When did you figure out the twist in "The Sixth Sense?" [edited thread title]

[Miller]

@PSico

I must be missing something pretty basic because I don’t get the point of the locked door, other than as a symbol of being shut out from the truth.

When we first see Crowe after the shooting, he has a file folder with information about Cole. Where did he get the file? From the basement, right? (And later, we see him in the basement looking up the meaning of a Latin phrase.)

I don’t think the file came from the basement, in the sense that he went down there, picked it up, and carried it with him to the church where he meets Cole. He had a file because he thought he was meeting with a new client, and when he does that, he has their file with him. It’s the same reason he’s wearing pants throughout the movie. He’s not wearing the ghost of the trousers he wore when he was shot, he just “has” the accoutrements that he thinks are appropriate to the situation.

He says to Cole: “I was supposed to meet you today. Sorry I missed our appointment.”
Why does Crowe think that he has an appointment with Cole today?

Because Crowe needs an excuse, in his own mind, to explain why he’s hanging around Cole all the time. It appears that, much like ghosts can create “objects” (such as pants and file folders) to match their preconceptions about what they look like, they also create memories for themselves to paper over gaps in their own recollections.

This is not something that’s entirely without precedent in actual humans - Crowe (like most of the ghosts in the movie) is basically in denial over a traumatic event in his past. People suffering from serious denial can be astonishingly good at not noticing things that are starring them in the face. Crowe takes it to olympic levels in this movie, but presumably, spirits (not being hampered by a physical biology) are more prone to this than the living.

Then he says: “Do you mind if I sit down? I have this injury from a couple of years ago and it flares up every once in a while just so I won’t forget it.”
Why does a ghost have pain from an injury? And from “a couple of years ago”??

Subconsciously, Crowe knows he’s dead. His subconscious is telling him, “You had a hole blown in your torso a year ago, and now you’re dead.” His conscious mind, unwilling to accept that, interprets this as his old bullet wound acting up.

Then he says: “I got an award once. From the Mayor. It was a long time ago. I’ve kind of been retired for a while. You’re my very first client back.”

So Crowe realizes that a long time has passed but he still doesn’t realize that he’s dead. What do ghosts do when they are not being viewed by a movie audience? I doubt that they eat, drink, urinate, defecate, or sleep. But apparently Crowe is fine with not having to do any of those things. He doesn’t seem puzzled with his situation, until the very end. Or does he know all along? Doesn’t seem like it.

I suspect he doesn’t realize that he doesn’t do any of those things any more. Since he never feels hungry any more, he’s assuming, in the back of his head, that he must have eaten recently. If you quizzed him on it, he wouldn’t be able to recall specifics - and, like most people suffering from denial, would probably get angry at being forced to confront uncomfortable truths about his situation.

Which, incidentally, is probably why Cole never comes out and tells Crowe that he’s a ghost. He’s tried it before, and it usually just makes the ghost angry.

Crowe has a doctorate in psychology, he has won a prestigious award for his work, but he can’t even figure out that he’s dead. Everyone that he interacts with ignores him, except for Cole who, though quite screwed up, is a child who lays out the rules for interacting with ghosts, and has the special power to see “The Truth”.

Is Shyamalan mocking psychologists? (Both of his parents were “real” doctors.)

Psychologists treat illness of the mind. That doesn’t make them immune to those illnesses, any more than being a cardiologist makes you immune to heart disease.

In no way do I see the film as mocking psychiatrists. Crowe is explicitly presented as someone who is very good at helping people with emotional problems, and at the end of the film, he has successfully used his psychological training to help Cole integrate into society. And Cole has, essentially, done the same thing for Crowe. Both characters are suffering from the effects of a psychological trauma. By seeing how Crowe is helping him to resolve his own trauma, Cole is able to help Crowe resolve his. The film is overwhelmingly positive towards the idea of psychiatry and psychiatrists in general.

@PSico

So here’s the recipe:
Start with an old, irrational concept that is based on ignorance.
Add some arbitrary rules that make the concept even less rational.
Applaud the writer/director for tricking us with the new, irrational concept.

That is simple. :rolleyes:

Shyamalan didn’t really invent any rules for this movie. Everything about how ghosts behave in this movie is taken directly from real world folklore. What Shyamalan did that was new was to tell the story from the POV of the ghost.

[PSico]

Miller, thanks. You’ve helped me understand a bit more about the depiction of ghosts. I’ve done some more research and, although I have zero interest in ghosts themselves, I continue to be puzzled and fascinated by people’s fascination with such an irrational concept. Similar, I guess, to many religious and superstitious beliefs.

I could quibble about many of your points but I can accept the validity of your arguments overall. I am, though, compelled to address two things:
You are confusing psychology with psychiatry (Crowe is a psychologist and I asked if Shyamalan was mocking psychologists), but I’m sure that you know the difference between the two disciplines.

And you say this:

The film is overwhelmingly positive towards the idea of psychiatry and psychiatrists in general.

There is no depiction of any (human) psychologist helping anyone. All the “treatment” happens within the world of ghosts. The 9-year old boy is just as effective as the highly-trained psychologist, maybe even more so. Crowe failed with Vincent, and other psychologists failed with Cole. It takes supernatural intervention for healing to occur. Nicely reassuring if you were close to someone who died, but not true.

Anyway, thanks again.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@PSico

Crowe failed with Vincent, and other psychologists failed with Cole. It takes supernatural intervention for healing to occur.

In fairness, the point could be that psychologists only failed with Cole and Vincent because those were supernatural cases; if an easily-distracted kid is the only one who hears disembodied voices that yammer on and on about ‘death’ this and ‘killing’ that, a good psychologist is usually one who (a) notes the injuries that appear self-inflicted, and promptly (b) treats said youth for mundane hallucinations once the I SEE DEAD PEOPLE line comes out; possibly it’s just one kid in a generation who gets a comic-book super-power that looks like a medical condition.

[Miller]

@PSico

You are confusing psychology with psychiatry (Crowe is a psychologist and I asked if Shyamalan was mocking psychologists), but I’m sure that you know the difference between the two disciplines.

Yeah, fair catch on that one. My mistake.

And you say this:There is no depiction of any (human) psychologist helping anyone. All the “treatment” happens within the world of ghosts. The 9-year old boy is just as effective as the highly-trained psychologist, maybe even more so. Crowe failed with Vincent, and other psychologists failed with Cole. It takes supernatural intervention for healing to occur. Nicely reassuring if you were close to someone who died, but not true.

I’d argue that Crowe is still human, even though he’s dead. And like Waldo Pepper said, Cole and Vincent appear to be special cases due to their supernatural abilities. At the beginning, Crowe is returning from a banquet honoring his success as a child psychologist, and iirc, we see drawings he’s been given by other children he’s helped. It’s made clear when he appears that Vincent was a rare failure for him. And, of course, once he realizes what’s actually going on, Crowe’s work with Cole is highly effective.

[PSico]

I’d argue that Crowe is still human, even though he’s dead.

Well, if you’re going to argue …

I hesitated when adding “human”. I could have put “live” or “real” or “actual” or “physical”, but whatever the choice of word, the contradistinction with a ghost psychologist remains incoherent. Crowe is dead, but he is still alive in the sense that he can perceive, think, talk and move. To the audience, he is indistinguishable from a real person. He is spiritual but he exists in the physical world. He is 100% human and 100% ghost. Sounds like the concept of Jesus being fully human and fully God. Yes, the Trinity is a mystery …

And like Waldo Pepper said, Cole and Vincent appear to be special cases [of psychological treatment] due to their supernatural abilities.

I don’t know why you say “appear to be”. Cole and Vincent are characters who have supernatural abilities. That’s a fact of the movie, and that’s “special”, isn’t it?

Maybe you are referring to the fact that, in real life, psychologists don’t treat people who have supernatural abilities for the simple reason that people don’t have supernatural abilities.

Anyway, Shyamalan believes in ghosts and the movie is about ghosts. If he wanted to emphasize the value of psychological therapy, he could have made a movie with a similar plot but have Crowe alive, with problems with his wife after the shooting, and Cole seeing ghosts because he had a severe psychological problem, not because ghosts actually exist. Shyamalan could still have tricked us the way he did in The Sixth Sense, by cleverly exploiting our understanding of human nature and of how movies, by their very nature, have a “magical” way of dealing with time and place.

Adding the supernatural element, though, was very shrewd, and very profitable. I’m sure that his parents (the doctors) are very proud.

[SlackerInc]

I caught it very early, but I did know there was reputed to be some kind of “twist”. I just thought it was odd that they didn’t have any explanation of how he survived the shooting, none of the usual scenes of recovery in the hospital or the doctor saying “you were very lucky, Mr. Jones”, etc.

[Miller]

@PSico

Well, if you’re going to argue …

I hesitated when adding “human”. I could have put “live” or “real” or “actual” or “physical”, but whatever the choice of word, the contradistinction with a ghost psychologist remains incoherent. Crowe is dead, but he is still alive in the sense that he can perceive, think, talk and move. To the audience, he is indistinguishable from a real person.

Right. So it doesn’t particularly matter that he was dead was he used his knowledge of psychology to help Cole, in terms of how the movie presents psychologists.

Anyway, Shyamalan believes in ghosts and the movie is about ghosts.

Does he? Do you have a cite for that?

If he wanted to emphasize the value of psychological therapy…

I’m pretty sure that’s not what he wanted to do. I’m going to gout on a limb, here, but I think he wanted to make a creepy ghost story. I’m just saying, it’s ridiculous to look at this movie and say that it’s got some sort of anti-psychologist agenda, given the uniformly positive depiction of psychologists and psychology in the film.

Adding the supernatural element, though, was very shrewd, and very profitable. I’m sure that his parents (the doctors) are very proud.

Why wouldn’t they be?

[PSico]

@Miller

Do you have a cite for that?

In Shyamalan’s interview on the Sixth Sense DVD, he says:

Perhaps the acceptance that the body is not the end of your life, that spirit continues is something that I just, y’know, accept because all these Indian ceremonies about ghosts and spirits in the house, and protecting the house from spirits is just an accepted thing over there, so it’s something that I assumed is common but I guess it’s not, and, so, in that respect, all of my scripts have a spirituality that is unusual for a young guy in Philly, playing ball and eating Big Macs, to have.

We’ve already agreed that Crowe failed with Vincent and that other psychologists failed with Cole. But why dismiss these failures just because they involved the supernatural? Psychologists should know about ghosts and be able to treat clients who see dead people. Ghosts have existed for a long time and there’s no indication that Vincent and Cole are unique.

Crowe, the psychologist-ghost is “indistinguishable from a real person” but that’s only until we find out that he’s not a real person. He wasn’t what we thought we was. We find out that he was oblivious to many aspects of reality or he was in extreme denial of reality. That’s not the type of psychologist that I would want to have treating me. Crowe was as screwed up as Cole and they helped each other. Is a client supposed to help his delusional psychologist?

Crowe, the apparently-alive-psychologist, is unprofessional and unethical. He stalks a little boy and hunts him down in a church. He doesn’t meet the boy in his office or in the boy’s home. He doesn’t talk to the boy’s mother and he doesn’t get her permission to treat her 9-year old son. We can put Crowe in a positive light by invoking the incoherent concept a denial-ghost – he is acting professionally and ethically because he creates all of the necessary missing pieces. But, until we find out that he is a ghost, it seems that his award is a sham, that the most important part of the award is that it looks good. Ultimately, it’s because Crowe is a psychologist-ghost that he is was able to help Cole.

Crowe’s wife is taking an anti-depressant, which means that she’s being treated by a medical doctor. There’s no indication that she is seeing a psychologist. Crowe is more interested in helping Cole than he is in finding out what’s really bothering his wife. He continues to guess what’s bothering her rather than ask her directly and wait for the answers. Again, Crowe the psychologist-ghost has his own good reasons for acting the way he does.

I’m sure that Shyamalan doesn’t have an “anti-psychologist” agenda – he married a psychologist six years before The Sixth Sense was released – but the depiction of psychologists is not “uniformly positive”, whether or not that was Shyamalan’s intent.

[Osiris_the_1st]

When I heard there was a twist ending.

[DrFidelius]

PSico - have you spoken with a professional about this obsession you have with the portrayal of psychologists in movies?

[Miller]

@PSico

In Shyamalan’s interview on the Sixth Sense DVD, he says:

That’s pretty vague. He doesn’t say that he believes in ghosts, just the existence of some sort of a soul. Anyway, assuming he does believe in ghosts, so what? What does that have to do with the movie?

We’ve already agreed that Crowe failed with Vincent and that other psychologists failed with Cole. But why dismiss these failures just because they involved the supernatural? Psychologists should know about ghosts and be able to treat clients who see dead people. Ghosts have existed for a long time and there’s no indication that Vincent and Cole are unique.

Why do you think psychologists should know about ghosts? No one else in the movie’s universe does, other than Cole and Vincent. Anyway, I’m not dismissing them, but there was a central element to both cases that no psychologist could reasonably be expected to know about. When Crowe has all the information he needs (namely, that ghosts exist), he’s able to help Cole.

Crowe, the psychologist-ghost is “indistinguishable from a real person” but that’s only until we find out that he’s not a real person. He wasn’t what we thought we was. We find out that he was oblivious to many aspects of reality or he was in extreme denial of reality. That’s not the type of psychologist that I would want to have treating me. Crowe was as screwed up as Cole and they helped each other. Is a client supposed to help his delusional psychologist?

Obviously not, but the movie is dealing with highly unusual circumstances.

Crowe, the apparently-alive-psychologist, is unprofessional and unethical. He stalks a little boy and hunts him down in a church. He doesn’t meet the boy in his office or in the boy’s home. He doesn’t talk to the boy’s mother and he doesn’t get her permission to treat her 9-year old son. We can put Crowe in a positive light by invoking the incoherent concept a denial-ghost – he is acting professionally and ethically because he creates all of the necessary missing pieces. But, until we find out that he is a ghost, it seems that his award is a sham, that the most important part of the award is that it looks good. Ultimately, it’s because Crowe is a psychologist-ghost that he is was able to help Cole.

Two questions for you here. One, what in the movie makes it appear that the award is any kind of sham? The entire purpose of including it in the movie is to show that he’s good at his job. There’s no other point in that scene, otherwise. On top of that, the same scene includes a lingering shot of their fireplace mantel, which is crowded with handmade cards from his patients. The first conversation in the movie is Crowe’s wife describing how proud she is of her husbands good work. And when he meets Vincent, he remembers him clearly, and is able to identify him by name when Vincent repeats his diagnosis. The narrative purpose of this entire scene is to establish that Crowe is crazy good at his job, and thereby emphasize how difficult a case Cole is.

Second question: What’s incoherent about the “denial-ghost” idea?

Crowe’s wife is taking an anti-depressant, which means that she’s being treated by a medical doctor. There’s no indication that she is seeing a psychologist. Crowe is more interested in helping Cole than he is in finding out what’s really bothering his wife. He continues to guess what’s bothering her rather than ask her directly and wait for the answers. Again, Crowe the psychologist-ghost has his own good reasons for acting the way he does.

Is your argument here that Crowe should be treating his wife, and his failure to do so is indicative that he’s not good at his job? Otherwise, I don’t see the relevance.

I’m sure that Shyamalan doesn’t have an “anti-psychologist” agenda – he married a psychologist six years before The Sixth Sense was released – but the depiction of psychologists is not “uniformly positive”, whether or not that was Shyamalan’s intent.

“Uniformly positive” does not mean “absolutely perfect.” Crowe is portrayed as a good man who is skilled at helping people in trouble. He is not always successful, but he acts from good intentions and a solid base of reliable knowledge about the human psyche, and there are no psychologists in the film who are presented as dishonest or incompetent. That’s a uniformly positive portrayal.

[Skypist]

@Lamia

I think The Sixth Sense holds up better upon rewatching than many “big twist” movies, in large part because the twist doesn’t actually make that much difference with regard to the main plot. The Osmet character is still a young boy troubled by visions of ghosts, and the Willis character is still the child psychiatrist who helps him to deal with this. In a lot of cases the big twist reveals that a good chunk of what we’ve seen onscreen never really happened, it was a lie or a delusion or an elaborate con. In The Sixth Sense what we see is true – it’s just not the whole truth.

This is a very good point IMO.

I didn’t get it until the ending. Not too much of a surprise as I don’t usually figure out any twists ahead of time in movies or books. I don’t remember if I knew there was a twist or not. I think the thing that threw me off was that Cole didn’t seem that scared of Crowe, whereas he was horrified by all the other ghosts. Any reluctance to talk to Crowe I chalked up to Cole just not wanting to talk to anyone about his problems.

I remember noticing that Crowe always had trouble opening the door to the cellar, but I didn’t make the connection.