The Why of Simon in “Session 9″
When asked what my favorite horror film I always say without missing a beat, “Session 9″ (review). There was a brief period a couple of months ago where Paranormal Activity (review) took the top spot, but careful reflection brought me back to Earth and to peddling the Brad Anderson-directed psychological thriller starring David fucking Caruso to anyone foolish enough to engage me in a discussion on horror movies.
It should be known that my love of this film borders on the extreme. The banner of I Love Horror is modeled after it (for now), and in addition to owning the DVD (natch) and a poster (true dat), I almost when so far as to buy a t-shirt featuring the film’s box art and final line of the movie, but was stopped when it was confirmed whoever made the shirt is lazy and printed them all with a crooked image.
But I digress.
When I first saw the film, I was confused. While not egregiously convoluted (like Primer), the confluence of events that lead up to the final line of the movie, which attempts to reveal why everything happened, does make one tend to scratch their head. There are little nuances and subtleties that have a tendency to be overlooked and picked up on only during second viewing. One of the aspects of the film that kept people guessing was Simon. Who is he? First some background.
Several theories have been put forth concerning Simon’s nature and his relationship to the events of the film, one of which I would like to discuss in greater detail. Ellen Datlow, in a book co-written by Terri Windling, postulates that Simon is a “malignant genius loci,” as opposed to Mary’s alternate personality. For those who didn’t waste $45,000 on Classics degree, a genius loci is a spirit from Roman mythology that dwells within a specific place, often serving as a protector. If used in a contemporary manner, it is often considered the atmosphere of a location as opposed to an incorporeal being, serving as a major principle of the New Rationalism architectural movement. Placed within the context of what happens to Gordon, this place is clearly the human mind.
<sidenote> When writing this article I took Datlow’s interpretation of “genius loci” to refer to the hospital itself. When watching the film again and coming up with my argument, it became clear the place she was referring to is the human mind. However, if my initial assumptions are indeed true, then Datlow’s interpretation is very, very wrong. </sidenote>
Throughout the film Simon’s voice is heard, typically in situations where Gordon’s sanity is revealed to be on shaky ground. The first instance occurs when Simon and Phil are making their initial inspections of Danvers. In an intensely creepy scene that sets the mood for the film, Simon introduces himself to Gordon by simply saying “Hello, Gordon” and forgoing any pleasantries. It should be known that at this point the audience is completely unaware of who – or what – Simon is.
The argument that Simon can be considered an alternate personality is given ample evidence with his appearance through the mouth of Mary following the utter breakdown of her other two personalities. With Gordon, we’re never given any indication that he is in any way apart of him. However, one of Mary’s alternate’s, Princess, claims to be unaware of Simon’s presence, something that is not entirely common in cases of multiple personality disorder. Billy, however, is perfectly aware of Simon, and at one point in the film states that he is “asleep” and that he would not wake him for Mary’s sake.
From this it can be rationalized that Simon is indeed a malevolent force that lies dormant in the mind waiting for the opportunity to introduce himself and exert his influence over the individual. Billy’s awareness of Simon, as well as Simon’s introduction via Mary may lend credence to the notion that he is an alternate, though given the events that surround his introduction to Mary and Gordon this argument loses a modicum of credibility. To reconcile this, I posit that Simon is an inherent personality trait, or to extend this even further a distinct emotion, that manifested itself as an alternate personality in Mary, and although not expressly stated, an alternate of Gordon whose presence is kept secret and seen only when Gordon enters his dissociative state. I would thus agree with Datlow’s principle argument, though feel the dismissal of Simon as an alternate fails to take into account several key aspects of the film.
Although Mary and Gordon are similar, their primary difference lies in the fact that Mary, as far as we know, exhibited no signs of stress, anxiety or mental weakness before falling on the China doll. Simon utilized Gordon’s weakness by introducing himself earlier on (“Hello Gordon, do you know who I am?”), whereas with Mary he waited for an opportunity, though perhaps her other multiple personalities presented themselves before Simon made his appearance.
Any confusion regarding Simon’s true nature is summed up in the final line of the film: “I live in the weak and the wounded, doc.”
RSS Feed
Ummmm… I think I have your copy of Session 9.
I watched it last night, so no, you don’t.
Well I think it WAS yours and maybe you bought another one because I didn’t buy it. My reasoning for this is I still have your burned copy of Oldboy too.
I haven’t seen this movie since it came out, so I’m going on memory here…
But what about the possibility that Simon is indeed this spirit that inhabits all of us, but lies dormant until needed. It might be away of reconciling the genius loci of the mind and that of Danvers.
That’s a good interpretation, but I’ve always thought of Simon as a demon (or malicious force, if you want to avoid specifics) who latches onto people when they’re at their weakest psychologically – I’d assumed that Mary was already having psychological problems when she was injured and Simon took over. Then it uses the moment of madness that follows severe pain and takes over.
Much like the demon possession in Paranormal Activity, it’s a force that can only infect the stressed.
Man, I’ve got to watch this movie again.
I don’t like the idea of Simon being a demon, as I think Anderson tried to keep the film as grounded in reality as possible.
hi http://www.youtube.com/user/DohanBermann this is a free horror on youtube
I loved reading everyone’s input…however I don’t think that it is one of the best fear inspiring movies of all time although it was very well done…there are many movies with the theme of insane asylums which I found to be much more frightening…and not because of gore or cute ladies screaming…the most horrifying film I have seen is called Martyrs.
This is also my favorite horror movie of all time. I think mostly because of what you describe in the genesis, or “why” of Simon. The possibility that “Simon” could exist inside all of us, and is waiting for a chance to exert control is most disturbing to me. To me “Simon” represents the breaking point within all of us. Not evil persay, but the ability for people in their weakest moment or at their lowest moment to lose reason, and succomb to their most base desires. With all the pressures and pain of modern life, all the stimuli and images we get bombarded with, all the slights and hurts–it amazes me sometimes how much we as human beings must hold back, and how much we have to internalize to keep going. It’s a forgive and forget sort of society really, you know. For Gordon, the boiling water isn’t so much the last straw, but a catalyst, a reason, to expunge those base thoughts, those awful thoughts we tuck away and never act upon. And once he starts, once Simon takes over, there is no going back, he becomes a puppet. The one thing I think that makes all this ultimately debateable is the possible red herring of Hank. Why does Jeff see his “ghost”? If “Simon” is something inside of us–is he working on all of the Haz-mat workers? Is Danvers the sort of place that gives the Simon part of us a better chance to exert control? ANYWAY I could go on and on…just had to post my lengthy thoughts, since I have never heard of anyone having this movie being their favorite,too.
I think of Simon not as simply an alternate personality that lies dormant in Gordon until it is finally awakened. I think of Simon as a “evil entity”.
There are many reasons I think this is so. I agree with Ellen Datlow’s arguments. In addition to those, I posit something which cannot be explained (to my knowledge) under the “multiple personalities” theory.
We see from Mary’s files that she is patient #444. Later, Gordon ventures into the cemetery (which is never shown) by some force which is implied to be drawing him toward there. Then, we see Gordon with his phone sitting on the tree branch in the open field. This field is NOT the graveyard. Yet we see the broken headstone of Mary’s grave, labeled #444. Gordon cannot have had any knowledge of Mary’s patient number because he never knew anything about Mary and the nine recorded therapy sessions. Because the grave of Mary is disturbed and shown in close proximity to Gordon outside the graveyard, there is the implication that Gordon has visited Mary’s grave and perhaps moved/disturbed it.
What brought about the connection between Gordon and Mary’s grave? Who or what told Gordon to go into the graveyard? And, assuming he did in fact disturb Mary’s grave, who or what led him to do that? Under the “multiple personality” theory, there is no connection between Mary’s Simon and Gordon’s Simon, only a parallel. There is no way to account for Gordon’s knowledge of grave #444. Under the “evil entity” theory (as I call it), however, these events make perfect sense, because Mary’s Simon is reaching out to Gordon. It is Simon, the evil entity, which connects Gordon to Mary and her grave. For this reason, and for those laid out by Datlow, I find the “multiple personalities” theory ultimately unsatisfying.
Please comment on my analysis. I welcome any discussion/criticism/corrections.
“Under the “evil entity” theory (as I call it), however, these events make perfect sense, because Mary’s Simon is reaching out to Gordon. It is Simon, the evil entity, which connects Gordon to Mary and her grave.”
Are you implying that the disturbing of the grave is the result of Simon reaching out to Gordon? Simon introduced himself to Gordon for the first time while they were touring the hospital. I think the relationship between Mary and Gordon is merely tangential. Her story told through the sessions is merely the method Anderson chose to tell the story of Gordon’s downfall.
Too much exegetical analysis isn’t necessary, and I think makes the proper interpretation all the more difficult to discern. In my opinion, the reasoning is pretty simple, and I more or less agree with Datlow. I do, however, think the role of the asylum deserves further investigation. On the surface it’s merely a convenient location through which everything can occur, but deep down I think it might be much more than that.
“Are you implying that the disturbing of the grave is the result of Simon reaching out to Gordon?”
Perhaps. Or at least provides a connection between Mary and Gordon. Under the multiple personalities theory, this connection is unaccounted for.
If this is not so, then how do you account for the broken headstone laid on the ground beside Gordon?
I think we saw Gordon sleeping in his truck at some point. Could the vision of Gordon near the broken headstone have been a dream? If so, then that is very Nightmare on Elm Streetish. If Simon could reach Gordon through a dream… that changes a lot. Perhaps the “weakened state” of sleep was the chink in the armor that Simon needed to embed in Gordon’s psyche? (when the time was right, of course)… and could this dream have happened just before he killed his family? If so – that might have been the point when the switch in Gordon’s mind was flipped – or better said, when Simon “took over.”
QUESTION: Do we know exactly when Gordon killed his family? Taking the order of appearance in the narrative as the chronological order of events (which is usually reasonable) would say that he killed his family before beginning the job. Along the same lines, when he said he “hit his wife”, is it possible that he was not referring to actually killing his family?
Also, I originally believed that Simon inhabited Gordon when he killed his family. But now I believe it’s possible that Simon may not have come into (or developed within) Gordon until later. Perhaps having killed his family and being pressured by the job created in Gordon just enough weakness for Simon to take over. Any thoughts?
“Could the vision of Gordon near the broken headstone have been a dream?”
Personally, I don’t think so. The motif of a dream is conspicuously absent from the narrative. While it’s possible that Gordon may have been in a dream-like state when he encountered Hank before lobotomizing him in the Danvers basement, the audience is never placed behind the lens of a dream. We, the audience, never see through the perspective of a dream. And if that was a dream, then a great many other scenes may have been dreams as well—so many that the plot would be undefined, just the product of anyone’s interpretation. I don’t think that’s what the writers wanted to achieve.
I think you’re missing many key things. Gordon did kill his wife. One thing you’re probably not aware of is Gordon’s tale is inspired by true events. A man killed his family, including his dog, then continued going to work as if nothing happened. The same happened to Gordon, though he was clearly “out of sorts,” for lack of a better phrase. In the end, the idea was to show that Gordon had no become a patient in the hospital.
So he did kill his wife, his baby and his dog the day he got the job. She spilled the water on him, and in his heightened state of stress, Simon took over and compelled him to kill his family. Beyond that, it’s mostly a blur to him, which is paralleled in Mary’s insistence that she has no idea what happened “that night in Lowell.”
“If this is not so, then how do you account for the broken headstone laid on the ground beside Gordon?”
If anything, simple symbolism, or just an allusion to the fact that Mary is indeed dead. If you look behind Gordon, he is in fact in the cemetery. I think Anderson was just trying to be spooky with the careful placement of #444.
“Gordon’s tale is inspired by true events. A man killed his family, including his dog, then continued going to work as if nothing happened”
Can you find and post a link to this true story? I’d like to read it.
Hi, Just want to say that I saw this movie for the first time last night and am just intrigued!
To the above poster Daniel, I haven’t found a link to the actual story yet (haven’t looked) but while I was looking for discussion on the movie I found an interview on IMDB with Caruso and Anderson:
http://www.aboutfilm.com/features/session9/interview.htm
Feel free to read the whole interview if you like, but the part about the story being inspired by true events is brought up shorty after Anderson enters the interview and talks about how he used to drive past Danvers frequently.