Monster Symbolism

[Nillin]

The town itself is not the same. Silent hill from the Game universe is a quiet little resort town on Toluca Lake. The one in the movie was a mining town in the mountains of West Virginia.

It's still technically the same town though. It's still Silent Hill, and it still has the strange mystical powers it did in the game, although they were possibly brought around in a completely different way (if they were brought about before the events of the first movie we'll never know. No one's really left in town to swap ghost stories around a camp fire. D: )

Silent Hill in the games is supposedly in Maine, not West Virginia, and has a totally different theology surrounding it that more represents the Puritans with the Salem witch trials than a devil worshiping cult trying to raise a demon.

We still don't know where the one in the games is, do we? Wasn't there a topic floating around about how the cars in each game had a prevalent license plate from a different state? I'm not arguing, in case you're wondering, I've just always thought that the location was meant to be ambiguous. Although if it is in Maine, that's quite fine. They have good lobster. XD

"Believers hearken to me! Twenty score men and seven thousand beasts."
The believers, and the twenty score men are the cult, and the seven thousand beasts are the monsters.
So silent hill 2 does have gods.

I'm aware of the Book of the Crimson Ceremony, but that ending, to my knowledge, isn't considered canonical since it can't be achieved on the first run through. That means, in the context of the gods being in Silent Hill 2, it can really be seen as void. It's more of a nod to the history of the town, and a little add-on for the Restless Dreams/Directors Cut of the game.

James actually preforms the ceremony in the Rebirth ending, and Walter's ceremony uses all the same items that James' does.

While Walter's Silent Hill is a reality thanks to the cults influence on Walter, and their beliefs, it really doesn't mean anything. It doesn't strengthen anything; not really.

Dark Alessa not only states that she has many names, but also says "Right now, I'm the dark part of Alessa". Implying that it/she existed before that.

You're forgetting that Dark Alessa believes she's the Devil. That means that she thinks she existed before, but she actually didn't. She's a complete product of Alessa, there was no outside interference involved with her summoning. And also look at JRamirez35's little tidbit there. Alessa's been called a lot of things in her life having something to do with evil, it's likely that she's referring to these.

[JKristine35]

No, Dark Alessa *REPRESENTS* a demon. She is *NOT* an actual demon. You can argue with the script all you want, but you cannot argue with the actress and the director. This is just one of several metaphorical parts of the movie- like when Rose tells them they burned in the fire they started. We know they're not dead, so they didn't LITERALLY burn. They FIGURATIVELY burned. Just as Dark Alessa refers to Sharon as being Alessa's child, when we know for a fact she is not.
Face it, these are two entirely different worlds and Dark Alessa's 'many names' are likely the same 'many names' Alessa has- since she is Alessa.

[rm2kking]

Okay. like I said, this is my interpretation. There may be no god, but I think there is a being that certainly resembles the god nonetheless. I call it god for that simple fact, that it can be nearly equated in function to the god in the games, which, in both worlds, movie and game, is an evil being spawned by Alessa via burning and nurtured by her hate that, through her connection with this being, allows her to manifest a dark otherworld. It is identical in function to the god.

[paladin181]

Also, bringing in Silent Hill 2 as an argument that Gods existed in the movie is a moot point. SH2 wasa game, and exists in the Game's time lines, with the game universe's rules. The Gods existed in SH2 because the existed in all the SH games, but that doesn't point to it being in the movie. Therefore, I debunk your point of the Gods in SH2 as irrelevant to the current discussion.

The movie is loosely based on the idea and atmosphere of the first game. Had they named the town and movie something different, besides the monsters and Alessa's name, there's no true connection to the story and the world of the Silent Hill movie and the Silent Hill games.

[rm2kking]

I am not the one who brought SH2 into the discussion. I just provided information that points to the gods being present in the game.

Like I said, the god is identical in function to Dark Alessa.

[JKristine35]

Except there's not one iota of evidence anywhere in the movie that can't be more easily explained by pointing to Alessa's powers and ability to split souls.

[rm2kking]

Nevertheless, they are identical in function.

think about it.
God was spawned by Alessa after her burning, it was nurtured by hatred, and its influence allows Alessa to manifest the Otherworld.
Dark Alessa was Spawned by Alessa after her burning, she was nurtured by hatred, and her influence allows Alessa to manifest the otherworld.

In all technicality, they are different in name only.
There is no "except" there.

[JKristine35]

Yes, there is. You have to have actual evidence of something before you claim it's real. There's no evidence of any gods in the movie. If there was evidence, I would agree with you- but there's not, so I don't. The video game and the movie are two entirely different worlds with characters and storylines that directly contradict each other. Trying to tie them together is a losing game because Gans never meant the storylines to be the same.

[rm2kking]

The evidence is that Dark Alessa and the god are identical in function, and Dark Alessa's whole "I have many names" spiel.

like I said, my interpretation. Emphasis on the word MY.

[Mis Krist.]

Except there's not one iota of evidence anywhere in the movie that can't be more easily explained by pointing to Alessa's powers and ability to split souls.

Yes there is. It's called PERSONAL INTERPRETATION.

The way I took that scene in the hospital room was that Alessa only had powers AFTER she was burned and mutilated. Remember? You seem to be a big name fan of the movie and Alessa in general. Remember what "Dark" Alessa said about hate turning into something more? And with that scene of the "Dark" Alessa coming into the hospital room, I saw as nothing more than the devil coming along (keeping a face it knew would easily placate Alessa) and offering her the chance to do what she wanted to do, but lacked the strength.

Funnily enough, there's no fucking evidence whatsoever that Alessa had any powers before she was burned. All signs point to her being an innocent child that people took various craps on because it was part of their religion.

[rm2kking]

my interpretation exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me.

[AuraTwilight]

Yes there is. It's called PERSONAL INTERPRETATION.

Since when did Personal Interpretation equal "Iota of evidence?" Plus, the Word of God pretty much debunked any Personal Interpretation on the subject matter, comparable to a story guidebook like the ones Mockingbird often cites.

The way I took that scene in the hospital room was that Alessa only had powers AFTER she was burned and mutilated. Remember? You seem to be a big name fan of the movie and Alessa in general. Remember what "Dark" Alessa said about hate turning into something more? And with that scene of the "Dark" Alessa coming into the hospital room, I saw as nothing more than the devil coming along (keeping a face it knew would easily placate Alessa) and offering her the chance to do what she wanted to do, but lacked the strength.

Perhaps hatred was the key to unlocking Alessa's psychic powers. Seems to be how it works for a lot of psychic young girls in fiction. Since the Dark Alessa is irrefutably Alessa's own hatred, Alessa is metaphorically making a pact by allowing her hate to rule her in exchange for power.

Funnily enough, there's no fucking evidence whatsoever that Alessa had any powers before she was burned. All signs point to her being an innocent child that people took various craps on because it was part of their religion.

This is true, but that doesn't make her any less potent. Keep in mind that Alessa displayed powers before she met her Dark self.

The evidence is that Dark Alessa and the god are identical in function, and Dark Alessa's whole "I have many names" spiel.

like I said, my interpretation. Emphasis on the word MY.

It's like the game universe. I can run around screaming that Dahlia is a psychic too, but since guidebooks say otherwise, my interpretation DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. The guy who WROTE the Movie storyline says that Dark Alessa is an aspect of Alessa's soul, not a supernatural being that exists independent of her. Having an identical function doesn't mean they're the same. I can cut with both a knife and with scissors, but that doesn't mean they're the same.

Besides, they don't even really share the same function. The God was a plot device to serve as a Sealed Evil in a Can, while Dark Alessa was an actual character that served as the Expository Device.

[rm2kking]

You say that they do not serve the same function, then you are wrong.

like I said before,

God= birthed by Alessa after she was burned, nurtured by hatred, allows creation of the otherworld.

Dark Alessa= birthed by Alessa after she was burned, nurtured by hatred, allows creation of the otherworld.

They can be equated. They may not be the same, but they can be equated.

[JKristine35]

Aura hit the nail on the head. YOUR interpretation does *NOT* trump the OFFICIAL interpretation. And the official interpretation mentions no god and no devil. Both Jodelle and Christophe have told us numerous times that Dark Alessa is solely a part of Alessa, nothing more. That would be an OFFICIAL interpretation. As I stated before, you cannot argue with the actress and the director; you simply won't win. Their views trump that of any viewer.
The "I have many names" line has already been explained away as pointing to nothing more than Dark Alessa being Alessa.
And what of the cut scene of Alessa displaying her powers in front of the other children that leads directly into the teasing scene at the beginning of the flashback? There are at least 3 screencaps of this scene floating around the internet. And while any evidence in the movie of Alessa's powers does come *AFTER* the burning, it does *NOT* refute the idea that she had powers *BEFORE* the burning. Her pain would have brought these powers to the surface, as happens in several other movies about psychic children.
This is just one picture from the cut scene, though another one appears (fleetingly) in the movie.

[rm2kking]

I realize all this. But as I said, they can be equated. By equated I mean that the being in the movie that replaces the god is Dark Alessa. Is this not true?

[Mis Krist.]

Aura hit the nail on the head. YOUR interpretation does *NOT* trump the OFFICIAL interpretation. And the official interpretation mentions no god and no devil. Both Jodelle and Christophe have told us numerous times that Dark Alessa is solely a part of Alessa, nothing more. That would be an OFFICIAL interpretation.

Where? Because I've never heard of this before and if it was said "numerous" times you'd think that it would come up. you know. Somewhere or anywhere on this forum*.


*ETA = besides two years after the film came out.

[AuraTwilight]

You say that they do not serve the same function, then you are wrong.

like I said before,

God= birthed by Alessa after she was burned, nurtured by hatred, allows creation of the otherworld.

Dark Alessa= birthed by Alessa after she was burned, nurtured by hatred, allows creation of the otherworld.

They can be equated. They may not be the same, but they can be equated.

Things that share SOME properties are not identical unless they share ALL properties. You can't equate entities just because they do the same thing. WHY do they do it? How do they do it? In what form does the effect manifest? My fingernail and a knife can both cut, but they're not the same.

I realize all this. But as I said, they can be equated. By equated I mean that the being in the movie that replaces the god is Dark Alessa. Is this not true?

Sure, but the same can be said of Alessa and Hannah from the Arcade game. What the hell are you even arguing at this point? The two entities aren't the same and the gods don't exist in the movie universe. Are you trying to save face by trying to claw at some vague, esoteric victory?

[rm2kking]

Sure if you want to call it that. But in my PERSONAL INTERPRETATION I think that dark Alessa MAY be a MANIFESTATION of the god. Thats it, I'm not changing my mind any more than you are changing yours.

I believe Dark Alessa is the movies version of the god. This may not be true. In fact I'm sure its not. Call it wishful thinking, maybe I like to read into the movie too deeply. We all do that for the games anyhow.

Call me wrong, call me a wishful thinker, whatever.
I just like to think of Dark Alessa as some version of the god. It's more interesting to me that way.

There are many things in the movie that can lead one to think that way, Including but not limited to, several things Dahlia says "evil wakes in vengeance, be careful what you choose", The several similarities between dark Alessa and the god, and the circumstances for the conception of each, and Dark Alessa saying "I have many names. Right now, I'm the dark part of Alessa."

Especially the last part, particularly the words "Right now", implying that the being existed previously, and recently has taken on the form of Dark Alessa. Sure this line could be interpreted in other ways, such as possibly meaning that she (Dark Alessa) is the Darkness itself and "Right now" she's manifest as Dark Alessa.

Also theres the scene of Dark Alessa's "birth", where she comes up and promises the immolated Alessa that she can punish all those who wronged her, subsequently shifting the town to the otherworld and creating Sharon. This seems (apparently to the uninformed) like an outside entity taking Alessa's form and tempting her with evil, something the devil would do, and the god is equated with the devil several times throughout the series.

Before This argument/debate I had no idea that Gans denied the existence of the god, so am I at fault for interpreting it the way it makes most sense (If looked at in light of the game)?

[JKristine35]

Jodelle Ferland:

I also play Dark Alessa who is the bad part of Alessa.

Source: http://www.jodelle-ferland.net/media/re ... hill02.php

Jodelle again:

Dark Alessa is the bad part of Alessa, so that's why she's so scary

Source: A phone interview on her official website, Ms. Ferland

Christophe Gans:

Perhaps the common link between all the stories of the Silent Hill world is the concept that this is a place where both reality and personality can be split.

Source: http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/sile ... ng_sil.php

Gans again:

If we want to explain what happened with Alessa, we are dealing with the theme of doppelgangers. For every fan that has read the synopsis of the first game's story in the strategy guide of Silent Hill 3, they all know that we are dealing with doppelgangers--and it's a very cross-cultural concept, both Japan and Europe have this myth. But in Japan, it means that every character has aspects of a God and aspects of a devil inside them. It's a very shocking concept if we attempt to transpose that into a North American, traditionally Christian perspective. The line between good and evil is much more clearly in North America, especially today. And here we are dealing with a character who has the capacity to split, and when you realize that Alessa is no longer one character, but many, it explains the story of the town. It's interesting because the town itself mirrors this fractured psychology--different dimensions, different doubles of the same person

Source: http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=660 ... Id=1002415

[Mis Krist.]

Thank you.