Hereditary (spoilers!)

Tools    





In the blood perhaps? Not saying I know...didn't think it was all that great so I may zoned out for an important second that explained it.

I'd thought it strange the son looked nothing like his parents, unless one of his grandfathers was Mediterranean or something.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
How could mother's lack of access to the son explain it if the possession fell through just fine even after her death (no mother > no access in my opinion)?
Maybe I'm misreading your question. When you say mother, do you mean Peter's mother, Annie? Or Annie's mother that died before the movie started? I'm assuming you mean how the grandma possessed Peter.

Annie made a statement I think during her group counseling that she would not let her mother near Peter when he was born, else the grandmother would have placed King Paimon into him soon after birth. In guilt, I think Annie said she let her mother in when Charlie was born. I assume the grandmother then placed Paimon into an infant Charlie instead.

The grandmother was apparently unable to transfer Piamon from Charlie to Peter before grandma's death. I mean, she would have had to kill Charlie I assume to set it into motion so I'm not sure how she could have pulled that off really. Luckily for her, her buddy cultist tricked Annie into doing the ritual that gave the now disembodied Piamon access to Peter.
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear



Maybe I'm misreading your question. When you say mother, do you mean Peter's mother, Annie? Or Annie's mother that died before the movie started? I'm assuming you mean how the grandma possessed Peter.
Yes, the previous discussion was about the grandma (obviously).

Annie made a statement I think during her group counseling that she would not let her mother near Peter when he was born, else the grandmother would have placed King Paimon into him soon after birth. In guilt, I think Annie said she let her mother in when Charlie was born. I assume the grandmother then placed Paimon into an infant Charlie instead.

The grandmother was apparently unable to transfer Piamon from Charlie to Peter before grandma's death. I mean, she would have had to kill Charlie I assume to set it into motion so I'm not sure how she could have pulled that off really. Luckily for her, her buddy cultist tricked Annie into doing the ritual that gave the now disembodied Piamon access to Peter.
I think this is just the long version of what @cat_sidhe was saying so my reply stays the same; grandma's lack of access to Peter doesn't seem valid reason when things go more or less smoothly even after her death. The cultists had always been there so even killing the rest of the family to get access to Peter would have been perfectly valid scenario (as the film proves because that's what basically happens).



Maybe the ritual didn't have to be performed by grandma.
Quite obviously because Paimon possessed Peter after her death

But seriously I'm just nitpicking here because I was bored during the film and had too much time to think its problems. Pretty much every (horror) film has similar issues and the worse the film the more these things bother me. But I do hope writers would be little more careful in general.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
I guess it all depends on where your line of disbelief is. It seems reasonable that at anytime grandma and/or the cultists could murder all but peter and be done with it years ago. I guess that might not be as good of a story to tell though. Of course if the audience can't buy grandma and the cultists stalling as necessary, then it's probably not so enjoyable anyway.

Maybe there was some other stuff playing out that could explain it but Iderno.



I saw this last night. I was deeply upset by it.

If you've seen it, you probably know which part did it. Messed up things happen in movies sometimes, but I can't abide it when they wallow in them, or when they turn not to have been a crucial part of the story being told. In this case, it scarcely seemed to factor in. I understand the connection, but it was such a tiny and relatively insignificant part of what happens in the last 30 minutes. If anything, when viewed from a distance the story seems a little contorted to provide an excuse to do it. The shock and the wallowing, I guess, was the point.

It's a real shame, too, because everything else about the movie is exceptional. Collette's performance is tremendous, and I always admire films that "go there," as I like to put it.



I wanted to write a non-spoiler post first, but I'll expound a little:

WARNING: "Hereditary" spoilers below
It was the car scene, just to be totally clear.

I just can't abide depictions of creatures (people, animals, whatever) who need someone to take care of them, and are instead horribly neglected in some way. There's something about that which seems especially cruel. I know young people who are a little off, who are uncomfortable in the world or dragged along in some way. I don't have many buttons, but I guess that's one of them. And as awful as it was, the shot of the aftermath felt like it belonged in a much schlockier and less thoughtful film than this one was trying to be most of the time.

I thought hard about not finishing the movie after that, and only did because I realized I couldn't possibly see anything in it more upsetting than that, and wanted to see if there was at least some kind of reason for it, or some greater message that might come from it. There wasn't.



A system of cells interlinked
WARNING: "Heriditary" spoilers below
I presume you are describing the incident in the car with the brother and sister?
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
@Yoda Can you add to the spoiler exactly which scene? I'm thinking two characters but not sure in context.



A system of cells interlinked
When that scene played out, My wife and I both looked over at each other, jaws on the floor. Super disturbing scene, for sure.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
Was the upset due to the fact that neglect exists in the world or that you felt the movie exploited neglect unnecessarily to push the movie forward?



Hellloooo Cindy - Scary Movie (2000)
Spoilers

So are you saying it was upsetting him neglected to help his vulnerable sister at the party? Or someonething else. I’ve done done some reading and watching YouTube on it and her death was pivotal...apparently. Releasing the demon. It was seriously disturbing that scene but necessary I thought.



The latter, I think, and that's a good distinction.
Do you mean the initial scene in the car ? Or the second shot of the aftermath of that scene? Or both?

It was certainly a very upsetting scene - but there is a callback subplot to the aftermath - in that Toni Collette's character visualises the same awful outcome in her son, as happenned to her daughter.

WARNING: "I'm talking about the........." spoilers below
ants


While it may seem a touch exploitative at first, it certainly rammed it home.