Talk:The Others (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

I disagree with the plot outline here. Surely Charles is himself dead, he is distant because of what he experienced on the battlefield, and because he is disgusted that his wife killed their children and herself. He leaves because he has to return to where he died. If others agree, it ought to be changed--Dub8lad1 16:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, so I changed it to ambiguous silence. I think he must be dead as well - his talk of going "back to the Front" seems to indicate that what happened in the living world does not necessarily correlate with what's going on in the dead world. Mon Vier 20:22, 10 April 2006 (BST)

Yes, he is dead, and it is pretty clear. It is implied that the war never ends for soldiers killed on the battlefield.

Charles is indeed dead, no argument there. He is cold and distance because of experiences on the battle field and because he is fully aware he is no longer alive. As for being upset with his wife, not so clear. It can be argued that he is disgusted and repulsed by her actions, but it isn't so obviously explained in the film.

[edit] Pics of the dead

Anyone know if this detail--certainly the eeriest part of the film for me--is based on real folklore? Marskell 08:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it happened. The Victorians were a strange bunch when it came to death! Often children who died were photographed in "life-like" poses: photography was expensive in those days and the parents might not have had any other pictures to remember them by. Though maybe we're still strange because apparently Victorian death pictures go for a lot of money on eBay. There are some available to view on the internet too - these are really disturbing and not for the faint-hearted!

http://www.thanatos.net, http://www.sleepingbeauty2.com/images/lg%20pix/64-lg.jpg, http://billblanton.com/pm/pm4.jpg, http://billblanton.com/pm/pm12.jpg, http://www.mikemedhurst.com/images/02255_Postmortem_A.jpg

I can also recommend a book (I needed it for an essay once): Ariès, Philippe. Images of Man and Death. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., USA and London, 1985. It discusses Victorian death imagery rather a bit.-Dub8lad1 14:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Film?

This movie was shot in Spain, with a spanish crew, but was financed by the American company Miramax, and executive produced by the Weinsteins. Why is it a Spanish film? Larry Dunn 17:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's in English. I'll remove the category. Rigadoun (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)