the ones she stumbles across by accident after searching the entire grounds exhaustively?

[Laine]

Pob is so logical and calculating, no fun at all!

[Pob]

I'm basically like the doctor husband. No way I would have attempted to give that old lady the kiss of life though

[Distinct muttering]

I'm basically like the doctor husband. No way I would have attempted to give that old lady the kiss of life though

You are not fooling anyone with that one.

Ok, heres another coincidence.

When playing the knock knock game she chases the kid who leads her to exactly the door where the boy who had went missing.

I also think thw window smashing to ger off on the trail is a pretty big one as well.

[Capwn]

I was wondering after why while watching it why the bit where she opens the closet the beams or whatever topple over stuck out as 'this is significant'. I didn't guess at all but it did stand out. Was it like that for everyone? I think it could be because they were yellow? and there was hardly any yellow in that film. So it kind of temporarily burns onto your mind. or am I just thinking too much?

[carlospie]

Awesome awesome film. Saw it at the cinema and literally shat my pants. Makes a nice change to be genuinely scared as opposed to 'its to gory to watch' scared ala Saw.

[Butane Bob]

literally shat my pants.

[SPE]

I was wondering after why while watching it why the bit where she opens the closet the beams or whatever topple over stuck out as 'this is significant'. I didn't guess at all but it did stand out. Was it like that for everyone? I think it could be because they were yellow? and there was hardly any yellow in that film. So it kind of temporarily burns onto your mind. or am I just thinking too much?

It does stand out, without using the usual dwell-on-an-item shot most films rely on. I think it's more the loud clanking metal sound. The same sound always occurs just before anything supernatural happens in the house. I figured before the end that the room with the metal beams in must lead to the children, as they are having to move them to get into the house.

[sofasurfer]

Watched this on Bluray over the weekend and love it to be bits. Definite parralels with Pan's labyrinth which is not surprising seeing as del Toro produced it.

The missus was in tears at the end. Same with with Pan's.

Will have to watch this again to see all the clues I missed first time.

Superb film and will no doubt be ruined by the Hollywood remake.

[Vin]

It's being remade?

Bullshit.

[Paradigm]

Watched this at t'cinema tonight (finally), thought it was, in short, fucking marvellous.

Saw everything coming a mile off but it didn't stop the fact that it was a superbly crafted, tense, often scary, emotional tale. Great, great film.

[lordcookie]

Not a patch on The Others then (which this lifts liberally from, I might add) or any of Del Toro's Spanish language efforts.

I'm not going to knock The Others as I really like the film but I don't think you can criticise The Orphanage for using elements that are in The Others considering The Others liberally lifts from The Turn of the Screw.

As for the film, I thought it was beautiful. It wasn't particularly scary (it did have a number of tense scenes) but I don't think a horror film necessarily has to scare an audience to be effective. Few films have delivered such an emotional kick and when the film is long over you keep coming back to the ending and the horror of the event is far worse than any supernatural explanation.