|
MisterBibs posted:Then why feed it at all? Don't tell me the ~symbolism~ of it. The symbolism of it isn't going to absolve or replace the practical insanity of it. When it comes to bad things in folklore, you generally have beings that are malevolent which can be defeated, beings that are malevolent and immortal which can be appeased, and beings that are malevolent and immortal which cannot be appeased. The babadook is the second one. We're not exactly in crazy unexplored supernatural territory here, it's a pretty common archetype for this kind of thing all around the world and going back millennia, from mischievous spirits all the way up to angry gods. It's not as common in movies because reaching an equilibrium isn't as dramatic a conclusion as either the demon or the person "winning" but that doesn't mean it's somehow this totally out-of-nowhere concept that makes no sense. She feeds it so it will leave them alone, because it can't be defeated or escaped but it can be made content enough to not bother them for a while.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:28 |
|
|
Why does she feed it worms though? Does grief like worms? When I'm sad I'll eat some pizza rolls or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:Why does she feed it worms though? Does grief like worms? When I'm sad I'll eat some pizza rolls or something. symbolizing how her husband is buried with/being consumed by worms She's burying her demons with worms
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Hey guys, remember all those other movies where the protagonist appeases the horrible monster forever rather than defeating it? Like... Uhhh... Well then, maybe it does makes more sense as a grief metaphor
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
It is also important to understand that whether the Babadook exists in the film or whether it is her going mad, the rules are the same-whether its in a word or in a look, you can't get rid of the Babadook. Her husband isn't going to come back to life. She can never go back, she can never forget, her only option is to... Take care of herself. Forgive herself, forgive her son, and forgive her husband. Living in fear and rejecting her own life will destroy her and what remains of her family. But idk, maybe I'm retarded, and the movie would have been better if she blew that motherfucker away with her .45?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Taear posted:It works perfectly if you read the film as being about mental illness. That's what I said - it works fine if you read the the entity as a symbol of mental illness. It doesn't work when your movie is about a demon creature. When your movie's end becomes a scene from We Bought A Zoo 2: We Bought A Babadook with your characters taking care of the thing that's been tormenting you, shits done hosed up. FreudianSlippers posted:Lets say you have an immortal mad dog running around. You can't kill it no matter how you try but you manage to chain it up. You could try to ignore it but it might become restless and hungry and maybe even try to escape and eat your face. Alternatively you could feed it and check up on it regularly to make sure it's still there and still chained up. Or, put the immortal mad dog in a metal box, put chains around it, bury the box in a hole, pour concrete over it, then lock the door to the room its in. You don't go ~well its immortal so I guess I have to keep looking at it and feeding it blood~. That'd be stupid. About as stupid as an demon monster movie ending with the protagonists keeping the demon monster on life support. Cut out the feeding-worms nonsense and simply have the mom go downstairs and have still alive but incapable of harming/interacting with her while she's doing her normal-people chores, and you've got a solid movie that makes sense both symbolically and practically. You may not be able to get rid of a Babadook, but you can certainly break its arms and legs, pull out its teeth, and stuff a cork in its hellmouth so as to make its existence immaterial. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
What did you make of the scenes where Mrs. Roach and her son separately pledge their unconditional love and support to her when she's in the throes of her depre, er i mean possession? ("I just wanted you to know I would do anything for you and your son" & "I know you can't love me right now, it won't let you. But I love you and i'll never leave you!" or whatever)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
The Babadook: Insanely Brutally Slaughter Grief and Mental Illness
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:You may not be able to get rid of a Babadook, but you can certainly break its arms and legs, pull out its teeth, and stuff a cork in its hellmouth so as to make its existence immaterial. You can end a movie in ways other than one of the two parties getting their asses kicked. Unoriginal Name posted:Hey guys, remember all those other movies where the protagonist appeases the horrible monster forever rather than defeating it? There are plenty of movies where an evil supernatural thing is being appeased by a crazy old person / a village by the woods / an isolated island tribe. They just tend to either take place after the balance is disrupted or from the perspective of the poor saps being sacrificed, rather than being set when the initial bargain is struck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Isn't having a somewhat rare and unconventional ending that still dovetails nicely with themes of depression AND the old "leave a bowl of milk out for the fairies" type of superstition kind of a good thing? Like, it's neat. instead of your plain old demonic exorcism it's a sort of "taming" of the beast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
I love the people who are complaining that the ending should "work on both levels" like they have an alternative that works better "on both levels" than the one in the movie. Personally, I deal with mentally ill people by setting their brains on fire, and hitting them with an axe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Isn't having a somewhat rare and unconventional ending that still dovetails nicely with themes of depression AND the old "leave a bowl of milk out for the fairies" type of superstition kind of a good thing? But why wouldn't you just tear the fairies in half and burn down where they live? I don't care what folklore says or how their strength and powers are defined why wouldn't you do it
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Hey guys, remember all those other movies where the protagonist appeases the horrible monster forever rather than defeating it? Guys it is SUCH BULLSHIT when we see a movie doing things that I haven't seen before!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
Meh, I didn't exactly care for the ending, as I would have rather it just been her mentally unraveling, but it didn't exactly bother me either, I just thought it was kind of weak to make it a "real" monster. Explaining it as grief and why she was feeding it makes sense though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:That's what I said - it works fine if you read the the entity as a symbol of mental illness. Maybe read further than my first loving line? Honestly, come on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
MisterBibs: a singular lack of imagination
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I expect movies to have coherent endings consistent with the actions and events leading up to it. The extant movie fails to have that on a practical level. The movie is incredibly explicit in the text on two things: a) You can't get rid of the Babadook, there is no resolution possible that would allow her to starve or banish the beast and be rid of it. The Babadook also lacks corporeal form, you can't lock it up. b) The more you deny the Babadook, the stronger he gets, attempting to starve the Babadook would have the opposite effect of what you imply it will, feeding the Babadook weakens him, starving and ignoring the Babadook strengthens him. Like you don't need to read the story as a grief metaphor for it to make sense, the text directly supports the ending with two very clear pieces of information that establish the "rules" of the creature in a scene you apparently skipped or something. Unoriginal Name posted:Hey guys, remember all those other movies where the protagonist appeases the horrible monster forever rather than defeating it? Rosemary's Baby. Catfishenfuego fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Catfishenfuego posted:The movie is incredibly explicit in the text on two things: Precisely. The movie literally (literally literally) spells this out in the Mister Babadook book. I thought the ending made perfect sense from the perspective of either the literal monster in the basement reading or the monster as a metaphor for grief and insanity reading. Either way you have a being that will never entirely go away and nothing you do can make it so, and a being that can't be dealt with through repression and ignoring it. You have to acknowledge it. Personally I enjoyed the hell out of the movie. It wasn't as scary as I'd been lead to believe (although it was creepy as gently caress) but then I didn't expect such a ... well, not complicated but let's say multi-layered piece of storytelling about grief and parenthood either. Shaman Tank Spec fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:28 |
|
|
Yes, it's a metaphor for the dead groom But Babadook will forever loom
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 16:57
|
|
