The Babadook

"If it's in a word or it's in a book, you can never escape The Babadook"

The Babadook is a psychological thriller released late November in 2014. Directed by Jennifer Kent, this film follows a mother (Essie Davis) and her young boy (Noah Wiseman) as they are terrorized by a monster known as the Babadook. Essie Davis plays a single mother, named Amelia, who tragically lost her husband and is trying to raise her son as he begins displaying more and more sporadic behavior.

One of the strongest aspects of this movie is the symbolism behind the monster the Babadook and what he represents. The Babadook is a physical representation of grief and how, if one does not come to terms with grief, it will eat away at them. When I first watched the film it was difficult for me to pick up on this symbolism; however, at the end of the film there is a scene that make it very apparent. It is not until our main character Amelia accepts that the Babadook will never go away, or that grief will never go away, that the monster stops attacking her. Amelia is then seen feeding worms to the monster, or feeding into and acknowledging the grief she has for the loss of her husband, that she is able to move on with her life.

There are few aspects of this film that I have a problem with. The Babadook is introduced through a children's flip-book that is, one day, randomly found in the families basement. While having a basement leading to horror aspects in a film is incredibly cliché, the art design of this flip-book was amazing.

Every scene that contained this book left me feeling creeped out and uncomfortable. My only complaint is that the monster was not nearly as frightening as the monster in the book. The Babadook is merely a tall man in all black with some white face paint and silver contact lenses. Also the same effects used in all horror movies to create tension and panic are used in this film: quick cuts, shaky camera operation, and dark lighting.

Overall, while I did not find this film to be that frightening I did enjoy watching it. I think that it was well shot, well written and had strong underlying symbolism. If I had to give it a rating I would give it a 7/10 and would recommend giving it a chance.

What Has Happened to Horror?

Apologies in advance for cluttering the blog with yet another post on horror cinema, but I attended a screening recently that reminded me of a topic that has been bouncing around in my head for some time now.

So, in my last post, I mentioned that I would be seeing The Exorcist at Cornell Cinema on Saturday. It was my first time experiencing the horror classic and it should come as a surprise to no one that I thought it lived up to the hype. The film was extraordinary- a slow burn character drama with a heavily atmospheric supernatural spin. However, despite being impressed, I never found myself to be scared, at least not in the way I expected to be. Having seen the endless parodies and copycats produced since the film's release, I was desensitized to the terror on screen, but still drawn to it, fascinated, studying how it worked. Compared to modern mainstream horror, the pacing was unnatural and the beats were unusual. There was a distinct absence of jump scares and the thrust of the film was clearly toward its tragic narrative and the complex characters that inhabited it. How radical that must seem now, as Hollywood appears to have it the other way around these days.

This all leads to the question: "What has happened to horror?" Obviously, the genre is still thriving and will continue to thrive as long as cinema exists and people still have the capacity to be afraid. No, what I'm getting at is the exact nature of contemporary horror, at least as far as Hollywood is concerned. It may be unfair to say this, but: Where has the creativity gone? What has become of the genre's formerly radical position? Every year, plenty of horror films come out of the the studio system, but rarely do they have something new to offer. When it isn't the same possession film we've seen a million times (The Last Exorcism, The Devil Inside, Devil's Due, Deliver Us From Evil, The Rite, The Possession), it's another derivative, unnecessary found footage attempt (Apollo 18, Chernobyl Diaries, As Above So Below) or worst of all, yet another remake, reboot, sequel or prequel to a beloved horror series (Too many to list). How many times must we revisit The Texas Chainsaw story? Does Michael Myers need to be resurrected again? Did anyone ask for a prequel to The Thing or a sequel to The Blair Witch Project?

The last horror icon?

How about some new icons of slashers and chillers? I know it's easier said than done, but I'd appreciate the effort at the very least. When was the last time an iconic character was created in the genre? Jigsaw? That was 10 years ago! Captain Spaulding? 11 years ago. And before that? Ghostface (18 years back)? Chucky (26 years)?

I think it's time we stop re-doing and ripping off old classics. Take a chance, Hollywood! Horror is possibly the cheapest type of film to make precisely because of the absence of stars, elaborate sets and big-time effects. In this day and age, it's rare for a horror movie not to make a profit because most of them are made for almost nothing. Look at the recent film, Oujia, for example. Critics hated it and I have yet to speak to a single general audience member who liked it, but financially, it was a huge success because it was made on $5 million, eventually grossing almost 10 times that figure. As Above So Below was made for the same amount and opened to mediocre reception from audiences and critics...it made 8 times its budget. Do I need to go on? Last year's Dark Skies made $26 million at the box office. That would be a fairly sad number for most films, but when your production cost $3.5 million, it's pretty fantastic. What I'm saying is: there isn't much room for a loss, so why don't studios take a chance on more original material? Some of the genre's biggest game-changers were made for nothing and went on to become enormous hits (A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Blair Witch Project, The Evil Dead, Saw, Paranormal Activity...all made for less than $2 million, most for less than $1 million).

Last to mention is a type of horror cinema that seems to be going extinct in Hollywood. About two months ago, I watched The Changeling. Made in 1980 and starring George C. Scott, it was a solid haunted house film rooted more deeply in its storytelling and grief-stricken main character than the scares it produced (Kind of like the approach The Exorcist had). Unfortunately, films like The Changeling are barely attempted anymore and when they are, it's done by independent filmmakers, their work only occasionally picked up for wide distribution (See: this year's Oculus or The Babadook). Is it just to be expected that our rapid consumption, instant gratification-based society would not be able to handle such internal, psychological material? I'd like to think that isn't the case. Even with the dominance of "quiet, quiet, boo scares, " I want to believe that if The Exorcist opened today, it would still be a hit, but then again, maybe people would call it "boring" and "slow" and it would fly under the radar...Food for thought, most definitely.