Drag Me To Hell

Readers of /Film know that I’m a fan of wacky movie theories that make you reevaluate a film in much different light. Sometimes the theories are intended creations of the writer/director behind a film, but most times they are just fun interpretations created by the viewer (like this one). Either way, I always find them interesting and entertaining. Before you read this theory, take a deep breath — no one is saying that Raimi intended this interpretation — it’s meant to be fun.

/Film reader Steve M sent over an interesting theory he read over on IMDB. Micobiella thinks that Sam Raimi’s Drag Me To Hell isn’t actually a horror movie, but instead a story of a farm girl with an eating disorder, who starves herself to fit a certain image and begins hallucinating and going crazy. Apparently you can watch the entire movie from this viewpoint, with few exceptions, and it all makes sens. Read the theory after the jump. Warning: Spoilers follow.

Allison Lohman’s character Christine Brown admits that her mother had an addiction, and at one point in the film we see an overweight photo of Christine as a child in front of a sign that read “SWINE QUEEN”. She doesn’t want to become addicted to food. She doesn’t want to be like her mother. At the beginning of the movie, she is listening to a tape trying to correct her southern accent. She doesn’t want to be a farm girl. She has a good boyfriend, and is trying to move her way up with a career at the bank.

She never touches food, because she is afraid it will make her fat and disgusting. According to the theory, there really isn’t a scary demon from hell, she’s just imagining everything. Hunger is making her irritable, she imagines the old woman’s creepy hand tapping on the desk when it was really just the other banker. Early in the film she passes out in her car and drives into a bunch of other cars in the parking lot. The woman from the bank never followed her, she imagined everything.

Frightened, Christine seeks a Psychic, whose explanation of “the old woman’s curse” manifests into her hallucinations. Also, the later exorcism wasn’t real (hence why the boyfriend wasn’t allowed to join in).

The food is a key factor in most of the hallucinations. Notice that when food is introduced on screen, Christine gets attacked by the spirit. Every time the spirit appears at her house, she is in the kitchen. When she locks the spirit outside of her room, see sees the spirit in the form of a shadow of Pig hooves.

AMS-4 says that her either purging or not eating is causes a nosebleed that “her sick mind sees as huge, as she attributes it to the curse, when deep inside she’s ashamed and afraid they’ll find out about her eating disorder.” At night she dreams like she’s being vomited onto, when it’s really her who’s throwing up in her bathroom. The sequence where she dreams that a fly enters her mouth and flies into her stomach is actually just her stomach growling while shes asleep. Her body needs food but she is unwilling to give in.

The old woman represents everything that an bulimic anxiety - she has no teeth, is hideous, and eats/steals the candy from her desk. Notice at the woman’s funeral that everyone is eating, drinking and gambling. The woman vomits on her and then shoves her arm down her throat as if taunting her to “eat, eat!” The one moment she’s “forced” to eat something in the film, she finds an eye staring back at her inside the cake, causing her to choke up her food.

  • she at ice cream.
  • It is possible she suffers from bulimia at times of extreme stress - like when she has to make the decision of who to give the button to and almost decides to give up entirely...
  • brian
    i find her killing her kitten, digging up a grave, and imagining demons trying to take her soul a bit far fetched for this. if this in fact true the movie for me will switch from being an incredibly mediocre story to an incredibly retarded one
  • /ambient
    The theory negates the opening scene.
  • That's kind of reaching. Any movie could all just be a hallucination for whatever reason. Also, the demon manifests in the form of hooves because it's a goat demon.
  • jason B
    yer right - ANY film or story can be analyzed to a persons desired intention. this is a fun idea, but i'd bet anything sam & ivan weren't thinking of this when they wrote it. fun, but no way in hell is it true.
  • If you read the original IMDB thread, there are a few "possible" explanations of the opening sequence,
  • jason
    There's also the whole thing where she is DRAGGED TO HELL in front of her boyfriend...
  • Name
    Not necessarily. He reaches out for her, then pulls his hand back when we see the flames, then reaches out again. Really, he could just be watching his fiance about to get run over by a train and be freaking out when that happens. There's nothing in his reaction that specifically says he's seeing her pulled into flames.
  • That would be an interesting theory if it wasn't for Justin Long's character actually seeing her get dragged to hell. We know he saw it and not just her helpless on the tracks. You actually see the flames reflected in his eyes. And I agree with /ambient this theory also completely negates the opening scene... and the evil dead like possession. I'm pretty sure more than one person witnessed that crazy talking goat.

    The girl's eating disorder is just a great character trait so she does not end up like some Scream queen cliche.
  • fseven
    not only that but the titles of the chapters are subverse to the theory. chapter 8 BLOOD OFFERING, this is to build the contest of the chapter prior 6 FEAR AND TORMENT, chapte 12 LAMIAS RETURN with the baphomet goat In ancient Greek mythology, Lamia (Greek: Λάμια) was a beautiful queen of Libya who became a child-eating daemon. While the word lamia literally means large shark in Greek, [1] Aristophanes claimed her name derived from the Greek word for gullet (λαιμός; laimos), referring to her habit of devouring children.[2]

    Some accounts say she has a serpent's tail below the waist.[3] This popular description of her is largely due to Lamia, a poem by John Keats published in 1819.[4] Antoninus Liberalis does give Lamia as an alternate name for the serpentine drakaina Sybaris; however, Diodorus Siculus describes her as having nothing more than a distorted face.[5]

    Later traditions referred to many lamiae; folkloric monsters similar to vampires and succubi that seduced young men and then fed on their blood
  • Sam
    I don't believe Raimi intended this theory, but it does fit together pretty nice. I'm digging it!
  • This really doesnt make much sense. Her eating disorder was very clear in the film, but i dont think it was the cause of her seeing demons. A few scenes can clearly demolish this theory.
  • Jake
    Allison Lohman jumped infront of a train, she wasn't dragged to hell. Remember, this movie takes place from her vantage point/POV, not his. We're seeing what shes seeing.
  • Jake, you said it perfectly. I'd like to see what more surfaces from this theory. Sort of like the indy film, "Grace". Writers have to find new angles to scare us. Cerial killers and ghosts just aren't doing it anymore.
  • Agreed.. it's called DRAG ME TO HELL, not She Was Dragged To Hell.

    This film is her admission of guilt, the guilt she feels for many things and manifests as hallucinations. Pretty cool theory.
  • Besides for the film's opening, please do explain.
  • When the spirit appears some times, food is no where near her, or anything to do with the scene. Her sleeping in bed, and has a nightmare, nothing to do with food. Her driving do the grave yard and the cloth comes flying in the car, nothing to do with food.

    And not too mention the whole exorcism scene where the old lady dies at the end, how is this all an hallucination. Its too easy to say these things are all hallucinations, its a weak theory, and i doubt Sam Raimi would do that in this film.

    Nice work on trying to find the link with eating disorders and this film, but i dont think it was reason for all the horror in it.
  • I'm not saying I believe the theory, I think its a clever construction of a moviegoer. BUT according to the theory she's hallucinating due to starvation. Shes going crazy. Not all of the hallucinations are the result of food being in the scene....As for the nightmares, they are explained in the text above.

    "i doubt Sam Raimi would do that in this film. "

    Again, you didn't read the opening paragraph. This is clearly not the filmmaker's creation, but a interpretation by a film viewer.
  • i did read the opening paragraph, but the film viewer did say this is what he believes, which would mean, this is what he thinks sam raimi was trying to show the audience.
    I know Sam raimi wouldnt have done this, I GET it, its a film viewers theory, but i can still say it makes not sense.
  • Thrillhouse
    It's way too convenient to say, "well, all those other scenes are just because she's hungry and hallucinating" - that's not intellectually satisfying enough.

    It allows you to explain ANY scene in the movie, whether there is really true context for it or not.
  • Because it's MORE intellectually satisfying to have what you see the literal events taking place instead of a metaphor for morality and choices... right.
  • Because it's MORE intellectually satisfying to see the literal events taking place instead of a metaphor for morality and choices disguised as a mindless terror romp... right. Good luck with that one.
  • Many times there is food near her. Sometimes there isn't - she is hungry.

    Her hair gets pulled out, she gets thrown up on, nose bleed, the old lady's arm down her throat - all supports the anorexia stuff, didn't have to really "try" to find the link there.
  • Stark1288
    To lose a button in your dream, signifies your tarnished self-image. You are feeling insecure and unconfident about yourself.
  • This guy might be on to something. I think this theory might be right and Sam Raimi just wanted a small commentary on this whole subject about eating disorders. Maybe it was not supposed to fit in all nicely. I was always wondering after seeing this movie, why are there so many moments involving the mouth and food?
  • MarceloJPico
    Yeah, it's a stretch. I'd still like to believe that the Demon was real. How else do you explain the final scene, among others? But now that I think about it there were a lot of references to food and things going down throats. I say it was just the Demon attacking Lohman's character in a way that was really personal, like vomiting all over her like an anorexic.
  • Dr. Kickass
    Anorexics don't vomic. You're thinking of bulimia. Anorexia Nervosa is when you don't eat. Bulimia Nervosa is when you induce vomiting or diarrhea. If we're going to have a commentary, let's get our facts straight.
  • Dinosaurs > You
    So what's Darkman really about? A nasty rash? Come on people it's Sam Raimi. Does he or his family strike you as the type of people that would write a hidden meaning into the film? I think he was tired of Spider-Man and wanted to make a fun, scary flick. Or is Army of Darkness about big business vs. independent business?
  • Not reading before you post should be just as embarrassing...
  • Either way the movie still kicked ass!
  • yea, but then there's the ending...
  • Which is included within the theory. She falls in and dies after getting hit by the train. Read before refuting.
  • theres nothing wrong with the ending. I thought Raimi went soft and then he showed that he still has that Evil Dead spirit........"How do you stop it?!
    "
  • Shane
    This theory is awesome. Reading it now, having seen the movie twice already, it makes alot of sense to me. I especially like the idea that the old woman is a representation of her anorexia, with the loss of hair and the vomitting.
  • Ants
    Someone, please sort this RSS feed out...am I the only one who gets quite often everything twice?
  • PewPewPew
    The theory doesn't really give much of a case, but "girl running away from her past which comes back to terrorize her" is definitely a theme of the film.

    The demons that come after her aren't a result of what she does at the bank, they're manifestations of the guilt that has been building up since she left her mother/past and tried to find a new life. She attempts to fit into this new world, but ultimately doesn't escape her "hell".

    It could also be seen as a cautionary tale against careerism.
  • I have a theory too that the movie was a 90 minute Apple add with Apple products even an Apple spokesman littered throughout the movie.
    Watch it again one day and count the Apple references.
  • iuri
    yeah, that's actually like eating the apple, eating anything is a sin of its own
  • dragged
    mastication is everywhere in this movie: the prominent electronics are by apple, a company whose logo has a bite taken out of it
  • mike
    What about the last scene where the boyfriend witnesses her being dragged to hell on the train track?
  • What about every scene with crazy shit happening?

    The theory claims what you see isn't what's happening, but what she believed to be happening. She didn't accidentally fall in, she was committing suicide. She went to hell on the train track, but that's where she believes she's going to end up. The entire theory consists of the idea that what you are seeing is not necessarily what is happening. To understand it at all means accepting the possibility that most of what you are seeing is metaphorical hallucination.
  • Ryan
    Actually, whether or not the filmmaker intended something is irrelevant. If someone can watch the film and pull out this meaning, then its there.
  • Jon
    LOL. Yeah right. THe onlyintent is that of the writer. It's not there if the writer did not intend it to be. I swear college is screwing you kids up with all this relativistic BS.
  • Thrillhouse
    I don't like this theory, because I don't like any theory in which every scene can just be easily explained away, without using strong context clues.

    If you say, "she is hallucinating because of the hunger" - than ANY scene needs absolutely no explanation.

    It's like character studies in which it is hard to justify a character's motivations or actions in a scene, but it can be explained away by saying, "Well, he's just crazy!" Then, there is no burden on the writer to actually analyze the scene or given satisfying support for what probably amounts to HALF of the film that went unexplained in this case.

    I can see the point being made if you follow the author's line of thinking, but I, myself, am not going to buy it, because I don't think that so many of the true intentions of a film should be able to be so easily explained by one umbrella statement.
  • What..? It's easier to explain away that she's cursed, rather than that she's subjecting herself to these horrible images because she has feelings of resentment toward her own actions and the way she deals with life. We're dealing with an intense psychological drama/horror if this is the case, something that is more difficult to grasp than simply explaining it away as "nah she's just cursed."

    You even mention character studies - "well she's just crazy" is the same as "well she's just cursed," this theory actually bothers to point out what's frustrated in her life, why, and how it's manifesting yourself. If you're really against things being "easily explained away" you would support this theory, think it through.
  • Thrillhouse
    Not really, because "she's just cursed" is the very conceit of the entire film at face value. We're talking about SUBTEXT - of which I don't think there is enough to say that the theory is valid.

    So, "she's just cursed" is not explaining it away, because it is what we are told is the very plot of the film itself.

    Do you see the difference?
  • Wow. this makes total sense. So when the girl gets dragged to hell, that's clearly a metaphor for how...you know...She was dragged to hell.
  • The title of the film, then, becomes the admission of guilt. Deep inside she feels she is to blame for everything and deserves to be in hell. Metaphors are dope.
  • f yea stevo22.
blog comments powered by Disqus