Talk:The Others (2001 film)

Spanish Film?

Let´s not get carried away by nationalistic feelings; The Others is a coproduction, but internationally recognized to be a Spanish film.

The fact that it´s in English has NOTHING to do with the nationality of a movie--this is such basic knowledge! It scares me to see such comments. The film is a co-production of the following companies, although it is held to be a Spanish film by the Spanish Ministry of Culture and veritable cultural "institutions" like the BBC:

Dimension Films (USA) Cruise/Wagner Productions (C/W Productions)(USA) Sogecine (Spain), Producciones Escorpion (Spain) Le Studio Canal Plus (FRance)

Please replace the category!

---

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)

===

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.

Charles must be dead, as he has no physical problems romancing his wife. She must be of the same 'substance' as he is. What's not clear is where he is going and why. It looks like a loose end in the movie. Kidman would have the answer, as she would need to apply the right character for the scene. The script would most likely have the answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worscritic (talk • contribs) 01:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

Time Period of Film

"Upstairs, Anne and Nicholas discover the old woman is acting as a medium in a séance with Victor's parents. Judging from the clothes of Victor's parents, it seems that the actual time period is some time during the early 1950s."

I thought the Victor's mother's clothes seemed more 40's than 50's, especially her hat. I also thought the implication of the film is that the murders had happened in very recent past (in real time) - perhaps not exactly the 5 days or so that Grace seems to think, but not a matter of years, either. I don't want to edit the page because the author may have some aha! detail that proves the filmmakers' intent to set the seance in the 1950's, but I'd sure like to know what it is. 68.83.143.100 05:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)essex9999

I removed the sentence - when it happened is not really material to the plot. Mon Vier 13:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The condition people have where they have to stay out of the light. What is the name of that condition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.238.240.218 (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that the time period is in the 50s, the living boy is named Victor which strongly suggests he was born after the end of WW2 and Victory in Europe. --Kaleda (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The others poster.jpg

Image:The others poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong link on James Bentley

Obviously someone linked the author to the kid playing nicolas... please fix that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.113.7 (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Charles being dead and knowing it or not?

The plot description says Charles is not aware of the fact that he is dead. Is that for sure? My personal interpretation always was, he is dead and knows it, says goodbye to his beloved while still being shocked by what Grace has done to the children, and then has to return to his own eternal afterlife - heaven, hell, nimbus, haunting as a ghost on the battlefields of the front or so. Just an interpretation, and I can't exactly remember how I came to this conclusion, since some time has passed by since I've seen the movie. Has anyone evidence, sources or so? Or the other way round: can the actual theory in the article - Charles knows nothing about his own death - be proved?--JakobvS (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a comment made by the helpers that states that he probably doesn't know where he is. Maybe later he gains some awareness, but the implication of the film is that he's oblivious.Luminum (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources of inspirations

I second the fact that the statement in the introduction that the film is based on "The Turn of the Screw" needs to be removed. I can't find any evidence to support this claim, beyond an article stating that they are similar in theme. I am removing the claim again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.160.6 (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The article states that the movie is in part based on Henry James' classic, The Turn of the Screw. This statement has no grounds, the only common points between the movie and the novel being that both are about ghosts, the fact that the protagonist is a female with psychological issues taking care of two children, and perhaps the general atmosphere. The reference to Henry James' novel was added by IP 195.38.110.129 on Jun 14 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Others_%282001_film%29&diff=prev&oldid=219272261 . I am removing this unsubstantiated claim.

A very likely source is a TV episode, titled "The Others", a 1953 episode of the series "Suspense" (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0714085.../ and http://www.tv.com/suspense/the-others/episode/111936/summary.html?tag=ep_guide;summary), written by Richard Lortz. Lortz also wrote a play by the same title, represented in 1966 at Leatherhead (see http://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsL/lortz-richard.html). Furthermore, he wrote the screenplay for yet another TV movie of the same title for the series Armchair Theatre, which appeared on ITV in 1970 (see http://webspace.webring.com/people/th/hauntedtv/70to75.htm).

I am not sure whether the 1953 episode and the play are based on the same plot device (people believing they are seeing ghosts then discovering they are the ghosts). The 1970 episode, however, definitively does, as the link to the synopsis cited above proves, and as my memory confirms (I watched this episode on italian TV many years ago, don't ask how many).

I have introduced the lines The title and the main idea of the plot are taken from the homonymous episode of the british TV series Armchair Theatre, broadcast on 15 June 1970 on the ITV network.

I saw they were removed by Luminus, who stated that it is original research (and this could be) and that it is unproved speculation. However the link I provided proves that the connection with the 1970 TV episode is no speculation (the connection with the 1953 episode and the 1966 is, and thus I have not cited those as possible sources of inspiration in the wiki-article). Toniok (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

An update: it seems more and more likely that the 1953 TV episode used the same plot device: see http://ctva.biz/US/Anthology/Suspense.htm , and look for the episode "The Others" (season 6 ep. 09). The plot summary says: A young married woman who with her husband revisits a newly bought country estate during a blizzard and is terrified to see a ghostly family occupying the place. The hallucinations resolve into an ironic twist of fate. Probably the ironic twist of fate is the realization that the protagonists are dead. I am trying to get my hands on this episode. Anybody can help?

Furthermore, I found out that the 1966 play was also titled "Voices", it ran on Broadway for a little while (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070888/trivia), and was the source of yet another movie by the same title, also going by the alternate title "Nightmare", see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070888/ . Now that I discovered this, I doubt whether the movie I saw in Italy was this 1973 "Voices/Nightmare" or the 1970 episode "The others". The plot device/shocking ending is the same, as they are all based on Lortz's script/play, but i believe it is more likely that it was the 1973 movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toniok (talk • contribs) 12:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You have successfully demonstrated that perhaps all these episodes and plays are connected and inspired by one another. The 1970's link only seems to "prove" that Lortz adapted the episode from one of his previous works.

What none of your sources shows is a direct connection in any way to the 2001 film that was written by Alejandro Amenabar. You need to find a source that clearly shows that Amenabar was inspired by or intentionally adapted themes or plotlines from these plays and horror episodes when he wrote the film. It doesn't matter if the titles just happen to be the same, or even that the plot is the same. An article (and not a forum, or other less reputable source of information) has to say in some form (either he says it in an interview or someone involved with the film says that it was indeed part of the creative process) that these past works are involved. Without it, it's speculation and it would be baseless to claim that they are lifted or in any way involved with these past works. In fact, despite all the history about Lortz, he has no connection to the film.

As a side note, if you happen to find a film review that points to these previous works, what you can add is that the film has been compared to those past works. However, that is not the same as saying that it was inspired by or based on those works.

I looked around, and every interview I have found that asks Amenabar about how he wrote the story and where he got his inspiration from fail to mention these other works. He either says that it just happened as he was writing it or that he drew inspiration from old ghost stories he read as a child.[1][2][3] Not to mention, he wrote the film in Spanish first and grew up in Spain his entire life. He may have never seen these obscure English horror program episodes or this play.

From what I can tell, you've outlined a detailed history of the inspiration of Richard Lortz' Leatherhead/1970 iteration of a ghost story that came from a Suspense episode. Even then, the Suspense inspiration lacks a direct connection, but the major issue here is that none of those versions (nor any of their citations) connect them to Amenabar's 2001 film. Look around and see if you can find an explicitly stated, direct connection. If so, add it in as the main citation. If you can't, then the section should stay removed. If nothing shows that this film was actually inspired by or lifted from these other works, then it should be treated as an original work on its own. Luminum (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is no connection, it would be an amazing coincidence: same twist ending and same title!

You are right, it is unlikely Amenábar knew the Suspense series, the Armchair Theatre, or the plays. But the 1973 movie is not that obscure, I saw it on italian TV in the early 80s. Anyway, if Amenábar knew this movie, he must have done some research to find out that the original plot was called The Others. I am trying to contact him to know for sure. 16:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toniok (talk • contribs)

Be sure to get some kind of formal documentation. Saying you contacted him and that he said yes obviously isn't going to be reliable or a third party. It's a matter of "on the record." Suggesting that he probably saw it is still speculative at best. I don't find it hard to believe that this kind of story could be generated independently over and over. It's a pretty generic ghosts-in-the-house story and the twist is a pretty generic "we were dead all along" ending. Not much to that at all and I'm sure it's been done time and again in kid's ghost stories and even sophisticated literature. Romeo and Juliet is the same as Tristan and Isolde which is the same as Pyramus and Thisbe.Luminum (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Plot: Order of Events

Not sure how important this is, or to what standards WIkipedia expects these articles to be written in, but the order of events in the Plot section doesn't accurately reflect the way they occur in the movie. Also, the tone in sentences like 'It is then that they realize the awful truth [...]' seems to me to be a little more subjective than we have licence for in an online encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aron7913 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Time (a week or two ago)

Something that always struck me as odd about the movie, is the statement that the servants left about a week or two prior to when the movie starts; only to be followed almost immediately by the "haunting" or odd things in the house. Realistically speaking, a house would not sell that quickly after a murder/suicide, meaning that there may be some kind of time dilation in effect for Kiddman and the children's characters. This is further suggested at the end of the movie as we see the family (the living) moving from the house. The car they are loading their belongings in, though seen for only a moment, is several years more modern than would be found in 1945. Given this, it could be reasonably suggested that time moves differently for the ghosts, most likely far slower, than it does for the living. Would this be worth mentioning somewhere in the article?Kitsunedawn (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No, because it's original research. Those issues are speculations based in assumptions about the real world, and the film is a piece of fiction, and those disjoints could just be due to issues in the script that needed to be quickly passed over or even errors in the script itself. Since it is not addressed in the film, nor are there indications that time dialation was an intended element of the film by those involved with the film, it remains a speculative conclusion.Luminum (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The Others 1957 film

Does this film have any plot or remake connection to the film "The Others" 1957? It was about a governess that battles to save two children from an evil supernatural force. Seems like a similar plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.211.198 (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The original 6th sense?

Seems so much like the M.Night film that was years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4101:4167:7C3C:D4F4:2D20:FCB8 (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The Others actually came out a few years after. Jikybebna (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)