I think Shuttlebug summed it up best by stating the film is much too intricate and complex to have a single interpretation, and that almost any interpretation has validity on some level or layer of the film.
That being said, though the title and very concept on the film itself is a metaphorical play on Catholicism based demonic possession, I believe the fact it is used as the title is evidence itself that it is purposely and merely the easiest, most shallow, and most transparent layer of the film. I think for it to be as straightforward in that regard as The Omen, Rosemary's Baby, or The Exorcist, it would require either or both the filmmaker's own belief in a God/Satan system of reality, or in the very least an attempt to use the audience's belief in this system to frighten them. We must remember that horror is oftentimes a reflection of the creator's own fear of their external experience, for if they did not fear the subject themselves how could they ever convincingly portray it as fearful to someone else? Possession does not seem to give any true, clear validity to the belief in Satan or in the Christian-based God, and never mentions this dichotomy of evil despite delving deep into the exploration of what "God" is. I suppose, with a stretch, Sister Chance could be interpreted as Satan, but a further and more detailed understanding of how chance is used in the film pretty much dismantles that.
I personally believe more so in the validity of the "psychological manifestation of her guilt/desires into her idolized, surrogate family unit" interpretation, I think there are a lot of things in the film that support this, but again, it is merely a layer, a small fragment, and rather rudimentary to the film as a whole. Yes, this film and many others coming out of this particular aspect of this particular European culture at this particular time are steeped in the ideas of psycho-analysis. The psychological state of the characters, and especially the psychological effect they will have on their son, is openly discussed in the film. However, this is not a Cronenberg film, Zulawski is clearly not commenting on the dangers of psycho-analysis, the pharmaceutical industry, the practices of doctors, or anything of the sort that Cronenberg seems so periodically obsessed with, and often times similarly uses physical manifestation to explore (The Brood, The Fly, Dead Ringers).
The more complete, deeper, and profound meaning of this film, though I do not claim to have found it or know anyone that has (despite many of my friends writing huge papers about this film for school), lies somewhere in the realm of the metaphysical, the exploration of this concept of "god", and the creation of reality. My own farfetched-ness aside and digressed, I must still agree with Shuttlebug in that there are far too many unexplained threads and dangling concepts purposely left throughout the film to illicit any solitary interpretation. This is not a film of answers, it is a film born from questions.
In regards to the child killing himself at the end, I'm not so sure that is truly what is happening. Perhaps. I cannot discredit it. But it seems far too easy and straightforward, aside from the simple fact that drowning yourself is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT and takes an incredible amount of dedication and tolerance to pain, which I just don't think that child would have. It is important to note the occurrences earlier in the film. The first shot we see of the possible family unit, the first shot that is inside the house itself, is of Anna in the kitchen, and Mark in the bathroom, watching his son in the bathtub. He calls for Anna to "Come and admire him", and they watch and laugh while he plays in the water. Again, the child is in the bath the first time Helen, the teacher/surrogate mother character, comes to the house. Note what game is being played in this scene. Bob, the child, is making his father count how long he can hold his breath under water. This bathtub incident at the end of the film is not a secluded occurrence, it is steeped in symbolism and playing off many things we already subconsciously know, the least of which being that the bathtub is this child's safe space, the place he feels the strongest connection to his father and his family unit.
Something unmentioned here that I find seemingly very important is the use of location. I don't believe anybody I know, and probably anybody on this thread, would be able to fully and accurately interpret that because it is a different of culture, a difference in the way our perception has been built and effected every moment of our lives, because nobody I know grew up in the shadow of the Berlin Wall in the 1970's and 80's. The opening shot of the film is the Berlin Wall stretching into the distance as far as the eye can see, and the second shot is it stretching out in the opposite direction. Then, later, when he finds Anna's house of horrors, discovers the bodies in the fridge, and is spinning around the living room, screaming at the top of his lungs, Mark throws open the windows, and the shot of him calming, coming to a slow realization of what he must do, accepting the "disease" (god) as some would interpret, the Berlin Wall stretches out along his perspective line. And what of the use of buildings as an oppressive force, overbearing and overshadowing the characters despite the city being sadly devoid of people? What of the use of frames, the fact that nearly every time you see the creature or its bed it is through the door frame, the way frames are used to disconnect Anna and Mark in several scenes establishing their loss of love, the way Mark drives through numerous frames on the motorcycle after being shot, and finally, the way Mark is used behind the transparent door frame in the last shot?
I think the scene towards the end of the film where Mark talks to Heinrich's mother is very important to the overall interpretation of film and through what lens one should attempt to perceive any concepts of explanation within the rules of the film. It seems that many people are thrown off by her taking the pills, but I think it is rather straightforward that she is killing herself because she doesn't want to live in a world without Heinrich. She says exactly that as she is lying down. What is interpretive about this scene is her distress at the loss of Heinrich's soul. She clearly states that it was taken before his body was, that she cannot find where his soul went, insinuating that Mark knows where it is. Not that Mark took it or killed him, but that Mark knows where he lost his soul before Heinrich died. Now, Heinrich, being the most spiritual (Faithful), sees the world not just through two eyes, but largely with his "third eye". The scene when he comes to Mark's house, and he is obviously on some sorts of drug, he is clearly acting as if his third eye is wide open, he is barely using his normal eyes, his hand is at his forehead, and he is stumbling and pushing into things with the hand on his head. Then later, when he comes to Anna's, the moment he sees the creature he seems to go blind. He stumbles around the house, seemingly in complete darkness, reaching out and unable to see Anna directly in front of him. The only thing that brings him back to reality from this blindness is the horrific sight of the cut up body in the fridge. This would lead you to believe that the creature took his soul.
In fact, the creature itself has many other parallels to "god", even aside his ability to take one's soul from their body. He is a byproduct of creationism himself, and it is quite difficult to find where in the creation cycle he comes from. Was he born from Anna's "miscarriage" (her word) in the subway, or at some other point? The fact that she is constantly wearing near-identical blue dresses also aims to confuse the timeline of when she begins to manifest the monster. Later, the doppelganger is clearly in the path of bullets when Anna and Mark are shot by the police, so much so that Zulawski takes the time to have a reaction shot just of the creature Mark as they are being shot to show it not effecting him, despite hitting everywhere he is. Then, immediately following this, he takes control of the girl's mind to escape. He, in many ways, is perfect, the perfect manifestation of the perfect family unit, and is not the definition of god perfection? Perhaps, if Helen is the "god" reflection of Anna, her interpretation of it, the perfect balance of faith and chance (as exemplified by the way she destroys Mark's sexist perspective of generalizing women with a badass monologue on feminism), than perhaps this doppelganger creature is the "god" reflection of Mark, his interpretation of it, as evidenced in his "god is a disease" and "god is a dead dog" monologues.
Lastly, the last shot is "the world ending", some have said. That is odd. I don't feel as if any other part of the film has foreshadowed this or alluded to anything of the sort happening. Not to say I have any idea what the hell is happening. But I guess that is the point. You will not unwrap the mysteries of Possession with answers, my friends, as with all great things in life, the exploration of questions within the film only bears more questions, and rightly so.
reply
share