MovieChat Forums > Silent House (2012) Discussion > Sophia - imaginary or real?

Sophia - imaginary or real?


Most people here seem to think that Sophia was not real, but was instead somebody that Sara's mind imagined as a coping mechanism. Either that explanation is wrong, or else a very SERIOUS oversight by the makers of the movie.

Sophia being only somebody that Sara's mind imagines as a coping mechanism makes a certain amount of sense from a plotline point of view, but it makes NO sense from a viewer's point of view. If the movie's makers didn't make an oversight with the Sophia character (& I think that they did, but for the sake of spelling out their oversight, I'll consider the possibility that they didn't), then Sophia has to be REAL. Remember, although this is actually a movie, it's presented as a documentary style home video recorded by somebody (Sarah) who DIDN'T do any EDITING to it. Therefore, if Sophia really is imaginary, & not real or a ghost, Sarah should be able to see her, but the VIDEO CAMERA (& the viewers) should NOT.
---
IF I want your opinion, I'll GIVE it to you.

reply

Hi Wakanasakai,
Its not an oversight, as at no point is the way the film is shot presented as a documentary or that someone other than the characters in the film being present in its filming.
The 'one-take' style that the movie sells itself on (as well in the original 'La Casa Muda' that this is a remake of) is simply a stylistic choice to immerse the viewer in the film and not done to ape any documentary or home video style (these are VERY unlikey to be filmed and presented without any cuts/edits).

Therefore, although you present an interesting point it doesnt hold up as an argument. Personally i think Sophia is imaginary (as, like you said, a coping mechanism) just as she imagined the blood from the walls, the little girl etc... as a result of her traumatic past.

reply

****SPOILER****

Sophia is indeed made up. In her final scene she says "Sara stop hurting yourself". When she cuts Sophia's hand her hand gets the same wound. This however is an issue. If we assume that Sara suffers from Split Personality Disorder (now labeled as Dissociative Identity Disorder) that means she has a core personality that isn't aware of other personalities (i.e. the coping identity ... Sophia). Based on how DID works... Sara would not interact with Sophia.

reply

If you watched this film and genuinely thought it was a 'home video recording' then a) I can see why you are confused and b) maybe stick to cartoons

reply

Sophia was one of Sarah's personalities. Sarah was obviously someone who suffered from Multiple Personality Disorder.... Sophia was a part of Sarah that went dormant for a while but in Sarah coming back to the house, she resurfaced....probably to help her cope.. Sophia told Sarah they played dress-up together all the time when they were little and there were pictures. Most of Sarah's memories or fragments she saw of herself as little, she was in dress-up cloths. She didn't really remember Sophia when Sophia was driving away, on her bike, she just said that, but Sophia's response was telling. Sophia said something to the affect, "How could you forget me?", because.....they were in fact the same person. Sarah was also blacking out and that was why she couldn't remember attacking her father. A common thing to happen with people who suffer from this kind of abuse and mental health issues. I think her going back to the house triggered everything.

reply

Sounds like a lot of people just can't accept the fact that if Sophia really is imaginary, & not real or a ghost, Sarah should be able to see her, but the VIDEO CAMERA (& the viewers) should NOT.

I always have (& still do) think that Sophia is imaginary, but at least I'm not stupid enough to claim that you can RECORD VIDEOS of your (or anybody else's) imagination.
---
IF I want your opinion, I'll GIVE it to you.

reply

[deleted]

but at least I'm not stupid enough to claim that you can RECORD VIDEOS of your (or anybody else's) imagination.

Nope, just stupid enough to think that this is a found footage film even though nothing other than the single take format (which btw no found footage has) suggests this.

"My plan is sheer elegance in its simplicity."

reply

>> I always have (& still do) think that Sophia is imaginary, but at least I'm not stupid enough to claim that you can RECORD VIDEOS of your (or anybody else's) imagination. >>

Have you never seen a movie before? This was not supposed to be shot by one of the characters (who do you think shot it?) it's a regular movie, homes.

------------------------
"Love means never having to say you're ugly." - the Abominable Dr. Phibes

reply

This was not supposed to be shot by one of the characters (who do you think shot it?)


haha, seriously.

Don't know how the OP or anyone could think this was a found footage movie. If this was a found footage movie, Sarah would've been talking to the character with the camera as they followed her around throughout the movie. The person with the camera would've interacted with others and they would've acknowledged that person. The person with the camera would've been freaking out just as Sarah was, not standing there calm and swirling around her to document her reaction to things while not having a reaction of their own.

reply

Maybe she was real, but not actually there during those events. Sophia could have been a childhood friend of Sara's who either provided a refuge from her abusive home, or maybe she was abused by John as well. Then they lost touch with each other. Sara forgot her because she was subconsciously trying to forget everything about her childhood.

If Sophia wasn't also abused, then Sara never told her about it, because she wouldn't want Sophia to think she was weird or because Sophia might tell another adult and get her and her dad in trouble.

Either way, Sara sees her as an ally during the movie, but she also sees Sophia as a potential threat to her father, who she loves despite the abuse. Sara kind of wavers between the conflicting desires of wanting to protect her father and wanting to hurt him the way he hurt her. Because he's her father, she feels like she must love him and be a loyal daughter, and that he's hurting her because she somehow deserves it. It's an anguishing situation when the people who are supposed to take care of you and protect you are the ones hurting you.

reply

There was zero ambiguity on this. You need to watch the movie again. Sophia is the main character. Same person.

reply

The ending spells out for us very clearly that Sara has delusions that we the viewers have been seeing as real. The toilet on the wall, the little girl in the bathtub, etc -- these were hallucinations that Sara believed to be real, so we the viewers saw them. At the end when we learn that Sara's viewpoint can not be trusted as accurate, we must question what is real and what is not; for example, I'm gonna bet the bleeding wall toilet was not there, because who on earth would install a toilet like that and how could you pee in it without traction boots and who cleans up the blood every day? I presume we all agree that toilet was a hallucination, right? We saw it, of course, but only inside Sara's mind, right?

Likewise, Sara may have imagined the blood in the toilet, the wall behind the toilet, all of it. She could have imagined her entire history of abuse. She could be a delusional orphan with no known parents who imagined every single instance where we saw her father -- whether he was bitching about mold or bleeding on the floor or taking naughty Polaroids of an imaginary ballerina child, all could be just her nutty visions.

Sara may not have a real Uncle Pete, may not have ever even visited a single huge dark house with challenging bathroom fixtures. Every second of the movie could be part of Sara's delusions. Hell, Sara may have even imagined SARA ... or maybe even imagined all of US!

So is Sophia imaginary or real?

Perhaps the answer is a question: Are YOU real? Or are you part of imaginary Sara's imaginary world, which has no apparent relation to any known logic of any real world?

Or perhaps an even better question:

If a team of half-assed lazy storytellers stole 90 minutes of your life by luring you to sit through a movie as stupid as a bagful of wet farts, would you throw away even more good minutes of your life trying to determine which of those bagged farts were real and which were imaginary?

OK, sorry, jk lol ... fact is, I do know the correct answer to your question and hereby lay it on you free of charge:

The entire movie was fictional & every single character in it was 100% imaginary -- which means nobody you saw in the film was real. Not even Sophia.

And there you have it, and now you know. Hope this helps!

peace
--Big Gus

reply

This, and the original movie, were based on actual events from the 1940s. Per the filmmakers' commentary on the DVD, Sophia is a part of Sarah; a coping mechanism, as someone said. When Sarah sees the cut on her own hand, after the "Stop hurting yourself" comment, she realizes this, and Sophia disappears, her job done.

reply

Umm, no ... this movie was not based on any actual events from any decade anywhere ever.

Provide a link to a credible historical source that documents when and where such events occurred, and I'll kiss your ass in Macy's window.

(And sorry, the filmmakers' audio commentary 💩 which I actually listened to 💩 is baseless hearsay, not valid historic documentation.)

peace
--Big Gus

EDIT: And just what makes you think Sophia disappeared because her job was done? More likely she had to rush off to fix that gushing sideways toilet on the wall before it ran their monthly blood utility bill through the roof.

reply

If, as you claim, the story is fictional, how could the filmmakers possibly provide "historic documentation?"

To refer to an explanation of events and characters - real or not - by those who created them as "hearsay" is oxymoronic.

reply

Huh? I made no claims at all, hon, I only disputed yours. Specifically, this one:

This, and the original movie, were based on actual events from the 1940s.
I challenged you to share your source for that assertion, and you still have not.

One wonders what kind of person makes such an unequivocal statement with no facts to support it. Maybe you're a silly little compulsive fibber, or maybe addled by hard narcotics? Or just another IMDb troll? We may never know.

If you heard the filmmakers say it on the dvd and then repeated their unverified claim here as fact, that would constitute a textbook example of hearsay (which belongs with oxymoron on the list of words you may wish to suspend using until you've looked up their meaning).

And again, you need only cite valid documentation of your "actual events" so the rest of us can verify that those events actually occurred, and I'll gladly scream my apology to you from the middle of the Golden Gate Bridge wearing only a big sign that says I was wrong and you were right. That's a promise.

You're likewise welcome to admit your lack of proof by performing some equivalent gesture for me.

( Or as your sweet old granny used to tell you: URL or STFU.  )

peace
--Big Gus

reply