MovieChat Forums > Peacock (2010) Discussion > Explanation of Peacock

Explanation of Peacock


I haven't seen anyone post what I believe to be an accurate explanation of the events that took place in the film "Peacock", so please let me enlighten you as to what I think happened.

John and Emma are two distinct and separate personalities. Neither ever knows what the other is thinking or doing at any time, though they are both aware of each other's existence. Emma never existed until John's "mother" died. (I used those quotations for a reason as you'll see later) When she passed, John needed to fill the void of his "mother" and did so by subconsciously producing Emma, who fulfilled his mother's duties of housework. Emma was far more emotionally stable than John because she did not share his memories or trauma from childhood.

Up until the end of the film, Emma believes John is unreasonable and selfish by disregarding Maggie's plight. She goes so far as to use John's voice to set up a meeting with Maggie, at which point she uses the body of another man to stage John's death. She shaves her eyebrows in order to further prevent John's return seeing as how he's very unlikely to leave the house without any eyebrows. This may also be an attempt to solidify herself as the dominant personality.

When Emma prepares to take snapshot of her son at the table, she realizes what John knew all along. John's "mother" was a cross-dresser with a split-personality just as he eventually came to be. He learned this behavior from "her". She tortured him and forced him to have sex with Maggie in order to prevent him from being as abnormal as she was. Unfortunately, she succeeded in doing just the opposite. Emma realizes that she may unwittingly do the same to her son in an attempt to keep him from being like her. This is why she sends him and Maggie away, in order to end the cycle.

reply

I have seen it and the thing that will confuse people the most is exactly what you referr to in that picture scene. It makes it all pretty clear that Emma is in fact a manifestation of his mother or person that he knows and referrs to as his mother whether or not being a woman.
It has become clear to me that his ordeal of his childhood would be continueing with Maggie and her son if they were to stay.

What also intrigues me that the father isnt mentioned or seen on any of the pictures. The story leaves a lot of options open. Crystalclear is that its one disturbed mind that is John Killpa.

Awesome acting from all actors and a very good movie to see how the human mind can play terrrible tricks on oneself.

reply

I think John and Emma loved each other; she was not the monster his mother was. He created her the day mom died, and she took care of him. Loving notes, cooking, cleaning etc. I disagree it was a terrible trick his mind played on him. It was actually a pretty smart coping mechanism. Mentally ill, yes, but who knows how long he (they) could have lived peacefully if that pesky train hadn't crashed into the back yard.

I liked it.



I like to watch.

reply

His mind played a trick on him? He IS his mind. A person chooses, and thus a person becomes. There is no limit to which a human mind won't go. There is no deception a human mind will not embrace TO END THE HURT, THE PAIN, THE DISGRACE, THE HORROR or THE REJECTION. This is frightening. SMART coping mechanism? Was Hitler smart dealing with his hatred of Jews the way he did? Do you call smart a person who'd rather kill than accept reality? Lie, cheat, pretend? Life does that to people, I agree, but smart is only when you accept the truth and better yourself to also serve others.

reply

Whoa, dude. To address just a small part of what you missed in my post, Hitler was not mentally ill. He was evil. John, (fictional character) was mentally ill, created a loving spouse, and did not murder or cheat anyone. Or lie, for that matter, IT WAS A MENTAL ILLNESS.




I like to watch.

reply

What is the difference in killing one person or millions for the purpose of keeping up ones own illusions? Why is one deemed to be "evil" and the other "mentally ill"? Is killing one innocent person less atrocious than ordering the killing of millions? Were all the people who turned a "blind eye" and "just following orders" mentally ill also? Does that make them less culpable? Furthermore, is murder more "acceptable" when it isn't personal? What if the man in the bar was your son, brother or friend? Would that make Emma's classifcation "evil"?

I am not trying to argue with you, but understand why there is a difference.

reply

What is the difference in killing one person or millions for the purpose of keeping up ones own illusions?


Well it's way worse to kill millions of people than to kill one person...

Why is one deemed to be "evil" and the other "mentally ill"?


You're confused. It has nothing to do with the amount of people killed. A mentally ill person has a physical disease of the brain that causes them to act in ways they can't control. An evil person is in control of their actions and chooses to do evil anyway.

Is killing one innocent person less atrocious than ordering the killing of millions?


Of course it is. I mean, duh. Murder is bad. Millions of murders means it's millions of times as bad. Simple math.

Were all the people who turned a "blind eye" and "just following orders" mentally ill also?


Possibly. It can go either way. Mentally ill people can be more susceptible to suggestion, and evil people can ignore the sufferings of others to further their own ends.

Does that make them less culpable?


A sane person who allows crimes to happen is just as guilty as the person who commits the crimes. A sane person who commits crimes under orders is just as guilty as the person giving the orders.

A mentally ill person has impaired judgment and thus can't be held as responsible as a sane person. The responsibility depends on the degree they are debilitated by their mental illness.

Furthermore, is murder more "acceptable" when it isn't personal?


No. Murder is murder.

What if the man in the bar was your son, brother or friend? Would that make Emma's classification "evil"?


That's a logical fallacy.


Witty closing remarks have been replaced by massive head trauma and severe hemorrhaging.

reply

Wow. How did Hitler enter the conversation? jeannie-45 never said it was smart for Emma to kill a man, she said it was smart for John to create a loving caretaker. Although I wouldn't agree that it was smart. It wasn't like he consciously thought her up. His mind created her because he could not cope with the trauma he endured in his life. Josh Lucas's character makes it pretty clear that John's mother "took care of him" in a way that kept him from growing up. She treated him like a child his whole life and the disturbing things that happened to him during his childhood crippled him and kept him from being able to leave his home and live on his own. When his mother died, his mind created another female caretaker, but unlike his mother, Emma was actually kind. When people endure trauma during their formidable childhood years, it can leave lasting scars. Some people create a split personality to deal with this. I watched the "making of" segment on the DVD...both the director and Cillian did research about split personality disorder. It is not genetic, it is a coping mechanism to deal with childhood trauma. This is the way John deals with the demons he carries.

reply

His mind played a trick on him? He IS his mind. A person chooses, and thus a person becomes. There is no limit to which a human mind won't go. There is no deception a human mind will not embrace TO END THE HURT, THE PAIN, THE DISGRACE, THE HORROR or THE REJECTION. This is frightening. SMART coping mechanism? Was Hitler smart dealing with his hatred of Jews the way he did? Do you call smart a person who'd rather kill than accept reality? Lie, cheat, pretend? Life does that to people, I agree, but smart is only when you accept the truth and better yourself to also serve others.


^Godwin's Law.

Witty closing remarks have been replaced by massive head trauma and severe hemorrhaging.

reply

Achtung, Godwin's law at work!

Chaos reigns

reply

okay, what i got from the picture taking scene was that John came back, and Emma was no longer able to stay on top. eventually they will have to be intergrated to complete one whole person. how will john exist now, he for all intents and purposes is dead in the eyes of Peacock.

the reason i believe it's John who chased Maggie away was because Emma was manifested to ease and accept the pain of losing his horrible mother. this is reasonable because john suffered through all the abuse, and Emma has only been around for one year.

interesting outcome.

if anyone was going to figure things out about John and Emma it would have been Officer. He seemed to know John the best and i believe he was startng to see that things were off kilter.

I need to watch again.

all and all a great movie. leaves alot to think about.

reply

I completely agree - although more than three years later! John came back while the picture was being taken. John chased Maggie and Jake away because he didn't know what Emma was up to and didn't trust her. 'Emma' in those scenes had some of the same ticks as John. Just as Emma as 'John' went to the bank.

reply

what if Emma wanted a chance to raise a son without all the bad stuff? I think even that was horrifying to John, he'd have to see all he lost by not having a normal childhood.

reply

I'm with Garrettmoe-usa. I agree with everything in the OP except for the part about John's mother being a crossdresser. I just don't think there was any evidence of this.

reply

Its pretty ridiculous to think his mother was a cross-dressing man like him. There was nothing to support this. Yeah its possible, but you have one hell of a wild imagination. There is no reason to think this and it doesn't add much to the story.

I thought it was pretty clear John was snapped back into reality with that picture. It was John who has sent Maggie and the kid away not Emma.

While initially Emma WAS the ideal imagine of his mother, caring yet not controlling or abusive. The stronger her personality got the more controlling she became and her motives were clearly sinister. She wasn't trying to help Maggie, all she did to help was because she wanted to get the kid for herself. I would imagine she would eventually kill Maggie.

It was unclear if who won in the end. Obviously John got what he wanted but who was left as the dominant personality wasn't very clear. It seemed to me like it was John sitting in the chair at the end in the dress, guess waiting for his eyebrows to grow back maybe. Or stuck in Emmas body if you wanna look at it that way. Maybe it was Emma, i just think she would have shown some signs of being upset considering what happened. This one seemed calm and satisfied.

reply

[deleted]

Reminded me of, "Psycho" and I anticipated some other kind of murder like in the motel shower. Weird.

reply

Johns mom was not a cross dresser. John Easter not a cross dresser either. John has disassociative disorder which is a coping mechanism from all the abuse and trauma from childhood. This disorder is not genetic - its from the abuse he endured. Watch the extras on the DVD. The producer or director talks about it.

my dad, never liked you..

reply

Yeah I agree with you.

I don't know about 'who' it was at the end. Maybe his personalities finally integrated. So I guess that would be John, but not as dissociative as before

reply

Its pretty ridiculous to think his mother was a cross-dressing man like him. There was nothing to support this. Yeah its possible, but you have one hell of a wild imagination. There is no reason to think this and it doesn't add much to the story.


actually, it would explain why the mother's dresses fit John so perfectly.

also, the dress form in the mother's room showed fairly big gaps above the waist, those sections can be set outwards, meaning she was sewing for someone with big shoulders. that's when I thought his mother might be male.

reply

From what little I know of Multiple personality disorders,all the personality's are coping mechanisms,and making the personality's aware of each other is part of the therapy.So Emma "becoming" his mother seemed out of place.I think a better ending would be...the towns people slowly realize Emma is another personality,and work together to help him out.

reply

***SPOILERS***


John created Emma as the safe version of his mother, a motherly mother if you like, not the horrible woman who tried to drown her own son. But just like his real mom tried to control him completely (she even controlled his sex life), Emma eventually takes over, the trigger being John gaining confidence in living a more "normal" life. As this is a threat to Emma's existence, she stages John death to have peace of mind and live a 24/7 life.

Chaos reigns

reply

OP, I did't get that John's mom was a cross dreser either. I didn't see anything in the ending that would lead the viewer to assume that.

reply

fanaticita, if you want an answer of the OP, kaijunexus, you should click the reply button in his/her post. The IMDB forum system is unfortunately not very 21st century.

Chaos reigns

reply

The forum is just fine.

reply

Your explanation was spot on until the last paragraph.
There was no hint whatsoever that John's mother was a cross dresser, John opened her clothes cupboards and there is no male clothing within.
She was a cruel person who wanted to control his life and did so ruthlessly, which created a dependence in him so powerful that he couldn't exist without her, therefore creating the alternate personality, giving Emma the characteristics he desired in a mother, he made her the kind of Mother he wanted her to be.
My summation of the end is this:
As Emma was looking at the photo John's memories surfaced in her mind, at that moment realising John wasn't dead and gone as she had hoped but still living in her the two personalities fused into one, and became a new personality who as she/he slumped down in the chair as she contemplated the difficulties confronting him/her.
I would like the movie to have run just a little longer to give us a peek of the new personality, that would have been interesting.

All in all though it was a good movie which held me to my seat, excellent performance by Cillian Murphy, I had to remind myself a few times during the performance that it was just one person !!

reply

you explanation makes me a bit more okay wit this movie . i liked and hated this movie .. it seemed to lost in information. they wanted you to figure out so much without all the keen clues.id perfer a suicide atthe end but then someone in another thread said the alternate ending is emma snapping the picture... id like that cus it puts a even more creepy tone. this really could have just been a norman bates orgin film which id even take if they made emma more threatening....john was sooo much not apart of the film it seem like he really didnt have to be there other than to let u know that emma was a man

reply

LOL, John existed to let us know Emma was a man, that was good!!

I agree we should have had more info during the film or at the end.
One thing that puzzles me is that I think Maggie only mentioned she had family of some sort in Madison to John but in the end Emma says like 'Take the money and go to Madison'. I was like WTF?! But then it just ended and Emma just sat there like a normal day. creepy creepy ending, needs some follow up.

He made the mistake of creating another dominant personality to rule the house; it's almost like he cant exist alone but everybody else just tries to run him over.

La jeunesse sait ce qu'elle ne veut pas avant de savoir ce qu'elle veut

reply

I find it funny you guys are confused about this movie.

Here's a short summary:
- Eyebrows shaved
-In the bank the female Cillian Murphys portraying comments on John working hard.
Emma does not know what John knows or does very much; the box, notes etc.

Hmmm...which female would know what John does?
Which female reenacts the picture taken of John when he was a child, re-lives it by taking a picture of the latest legacy? EMMA DOES NOT KNOW JOHN which leaves who?

The mother, you dumbasses.
The mother shuns people, knows both personalities, would send the kid away because she's in control. Emma would not send the kid away, she would appear in the picture at the end 'cause she's naive. And Johns just socially awkward and would be stuttering all over the place.



The film is about the mothers legacy and it's protection. It's like a really bad version of the Larkin poem.

reply

this really could have just been a norman bates orgin film

I was thinking that also. It occurred to me very early on that Emma was his internalization of his mother. People who grew up totally controlled by a sadistic parent sometimes become very dependent on them at the same time. So I wasn't surprised that his psyche needed "someone" to fill in for her when she died. Plus, we saw some photos on the mantle of him as a child, and I caught a glimpse of an adult woman who looked an awful lot like Emma. Did we ever learn his mother's first name? I was assuming it was Emma, or something close to that.

Also, I don't remember finding out how dear old mom died. Speculating on that was what made me think of Psycho.

reply

Emma was the mother complex dependency (from the abuse). The 'wife' mis-identity came from the neighbor and not from John early in the movie right after the train crash. This is evident in that all Emma does initially is take care of John, the washing, the food, etc., It's not till later that Emma develops more of an active role outside of the initial coping mechanism and dependency issues John suffers from. And then you see a bit of the maternal instinct in situations like, 'don't you know never to threaten a mother's child?' to the chef. I can't remember the exact lines.

So where are we getting that Emma was John's wife outside of the neighbor's interpretation? As the saying goes, we all become our parents, and ironically, as in this movie, we marry our mothers/fathers.

The movie overall was weak. It feels like a lot of the story line was left on the editing floor.

reply

It's a good summary of the plot. I'd add one more thing. I think John was actually Fanny's son - the one that is supposed to be dead. John/Emma and Fanny have the same mannerisms of putting their shoes next to the chair they are sitting on.

reply

It was a remake of psycho, the "mom" turned the son intoa raving killer.

reply