Was there a reason for Charlie’s odd facial features?
I did notice that her brother got that look during his episode at school.
As LLCoolL explained, the actress has a medical condition that effects her facial features, so my guess is that it has nothing to do with the story, it’s just the way she looks. Toni Collete isn’t conventionally beautiful - in fact she can be made to look pretty damned frightening - and I think it all adds to the feeling that there’s something “off” about the family.
Saw it a few weeks ago. Not suspenseful. Boring. Couldn’t wait for it to end.
I saw that but, as I said, the brother seemed to get the same facial expression.
I didn’t follow very closely during the movie, didn’t Charlie have a special relationship with Grandma… even though a male was going to be the one to take over. Wasn’t there something about them wishing Charlie had been a boy, even though she came after her brother?
Based on some friends reports and “Best of” lists, I was superexcited to see this movie. Genre wise, it’s right up my alley and I loved most of the films it was compared to.
What a fetid pile of crap it was. Tedious. Boring. Unlikable characters. Not scary. Horrid pacing. Stupid. And, again, not scary. One cool scene in 120+ minutes of family drama navel gazing.
Easily, it was my least favorite movie of the last decade or so.
It seems to me all the actors were directed to mug for the camera a bit when something freaky was going on (which was often). That, plus makeup and lighting made mother and children look odd / scary. I don’t *think *any similarity was intentional, though. I thought the smirking reflection of the son in the classroom was pretty damned eerie. We’ve seen that kind of thing before(ditto the bird smashing into the window) but it was done way better here.
Good point about why Paimon inhabited Charlie, what with her being a girl and born second. Anyone remember the explanation for that?
And,wow, Crafter_Man and Hamlet, I understand everyone’s mileage varies and all that, but boring? Not scary? Not to challenge your opinions but please tell me what movies you do find interesting and scary(serious question, because I might want to watch them!)
Exorcist. Exorcist III. Alien. Silence of the Lambs. Ringu. The Shining. Cabin in the Woods. The Descent. Audition. Rosemary’s Baby. Cure. The Thing. Seven. Wicker Man. 28 days later. Pulse. [REC]. Scream.
More recently: Get Out. Conjuring. Babadook. Let the Right One In. Train to Busan.
As I said, I can enjoy “horror” movies that aren’t straight horror. For example, one of my favorites is Audition, which, for the first 60% of the film, is almost a rom-com. Which is why, going in, I thought Hereditary would be good. But the first 75% of Hereditary was a painfully slow moving family drama. The main character dealing with her controlling mother’s death, and the idiotic death of Charlie would be staples of some boring crap I’d never want to watch like Ordinary People or Steel Magnolias. Sprinkling in some supposed to be creepy (which wasn’t) stuff like an odd kid’s tongue clicking or words scribbled on walls doesn’t make it any less boring and tedious to watch. And I hated all of the characters except Byrne, so I had little to no investment in what happened to them; I ended up rooting for Paimon.
Finally got around to watching this, and I really liked it. Ari Aster has some twisty things in his head, and he did a great job getting them on the screen. We watched it in UHD on a large screen, which added to the intensity.
Toni Colette was spectacular, that was just a very difficult role.
Like some of the other posters here, I really was convinced it was all in her head. That’s why the transition was so great, starting with Gabriel Byrne’s trip to the attic, but especially when Peter wakes up and starts wandering through the house, and everything starts to really unravel.
That’s going to stick with me for a while. I think maybe I’ll watch something light next…MIDSOMMAR ya think? 
Hereditary debuted on Showtime last month (I think) and I finally saw it. Like many who were disturbed by this movie, I went to some of the larger online movie sites (IMDb and TV Tropes) to see what others made of it. I was surprised to see practically no mentions of my own interpretation of the movie–which I would have assumed to be widespread.
I then looked at interviews with the creator (Ari Aster) and found more support for my way of looking at the movie. Aster, like Christopher Nolan with Inception, is and has been cagey about what’s going on in the movie. Both of them seem to have chosen to keep it ambiguous. That’s a smart marketing decision, of course.
Anyway, not to be cagey myself: after first viewing the movie it seemed obvious to me that the movie is about the deterioration of the mind of someone genetically predisposed to schizophrenia. Unlike most who are open to this view, though, I don’t think it’s a portrait of the mind of the mother (‘Annie,’ the Toni Collette character) but of the mind of the son (‘Peter’ as played by Alex Wolff).
Earlier in the thread, EllisDee wrote:
For me, that scene was one of the strong indications that Aster was making a movie about schizophrenia rather than about the supernatural: having a big can of paint thinner present makes little sense for the project of throwing a notebook into a fire, but it DOES make sense if what you’re showing is: a family member douses another with paint thinner and then that person is engulfed with flames and dies. And the person going over this event in his damaged mind, chooses to “see” it as a supernatural occurrence, rather than as a murder.
All of the “cult” and “Paimon” and “levitating body” and “headless bodies move around to bow to you” stuff at the end is Peter’s mind creating a story about how he is the center of the wishes and dreams and plans of Many People, and how he is their King, and how he is important. Supernaturally important. Not Satan, perhaps, but a major demon—powerful and worthy of worship.
I don’t purport to be an expert on schizophrenia, but from what I do know, people suffering with it are highly inclined to be grandiose, and to experience paranoia about violence. And we see this throughout the movie.
I’m reviving this thread so long after it was made in case anyone else has been haunted by this movie (or perhaps, like me, saw it for the first time when it came to cable). I realize from my reading at IMDb and TV Tropes that most people who like the movie really do prefer to believe that Aster intended it to be literally about a demon and his cult. (Similarly, most people who love Inception want to believe that Nolan intended the dream-layers and the inception-technology to be taken literally.) But I’ll give reviving this a try.
That’s an interesting take. I’d be willing to rewatch the film from this perspective but I really have to be in “the mood” for this one. I promptly purchased a copy after watching it the first time and have only seen it again once. It’s just so. . .much.
It really is. For me a large part of the disturbing nature of the movie is the soundtrack, so when I’ve re-watched bits to check on whether they fit the theory, I’ve actually used mute-with-captions.
As many know, “haunted houses” are often associated with sound at a particular frequency, often called the Ghost Frequency or the Fear Frequency:
I strongly suspect that the Hereditary soundtrack makes use of this frequency (and that other movies have, too).
Not that this is anything to do with schizophrenia–it’s just to create that sense of unease.
It does appear to me that Aster used known facts about schizophrenia in creating the character of Peter. For example:
-
There is a strong genetic component to schizophrenia, and we’re told it ran in Annie’s family
-
Onset during teen years is not uncommon (Peter is 16)
-
Having a father older than 40 is associated with schizophrenia (actor Gabriel Byrne would have been about 52 when the character of the son was conceived)
-
Cannabis use during adolescence is associated with schizophrenia
…and more.
It all could be coincidence, of course. Perhaps Aster set out to make a supernatural/cult story, and had no intention of raising the question of mental illness in Peter or any other character.
I don’t think that’s the case, though.
I like your read. I hadn’t considered it as more about the son’s schizophrenia than the mother’s. I’ll rewatch it with that interpretation in mind. It’s already on my dvr to rewatch anyway.
I gotta say, in the most loving way possible, your timing is killing me. I’m about to build a brand new fancy silent computer, literally about to buy the parts right now on either Amazon or Newegg, and I get the one-two punch of your low-frequency sound makes you crazy post and then the most prominent Amazon negative review for the super quiet computer fans I’m about to buy warn that they emit low frequency sound that makes you crazy. Gah!
Check out my post here for the text of the amazon review and tell me in that thread that the guy is nuts and I can buy the super quiet fans I’ve been coveting all week. Please!
That does sound (!) like an issue that should not be ignored. You don’t want a Haunted Office…you really don’t. But, as you said in a later post in that same thread:
So you’re likely to be on the path to avoiding Hauntedness.
\
On Hereditary’s sound design, from a Q&A with the creator (writer/director):
He knew what he was doing…