MovieChat Forums > Drag Me to Hell (2009) Discussion > Christine as the "bad guy" (Spoilers wit...

Christine as the "bad guy" (Spoilers within, obviously)

posted 9 years ago by umiryuzaki26
29 replies | jump to latest

I still don't get why exactly are we supposed to side with the old hag...? Christine was only doing what was expected of her to keep her job. And it's not like she left the lady in the streets, either, MRS. GANUSH HAS A DAUGHTER PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF TAKE HER IN. The woman went in there expecting charity and, hey, I am sorry but that's not how banks work.

Then she gets pissed off and blame Chris for bringing her shame WHEN SHE AND ONLY SHE MADE A SHOW OUT OF HERSELF. Get a grip, old lady! Neither of those are valid reasons to curse someone to rot in hell.

What's more. EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER IN THIS MOVIE BUT THE MEDIUMS ARE ROTTEN TO THE CORE. Justin Long plays a lousy boyfriend whom claims to LOVE Christine but let his disgusting parents walk all over her and can't be moved to do more than weakly extend his hand when the love of his life fails to the train rails! Ganush psysical attacks a stranger for doing her job. Her daughter/granddaughter is a mean piece of white trash whom spends more time gloating over her perceived enemy disgrace than mourning her relative.

If they truly want us to despise Chris, maybe they should have told Alison Lohman to stop potraying her like a kind, insecure but good hearted young woman who got caught up between a rock and hard place. Even the kitten slaughter feels cheap and out of place when in context with everything else Christine feels and does during the movie.

[–] resmat-1 9 years ago

I still don't get why exactly are we supposed to side with the old hag...?

I don’t get why you think we’re supposed to side with Mrs. Ganush against Christine? Is it Christine’s final speech to Clay? If so, all she’s saying is that, on principle, she should have tried harder to help her customer even if it meant losing a promotion. This speech reminds us that Christine is a good person, not that Mrs Ganush was right to torture and murder her. You’ve taken what Christine says as some kind of absolution or forgiveness for Mrs Ganush and, as a result, you’re now seeing Christine’s entire characterization as a mistake.

If they truly want us to despise Chris, maybe they should have told Alison Lohman to stop portraying her like a kind, insecure but good hearted young woman who got caught up between a rock and hard place.

Any sympathy Christine inspires obviously isn’t just a result of Alison Lohman’s performance, it’s also a result of the Raimi brothers’ script. How can you look at all the things we see and learn about her and think we were supposed to "despise" her?

HER WISH TO BE ‘GOOD ENOUGH’ FOR CLAY AND HIS PARENTS
-- She tries to ‘fix’ her accent by listening to tapes that teach better diction.
-- The camera focuses on her sad expression as she overhears Clay’s mother berating her over the phone.
-- We see how determined she is to please Clay’s parents.

HER WEIGHT ISSUES
-- She looks longingly at cakes in a shop window.
-- She scrunches up a photo of her younger and larger self at the Pork Queen Fair 1995.
-- She looks hurt when Mrs Ganush's daughter mocks her for looking like she was once a "fat girl".
-- She eats ice-cream after she fails to raise enough money for the séance.
-- She binge-eats more ice-cream when she’s trying to work up the courage to pass the button onto someone else.

HER GENERAL GOODNESS
-- We see her helping a pair of happy clients.
-- Her manager says that Stu is “aggressive”, which implies that Christine isn’t.
-- She takes Mrs. Ganush's request to her manager, which is more than some would do.
-- The camera focuses on her regretful expression when she watches Mrs Ganush leave the bank.
-- She reminds the psychic (I admit, somewhat self-righteously) that she's a vegetarian and a volunteer at the puppy shelter.
-- She can’t bring herself to pass the button on, not even to the immoral Stu.
-- Even after her horrible ordeal, she admits at the end that she could have tried harder to help Mrs. Ganush.

THE DIFFICULTIES IN HER LIFE
-- Both her manager and Stu presume to ask her to get them lunch.
-- Stu complains to her in front of their boss even though he was the one who forgot to say no mayo.
-- Her father is dead and her mother is a reclusive alcoholic.
-- She pawns everything she has but still has nowhere near enough to pay the psychic.
-- Stu steals her work and, in turn, her promotion.

Even the kitten slaughter feels cheap and out of place when in context with everything else Christine feels and does during the movie.

She was desperate. By the time she kills the cat, she’s suffered a traumatic attack from a preternaturally strong old lady; she’s been hearing voices in the wind; she’s been told by a psychic that she’s cursed; she’s been tormented by wind and shadows and thrown against her kitchen top; she’s had an incredibly vivid nightmare; she’s had an inexplicable explosive nosebleed at work; she’s suffered a strange attack from a corpse; and she’s been stalked by the shadows of a demon and violently tossed around her bedroom.

Is it so unbelievable that she’d kill the cat? She’s a good person but she’s also a human being.

Justin Long plays a lousy boyfriend whom claims to LOVE Christine but let his disgusting parents walk all over her and can't be moved to do more than weakly extend his hand when the love of his life fails to the train rails!

Clay tries to control his mother but ultimately lets Christine stand up for herself. Does that make him “despicable”? If he’d just shut his mother down, there’d be no chance of Christine ever winning her over. And Clay knows that Christine said she was ready for this dinner with his parents and would probably want to stick up for herself. Is the fact that he doesn't hesitate to choose Christine over his parents not win him some slack?

As for the ending, what more could Clay have done? Died alongside her? The train was already coming into the station and she was too far away for him to reach without jumping down to her. He also had to spend most of the time before the train reached her processing the fact that hell was real and she was being taken there.

EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER IN THIS MOVIE BUT THE MEDIUMS ARE ROTTEN TO THE CORE.

Interestingly, some people have argued that Rham Jas might not be that innocent. When he first tells her she's cursed, he asks her whether she's blasphemed in a graveyard or associated herself with the black arts, two things he eventually encourages her to do in order to save herself.

[–] nystulc 9 years ago

I still don't get why exactly are we supposed to side with the old hag...?

That's somewhat ambiguous. We're actually supposed to identify with Christine, despite the fact that she did wrong. But we're also supposed to understand on some level that what she did was wrong.

Many people identify with her so much, that they attempt to alter the facts of the film in order to defend her. Unfortunately, many the facts of the film they seek to change are clear and stubborn. Others are ambiguous at best.

Christine was only doing what was expected of her to keep her job.

Absolutely false. Christine got permission from her boss to give the extension, and could have given it with no threat to her job. She merely thought that by being tough and cruel, she could earn brownie points for a possible promotion.

And it's not like she left the lady in the streets, either, MRS. GANUSH HAS A DAUGHTER PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF TAKE HER IN.

Uh, what?? No. She had no daughter. She had a grand-daughter. A young woman just starting out in life. How do you know what she is perfectly capable of looking after a sick old woman, or how much this will cost her. Aren't you being awfully generous with other people's charity?

But yes, the granddaughter would probably have been a good person, and sacrificed her future, for the sake of her sick grandmother. The grandmother refused to do this to her granddaughter ("I would never burden her"), presumably because she is not the selfish bitch you think people ought to be.

The woman went in there expecting charity and, hey, I am sorry but that's not how banks work.

You don't know what you are talking about. That's exactly how banks work! Ganush's circumstances, consisting of a 30 year payment history, plenty of equity, and genuine medical hardship, practically guarantees an extension of credit ... not because banks are nice people, but because being too-obviously evil and predatory is bad public relations and inefficient competition with other banks; and even pisses off governments who don't like seeing old ladies, who could continue to live independently, unnecessarily forced into nursing homes at huge taxpayer expense.

As an example of predatory banking behavior, the situation portrayed in this film is so extreme as to be almost cartoonish ... almost as though the filmmaker wanted to make absolutely sure we did not miss the fact that Christine's actions were wrong.

Then she gets pissed off and blame Chris for bringing her shame WHEN SHE AND ONLY SHE MADE A SHOW OUT OF HERSELF. Get a grip, old lady! Neither of those are valid reasons to curse someone to rot in hell.

Nobody should ever summon demons or curse people to rot in hell. But that does not justify Christine's conduct.

What we actually see Ganush do, in the bank, is call Christine a "whore" in Hungarian, and try to pull her hair. Not very nice, I agree, but the poor sick old bat was upset. The "real" Mrs. Ganush cannot be shown ever to have done anything else, and she dies later that same day or night. From then on Christine is assaulted by some kind of ghost or demon ("the Lamia") who sometimes assumes the form of Mrs. Ganush, or Mrs. Ganush's hankey, or Mrs. Ganush's diseased eyeball.

Later in the film, it is Christine who is trying to summon demons, and curse other people to rot in Hell.

What's more. EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER IN THIS MOVIE BUT THE MEDIUMS ARE ROTTEN TO THE CORE.

Rham Jas is actually pretty rotten. Of the two mediums, San Dena is the decent one.

Justin Long plays a lousy boyfriend whom claims to LOVE Christine but let his disgusting parents walk all over her and can't be moved to do more than weakly extend his hand when the love of his life fails to the train rails!

Gee, I can't see that Justin did anything wrong. Was it really his fault that Christine eavesdropped on his mother's phone call?

"Weakly" extending his hand was probably the right thing to do. I don't think there was time for anything else. It was not his fault that she was unable or unwilling to take his hand; any more than it was his fault she fled from him to her death in the first place. And it was a burst of hellfire that forced him back. Otherwise he might have lost his arm, and perhaps his head as well, when the train struck.

Her daughter/granddaughter is a mean piece of white trash whom spends more time gloating over her perceived enemy disgrace than mourning her relative.

She told Christine the truth: that Christine had done this to herself, and was now lying about it. But it was not a truth Christine wanted to hear. Christine wanted to lie to herself and to other people.

[–] Karl Aksel 8 years ago

But yes, the granddaughter would probably have been a good person, and sacrificed her future, for the sake of her sick grandmother.

Sacrificed her future? How long do you suppose sickly grandmothers that age are going to live? In this movie, a couple of days, which isn't that far removed from what was expected. There was also the option of the retirement home, which Mrs. Ganush dismissed as not good enough. Well, sorry, but sometimes life deals you a bad hand. That she finds it demeaning is not an argument. "You have got to grant me an extension on the loan because the other option is only good enough for lesser people". Sorry, you don't need it badly enough.

What we actually see Ganush do, in the bank, is call Christine a "whore" in Hungarian, and try to pull her hair. Not very nice, I agree, but the poor sick old bat was upset.

Anyone who attacks another person is obviously upset at something. That's an explanation, not an excuse, and Christine was absolutely correct to call security. What should she have done, allowed herself to be assaulted because the client was "upset"? The old hag brought all her shame on herself with her aggressive behaviour. Under no stretch of the imagination could Christine be blamed for "shaming" the old woman.

Later in the film, it is Christine who is trying to summon demons, and curse other people to rot in Hell.

We never see anything like that in this movie. The demon is already summoned. What we see is Christine trying first to lift the curse, then kill the demon, and then, as a last resort, pass the curse to someone else - but she can't bear to do it to anyone other than the person who gave it to her in the first place - and as such the most deserving by far.

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

Sacrificed her future? How long do you suppose sickly grandmothers that age are going to live?

5 years? 10 years? 20 years? How should I know. The actress playing her is only 66. If it's really no big deal, then perhaps every young person of limited means should defer education, marriage, and/or family and instead agree to be the caretaker of some lady who would otherwise go to a degrading nursing home. Perhaps YOU should volunteer, eh? But charity is always someone else's problem.

But I have no doubt Ilenka would have been willing to do this for her grandmother.

Anyone who attacks another person is obviously upset at something. That's an explanation, not an excuse, and Christine was absolutely correct to call security. What should she have done, allowed herself to be assaulted because the client was "upset"? The old hag brought all her shame on herself with her aggressive behaviour.

You are rearranging the events of the film. Ganush became aggressive and angry AFTER Christine called security. You cannot justify Christine's actions based on things that had not happened yet.

We never see anything like that in this movie.

You missed the point where Christine loudly chants "I welcome the dead into my soul"? That was hard to miss. More subtle was the point, at the very beginning of the film, where Christine makes an "o" with her mouth (symbolizing her ambition), just after the camera descends to her car from the clouds, accompanied by demon-fly buzzy violin music (we have been following the demon with the violin music throughout the credits and up to this point). Evil has just joined her, and Christine has let it in. Also the hell-dragging occurs pretty-much exactly 72 hours (3 days) after this point. Evil continually enters her throughout this period, because she keeps letting it in.

[–] Karl Aksel (1451) 5 years ago

"5 years? 10 years? 20 years? How should I know. The actress playing her is only 66. If it's really no big deal, then perhaps every young person of limited means should defer education, marriage, and/or family and instead agree to be the caretaker of some lady who would otherwise go to a degrading nursing home. Perhaps YOU should volunteer, eh? But charity is always someone else's problem."

Needs must. Both my father and my aunt took care of their ageing parents, rather than send them to a home. It is a sacrifice, but who says life is without sacrifice?

"You are rearranging the events of the film. Ganush became aggressive and angry AFTER Christine called security. You cannot justify Christine's actions based on things that had not happened yet."

I think you are misremembering. Ganush grabbed Christine first, and wouldn't let go, and this is what prompted Christine to call security.

"You missed the point where Christine loudly chants "I welcome the dead into my soul"? That was hard to miss."
That was from the attempt to KILL the demon. Not summon it. Yes, technically the demon had to be summoned in order to be killed, but you are leaving out key context here.

"Evil continually enters her throughout this period, because she keeps letting it in."
How very "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" Christian moralistic nonsense. She did not let the evil in, that was all on Ganush. Ganush marked Christine, and that - and that alone - is what let evil in. Christine would not have had anything to do with spiritism or witchcraft if not forced to do so - by Ganush.

[–] mkohary 8 years ago

Many insightful and well-supported points, well done. This is a great character reading; this movie is far from black and white and I think that's part of the point.

[–] Mississippi20 9 years ago

I highly, highly doubt the movie is trying to make Christine a bad person and make the case that she deserved what she got. Despite the fact that Christine COULD have shown some compassion (at the expense of advancing her career). She was clearly between a rock and a hard place.

I think the "point" might be that you can be a good person and maybe you never know who you're going to piss off - they probably thought this would make the story more relatable and frightening. If Christine was truly a bad person, the audience would be glad when she gets dragged to hell. More than anything, the film is made to entertain and to elicit reaction, feeling, and fright from the audience. Although the movie presents a fairly interesting morality case, I can't say that it's as deep as some are making it out to be....

I friggin hate the Gypsy. She's the villain of the movie.

[–] nystulc 9 years ago

I highly, highly doubt the movie is trying to make Christine a bad person and make the case that she deserved what she got.

It is intended as a cautionary moral tale; one where Christine basically does this to herself. It is called "Drag ME to Hell" for a reason.

It does not necessarily follow that the film is taking an absolutist stance on what Christine "deserves" for all eternity. The film contains elements suggesting that Raimi has in mind a setup for a possible sequel involving a rescue mission to the Underworld (via the "doorway" in the Great Room, etched with a symbol of redemption). Sadly, this will probably never happen due to the film's poor box office receipts.

[–] Mississippi20 9 years ago

It is intended as a cautionary moral tale; one where Christine basically does this to herself. It is called "Drag ME to Hell" for a reason.

If that was honestly Raimi's intention, then I think he did a really poor job. But I don't think it was Raimi's intention. Christine's behavior is not despicable. In fact it's very sympathizing. More than anything, who is the gypsy to judge and condemn someone to hell? She is by far the most despicable character in the film.

[–] nystulc 9 years ago

If that was honestly Raimi's intention, then I think he did a really poor job. But I don't think it was Raimi's intention.

It was his intention. He has said so. Moreover, it was something I picked up on first viewing (and second viewing) long before I knew what he had said. So for me, it merely confirmed what the film told me.

Christine's behavior is not despicable. In fact it's very sympathizing.

Raimi intended the viewer, to some extent, to sympathize with Christine. And yes, he said that too.

More than anything, who is the gypsy to judge and condemn someone to hell? She is by far the most despicable character in the film.

That Christine cannot be bad, because the "gypsy" is worse, is simply a bad argument. It simply does not follow in any shape or form.

But the film is ambiguous, at best, as to whether it is really the Ganush (as distinct from the demon who sometimes takes Ganush's form) who is trying to damn Christine's soul.

Raimi has said in interviews that Ganush is not the villain but the victim. I think that supports the latter interpretation. Lorna Raver (who plays Ganush) has also indicated in interviews that she understood herself to be playing a dual role ... the real Ganush and a "demon version" of Ganush. The real Ganush is an innocent victim. The "demon version" is the form taken by the Lamia, a demon who is after Christine's soul.

But even if it's the demon (rather than Ganush) who is trying to damn Christine's soul, that just brings us back to the same old basic issue. You cannot argue that Christine cannot to any extent be a bad person because an evil hell-demon is worse. It simply does not follow.

[–] chrislwmn3 8 years ago

How could you think Christine is a bad person?

At one point you said the woman was sick and didn't want to burden her granddaughter with taking care of her because she's basically be sacrificing her future. Then you say that the old lady should've gotten the loan because she was capable of taking care of herself rather than being moved to an assisted living facility and living off government funding.

Then you say banks wouldn't deny someone a loan when that person has already defaulted on payments? That isn't how banks work. If she was sick like you mentioned the first time, there would be no way she would ever be able to pay the new loan. Clearly she was sick because she died and I doubt it was from shame due to what happened at the bank.

Such an odd stance on some things.

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

Then you say banks wouldn't deny someone a loan when that person has already defaulted on payments?

Sure they do. It depends on circumstances, but sure. In circumstances like this, they would, or at least clearly SHOULD grant the extension.

That isn't how banks work.

It's exactly how they work. You really should not talk so loud about things that you are completely ignorant.

If she was sick like you mentioned the first time, there would be no way she would ever be able to pay the new loan.

As already explained, the loan is completely secured, with interest. There is plenty of equity in the home, as the film made 100% clear. There is no way the bank will NOT get paid back, with interest.

Sure, at some distant point in the indefinite future, there may come a point where extending further credit becomes unprofitable, and then even risky, for the bank. But we are not nearly at that point at this point in the film. Extending additional credit to Ganush will literally cost the bank nothing (or at least, nothing they are entitled to), and indeed earn them a profit.

[–] chrislwmn3 8 years ago

Actually I do know how it works. Millions of homes have been foreclosed because they couldn't make the payments. Maybe you shouldn't speaks of things you're ignorant of.

Why don't you address you double stance on the matter,? You didn't explain how someone can be so sick that she would be a burden to her granddaughter yet not sick enough to not be able to live home alone where she would have nobody to offer immediate help if something happened. Basically, I'm calling out your extremely flawed logic.

Also, if someone is constantly receiving bills from doctors and hospitals, how would she be able to make her house payments much less payments plus interest as you claim? Have you never been to the hospital?

Please, reply and try to make your point look less idiotic.

[–] chrislwmn3 8 years ago

By the way, banks collect money from loans because it's their business to do so. If they loaned out money, they are entitled to get it back in the form of money. That's how banks work. Please learn more about how businesses in general work. Start with offering a service/product for a fee/payment.

[–] Karl Aksel 8 years ago

It is intended as a cautionary moral tale; one where Christine basically does this to herself.

In the normal universe, this is called victim blaming. "She asked for it." Christine does not curse herself - it's the vengeful old hag who curses Christine. She didn't have to curse anyone, not at all.

And even if Raimi has said his intention was to show the victim "doing it to herself", he has also said it's about sometimes bad things happen to good people. He is also on record saying Christine was a "despicable" person, so clearly whatever this man says needs to be taken with a grain of salt. What the movie shows us is that in the beginning, a little child is dragged to hell for a petty theft, something children often do. The child probably didn't even know any better, and can hardly be said to have cursed himself. It just so happened that the wrong people got pissed off, and they were responsible for cursing him. Just as Mrs. Ganush was solely responsible for cursing Christine. She had every opportunity not to.

Now, had Christine succeeded in giving back the cursed button to Mrs. Ganush, then - and only then - could we talk about someone bringing it upon themselves.

[–] vampbang 8 years ago

Christine did all for love, because she thought she wasn't good enough for Clay and his family, she thought that with a better job, she will be a better candidate for Clay's parents, love hurts and love drags you to hell.

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

I certainly didn't see Christine as the "bad guy". She was stiffed by the gypsy, stiffed by the system at work and stiffed by Clay's parents. She was just another victim and an appealing, attractive one at that.🐭

[–] nowhereboy07 8 years ago

I'm completely confused by the OP. Part of what makes this movie awesome is the fact that Christine is so incredibly likeable and human, yet still can't escape her inevitable fate.

She becomes more and more likeable as the film progresses. Intwntionally so. You're supposed to be rooting for her. After all, the old gypsy had no redeeming qualities. The fact that you are old and sickly does not make you likeable. Perhaps it makes it easier to sympathize with her due to her age and condition ORIGINALLY (and Christine did).

However, she curses an innocent woman after she clearly tried to help. She murders Christine. She knows what is going to happen. Sure, christine had a choice and made the one in her best interest. But think about it. That woman had two extensions already and she would be back for her fourth and fifth and sixth until she died.

Long story short, Christine is incredibly likeable and even her so called "selfish" decision was completely justified.

[–] HorrorFanatic24 8 years ago

She killed a kitten. No remorse about doing it then tried to kill her boyfriend.

[–] ScorpionTDC 8 years ago

Where on EARTH did you get the impression she tried to kill her boyfriend? She never did. The only person she tried to send to hell was the bitch that started this mess, and even then. It was done more out of self-defense then anything else

As for the kitten, besides the fact she does feel bad about the kitten and only did it after a mental breakdown from an extreme Lamia attack and the increasing pressure of an eternity in hell. Call me crazy, but I think most the people condemning her for killing the damn cat would've done something very similar in her shoes. And again, she'd never be in this mess if Ganush hadn't cursed her

Death Awaits (Horror forum)
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Death_Awaits/index/

[–] nystulc 8 years ago

Where on EARTH did you get the impression she tried to kill her boyfriend?

When he tries to return the supposed "cursed button" to her, she flees from him to avoid the button. She should have grabbed that button from his hand.

[–] Filimon 8 years ago

The button was still hers...so that argument dont work.

[–] BluexMage 8 years ago

Yup. The psychic even told her that she had to pass this on "formally", which is what she almost did to Stu.
Someone just holding on to the button doesn't change the owner.

She walked back due to fear/surprise.

[–] nystulc 7 years ago

Yup. The psychic even told her that she had to pass this on "formally", which is what she almost did to Stu.

Not at first. He merely said "Give away the button and you've given away the curse." He said nothing about "formality".

Christine, of course, wants to make sure of what she is doing. That's why she is so formal with Stu. but Rham said nothing about formality ... not at first.

Rham Jas did not mention any formality requirement, until she brought up the option of gifting it to a corpse. He seemed unsure whether it would work, but thought it might, and advised making a "formal" gift of it to make sure.

Someone just holding on to the button doesn't change the owner.

Well. Who knows how the random rules of a hypothetical curse work. But holding a button can certainly make you the owner of the button, if the button is abandoned. This button was abandoned by Christine.

She walked back due to fear/surprise.

She was surprised and afraid. She was afraid of the button being returned to her.

[–] nystulc 7 years ago

The button was still hers...so that argument dont work.

The argument works fine.

You are assuming the curse, and any "ownership" associated with the curse, works in a very specific way. But the evidence of the film does not prove your assumptions. (My own position and theory, is that the "button curse" does not work at all).

Anyhow, by Western legal standards, Clay was now the owner of the button. When he tried to return the button to her, and she refused to accept it, he became the holder of abandoned property. That makes him, for all purposes, the owner.

As for the "button curse" (assuming their is one, which I doubt), maybe it works that way, and maybe not. Who knows?

But if not, there was no point for Christine to be fleeing the button. There was no reason for Christine to be scared of the button.

Sure, my position is that the button did not matter. But Christine acted as though it did. It seems to me, she was not quite as sure of your position as you are.

[–] Filimon 7 years ago

The move is quite clear on this to anyone paying attention. You have to give the button to someone else as a consious act. Otherwise you could just throw it away and pretend its not yours. Just like the tape in The Ring have to be passed on... this is standard Movie logic.

[–] nystulc 7 years ago

The move is quite clear on this to anyone paying attention. You have to give the button to someone else as a consious act.

I was paying attention. That's how I know that Rham Jas never says "You have to give the button to someone else as a conscious act."

He says the Lamia will come for the OWNER of the button; and (therefore) that if you give away the button, you give away the curse.

Later, he advises making a "formal gift" only in the context of gifting to the dead ... which he does not seem 100% sure will work.

Anyhow, she DOES commit a conscious act when she backs away from him to prevent the return of the button. From that point on (if not earlier), Clay was the holder of abandoned property ... which means that legally, he owned that button.

Otherwise you could just throw it away and pretend its not yours.

Not necessarily. Arguably you would remain the owner until the button acquired a new owner. Legally, the holder of abandoned property is a new owner; but this would not happen unless someone new took possession of the item after you had abandoned it. Therefore, merely abandoning the button would be risky, as there is no guarantee that someone new will take it.

Just like the tape in The Ring have to be passed on... this is standard Movie logic.

There's no such thing as "standard movie logic". "The Ring" is just another movie.

[–] yudhawn 7 years ago

yes, she's like '90%' people in this world
she's doing what she had to do to get better position