Gans not returning, sequel likely to focus on Alessa

Post by **ashatteredmemory** » 22 Nov 2009

Funny, last thread was about the beliefs of the cult, and this one is about that of Rose

Anyhow, its possible that Rose is Christian, but it isnt so important in the movie (however in the original script she says: Cause thats nothing a Christian would do, possibly meaning she is Christian and wouldn't hurt other people by that fact)

Post by **cascade88** » 22 Nov 2009

AuraTwilight wrote:
In terms of film critique you can't go by what the script says or what the authors intended...only what is actually there.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Why is it stupid? Most people (that I know anyway) don't watch a movie and then go look for the original script to read (except for the fun of it maybe). Therefore, it's not a guarantee that everyone will watch the film, and then go read the script and there discover that "Oh, Rose was meant to be a devout Christian."

Besides, the fact that something doesn't make it past the original script usually means that the director or screenwriter or whoever didn't think it was a neccesary element. So what--is it supposed to be mandatory that viewers have to do extra character research to reach a certain conclusion, be it the character's religion or otherwise?

Post by **kideatsu** » 23 Nov 2009

Okay, if anything Rose is the only one in the film who is NOT blind because she has true faith and knows the real truth behind Alessa's past and what it means for everyone in the film. Why the hell would people think she is "blind" to anything because of her clothes? Her clothes turning red gradually through the film, if anything in particular, means that she's slowly learning the truth and by the time her clothes are deep red, she knows Alessa's past and is learning what she must do to save her daughter. Duh. I mean c'mon, it's not that hard to grasp.

Okay, maybe for some.

But to each their own theories...

So anyway, how will Sharon return in the sequel (like SH3, as I'm gathering it might be like) if she and Rose aren't even in the same dimension as the rest of the world? This will be interesting, if that character even returns. The ending of the first film could open up to many possibilities. I'm quite honestly tired of Alessa/Sharon's character, though, after the first film. There's so much else they could do. But it's out of our hands and in a manslaughter's hands I guess lol. I joke, I joke.

Or do I....?

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 23 Nov 2009

The red clothes thing = Truth is usually symbolically represented by blood in western religion. Case in point, JESUS.

As for how Sharon/Alessa could return...maybe becoming happy and content, instead of angry and hateful, muted out her power, so they were slowly dumped back into reality?

Post by **DÃ¤niken** » 23 Nov 2009

AuraTwilight wrote:If you're going to argue like that, nothing can prove she's Christian.

I never doubted she's a Christian but a devout Christian like you claimed. We are short of evidence for that one.

There's more way to tell the audience things than have characters verbally spell it out, you know.

The point is that no sufficient reason exists within the movie to make the interpretation you've made. Visual clues were too ambiguous to make a plausible argument for one way or another.

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 23 Nov 2009

Well, given how clearly superstitious Rose is, ans the presence of religious icons on her person, I'm gonna go with the "devout." Silent Hill isn't a series that introduces character elements and then doesn't bank on them; the movie is no different.

Post by **Dark Sky** » 24 Nov 2009

AuraTwilight wrote:
In terms of film critique you can't go by what the script says or what the authors intended...only what is actually there.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Heh! Well, each to their own, obviously! It's quite a well known piece of literary theory devised by Roland Barthes in his essay "Death of the Author". Not that anyone is forced to ascribe to it, but certainly I believe that ignoring the author's intentions does free you up to be able to analyse what is actually there in the text without being biased. After all, just because the author intended one thing it doesn't necessarily mean that that's how it appears in the text!

In the same way, you could never say that someone's theory is wrong simply because of saying "that's not what the author intended".

Interesting, no?

kideatsu wrote:Okay, if anything Rose is the only one in the film who is NOT blind because she has true faith and knows the real truth behind Alessa's past and what it means for everyone in the film.

Hmm, that's interesting! I do agree with that to some extent... She does know a hell of a lot more than the Cult about what's going on. But at the same time, the Cult are more wary of the Demon than she is... And ultimately the Demon wins by not returning her home at the end of the film. Rose didn't see that one coming! Hence - in my eyes - she is blind to the truth.

Why the hell would people think she is "blind" to anything because of her clothes? Her clothes turning red gradually through the film, if anything in particular, means that she's slowly learning the truth and by the time her clothes are deep red, she knows Alessa's past and is learning what she must do to save her daughter. Duh. I mean c'mon, it's not that hard to grasp.

No that is a very, very interesting point. I don't particularly care for your "duh" attitude towards me, for I could very easily say the same thing to you and...it would be wrong, immature and downright nasty of me to do so. So I won't.

Certainly I never said "oh...Rose must be blind because of the colour of her clothes!" Rather, my theory is that she is blind to the truth of the Demon and the truth of her blind faith in the Demon to rescue her daughter and herself. The colour of her clothes by the time she reaches that point has an obvious visual link to the Red Nurse. We don't know much about the Red Nurse, but the colours of the two characters quite obviously link them in some way.

Now, I decided that the link was a symbolic one... We see that the Red Nurse is blind, and the connection between her and Rose symbolises that Rose is blind to the truth of the Demon.

But let's have a look at your theory... This idea that red symbolises truth. Rose learns the truth when she encounters the Demon, and that is why her clothes go red. Well that does indeed make sense! So why is the Nurse in Red as well? Because she saw the truth of Alessa when she spied on her? Yet why was she blinded? What's the significance of the Red Nurse being blind, otherwise?

There are so many references to seeing and blindness in the film, there is definitely a good reason behind why the Red Nurse is blind. And the best I could come up with was her being a symbolic mirror of Rose during that scene.

Well it's certainly a work in progress! I'm gonna have to dig out my essay again... Maybe I should move this to another thread!

Post by **Yuki** » 24 Nov 2009

Dark Sky wrote:
AuraTwilight wrote:
In terms of film critique you can't go by what the script says or what the authors intended...only what is actually there.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Heh! Well, each to their own, obviously! It's quite a well known piece of literary theory devised by Roland Barthes in his essay "Death of the Author". Not that anyone is forced to ascribe to it, but certainly I believe that ignoring the author's intentions does free you up to be able to analyse what is actually there in the text without being biased. After all, just because the author intended one thing it doesn't necessarily mean that that's how it appears in the text!

In the same way, you could never say that someone's theory is wrong simply because of saying "that's not what the author intended".

Interesting, no?

I personally think that if you completely disregard the author/creator of a work, you're a moron.
Let me re-word that:

It's completely fine to have your own interpretation of the text/media. However, if you go, "I don't care what the author says, this is what it means", then you deserve to be kicked. I have very little problem with someone saying something along the lines of, "I know the author said this and that this is the official storyline, but it kind of struck me like this instead, and it's interesting to think about". It's all in the wording.

That being said, I would say, if Rose was written as a devout Christian, she's a devout Christian. If you interpret it differently, that's totally fine, provided you don't insist that you don't care what the author stated.

Post by **JKristine35** » 24 Nov 2009

The nurse's outfit has absolutely nothing to do with Rose's clothes. The only reason the nurse wears red is because that's what she wore in the game. You cannot claim Rose's clothes color has anything to do with the symbolism of being blind because it's so obvious that the colors are linked directly to the general color scheme of Alessa's worlds. Hence, her outfit turns grey to match the fog and then red to match the darkness.

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 25 Nov 2009

Heh! Well, each to their own, obviously! It's quite a well known piece of literary theory devised by Roland Barthes in his essay "Death of the Author". Not that anyone is forced to ascribe to it, but certainly I believe that ignoring the author's intentions does free you up to be able to analyse what is actually there in the text without being biased. After all, just because the author intended one thing it doesn't necessarily mean that that's how it appears in the text!

In the same way, you could never say that someone's theory is wrong simply because of saying "that's not what the author intended".

Interesting, no?

I'm familiar with "Death of the Author", but it's still stupid. Why should the author bother giving a message in their works if the message isn't going to be taken? It would be like reading a story like the Tortoise and the Hare and, disregarding the actual moral, say, "The moral of the story is that the rabbit needed to be more of a douche and fuck with the turtle. He just half-assed it."

Hmm, that's interesting! I do agree with that to some extent... She does know a hell of a lot more than the Cult about what's going on. But at the same time, the Cult are more wary of the Demon than she is... And ultimately the Demon wins by not returning her home at the end of the film. Rose didn't see that one coming! Hence - in my eyes - she is blind to the truth.

Rose is blind because she can't see the future?

But let's have a look at your theory... This idea that red symbolises truth. Rose learns the truth when she encounters the Demon, and that is why her clothes go red. Well that does indeed make sense! So why is the Nurse in Red as well? Because she saw the truth of Alessa when she spied on her? Yet why was she blinded? What's the significance of the Red Nurse being blind, otherwise?

There are so many references to seeing and blindness in the film, there is definitely a good reason behind why the Red Nurse is blind. And the best I could come up with was her being a symbolic mirror of Rose during that scene.

Do keep in mind the Red Nurse, after seeing the truth, RAN AWAY, unlike Rose, who embraced the truth with open arms. That could have something to do with it, under the red/blind/seeing theory.

Post by **Dark Sky** » 01 Dec 2009

Yuki wrote:I personally think that if you completely disregard the author/creator of a work, you're a moron.
Let me re-word that:

It's completely fine to have your own interpretation of the text/media. However, if you go, "I don't care what the author says, this is what it means", then you deserve to be kicked. I have very little problem with someone saying something along the lines of, "I know the author said this and that this is the official storyline, but it kind of struck me like this instead, and it's interesting to think about". It's all in the wording.

Well whatever the wording it means exactly the same thing. It's just a particular type of critical analysis and not one I subscribe to myself to the same degree that Roland Barthes would have you do, but certainly it's worth - as you point out yourself - disregarding what the author's intentions were if you can build up your own viewpoint on what's going on.

To be honest I thought that Silent Hill fans were very open to this sort of thing, considering how fond you all are in coming up with new interpretations for the games which sometimes contradict stuff claimed by those clever bods at Konami.

JRamirez35 wrote:The nurse's outfit has absolutely nothing to do with Rose's clothes. The only reason the nurse wears red is because that's what she wore in the game. You cannot claim Rose's clothes color has anything to do with the symbolism of being blind because it's so obvious that the colors are linked directly to the general color scheme of Alessa's worlds. Hence, her outfit turns grey to match the fog and then red to match the darkness.

No there's definitely more to it than that... I think Roger Avary and Christophe Gans planned everything very carefully and very meticulously and I do not think it is any kind of pure accident that in that scene they are both wearing red. It's not as though Rose's clothes changed to red every time she was in the Hell World...just when she finds the Demon.

I hadn't noticed her clothes turning grey when she enters the fog...I will look out for that! Odd that I've never noticed it...

AuraTwilight wrote:I'm familiar with "Death of the Author", but it's still stupid. Why should the author bother giving a message in their works if the message isn't going to be taken?

I think the point is partly that analysis should be completely free from bias and other people's opinions and therefore should be based solely on what's actually there.

There's also the point that although the author may have INTENDED to express something, it actually doesn't come across in the work, or appears as something else. In a way that could be seen to be a failure of the author!

Also a lot of writing and interesting themes and ideas end up in a work subconsciously and the author may not even realise that they're there themselves.

Why should the author stop YOU from seeing something you like in a particular work?

It would be like reading a story like the Tortoise and the Hare and, disregarding the actual moral, say, "The moral of the story is that the rabbit needed to be more of a douche and fuck with the turtle. He just half-assed it."

I don't think it's necessarily like that at all. I dunno, you're seeing it as some kind of bad thing.

The idea of "Death of the Author" is just that it completely frees up critical analysis and lets every person make up their own opinion making every person's opinion as valid as the next person's, just so long as they can defend it via evidence in the actual work.

It's meant to be a good thing to encourage new ways of looking at works, rather than some kind of bitter excuse to deliberately miss the point

Rose is blind because she can't see the future?

Is it about seeing the future, or just...being able to judge what's in front of you? The Demon is obviously not a force for good and yet Rose gives herself unto it with that reverse-birth. Consequences were going to happen.

Do keep in mind the Red Nurse, after seeing the truth, RAN AWAY, unlike Rose, who embraced the truth with open arms. That could have something to do with it, under the red/blind/seeing theory.

Now that is very interesting!

I'm going to have to go back to all this and watch the film again (and again!) and have a good think about all the interesting points you guys have made in this thread.

There's definitely a lot I'm missing in regards to the "mother is god in the eyes of a child" stuff, especially considering that until I typed that bit up there I never noticed that the Demon absorbs itself into Rose's belly...a reverse birth!

Post by **Yuki** » 01 Dec 2009

Dark Sky wrote:
Yuki wrote:I personally think that if you completely disregard the author/creator of a work, you're a moron.
Let me re-word that:

It's completely fine to have your own interpretation of the text/media. However, if you go, "I don't care what the author says, this is what it means", then you deserve to be kicked. I have very little problem with someone saying something along the lines of, "I know the author said this and that this is the official storyline, but it kind of struck me like this instead, and it's interesting to think about". It's all in the wording.
Well whatever the wording it means exactly the same thing. It's just a particular type of critical analysis and not one I subscribe to myself to the same degree that Roland Barthes would have you do, but certainly it's worth - as you point out yourself - disregarding what the author's intentions were if you can build up your own viewpoint on what's going on.

To be honest I thought that Silent Hill fans were very open to this sort of thing, considering how fond you all are in coming up with new interpretations for the games which sometimes contradict stuff claimed by those clever bods at Konami.

Honestly, I would disagree. One is coming up with an interesting way to think about things while acknowledging it is not actually the canon version; the other is "MINE IS RIGHT I LIKE THIS ONE BETTER", so to speak.

It seems to me that, for the most part, Silent Hill fans are totally fine with coming up with theories and such... provided they don't contradict what is outright stated by the creators. Of course, there are exceptions to everything, but from what I've seen, that's what I can gather.

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 02 Dec 2009

Is it about seeing the future, or just...being able to judge what's in front of you? The Demon is obviously not a force for good and yet Rose gives herself unto it with that reverse-birth. Consequences were going to happen.

Who the hell said the Demon (it's just Alessa's dark side, not an actual demon, btw) was evil and/or not good? The only people who claimed such are the nutjobs who BURNED A LITTLE GIRL BECAUSE SHE WAS RAPED.

If I was Rose, I would see Dark Alessa, if anything, as an angel of cruel, harsh justice. Plus, it was to save Sharon; she didn't have much of a choice.

Post by **ashatteredmemory** » 02 Dec 2009

AuraTwilight wrote:BURNED A LITTLE GIRL BECAUSE SHE WAS RAPED.

AND HAD NO (legal) FATHER

Sorry, couldn't stop myself from doing this.
I would think that Rose chose for Alessa's side after knowing the truth. She then thinks that the cult are no-good fanatics, and Silent Hill was better of without them.
And ofcourse, Alessa doens't have Sharon with her; Sharon is with the cult, put ready to be burned.

Also Alessa isn't a demon; You have Alessa's body (wrapped in bandages), and her two soul-halves: Evil Alessa and Good Alessa. I think Alessa was given power BY the devil so she could have her revenge, and she had to split her soul for that. Until the two halves were reunited, the devil gave her evil side powers to take revenge on her punishers.

PS I just thought that Rose's clothes became more red-ish because of the blood she gets over her, the rust that sticks to her everytime she hist a wall in otherworld and some ashes...
Never thought of any symbolism behind that

Post by **cascade88** » 02 Dec 2009

ashatteredmemory wrote:Also Alessa isn't a demon; You have Alessa's body (wrapped in bandages), and her two soul-halves: Evil Alessa and Good Alessa. I think Alessa was given power BY the devil so she could have her revenge, and she had to split her soul for that. Until the two halves were reunited, the devil gave her evil side powers to take revenge on her punishers.

Alessa was born with her powers. The devil didn't give them to her. Now I know that in the movie, they all but tried to say that her darker half is the devil (and in fact, Wikipedia has the director referring to her as such. >>) However, Alessa's powers were her own to begin with.

Post by **ashatteredmemory** » 02 Dec 2009

Oh, she has a devil inside her, but it also says everyone has a demon inside him

So actually everyone has powers.
But he said Sharon plays the devil, but it could also mean the devil in the story, not THE devil.

And the cult were saying that she was the devil because she didn't have a father (or so the cult thought, cause maybe Dahlia didn't want to admit that she had an affaire or out of marriage children), making her in their eyes some demon/devil-child

Post by **cascade88** » 02 Dec 2009

I know. I don't want to really go and say it was similar to Christianity, but, the film did seem to heavily imply that Christabella and her flock were acting in the name of the Christian God when they went to 'purify' Alessa, taking the [Christian idea of] the Devil out of her.

I suppose the movie attempted to imply this to take away bits of the confusion that would have come about from the movie being played straight as far as the story of the first game goes. I've also thought about it, and maybe the reason they changed Dahlia into a sympahetic character for the film is because the idea of a mother wanting her daughter to go through this just wouldn't have worked with American movie-goers. Neither would the whole 'lets impregnate my young daughter with god' storyline either.

Basically, I know what the story tried to imply, but still, Alessa didn't actually get her powers from the devil, and no one else has the powers except her within that film.

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 02 Dec 2009

No, only Alessa does. Everyone has the potential to be a God or a Devil, Good or Evil, but Alessa has the ability to split herself, and to change the world around her. Sharon represents God, but Sharon, Alessa, and Dark Alessa have the same actress.

Being a devil-child had nothing to do with it. Alessa was born out of wedlock, which is a sin. Therefore, according to them, Alessa being alive is sinful.

Post by **JKristine35** » 03 Dec 2009

To be honest I thought that Silent Hill fans were very open to this sort of thing, considering how fond you all are in coming up with new interpretations for the games which sometimes contradict stuff claimed by those clever bods at Konami.

I've never seen anyone who claims something that contradicts direct statements from Konami not get respect from anybody.

No there's definitely more to it than that... I think Roger Avary and Christophe Gans planned everything very carefully and very meticulously and I do not think it is any kind of pure accident that in that scene they are both wearing red. It's not as though Rose's clothes changed to red every time she was in the Hell World...just when she finds the Demon.

No, there's not more to it. It's not stated, implied, or even hinted at. The nurse wears the exact same outfit she wears in the game, right down to the shoes. You can't claim it definitely links to the nurse when there's an entire hospital that also matches Rose's outfit.
Notice how Rose's outfit is a closer match to the coloration of Alessa's world than the nurse?

It's pretty obvious that Rose's clothes changes are directly linked to Alessa's worlds. That's why her outfit turns grey (like the fog world) and then red (like the dark world). If anything, the red coloration means she reached teh core of the darkness. There's really no logical reason to think her outfit turns red because she's symbolically blind.

I hadn't noticed her clothes turning grey when she enters the fog...I will look out for that! Odd that I've never noticed it...

There were over 100 variations of Rose's outfit made to show it changing as Alessa's worlds affect it. Cybil's shirt also changes color.
Rose at the beginning of the film:

Rose's outfit midway through the film:

I think the point is partly that analysis should be completely free from bias and other people's opinions and therefore should be based solely on what's actually there.

There's also the point that although the author may have INTENDED to express something, it actually doesn't come across in the work, or appears as something else. In a way that could be seen to be a failure of the author!

Also a lot of writing and interesting themes and ideas end up in a work subconsciously and the author may not even realise that they're there themselves.

Why should the author stop YOU from seeing something you like in a particular work?

I'll quote TVTropes here:
It's important to remember that if you disagree with the Word Of God, there's nothing wrong with writing fan fiction that contradicts it, just don't try to foist your preferred Fanon on fans who acknowledge the official canon or on the actual creator of the work.

Is it about seeing the future, or just...being able to judge what's in front of you? The Demon is obviously not a force for good and yet Rose gives herself unto it with that reverse-birth. Consequences were going to happen.

You act like Rose had a choice. It was either:
A) allow an innocent child to be tortured and murdered by the cult, or
B) save the child and let the evil fanatics die
There really isn't any consequences to such a decision, and Rose knew exactly what Alessa intended, seeing as she didn't seem shocked to see a hospital bed with a burned woman floating in the air with barbed wire coming out the back of it.

There's definitely a lot I'm missing in regards to the "mother is god in the eyes of a child" stuff, especially considering that until I typed that bit up there I never noticed that the Demon absorbs itself into Rose's belly...a reverse birth!

That symbolically makes Rose Alessa's birth mother. The point being that Rose then "gives birth" to Alessa, and takes home Alessa's reincarnation at the end of the movie.

Now I know that in the movie, they all but tried to say that her darker half is the devil (and in fact, Wikipedia has the director referring to her as such. >>)

People on Wikipedia are idiots, which is why I only ever edit Wikias and don't even bother with the main Wikipedia.

But he said Sharon plays the devil, but it could also mean the devil in the story, not THE devil.

Gans has consistently stated that the story is based on the belief that God and the devil are two halves of the same person (the good and bad sides of the soul). That means he's not lying when he says Jodelle is playing the devil- because she does. She also plays God and the body that god and the devil come from.

Post by **cascade88** » 03 Dec 2009

JRamirez35 wrote:
Now I know that in the movie, they all but tried to say that her darker half is the devil (and in fact, Wikipedia has the director referring to her as such. >>)
People on Wikipedia are idiots, which is why I only ever edit Wikias and don't even bother with the main Wikipedia.

I agree that Wikipedia isn't the most accurate thing in the world, but just to clarify, it wasn't someone who edits Wikipedia that made the devil statement, it was a quote from the director himself.