Our website uses cookies to provide a better user experience. By using our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about cookies and how you can refuse them.
Menu
I just saw “Drag Me To Hell” tonight. Talk about a great example of how a well structured movie uses theme to craft a character’s journey. Spoiler alert: If you haven’t watched this movie yet, this might be a good time to dash out and see it. Then come on back and read all about it.
The theme of “Drag Me To Hell” is pretty simple: selfish desire leads to the soul’s destruction. The film begins with a woman who is genuinely good. And step by step, the structure of the film quite literally drags her to hell– not just through the terrible curse that she must contend with, but by causing her to make such immoral choices in her attempts to escape it that by the time it’s all over, she just about deserves her fate. When we first meet Christine Brown, she is pure heaven. She’s sweet. She’s kind. She loves animals, and she cares about others. The first time we see her, she’s delivering good news to a nice young couple– she’s made it work for them to get the mortgage they need. Everyone is so happy. And it’s just the beginning of the movie. So we know we’re in trouble.
Unfortunately for Christine, there’s something that she wants very badly– a promotion to be assistant manager at the bank. And her chauvinistic boss doesn’t think she’s tough enough to deserve it. Uh oh. Characters develop when we test their convictions, so the Raimis come up with a scene to do just that. “Oh, you’re really so good? Let’s see what happens when you have to choose between repossessing the home of a helpless old gypsy woman, and losing your only shot at that job you want so badly.” What choice do you think she makes? Selfish desire.
So, even when the old woman prostrates herself before Christine, begging for mercy, Christine still doesn’t budge. She wants that promotion. So bad she can taste it. And she’s willing to do something she knows is wrong to get it. Next thing you know, she’s cursed. A demon is coming for her soul, and she’s got three days to stop it. In her attempt to escape, Christine will violate almost every ethical code she once held. She will repeatedly deny responsibility for her actions (even during the seance in which they attempt to cast out the demon), lie about her decision to repossess the old woman’s home, and instead lay the blame on her boss. She will slaughter her cute little kitten in an attempt to appease the demon’s lust for her soul (so much for volunteering at animal shelters). She will even come close to murder (or worse), as she attempts to pass the curse on to some other victim instead (by re-gifting the button which marks her as the demon’s target). Why? Because ultimately she wants to escape the curse more than she wants to uphold her values. Just like she wanted to get the promotion (and escape the “curse” of her unfair work environment) more than she wanted to show mercy to the old woman.
Of course, in a fair world, Christine wouldn’t have to sin. That’s what is so great about the structure of this screenplay. Her dominant trait is her KINDNESS. It’s only the unfairness of the world– the unfair job, the unfair curse– the sheer horror of it all, that forces Christine to choose between her desire and her morality. That’s how the writers test who she is, and force her to change. Unfortunately, Christine repeatedly fails the test, slowly but surely letting go of what is good about her, and dragging herself to hell in the process. And even when she decides not to re-gift the button to an innocent stranger, Christine does not fully recapture her morality. She doesn’t sit at the grave of the old woman, admit her wrongdoing and beg forgiveness of her spirit. Instead, she tries to condemn the soul of the woman she wronged, by re-gifting the button to her dead corpse. In the process, she also desecrates the old woman’s grave and commits the same sin her palm reader first assumed she might have committed– speaking ill of the dead in a cemetery).
Having come to this false victory by re-gifting the envelope she believes to contain the button to the old woman’s corpse, Christine thinks she has solved her problem. But she hasn’t. And not because of the mix up with the envelopes. Because she still cares more about herself than she does about those around her. Selfish Desire.
So even though Christine (after she thinks she’s gotten EVERYTHING she desires) ultimately confides to her boyfriend that she was the one who chose to repossess the woman’s house, and that this was the wrong thing to do. When her selfish desire is tested one last time, she makes the same mistake all over again. There is her boyfriend, standing with the button in his hand, and presumably damned to hell because of it. Does Christine try to snatch the button from him? Does she risk her life to save his? No, she tries to escape, once again. Tumbles into the train tracks. And is carried off to hell. Selfish desire. It’s not the curse that damns Christine, it’s her decisions. And it’s not the button that determines her boyfriend’s salvation. It’s the choices he makes.
Time and again, his desires are tested as well. And time and again, he does what is right, even when it means not getting what he wants. He makes the selfless choice for the love of Christine– agreeing to the palm reading, refusing the demands of his parents, giving her 10,000 dollars to see a spiritual advisor he doesn’t even believe in. He does all of this without even believing that Christine is haunted, and without thought of gain for himself. He does it because he loves her. His morality remains intact, because his love is stronger than his selfish desire. Hers does not, because her selfish desire is stronger than her love. And the structure of the screenplay works because it tests them both, establishing their dominant traits, and then forcing both characters to grapple with the theme, by making active choices that drive the story and ultimately bring about their own salvation or their own destruction.
To learn more about theme and the way it relates to screenplay structure, check out one of my screenwriting workshops.
Log in to access your account
Our website uses cookies to provide a better user experience. By using our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about cookies and how you can refuse them.
But wait… that’s not it!
Join award-winning screenwriter, Jacob Krueger, and industry pros for an hour of writing lessons and guided exercises. Every Thursday, via Zoom.
Sign up below for this Thursday’s class!
Need Help? CONTACT US
Check Your Email For The Link
(Don’t see it? Check your spam folder)
We match every donation we receive dollar for dollar, and use the funds to offset the cost of our programs for students who otherwise could not afford to attend.
We have given away over 140,000 of scholarships in the past year.
Thank you for your support!
Other Amount? CONTACT US
Where should we send it?
"*" indicates required fields
If you need a payment plan or another arrangement to participate in our programs, we are happy to help.
Chat us or give us a call at 917-464-3594 and we will figure out a plan that fits your budget.
Fill in the form below to be placed on the waitlist. We'll let you know once a slot opens up!
7 Comments
Impressive point of view on the entire story and making it seem as if Christine deserves to go to hell, what choices did she had? Would the Lamia be touched by kind acts and simply ignore her soul if she did all the good things except the 1st mistake of not approving the extension? What would you do?:) Shouldn’t Mrs. Ganesh be ashamed of herself for having such wicked undying vendetta. I don’t know, looks like to me, the real person that should go to hell that old woman. Not only did she not pay her own debt and had extension twice, she cursed the poor girl to hell for that, and before Christine had a chance to beg her for forgiveness, the old got herself killed!
Hi Ben,
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.
I agree with your comments on Christine and how her choices fit the structure of the film. However, you are wrong about the boyfriend and the button. He was in no danger because (as explained by her medium friend), she did not make a formal gift of the cursed item.
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.
I stand corrected! You are absolutely right that the button was not a formal gift.
Having seen the film, I would be an advocate for Christine here. In relation to the points you make:
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 want to quote your post in my blog. It can?
And you et an account on Twitter?
Absolutely! You are welcome to quote me. My twitter account is jacobkrueger.
Thanks!
Jake