Thanks!

Jake

Christine appears to be the victim of gender discrimination at work, with the implicit boy’s club promotion of her rival indicative of the wider glass-ceiling restrictions that someone in her position (i.e. a female employee of a financial institution) no doubt suffers.

As such, the promotion is presented less as an object of her selfish desire, but as something that should rightfully be hers but is denied her due to factors outside her control – i.e. her gender. The opportunity to rectify this is presented by denying the extension – i.e. doing something, at the behest of her boss, which she does not want to do.

Quite apart from which, Christine does try and argue the woman’s case. If you are really saying that Christine’s fate is sealed with the choices she makes, then at least admit that she is utterly unaware of the nature of those choices. What I mean is, the rank unfairness of Christine’s position is in the assymetrical knowledge of the nature of these choices:

1) Choice as Christine sees it: a) do your job as instructed, or b) risk your career by defying your boss’ instructions in order to assist a client in breach of contract

2) Choice as Raimi sees it: a) remain held back by institutionalised sexism or b) be damned to hell.

Christine’s real choice is a lot like Sophie’s choice and her real tragedy is that she has no idea what she is doing.

Conclusion: Drag Me to Hell does not cleverly illustrate how a kind person is forced to change. It documents a travesty, whereby an innocent person facing numerable obstacles is punished arbitrarily for doing her job to the point of murder – in the process of which she is presented with further Hobbesian choices, which nobody could reasonably be expected to satisfy. The ultimate choice for Christine is: a) accept the fate that you will be murdered or b) do whatever you can to survive.

Grossly unfair.

I don’t think she was trying to escape when he took the button out of his pocket, more like “reeling back in horror.” I know Raimi wrote the script and he says Christine is guilty, but the sins were so borderline or justified that I really rooted for Christine. Even her original sin was not a sin IMO.

Facts: Sylvia Ganush wasn’t going to end up on the street, she had family who could take care of her, but was too proud(a sin btw). Sylvia had defaulted on 2 mortgages already. Perhaps most seriously, her curse is the moral equivalent of murder, probably worse.

Lastly, I reiterate that Christine’s choices were very important in the movie. The most important one, not to give the button to Stew, was the decision I thought would save her. When she made this decision, she hadn’t yet considered passing the curse to Sylvia Ganush, meaning she would accept eternal torment over damning the one who betrayed her and lied to steal her job.

You raise an interesting question. On a moral level, I’d probably agree with you. What the old woman does to Christine is horribly unfair. However, within the structural context of the film it seems to me that the Lamia exists to test Christine’s morality. Had she held onto her morality in spite of the threat of the Lamia, (or had the courage to stand up for what she believed in, in face of the threat from her boss) the film seems to suggest that she might not have been dragged to hell (just as her boyfriend is bypassed by the Lamia, despite having been given the button). From a screenwriting perspective, what happens to our characters, especially in a thriller, is rarely fair. Rather, it’s an exaggeration of the sin, that forces the person to either reconcile what is broken in them, or be destroyed by it.