History Headscratchers / Split

* When the Beast [[spoiler:is eating Claire, why she didn't screamed or at least showed some pain? I mean, she was alive and conscious moments after Cassie found her. Why she looks "dead" immediately?]]

*** This is somewhat TruthInTelevision, since for a while in the 1980s and 1990s, some psychologists alleged that DID patients could [[ColorCodedEyes change their eye color]] depending on which personality was out, that a person with diabetes could have a personality that ''didn't'' have diabetes (and could produce blood tests to prove it), and that [[NinetyPercentOfYourBrain the electric energy the brain generated]] when alters swapped back and forth could [[MinovskyPhysics blow light bulbs and cause static on tvs,]] among other wild assertions. In real life, these claims have been largely debunked...[[spoiler:but since this movie takes place in the ''Unbreakable'' universe, where superpowers are a documented phenomenon, it could be that these abilities are real.]] (The more uncharitable interpretation is that Shyamalan [[CriticalResearchFailure did not do the research]] and presented a lot of outdated and damaging claims as fact.)

*** This is somewhat TruthInTelevision, since for a while in the 1980s and 1990s, some psychologists alleged that DID patients could [[ColorCodedEyes change their eye color]] depending on which personality was out, that a person with diabetes could have a personality that ''didn't'' have diabetes (and could produce blood tests to prove it), and that [[NinetyPercentOfYourBrain the electric energy the brain generated]] when alters swapped back and forth could [[MinovskyPhysics blow light bulbs and cause static on tvs,]] among other wild assertions. In real life, these claims have been largely debunked...but since this movie takes place in the ''Unbreakable'' universe, where superpowers are a documented phenomenon, it could be that these abilities are real. (The more uncharitable interpretation is that Shyamalan [[CriticalResearchFailure did not do the research]] and presented a lot of outdated and damaging claims as fact.)

** I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you don't actually know anything about long-term abuse survival and have a very toxic-masculine idea about what strength is. The "soft" girls die because ''of course they do'', physically attacking an abuser who has control over your environment is one of the ''stupidest'' things you can do, because you have no idea how they'll react. If they had attacked Hedwig or Patricia, the only thing that would do is guarantee that a stronger personality would take over and kill them -- which is exactly what ends up happening. The goal of survival is to win your life, not your pride or your dignity or your macho bragging rights. Casey only fights back directly when all of her other options are exhausted-- but she still would have lost, because oh right, she was fighting a superhuman with a manky shotgun. The "soft, brave" girls die because they think the way you do, that they're invincible because they're morally right, that they'll totally win even though the closest thing they've ever experienced to real violence is an argument in the comments on a Justin Bieber video. They ''think'' they're tough, and they're ''wrong''.
*** I don't think your analysis of the situation is borne out by what we see in the film. Firstly, the two "soft" girls aren't shown to be acting out of pride or machismo. They simply realize that they're going to be killed unless they do something, and they're correct. They certainly don't think that they're invincible (refusing to initially attack the Horde without 3-1 odds). And we see from the girls' physical confrontations with Hedwig and Patricia that the Horde doesn't instantly swap to a brawnier personality when he needs more strength, so they ''do'' have opportunities to fight back and succeed. If the "soft" girls are supposed to have no idea how to survive a crisis, why were they drawing all the correct conclusions? Secondly, like I say in my comments above, Casey's decision to fight back ''in the end'' is presented as the right decision, but she had to go through character development to get to that point, whereas by the Horde's logic, she was "hard" from the start, when she was passively making poor decisions (the most obvious being staying in the car to await her abduction). That doesn't jibe.

*** I don't think your analysis of the situation is borne out by what we see in the film. Firstly, the two "soft" girls aren't shown to be acting out of pride or machismo. They simply realize that they're going to be killed unless they do something, and they're correct. They certainly don't think that they're invincible (refusing to initially attack the Horde without 3-1 odds). And we see from the girls' physical confrontations with Hedwig and Patricia that the Horde doesn't instantly swap to a brawnier personality when he needs more strength, so they ''do'' have opportunities to fight back and succeed. If the "soft" girls are supposed to have no idea how to survive a crisis, why were they drawing all the correct conclusions? Secondly, like I say in my comments above, Casey's decision to fight back ''in the end'' is presented as the right decision, but she had to go through character development to get to that point, whereas by the Horde's logic, she was "hard" from the start, when she was passively making poor decisions (the most obvious being staying in the car to await her abduction). That doesn't jibe.