10.3 Theory (Continued): Is What We’re Seeing The Truth?

Ok. I spent a long time going through Emma just because I was bringing up the scene Kreacher tries to punch Emma due to the weird detail of the vase. This vase only appears during this scene, while another behind the screen vanishes. During all other scenes and days, the vase in the laundry room isn’t there, and while the vase behind the screen is visible (hasn’t vanished). My theory is that what we’re seeing isn’t really happening. Emily does say Emma is capable of conjuring hallucinations due to her condition.

So, things aren’t quite what they seem to be. One possible answer is that this is all mostly just a hallucination due to Emma’s mental state deteriorating. Another possible answer is that reality is getting distorted due to her condition.

The first option means Kreacher’s not there at all. It’s just a hallucination on Emma’s part. The latter option may mean Kreacher is there in some fashion, but what we see and hear aren’t exactly the truth. Reality may differ, but as we are stuck to Emma’s Point of View in this scene, we don’t know what that reality is, since we never see this from Kreacher’s side, and no one else is here witnessing this scene. The fact there are no other witnesses could further mark this as suspicious, since no one can confirm even a hint about what we’re seeing as being true. My point is, with nothing to back up her side of things, there’s less of a guarantee we can trust what we’re seeing.

Either way, whether or not option 1 or 2 is correct, the fact is if we aren’t seeing reality, that means her worsening condition is causing reality to intrude upon her protected world. This would cause conflict in her mind, thus causing past and present to collide. The fact Emily says her memories shouldn’t have changed means Emma hasn’t forgotten, so her hallucinations likely have something to do or are about her past.

This was why I wanted to build up Emma and explore who she is, her problems, and her obsession. Those things are needed to understand this theory. The personality disassociation is where we learn about Emma separating reality from her inner world, as a way to protect herself due to her condition. We needed to learn why Emma’s mental state was deteriorating, to understand and give a reason for why this would be happening at all. This also required understanding her past so we could learn why she has problems and where they came from. We needed to understand her relationship with her father to understand her obsession/complex. That is because it is this current complex we might be witnessing here.

Remember when I talked about when Leo started drinking? When he started selling items in their house, letting them be taken, or possibly him breaking it in his fits of anger or Emma destroying them so others couldn’t take them (if she breaks chairs, then she can break other things too. This skill of hers had to come from somewhere)? The part about how Emma doesn’t understand what’s going on, but just wants everything to be happy again, and for her dad to no longer be angry (that’s why she talks to the scarecrow the way she does)?

If her condition is worsening, it is possible she is either hallucinating about her dad, and imagining Kreacher in his place when he’s not actually there, or Kreacher is actually there but reality is getting warped and she hears something other than what he actually says. If this is the explanation, this could explain some of Kreacher’s actions that don’t quite make sense. Like his comment about “betrayal”, or when he calls Emma “ungrateful”, or Kreacher’s sudden anger.

“Why are you hiding from me? Once, and again. You have all betrayed me! ”

“You stupid, ungrateful girl! ”

“You will regret this. ”

If we pretend Kreacher is Leo for a moment, betrayal could be referring to Freddy, his wife Martha, and the whole issue with the factory. The “ungrateful girl” comment could be a reference to things Leo said when he got drunk and has a fit of anger. Kreacher’s violence could also be a reference back to this, as I already mentioned he likely destroyed some of the objects in their house, or even hurt Emma, during one of his drunk fits. When Kreacher says “you’ll regret this”, this could be going back to the thistle in the letter, the one that symbolizes revenge, or to Leo himself, who is now consumed by anger and his desire for vengeance.

To counter myself, what could these comments mean if they really were being said by Kreacher? Some may say the betrayal comment could be in reference to the kids, but I’ve already established by now that Kreacher cares about him. If anything, it would more likely be in reference to the church, who he worked with but who sent him to jail anyways. It could also be referring to the government, who promised him enough compensation, but ended up never giving him enough.

About the ungrateful girl comment, I’ve also already attempted to explain my opinion that Emma was never at Kreacher’s orphanage. If Kreacher was only 16 when Emma first went to an orphanage, he’d be too young to have already started his own. One thought is that he’s simply referring to his actions in the manor. He may be referring to how he’s tried to be nice to her, but she always freaks out and runs off when he tries (possibly due to her condition screwing with reality? ).

As for the “you will regret this” comment, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, since we never see him really doing anything against Emma after this. I do have one theory, but I’ll get to that in a moment after this, as it relates to a different idea I have (Spoiler: could be referring to him knowing how to escape the manor, or to the secret exit, and how he won’t help her escape with him anymore). The point is that nothing else really makes sense as to what he could be referring to if Kreacher really did say this.

Finally, the violence. This could go back to the way Kreacher grew up. The streets were violent, fights happened often, and people normally spoke with their fists rather than words. Only the strong survived. That’s why Kreacher might be this way now, especially if he were to get upset (this is only an attempt at an explanation, not give him an excuse for his actions. You should never punch someone, even when you’re angry).

I hoped I’ve explained my reasoning well enough by now, as well as even provided a counter explanation. You can believe whichever you like, but I still like the former idea, as it makes everything more complex and, if the vase scene is more than just an oopsie by officials (which I find hard to believe with everything they’ve done), it also gives an explanation for that.