Talk:Regression (film)

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by the joint Canadian film and cinema task force

Film: Canadian / Spanish

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Spanish cinema task force.

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Factual mistake in plot section of this film?

I just saw this film ("Regression" (2016)), for the first time, this evening. I think this entry on "Regression" is good but I think it got one part of its description of the plot wrong. But before I made a rather major alteration to the entry I wanted to run this issue by others who have an informed opinion about it, to make sure I'm not missing something. In the fifth paragraph of the "Plot" section it relates that the lead detective (Ethan Hawke) tells the psychology professor (David Thewlis) who has used regression therapy to supposedly recover peoples memories throughout the film, that this kind of therapy has led them to a completely false view of the case of supposed Satanic ritual abuse by implanting false memories in various people's minds (including the detective's own, though by his own run-away imagination rather than as a result of therapy). Then the entry states, "Though the professor is initially resistant to the idea, he too comes to suspect that these memories were not real." But it seemed to me that during this brief conversation between these two characters on the professor's doorstep, the professor strongly disagreed with the detective's assertion and, in fact, ends the conversation by saying - twice I think - "But it's science" (referring to his method of regressive therapy). Thus, it seems to me that the psychology professor continued to defend his method of regression therapy in the case and, thus, that it is not factual to state that the professor showed any sign of agreeing with the detective's debunking of so-called regression therapy in the case they were investigating, let alone that "he too comes to suspect these memories were not real." Of course, regressive therapy was widely debunked in the mid to late 1990s as leading to false memory syndrome, but this has nothing to do with the film or the issue of whether the psychology professor came to agree with the detective that the recovered memories of characters in the film were not real. Any feedback appreciated. Radphilosophe1 (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]