Comments on Film Walrus Reviews: Review of Possession (1981)

With the image of the crucified Christ and the lin...

2012-01-28T05:31:24.992-06:00

With the image of the crucified Christ and the line "God is a disease" this film brings to mind the title's New Testament resonances. Only there is no exorcism here. The demons, like the violent, "bear it away. Its surreal dystopic atmosphere reminds one of Lynch's "Eraserhead" (not to mention the dysfunctional marriage therein) and the bloody scenes recall the drippy horror of Cronenberg or even "Hellraiser". "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf" cannot help come to mind either. These elements, which can only be fumblingly adumbrated, are fused seamlessly in this movie so that it is not derivative in any way. The viewer here has his/her sensibilities pushed to the limit, but, like war or purgatory, it is a blessed thing to live through.

The pink sock... Maybe a jokey reference to the 1...

2011-01-20T06:48:55.895-06:00

The pink sock...

Maybe a jokey reference to the 1931 film Frankenstein in which Fritz the manservant similarly stops on a staircase to adjust his sock, before carrying on his way up to create the monster?

Leaves, I do think all of Zulawski's work is ...

2010-10-10T16:33:05.491-05:00

Leaves,

I do think all of Zulawski's work is interesting, provocative and often even brilliant, but for me, none of it has yet come close to rivaling Possession. I've seen all the films you've mentioned and also Boris Godounov and Fidelity, both of which I would place amongst his best work (though few, perhaps, would agree). I own Szamanka, but I've yet to actually sit down and watch it.

I think that Possession works so well for me because it mixes Zulawski's style and themes with the horror genre that I so love (especially the art-horror subgenre) and because it stars some of my favorite actors giving such great performances. I also think Possession manages to be just coherent enough to work as a powerful story, while still being loose enough to allow tons of interpretation and rewatchability.

Possession was also my first Zulawski film, which often makes a difference.

Have you seen any of Zulawski's other films? W...

2010-10-10T07:10:10.950-05:00

Have you seen any of Zulawski's other films? Walrus? I think Possession is in the middle of his work as far as quality goes. You should definitely check out some of his others, especially Diabel, On the Silver Globe, La femme publique, My Nights Are More Beautiful Than Your Days, L'import c'est d'aimer, and The Third Part of the Night. They're all amazing.

When I used to live at my parents house in Montrea...

2010-07-29T22:16:16.966-05:00

When I used to live at my parents house in Montreal I would stay up late on saturdays in my room without them knowing it.I would watch a french channel called radioquebec because they would show european movies and often there was nudity in them,I was thirteen or forteen at the time and it was a kick.So one night there was this strange movie called "Possession",I didn't know what it was about but when I saw the beautiful Adjani I was hooked,but little did I know what was in store,I am thirty eight now and I can say that the scene in the subway tunnel with Adjani screaming has given me nightmares for years.Slasher flicks do not scare me,Vampires, Zombies etc. make me laugh.But this total insane unexpainable scene in my mind has never been topped,I still get goosebumps thinking about it.Was the movie any good?I have no clue,I would have to see it again,I havent seen it since I was a teenager but I am not sure if I have the guts to see it again.

And the winner of the most ludicrous phrase of you...

2010-07-07T22:15:37.335-05:00

And the winner of the most ludicrous phrase of your blog goes to:
"She delivers a performance packed with unrivaled intensity and bravery (dwarfing even Isabella Rossellini in “Blue Velvet” (1986)) as the consequences of her unhappy marriage overtake her."
Wahhh-Hahaha!!! And a perfect "10" score because is that kind of movie that you cant really understand...Oh, poor donky balls sucker!

Glad to see that the film has latched onto your mi...

2010-06-24T17:15:52.723-05:00

Glad to see that the film has latched onto your mind! I'm too overwhelmed to address all of your thoughts, but I want to interrogate your creatures-as-the-souls-of-the-men hypothesis.

As I understand it, there is really only one creature in the film (born during the subway miscarriage scene) that evolves into the Mark doppelganger. The dramatic changes in its appearance are a result of Zulawski's confessed lack of budget and Rambaldi's lack of time.

Though we could interpret the stages of the creature as reflections of the men's soul, I just don't see it. I think the creature is more a projection of Anna, whose intimacy with it is in sharp contrast to the men, who can hardly comprehend it and who freeze up when confronting it.

Then too, it serves as a symbol of Anna and Mark's "aborted" and "monstrous" relationship which is already falling apart before the monster even arrives on the scene. In that sense the creature is a result of the physical and emotional absence of Mark and the embodiment of Anna's initially repressed responses her loneliness, frustration and neglected mental illness. It is only at the end of the film when Mark is able to accept Anna fully and share a relationship that pierces his banal logic and enters into mutual madness, secrecy and transgression that they are able to be truly reunited. The consummation, as part of the film's inevitable logic, is a violent double suicide. The implication that their doppelgangers are about to meet in the final scene and may repeat the relationship in some bizarre cycle might seem to offer hope that this time things will go better, but it is played out so creepily, not to mention apocalyptically, that I think otherwise.

The only Zulawski forum's I know of is here, although its threadbare:
http://andrzej-zulawski.com/AZF/viewforum.php?f=5&sid=8d07ffadc06be24f3978667367f98a55

I think I might understand the Mark's doppelga...

2010-06-24T09:03:53.505-05:00

I think I might understand the Mark's doppelganger. It was stated as Mark met this doppelganger that it was made/created and was ready. This could be something like a projected self that is held in the mind of A about B, a reduction of a sort which could, as in this case, be used as a weapon against the original. For example, A is out to get B, but B casts [(their own thoughts of A) = A'], at A to make them doubt or think less of themselves. The fired bullets being the terminating/successfulness of A' against A. So there's some kind of balance, much like when one hears the idea of one person in a relationship always needing the other one less and is thus "in control" in the relationship. When Anna killed herself on the stairs it was to state that what she needed from Mark was attained and was sated by it and thus removed herself metaphorically from the scene. There's much more to go on about the doppelganger after that moment on the staricase, and then even more with Anna's doppelganger, but I'll leave it there.
++++Is there some forum where these kinds of ideas can be discussed?

Other than that I believe there's a good body ...

2010-06-24T08:51:39.738-05:00

Other than that I believe there's a good body of underlying themes mostly relating to death, the possession of loved one's and even one's own life. The dichotomy of Faith(fate?) and Chance frame this in that Chance is something that is done to one in life while Faith is something one implements to grasp to what is in one's life (while they still have it). Anna said something along the lines of "Faith must be held/tended to like a child" in the scene subsequent to what seems to be her intent to murder becoming known as a conscious (subtextual) action to handle having lost her connection to Chance. Murder in this case is purely a subjective device for Action as done via Faith as opposed to Chance. To Do and not be Done To (see the film "Izo" for more of this). I'd love to go on but I watched it over two days and had to delete it to free up some HD space and I notice my inappropriately prolix tendencies rising up here. That and perhaps someone with a better handle of the liberal arts would be better at unraveling the complex thematic language this film speaks in. How about that dog? ...and "Almost"? the doubles? the boy in the tub? Ah! SPOILER: The boy is face down in the water at the end while Mark is in water as if face down but upright at the door... :hmm... the subway tunnel scene with the "miscarriage", children as continuity of the self being an act of Faith against Chance, the doubles/children...and act of subverting/murdering what the Faith of others' brings against us(Chance)....Hmm... ah! Similarly the pinksocked-man being the counter to Mark's work which could be defined as Mark's obligatory, mandatory Faith for survival, that which sustains his personal Faith, is what becomes Chance acting against the pinksocked-man, thus the action scenes at the end bring resolution to the exterior/work life of Mark after the film prior to this explaining his interior/home life. Anna finding Mark saying "how could I *not* find you now!?" seems to be saying that there is some understanding on Mark's part of Anna's plight in that he has taken up, or at least shared with Anna, the nature of what he does for her... it being just as "cuttingly certain" as her own private Acts she takes up in his absence(to fill the loneliness/livingdeath/loss of him). But yes, the dopplegangers are a tad unclear to me at the moment.

I think the Lovecraftian connection is slight in t...

2010-06-24T08:51:18.678-05:00

I think the Lovecraftian connection is slight in that one needs to put themselves into the position of the characters that see these unfathomable creatures as if in real life; what would you do upon seeing them yourself? A likely response would be to become unhinged with all your preconceptions and the structures of which you thought life itself were based upon become dashed and your mind untethered.
^ And that's the reading only if you take this to be a pure fantasy piece. The other reading I have of it is that this everything that's seen is a kind of middle ground of explicit, concrete/obvious issues mixed with embodied subtextual elements, the latter's tentstakes being the topics and references presented in the less firmly contextualized ramblings and mutterings. Am i being Capt. Obvious here? So if the viewing of these creatures drives them to madness, perhaps this act itself upon seeing such "gorey truth" or "unexpectness", perhaps the whole relationship each character has with Anna up to the point of seeing them as an exposition of the coming point, is itself their own recognition of what one might see in themselves when they have a palpable, emotional recognition of their own mortality (endings/divorce/no longer possessing what one hoped to possess in life, if not life itself, the terror one can be driven to feel when facing the cruel and hollow infinity of death, garblejarble, etc.)
Well, back to the point I was going to make earlier relating to the "creatures". There's the conversation had near the end with Heinrich's mother about his soul being separate from his body; I take this to mean that those grotesque creatures are the souls of the men in the film. Try to identify the keeper of each one since their number grows as do her victims.

Wow, this was one of the weirdest flicks I've ...

2010-06-11T18:27:40.174-05:00

Wow, this was one of the weirdest flicks I've ever seen; only explanation that I can possibly fathom is that thing was something out of Lovecraftian lore, as it seemed to drive those mad that saw it; Still haven't worked out something for wife's doppleganger yet (maybe her and the husband's double at the end share similar origin?)

Wow, this was one of the weirdest flicks I've ...

2010-06-11T18:27:09.438-05:00

So true. From the commentary it seems that Żuławsk...

2009-05-06T11:42:00.000-05:00

So true. From the commentary it seems that Żuławski doesn't even fully understand it himself.
This is truly one of the most amazing films I have seen.

Jessica, Possession is certainly one of the most ...

2009-05-03T16:48:00.000-05:00

Jessica,

Possession is certainly one of the most worthwhile films to rewatch over and over again. I've seen it many times now and I keep catching new nuances. I suspect (from the director's commentary and his writings) that there may be no single key that unlocks the meanings in a total and cohesive way, but I find it quite satisfying nonetheless. If there was some simple answer that summarized the themes and explained every detail, perhaps it wouldn't beguile us as much. In that sense, I'm happy that it compels people to think about it, even to the point of occasional frustration, and to revisit it often.

Excellent review. I too wish for more understandin...

2009-05-03T16:16:00.000-05:00

Excellent review. I too wish for more understanding of this amazing movie. I do appreciate your comments about the camera work and sound.
There is just so much here I feel I could watch Possession a thousand times and still not see/hear/feel everything.

i would also like to comment that your review, did...

2009-03-13T02:33:00.000-05:00

i would also like to comment that your review, didnt cover what i was looking for in terms of the braking down of themes. fantastic interpretation of camera angles and shot types though.things i would never of picked up upon myself. do you know of any articles that discus what the film was about. thank you

Well, ok, i admit i was too hasty in calling your ...

2009-01-06T18:09:00.000-06:00

Well, ok, i admit i was too hasty in calling your review 'not deep enough'. I should have said it was not the one i was looking for or it was the one with a quite limited framework. And it's really easy to understand taking into consideration a wide range of themes and elements engaged in the film. In any way i'd like to thank you for the review because it really succeeds in throwing light upon the themes it was intended to.

I'm a Bordwellian when it comes to doing critical ...

2009-01-05T20:11:00.000-06:00

I'm a Bordwellian when it comes to doing critical analysis, meaning I try to study and images and sounds and discuss the concrete aspects of the film. I intentionally tried to leave broader speculation about the "inherent meaning of the whole picture" in the hands of the reader though I hope the themes I touched upon help can help encourage that thought process.

As for the "nonsignificant things", I'm not sure what parts of the film or my review you are referring to. I just talk about the elements I'm interested in.

Thу review is not deep enough. It concentrates mai...

2009-01-05T18:20:00.000-06:00

Thу review is not deep enough. It concentrates mainly on the work of the actors and the operator but a few words are said about the inherent meaning of the whole picture and its particular elements (despite this 'love-pain' collaboration and some other nonsignificant things).

Rich, I totally hear you on the need for subtitles...

2008-02-17T11:41:00.000-06:00

Rich, I totally hear you on the need for subtitles. I like to turn the subtitles on for every movie I watch, even English language ones. There are some semi-incoherent ravings by Heinrich that I would especially like to have clarified.

Great review of this amazingly surreal movie! I ju...

2008-02-17T02:20:00.000-06:00

Great review of this amazingly surreal movie! I just finished watching it for the first time, even though I read about it in Weldon's Psychotronic Video and it sounded interesting then.
That movie works as a metaphor in so many levels.
I only wish that the Anchor Bay version I got had subtitles as Adjani and other actors were difficult to understand.

Have you wondered entirely why Anna continues to w...

2007-11-06T23:05:00.000-06:00

Have you wondered entirely why Anna continues to wear the same dress throughout the film - how long is the story taking place? A few days, a week? Also, there is a scene of dialogue where Anna and Mark are sitting on the couch and Anna starts fidgeting with her hands and screams something like "...for no one!" I can't catch all of the dialogue because of the thick accents. What is she saying?

Thanks for the correction! I have now fixed the na...

2007-09-16T21:36:00.000-05:00

Thanks for the correction! I have now fixed the names.

Loved your review...but you got Adjani's name wron...

2007-09-16T19:05:00.000-05:00

Loved your review...but you got Adjani's name wrong - it's *ISABELLE*, not Isabella.

Why bother reviewing a movie when you could just s...

2007-04-23T03:01:00.000-05:00

Why bother reviewing a movie when you could just say "pure, unadulterated, heavenly awesome"?
I think I had no idea what sort of crazyness I was getting into upon my first viewing. I seem to remember watching it twice, though.... which is certainly not a bad thing. I think I didn't know I could appreciate something like "Possession" at first.