THE BABADOOK
2014, Scream Factory, 93m 49s, $29.93 BD-A, $14.93 DVD-1 By Eric Somer
New horror films that surprise and scare have become a rare commodity. A fan of the genre must be incredibly patient, with a willingness to endure a stagger- ing amount of pedestrian fare in the hope of discovering something credible. THE BABADOOK quali- fies as one of those sought-after encounters. The superb feature film debut from Australian writer/ director Jennifer Kent belongs to an elite group of modern horror movies with primarily feminine concerns that include THE DE- SCENT, INSIDE, THE ORPHAN- AGE, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, LEFT BANK and AMERICAN MARY.
Perhaps only a female film- maker could tell a story this con- vincing about a single mom and problem child. Samuel (Noah Wiseman) represents as mighty a challenge for parental guidance as one could imagine, but his mother Amelia (Essie Davis) has devel- oped a high tolerance for the 6- year-old’s vivid imagination and aggressive form of play. He is convinced of the existence of mon- sters and has devised elaborate countermeasures. His unpredict- able behavior constantly creates stress for Amelia, both personally and professionally. She cannot ex- perience one private moment with- out the interference of Samuel’s high-strung needs. The routine bedtime rituals of checking under the bed and in the closet are fall- ing short, and Amelia deteriorates a little more each day, to the point where she reaches out for help.
Noah Wiseman as the troubled child at the heart of his mother’s nightmares in the widely acclaimed THE BABADOOK.
Then her wistful existence be- comes completely overwhelmed by a towering dark figure that seems to derive strength from her weak- est subconscious impulses. Davis offers a spectacular performance, perhaps rivaled only by Jennifer Carpenter’s turn in THE EXOR- CISM OF EMILY ROSE for the greatest female lead in a horror film of the new millennium. As promised, THE BABA-
DOOK gets under your skin, and that is a good thing for those who appreciate serious psychological horror narratives. It makes other recent portal-horror exercises like OCULUS (2013) and OUIJA (2014) look positively limp. The title character who arises from the creepy “MISTER BABADOOK” pop- up book absolutely recalls Lon Chaney in LONDON AFTER MID- NIGHT (1927), but there is far more going on here than obvious and not so obvious references to Chaney, Georges Méliès, Mario Bava and genre-defining horror films like REPULSION, DON’T LOOK NOW, THE SHINING and A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. With his magician’s garb, the wild- haired Samuel looks a lot like Chaney’s character and, in many ways, “the boy” is shown to be a burgeoning terror. Whether his mother (who has given up a writ- ing career to be available to her son’s needs) blames him for complicating her life is one of the most interesting questions Kent compels the viewer to consider. My favorite horror films en- courage the viewer to examine the contents of every frame carefully. John Carpenter must have under- stood this idea extremely well when he co-wrote and directed the original HALLOWEEN. To cite a more contemporary filmmaker, James Wan (INSIDIOUS, THE CONJURING) demonstrates a similar aptitude for creating men- ace in a composition, or, more to the point, suspicion of menace
that may or may not be justified. Jennifer Kent and Polish cinema- tographer Radoslaw Ladczuk ad- vance this horror trope and show marvelous artistry for balanced compositions that harbor a sense of dread. Especially once its omi- nous atmosphere is beyond ques- tion, THE BABADOOK demands attentive viewing. There is a lot of playful inventiveness at work in its demand for our focused atten- tion, as when Amelia visits the police station, or when she at- tempts to watch television over numerous sleepless nights. Such occasions were referenced in the film’s imaginative social network- ing campaign (“THE BABADOOK hides in plain sight, watch this clip and you’re in for a fright...”). Edi- tor Simon Njoo has assembled the film to amplify the loaded com- positions; even the expected jolts are unsettling.
Kent shows keen awareness for the horror genre’s history as well. Genre expectations are both observed and upended (the killing of a dog will be unlikely in the event of an American remake). Both a psychological explanation and monstrous entity account of the horror seem perfectly viable. I prefer a combination of the two, which are not necessarily mutu- ally exclusive. Various possibilities of interpretation only add to the film’s mystique, especially given the fascinating conclusion that manages to avoid the hint of a sequel so typical of the genre. One is left to conclude that our de- mons, whether personal or actual, never truly can be denied or de- feated. The best we can hope to accomplish is to confront and contain them, and then we move on as best we can.
Firmly positioned in the nar- rative resides an admonition against treating troubled kids with prescription drugs. The title crea- ture may be a manifestation of unresolved feelings connected to
47
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95