He can see what he wants to see all he wants to, but do you open the door and let nobody in, even if they can physically ring the doorbell as a ghost? Of course you don't. In a town, you look through that little whatchamacallit, or -- if you're really stupid -- you open the door and stand in it looking left, right, and center to see who rang the bell, just in case there might be someone in the bushes who can jump you. Most single mothers aren't going to open the door to let in whoever they can't see through that whatchamacallit -- if they're so stupid they don't care about themselves, usually they care about their children. That mother certainly did.
My point is that whatever Willis's character is seeing, he's either seeing a door that won't open or a woman standing in the door wanting to know who's there while he's saying who he is, why he's there, and still getting the door slammed in his face after the woman kept looking right through him and demanding who was there. The whole thing played well when he met for the anniversary dinner with his wife, but it couldn't work at that door.
That's why the director took us INSIDE the house with the two of them seated wordlessly facing each other, and made that the opening for that scene -- using the "ghosts only see what they want to see" gambit couldn't possibly cover how he got into that house.
BTW, if you noticed in the scene with his wife, he didn't imagine anything. That's something you're adding that isn't anywhere in the movie. "Seeing what you want to see" only covers walking in with certain assumptions and viewing everything through that lens. The wife reacted the way that she really did -- he didn't imagine anything. She never looked at him because she never expected him to be there. She was having a sad little anniversary dinner all alone, and said and did everything in keeping with that. He thought he was having a conversation with her, but he wasn't. He thought she withdrew her hand from him, but she was simply moving her hand. She had something sad and bitter to say at the end of what was to her a heartbreaking evening where she made the decision to try to stop living in the past and to make a life for herself without him. In the grieving process, we all have to turn that corner and bravely walk on. That was her moment.
Willis's character described he and his wife as living separate lives under the same roof -- which they were, because she knew he was gone, and he didn't think he was. But he never "imagined" he saw anything. And we never saw him "materialize" anywhere, so he couldn't just show up inside the house. (Please do not make the argument that just because we didn't see him materialize doesn't mean he couldn't do it -- if he could, he'd know he had some superpower that living people don't have, and that would have been his first clue that he was dead.) The living people had to do what they really did, and the dead people had to do what they did -- each operating under their own assumptions and therefore seeing what happens in that light.
Sorry for all the spoilers, ye who may be reading this over our shoulders. But if you've read down the thread this far, you already know this thread is riddled with them.
reply
share
Stratego (29252)
7 years ago
I'm not "adding" anything. Imagining things IS part of the "ghosts only see what they want to see" explanation. He can't open the door to the basement, but instead of seeing that it's blocked by a cabinet/table he imagines it's not there because to him it wouldn't make any sense. He shows up at many places, like the hospital or the school without anybody telling him Cole is there and without anybody letting him in. Ofcourse he imagines things like that. Maybe he doesn't even imagine the act itself, but he certainly imagines that that's how he must've gotten there. He accepts the world as it is as long as it makes sense and if it doesn't he fills in the blanks himself. Just like the ghost in the kitchen imagining that Cole was her husband. The fact that ghosts seem to roam around for centuries also suggests that time doesn't pass normally for them, I don't think Malcolm is consciously aware of every second of the day. He just appears wherever he wants to be. You really think the director is going to give away the twist and show him "materialize" inside the house?
reply
share
Destinata (2605)
7 years ago
For us to know what he imagines we have to see it happening. You're imagining what he's imagining. "He accepts the world as it is as long as it makes sense and if it doesn't he fills in the blanks himself." You're certainly filling in quite a few! ;D
What makes you think that the ghost in the kitchen imagined Cole as her husband? She was paranoid and suicidal -- she thought the whole world expected too much of her and she could no longer cope. I don't remember her saying, "And you, MY HUSBAND! YOU..." etc., etc. No, she just ranted. Again, you're filling in blanks, and in this case, blanks that aren't blanks.
"The fact that ghosts seem to roam around for centuries also suggests that time doesn't pass normally for them," This movie seemed predicated on the age-old idea that ghosts keep re-living some event, and/or keep hanging around until they find closure. Shyamalan isn't the originator of that idea.
"You really think the director is going to give away the twist and show him 'materialize' inside the house?" The conceit is that the Willis character lives a normal life and hasn't a single clue he isn't dead. He goes home. He works in his home office. He tries to talk to his wife and feels like a ghost in his own house -- utterly ignored by the wife who used to love him. But he never thinks for a moment he's actually dead. If he ever materialized anywhere, he'd know he wasn't dead. "Seeing what he wants to see" doesn't include being brain damaged. He's smart. He figures things out. He realizes that ghosts were talking to a previous patient. But he suddenly materializes in places and doesn't question it? Not and have the sort of internal logic that a story requires. In every scene we see him in, he lives a perfectly normal, understated life -- the sort he would have to live in order to never suspect he's dead. He's frustrated by not being able to catch up with the guy his wife is seeing. Why not imagine he DOES catch up to him? Why be frustrated by anything if all it takes is seeing the world the way you want to see it?
We may have to agree to disagree, since you seem really attached to your understanding of the story. But even if your explanation was Shyamalan's vision, your explanation doesn't add up, either. He sees things as he wants to, but can still be frustrated by events that he could just imagine differently. He can materialize wherever he wants to be, but is frustrated by not catching up with the car driven by the man his wife is seeing. He can materialize places but never suspects that's not how living people get around.
See? It doesn't work.
Re-watch the scene with his wife at the restaurant to see how "Seeing only what he wants to see" really works. He walked in with assumptions, and everything that happened fit with that. Watch it again focusing only on his wife and how she acted entirely in keeping with a woman having a "date" alone to celebrate her anniversary. He didn't imagine her actions. She would have done nothing differently. He deals with the world that continues around him as it really is, not as he imagines it to be. He only walks into it with certain assumptions. And assuming he's that smart guy who figured out that his former patient's tormentors were really there, he's not stupid enough to think that materializing is the new way to travel and never questions it.
reply
share
Stratego (29252)
7 years ago
"For us to know what he imagines we have to see it happening."
Why? Since when is the film shown from the perspective of his imagination? You seem to be filling in the blanks now. The director leaves out those critical scenes because the movie does not simply show Malcolm's imagination. We don't have to know what he imagines, at the end of the movie it's clear that he has imagined certain things. Just like he imagined not seeing the door blocked by the table, putting a key in the keyhole, unlocking the door, opening it and walking through it.
How do I know that the ghost in the kitchen thinks Cole is her husband? Learn how to read between the lines. The woman is clearly beaten up and yells to him "You can't hurt me anymore!" when showing she cut her wrists (which is most likely the way she died.) Clearly a battered housewife. Just like we can assume the stepmother killed the girl because she had Munchhausen by proxy.
"If he ever materialized anywhere, he'd know he wasn't dead."
No, he wouldn't. Ghosts only see what they want to see, remember? It has nothing to do with being smart, it has to do with not being able to move on. "Materializing" somewhere would be like a dream, where you suddenly jump from one place to another and you don't even wonder how that happened, you just go along with it.
"He sees things as he wants to, but can still be frustrated by events that he could just imagine differently. He can materialize wherever he wants to be, but is frustrated by not catching up with the car driven by the man his wife is seeing."
It makes perfect sense. What wouldn't make sense is if he suddenly imagined having superpowers. Why would he go run after a car?
I have seen that restaurant scene countless of times, you're not telling me anything new and it doesn't change anything. He didn't have to imagine any actions, because her behavior still made sense to him. One of the reasons he couldn't move on was that he felt guilty about spending too much time working instead of with his wife.
It works just fine.
reply
share
Destinata (2605)
7 years ago
"Just like we can assume the stepmother killed the girl because she had Munchhausen by proxy." We don't have to assume that the stepmother killed the girl because she had Munchhausen by Proxy. The movie shows us that.
You keep repeating that the ghosts only see what they want to see, but in the scene where Willis's character thinks he's interacting with his wife at the anniversary dinner, we see that it means he assumes he knows what's going on -- and it's actually going on -- while he's reacting to it. His wife, on the other hand, is merely doing what she would have done.
"'Materializing' somewhere would be like a dream, where you suddenly jump from one place to another and you don't even wonder how that happened, you just go along with it." But he doesn't think he's in a dream. He thinks it's reality.
"It makes perfect sense. What wouldn't make sense is if he suddenly imagined having superpowers. Why would he go run after a car?" If he suddenly materialized in his client's home, then, happily, his client appeared and he simply began a therapy session with him, he'd either think he was very ill and was having blackouts where he'd suddenly wake up somewhere without knowing how he got there, or that he was perfectly oriented and had the superpower of materializing where he wanted to.
I think what you want to convey is that I shouldn't analyze it too closely and then it will all make sense. Yes. I agree. If you don't look closely, it all makes sense. ;)
reply
share
Stratego (29252)
7 years ago
The movie never actually states that the mother (don't know why I wrote stepmother) has Munchhausen by proxy. It simply shows us, just like the movie shows that the ghost in the kitchen was a battered housewife who thought Cole was her husband.
I don't get your point about the restaurant scene. Malcolm doesn't have to see anything more or less that what happened, because what happened made sense to him.
"But he doesn't think he's in a dream. He thinks it's reality."
My point is that he doesn't question it like in a dream. If you're dreaming, you usually don't think it's a dream either, even though weird things happen. Clearly, the consciousness of ghosts doesn't work like that of living people, otherwise they wouldn't roam around for centuries.
"If he suddenly materialized in his client's home, then, happily, his client appeared and he simply began a therapy session with him, he'd either think he was very ill and was having blackouts where he'd suddenly wake up somewhere without knowing how he got there, or that he was perfectly oriented and had the superpower of materializing where he wanted to."
Not clear at all what you're trying to say here.
No, what I'm conveying is that you don't understand the concept of ghosts "only seeing what they want to see". The flashback scene at the end shows us how it works in those critical moments that we didn't get to see. If something is there that doesn't make sense, Malcolm will imagine it's not there, like the table blocking the basement door.
reply
share
Destinata (2605)
7 years ago
Yes, we're both disagreeing on what "they only see what they want to see" means.
If someone says that phrase to you -- "You only see what you want to see" -- it means that you have certain preconceived notions, and you only see what bears those notions out. For instance, if you like to think people are basically good people because you're basically good, you'll say they didn't mean to insult you when anyone else looking on would say they did.
But you say that when it's said of ghosts that it means they take what no one could possibly avoid seeing for what it is and see it differently. They create their own reality. Literally. When they suddenly find themselves somewhere without knowing how it happened, they don't even question it because it doesn't seem strange to them at all. On the other hand, if the script needs them to see things as strange and question them, they do -- like the voices tormenting that first patient, which he eventually believed were real because of his hearing something that didn't fit with his preconceived notions.
But if he hadn't been able to go outside the preconceived notions to see/hear only what he wanted to, he'd never have been able to have solved the puzzle.
So in your view, "They only see what they want to see" becomes an on again/off again plot device that switches on to get the Willis character to ignore materializing inside houses, but switches off when the script wants him to be frustrated at not being able to confront the wife's new boyfriend. It switches on for more materializing, then switches off so he can go through the process of problem solving rather than simply accepting what he'd always believed.
I'm still seeing plotholes with your view, but I'm sure you don't see it that way.
reply
share
Stratego (29252)
7 years ago
You don't seem to understand that that's the whole concept of the movie, which is ghosts walking around not knowing they're dead because "they only see what they want to see". Yes, they create their own reality when necessary. That's actually what the whole movie is about. Apparently you don't agree with such a concept, but that's your problem, not a plothole. It doesn't go against the rules the movie establishes.
reply
share
Destinata (2605)
7 years ago
"Yes, they create their own reality when necessary." Well, when it suits the script to do so. They suspect things aren't what they've assumed when it suits the script for them to do so. They're aware of discrepancies when it suits the script for them to do so. But they think nothing of suddenly materializing in places when it suits the script for them to do so. They think they're still alive and operate as if they are when it suits the script to do so. They forget the rules people who are alive live under when it suits the script for them to do so -- such as living people can't suddenly materialize places. They think they're still alive, but can spend a year -- or a century...or two -- never being able to connect with people and not notice that's different from when they were alive. Not just once in a restaurant, but every single time, and they never add it up for a year, a century, a millennia. They're exactly that stupid, but smart enough to figure out things aren't as they assumed if that's what the plot requires.
"It doesn't go against the rules the movie establishes." The rules of this movie are that there are no rules. They don't know they're dead (the Willis character, many of the others); they DO know they're dead (the girl whose mother killed her because she wanted the sympathy mothers get when their daughter is sick, dying, then dead -- and any of the others who reached out to Cole for justice and closure). It all depends on the whim of the moment and what will move the plot forward.
You see consistency; I notice discrepancies. You may have the last word. I don't think I can make my case any plainer.
reply
share
Stratego (29252)
7 years ago
The problem is that you can't make a case. The script calls for it because it's the PLOT, not a plothole. You need to learn the difference. There is no discrepency, the movie clearly states ghosts are in denial about their own deaths (It has nothing to do with inteligence!) and only see what they want to see. When something makes sense they'll accept it, when it doesn't they'll ignore it. Again, it's what the movie is about. At the end, Malcolm sees everything clearly and just as it is once he's ready to move on.
reply
share
Kodakjones (238)
3 years ago
Well actually, she did. She said, "Neddy you're a terrible husband! Look what you made me do! NEDDY!" right to Cole.
reply
share