(good) Horror Films discussion
Session 9
date
newest »




Anyways, yes, it was a great and interesting story, and the sunglasses issue (I won't say much about it, for fear of spoiling) was truly creepy.
One of my favorite parts of this movie: when he found all the old things stashed in the wall, and was pulling them out, including glass eyes, etc.!




Session 9 (Brad Anderson)
An onslaught of SPOILERS:
I watched Session 9 tonight and had mixed feelings about it. There are a lot of things to like but most of those things come from other films. It borrows a lot from the Shining, among other films. The basic premise is that a man becomes possessed by a spirit that dwells within an asylum that looks more than a little like the Overlook Hotel. In two instances the hospital is photographed from a helicopter (the Overlook is filmed in two nearly identical shots). The chronology of time is established in Session 9 the same way it is in The Shining (....TUESDAY....), although Session 9 is condensed into one week.
The interiors borrow a lot from Tarkovsky. I'd wager Anderson studied "the zone" sequences from Stalker when preparing to make this film. The dripping water, the peeling paint and sepia tones, the dark corridors, the carefully arranged debris on the floor, the lighting in most of the rooms, especially the darker ones: all of that stuff seemed borrowed from Stalker.
The story unfolds as a crew of workmen take on a major environmental cleaning of an abandoned asylum. This job, which should take at least two weeks, is promised in one week, so the director tries to convince us that these men are working extremely hard to complete the task. In the process of doing the job, each of the men find themselves prey to a presence within the asylum. By the film's end, all but one have perished in a bloodbath of violence.
The acting is good (with the exception of the guy that plays Hank - but I always think that guy is hammy), the film is well photographed, it does a good job of building suspense in the first two acts; and I liked the music, which is kind of rare.
But I had problems with the way the narrative was flushed out. I felt Gordon's possesion by the place was really flimsy. The director didn't do a lot to establish that, other than let us know that this guy was under a lot of pressure financially. Further, the filmmaker does very little to explain why he killed his wife (which was his first victim, bad chronology).
Anderson spends too much time filming the workers bonding (and revealing all sort of possible psychological fodder). And, as I said above, we are supposed to believe that these guys are doing all this work, when we rarely see them actually do anything. The 49 minute mark arrives and you're still sort of wating for something to happen.
I'm sorry, I know I'm probably sounding hypocritical when i praise a not so well made (but highly entertaining) film like Zombie one day, and critique a film like this the next. But this film is clearly setting out to do something different - it is following a whole different code of filmmaking. It is trying to be a really well-made horror film with lot of psychological tension and torment. I don't think it lives up to films that have similar storylines and atmosphere, despite the good performances and art direction.
*Spoilers, I suppose*
I'm with Phillip for the most part on this one. I was (and still am) an enormous fan of the Silent Hill video games--personally, I think horror cannot get any more palpable than the first 3 in this series--and I was told that, if I liked them, I would love Session 9.
Session 9 is a clean, well shot movie which sets up horror quite well, but breaks my cardinal rule of horror: it gives everything away in the end. The darkness is exposed by a very clean beam of light. As opposed to leaving something disturbing in the hands of the audience, it takes it away by, instead, handing them an answer. A very clear answer to what has happened. The first time I watched this I was very engaged for quite some time and then it got to the "here's how it really is" section and I noticed that, not only was I no longer scared, I could not be scared by earlier parts anymore.
I feel like I should watch this again to make sure that these feelings I have are still fully representative of how I feel today, but I doubt that my opinion will change--which is unfortunate because, for quite some time, this movie goes in some interesting places. I just wish it stayed there.
Also, good eye on The Shining, Phillip--those cards had something which immediately struck me as recognizable but I just overlooked the obvious. And I'm always happy when Tarkovsky gets brought up.
This is a classic example of a movie which I feel like is truly grasping at horror, but is too caught up in what horror has been, as opposed to what horror could (and should) be.
I'm with Phillip for the most part on this one. I was (and still am) an enormous fan of the Silent Hill video games--personally, I think horror cannot get any more palpable than the first 3 in this series--and I was told that, if I liked them, I would love Session 9.
Session 9 is a clean, well shot movie which sets up horror quite well, but breaks my cardinal rule of horror: it gives everything away in the end. The darkness is exposed by a very clean beam of light. As opposed to leaving something disturbing in the hands of the audience, it takes it away by, instead, handing them an answer. A very clear answer to what has happened. The first time I watched this I was very engaged for quite some time and then it got to the "here's how it really is" section and I noticed that, not only was I no longer scared, I could not be scared by earlier parts anymore.
I feel like I should watch this again to make sure that these feelings I have are still fully representative of how I feel today, but I doubt that my opinion will change--which is unfortunate because, for quite some time, this movie goes in some interesting places. I just wish it stayed there.
Also, good eye on The Shining, Phillip--those cards had something which immediately struck me as recognizable but I just overlooked the obvious. And I'm always happy when Tarkovsky gets brought up.
This is a classic example of a movie which I feel like is truly grasping at horror, but is too caught up in what horror has been, as opposed to what horror could (and should) be.

And yes- I am with you on the point that they're supposed to be working so hard, and they seem to be doing a whole hell of a lot of nothing.
Still, it scared me quite a bit the first time I watched it. I can definitely understand some of the criticisms, though.

mike really hit the nail on the head. there is a lot of atmospheric stuff in the first two acts, and that's when the film really works - i should have included in that one sentence where i say the 49 minute mark comes and nothing has happened. what i wanted to add was it doesn't matter that nothing has happened, because the vibe is perfect (read: creepy, scary, etc.) DESPITE the fact that nothing has "happened". that's something to applaud, i think.
That's a very good point. The extended atmosphere is really strong and it feels like something is always threatening to happen, which builds a great tension. But, again, then everything is given away to us. Anderson did the exact same thing with The Machinist, as well--set up loads of atmosphere and then refuse to let the audiance do any thinking for themselves in the end by doing the whole "See? That's how it is!" thing.

we've said this before (on various other threads): it's only mysterious when the audience DOESN'T know...


; )
cheers, ubik, and thanks for posting. i'm glad i saw this film.
I absolutely second that. I still liked the movie and can totally get behind your love of it. Again, I should probably watch it again, as well.
I'll just add that to me what really makes this movie is the building, and what the director does with it - creeepeee...






One of the TAs teaching at the college I work at is teaching an entire class on slasher films and the horror genre in general. It's actually getting kinda popular these days to offer these classes. The students love it. :)

Jill: no, not everything can be Eraserhead, but I would love a world in which there is just a bit more Eraserhead in everything. :)
Well, I hear that in heaven everything is fine.

Not possessed. Multiple personalities.

See, that's the beauty of the film. You don't know if it was something supernatural or not. We don't know if it was the hospital or the people that were haunted. I think it was the people. I don't think the girl was possessed. I don't think the cleaner was either.

I have to agree with you there. I keep watching his films in hopes that he'll get it right again, but to no avail (yet?). I know we have had this discussion before...

I have to agree with you there. I keep watching his films in hopes that he'll get it right again, but to ..."
See, I never watch a film expecting twists or trying to predict anything. I just let the movie "happen" and thats that. Of course there are plenty of times where I *cant* not predict whats going to happen because its just SO bad (i.e. Secret Window or Hide And Seek)
I think that's just the thing with Shyamalan though--he's made his career on being the guy who does twist endings. So because everyone knows going into it that there's going to be a twist its almost impossible to just let the movie happen and not predict the twist. I agree that one should just let the movie "happen," but its difficult if its the director of the "happening." Sorry...I had to!


I'm with Phillip for the most part on this one. I was (and still am) an enormous fan of the Silent Hill video games--personally, I think horror cannot get any more palpable..."
I was looking at this mainly to see if someone did bring up Silent Hill. You didn't disappoint!
I thought it ws pretty good but I wish that it would have gone more into the stories on the reels that the one guy was listening too. I found myself more interested in them than what was going on everywhere else. The only thing that really bugged me was they're all the time saying "We need to get this done, we need to hurry" but most of the shots are of them yakking outside or having lunch and whatnot. How often did they actually work?

I was wondering near the end, lso, if the "personality" was a personality or a demon or what. I got the impression it was a demon or ghost or what have you. I'm going to look for it on Amazon so I can rewatch it. It's been a while so I don't want to get into too much detail in case I've mixed it up in my head with all the other bits of horror movies floating around in there.
Ive seen it about 100 times (literally) and still to this day can only find one flaw with it (continuity-ish error after taking out a subplot).
What does everyone else here think?