|
I just watched it. It's pretty good. Not as scary as I thought it would be, but as scary as I think it was supposed to be. The movie serves as a good metaphor for what the main character is going through in her personal life. I really thought it was going to end with her killing herself. I thought it was the popup book giving her a way out so to speak, and she was going to lose her mind enough to take it seriously. It's coming to Netflix in April. Cole fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Mar 31, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
The ending was a bit jarring to me. The Babadook was so threatening and powerful throughout then she just defeats it by screaming and keeps it as a pet? I thought the stains on her hand in the police station were from burning the book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
It's been said a lot in this thread but holy jeez someone put out a memo to everyone in showbiz to never use that Warcraft 2 dragon noise/Xcom alien death sound again. I really want to get that popup book. Did it ever hit the 2k preorder minimum? I'd throw $80 at it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Pantsuit posted:The ending was a bit jarring to me. The Babadook was so threatening and powerful throughout then she just defeats it by screaming and keeps it as a pet? You can't kill/defeat sorrow, you have to learn to live with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
To further emphasize: It's not just that the Babadook represents sorrow, but that it's a child. It can say and do a lot of horrible things, but it literally only has as much power as you give it because it fundamentally is not capable of surviving on its own. It grows out of control for the same reason as Amelia's actual child - she is so afraid of 'becoming a monster' that she creates one through passive ignorance of its bad behavior. Neglect towards a child's cognitive and social development is just as bad as outright abuse, so one creates a monster. The way Amelia comes to embrace the Babadook is an analogy for her realization of the dank, literally subterranean (in the basement) subtext of what being a parent is. You sustain and teach something purely out of compassion towards it as an extension of yourself, but this compassion in and of itself makes no loving sense, so unless you have faith in yourself and you're own convictions about what is socially appropriate and morally right, there's no point in doing it. She thought being a parent was about making sure her child was 'happy,' such that she forget the basic principle of survival upon which this is predicated. The catharsis of The Babadook and the superior short proof-of-concept Monster (which is only superior because it's not as over-the-top and probably more appreciable to parents who aren't total depressives) is the same as a Louie C.K. sketch. The exact thing that makes a child innocent is precisely what makes them diabolical. By stripping away the naive, sentimental mythology constructed around the unique identity of the child as distinct from that of an adult, we recognize this irony, and are thus practically able to nurture and raise a child with the understanding that they are always preternaturally bad and are made good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Watched it today, very underwhelming. The last two horror movies I watched were It Follows and A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night, so my expectations were perhaps way too high. The acting was impressive, and the pre-"supernatural" part about the fear of failing at raising a happy child were very well done. The pop up book was kickass. Then some Tim Burton movie reject shows up and it's all lost. I appreciate the subtext (that's a good reading K.Waste!), but why slap such a generic ghost movie on top of it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Watched the trailer and it looks retarded lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
Thought this was a decent movie with some of the most tolerable child acting I have seen in a while. My take on all the sounds that everyone is complaining about (as well as the monster design) was that it was stuff that seeped into her consciousness from all of the late night tv she was watching during her insomniac haze.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
There's no way that little poo poo produced a dove at the end for his magic trick. Do Australian pet shops just sell doves to 7 year olds? Everything the kid did up to that point was somewhat realistic. Just makes me think that she killed her son and that she's delirious in the end. That being said, it was a solid 7/10. The old lady next door was the cutest. The lack of colored wallpaper and furniture made for a very surreal set. Great lighting and sound mixing. The dragon/DOOM Imp scream was a poor choice. Should have just added some mocking laughter and more DOOK DOOK DOOKs
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
cowbeef posted:There's no way that little poo poo produced a dove at the end for his magic trick. Do Australian pet shops just sell doves to 7 year olds? Everything the kid did up to that point was somewhat realistic. Just makes me think that she killed her son and that she's delirious in the end. Nope. Diegetically, magic is real. It's only after embracing the Babadook that Amelia creates an environment in which her son really can achieve his dreams.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
I actually didn't mind the dumb scream thing, it felt very surreal and jarring kind of like the TV fever dreams and even the pop-up book itself. It sounded exactly like the old godzilla/dinosaur roars and considering old tv shows and movies were sort of a running theme I have to think the choice of that sound effect was at least somewhat on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:To further emphasize: It's not just that the Babadook represents sorrow, but that it's a child. It can say and do a lot of horrible things, but it literally only has as much power as you give it because it fundamentally is not capable of surviving on its own. It grows out of control for the same reason as Amelia's actual child - she is so afraid of 'becoming a monster' that she creates one through passive ignorance of its bad behavior. Neglect towards a child's cognitive and social development is just as bad as outright abuse, so one creates a monster. The way Amelia comes to embrace the Babadook is an analogy for her realization of the dank, literally subterranean (in the basement) subtext of what being a parent is. You sustain and teach something purely out of compassion towards it as an extension of yourself, but this compassion in and of itself makes no loving sense, so unless you have faith in yourself and you're own convictions about what is socially appropriate and morally right, there's no point in doing it. She thought being a parent was about making sure her child was 'happy,' such that she forget the basic principle of survival upon which this is predicated. I think this is what Australians were thinking when they made this movie but it's pretty simple-simon ABC analogy stuff and the movie really suffered for it. 70/100 Babadook, watch It Follows and learn how to do horror movies Australia, OK. Strange Matter posted:Saw this with the wife last night, we both really dug it. What I appreciated most about it is how the film works equally well if you interpret the monster being real vs a product of the mother's mental illness. The one exception I thought of was where the pop-up book came from in the first place if you discount any actual supernatural events occurring, but then I remembered that she had told the women at her niece's birthday party that she used to write children's books, so it's conceivable that she created the book herself. Of course she wrote the book and added on to the blank pages later and blah blah blah Oh also this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el72n7U4Pos&t=119s raton fucked around with this message at 00:24 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
I was kinda rooting for the monster after she killed that amazing dog. Got away with it, too.  I read her feeding for the Babadook at the end as being more of a mother/child relationship, but I guess it has a slight grotesque pet undertone too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
Sheep-Goats posted:I think this is what Australians were thinking when they made this movie but it's pretty simple-simon ABC analogy stuff and the movie really suffered for it. Well when the entire nation of Australia comes together to make a movie, you have to expect a too many cooks problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
...And yet American audiences were like "what symbolism?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
They've re-opened the sale of the book briefly! link -- the password is "basement".
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
Thanks, jumped right the hell on top of that one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
bort posted:They've re-opened the sale of the book briefly! FYI as of the last Kickstarter update the delivery of the book isn't happening until January, so if you're looking to give this for Christmas you're out of luck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
To preface, I rarely ever watch horror movies because I am a tremendous coward who keeps his hands over his eyes for half of them or, in many cases, just decides he'll never watch the movie and reads the entire plot synopsis on Wikipedia (I am trying to slowly get more comfortable with it though). I watched this on Halloween with pretty much the worst atmosphere possible--at a friend's apartment while a bunch of people pre-gamed for a bar crawl, with lights on and people talking and walking in and out of the room, plus subtitles on to make up for them. And this movie still managed to be both incredibly suspenseful and awesome. Loved the atmosphere and concept. I definitely did obscure my vision a couple of times, but in retrospect the only overtly frightening stuff shown on screen is really the TV scenes--those really were horrifying, whether it's the hosed up Melies stuff or the mother smiling creepily in the window. I will also admit to taking some glee in the mother saying "Why don't you eat poo poo?" to her son. Anyway, I loved this movie and would recommend to fellow horror novices. Anything else that has this kind of great atmosphere and cool ideas but also won't keep me up for nights on end afterward? I took quite a while to recover from seeing The Conjuring in theaters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
the great deceiver posted:I actually didn't mind the dumb scream thing, it felt very surreal and jarring kind of like the TV fever dreams and even the pop-up book itself. It sounded exactly like the old godzilla/dinosaur roars and considering old tv shows and movies were sort of a running theme I have to think the choice of that sound effect was at least somewhat on purpose. I feel this answer explains it best. Sound designers know their libraries and they wouldn't pick something so recognisable by accident. It ties in with the recycled late-night memory recall vibes that the TV is spewing throughout the movie. moths posted:...And yet American audiences were like "what symbolism?" This would actually be a good movie to show in schools to introduce people to basic symbolism and allegory. It's just obscured enough with horror stuff that it's not obvious, but as soon as it's explained, the metaphor becomes very clear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
I liked all the visual allusions to The Shining. Other than that, the movie was kind of weird. It seemed to have a whole hell of a lot to do with the mother's mental illness, whereas my SO thinks it's just another movie about a poltergeist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Symbolism is not your SO's strong suit, i take it.
Henchman of Santa fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
The movie's focus is definitely on the mother's slow mental decay and her resentment of her son that she feels is a burden and the "cause" of her husband's death. But the Babadook itself does have a presence in the movie as a sort of demon that's feeding off a woman's fears and anxieties while also being a physical manifestation of her repressed emotions. It both does and doesn't exist. But it's not just taking over an otherwise healthy woman and "driving" her crazy. She was already going crazy on her own.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
The issue, ultimately, is that symbolism can't support things on its own; it works best as subtext. The ending only works as Babadook As Symbol Of Grief. It a stupid as hell ending from a people-dealing-with-a-ghost perspective. If you've got a ghost thing in your basement, the last thing you do is feed it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
To be fair my boyfriend's objection to a strict psychological reading is that the Babadook reminded him of a Boggart. "The household form causes mischief and things to disappear, milk to sour, and dogs to go lame. The boggarts inhabiting marshes or holes in the ground are often attributed more serious evil doing, such as the abduction of children. . . Always malevolent, the household boggart will follow its family wherever they flee. It is said that the boggart crawls into people's beds at night and puts a clammy hand on their faces." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boggart Astrochicken fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:The issue, ultimately, is that symbolism can't support things on its own; it works best as subtext. Not necessarily, there are a lot folk tales where the faeries/goblins/etc. are dangerous and out to get you but can be appeased and kept under control with the right offerings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:The issue, ultimately, is that symbolism can't support things on its own; it works best as subtext. You can never get rid of it. Might as well try to make sure it doesn't become malevolent again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Yeah it works both in the text and subtext. You feed the malevolent force to appease it so it doesn't leave its confines again, and you "go into the cellar" every now and then and acknowledge your grief and emotional trauma so it doesn't take over your mind and drive you crazy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:You can never get rid of it. Might as well try to make sure it doesn't become malevolent again. Or, since it retreated into the closet, let it starve there. You don't feed a entity thing that is tormenting you, especially won you just defeated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Or, since it retreated into the closet, let it starve there. You don't feed a entity thing that is tormenting you, especially won you just defeated. It doesn't starve, once neglected it'll start to feed off of her again like a Dementor. Thought that was pretty clear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Or, since it retreated into the closet, let it starve there. You don't feed a entity thing that is tormenting you, especially won you just defeated. Christ man, feeding things endears them to you; it is a symbol of peace, acceptance, sharing, and so on; the logic of it is obvious on a literal Babadook-as-demonic-spirit level and on a figurative unresolved grief driving her mad level. To argue against this is absurd. Do you expect there to be a different movie, that you imagine, but that obviously is not the extant movie?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Or, since it retreated into the closet, let it starve there. You don't feed a entity thing that is tormenting you, especially won you just defeated. I don't think the being you explicitly can never ever get rid off isn't going to starve if you don't give it food.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
The Babadook is the herpes of monsters, it's found a home and it'll never leave, so make some accommodations so it doesn't flare up again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:I don't think the being you explicitly can never ever get rid off isn't going to starve if you don't give it food. I think that perhaps "tactical realism" is a nerd defense mechanism against admitting that they do not """ get""" movies and may not have actually paid any attention. C on firm / deny?? that is to say, "tactical realism" being that form of criticism of characters actions, based on misunderstanding their character, motivation, and the actual existing plot/narrative, in order to position oneself "above" the film and thereby avoid engagement with it fabergay egg fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Dec 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Best Giraffe posted:Do you expect there to be a different movie, that you imagine, but that obviously is not the extant movie? 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. FreudianSlippers posted:I don't think the being you explicitly can never ever get rid off isn't going to starve if you don't give it food. 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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
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. It works perfectly if you read the film as being about mental illness. Or, like someone posted earlier, if you think of old household spirits like Boggarts and Redcaps and Tomte. If you don't know about those and if you didn't see it as being almost entirely about her going mad and hating her kid then it's a loving awful ending and doesn't feel right. I think that the fact so many people have complained about the ending does show that it doesn't quite work. I got the themes and I'm old and rural enough that my grandparents would put bowls of milk down for boggarts (no seriously) and it still didn't quite work for me. Somehow it feels like when you're playing a game from Japan or watching a film from Iran or whatever that uses a trope which is totally normal to the home audience. It's a trope you've seen before. You know why it's there and you maybe even expected it. It still feels wrong and leaves you kinda unsatisfied. That's how the Babadook worked for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
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. If you wanna be practical evil book monsters donīt actually exist which means the whole film is bad. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
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. With regards to the Babadook this works both on the symbolic level and the "practical" level much in the same way. On the practical level she's found out that although you can't get rid of the Babadook you can weaken it and by keeping it in a basement and feeding it worms you gain some power over it. That's not a very good comeback to the point though. I guess for me the end said "yes it's definitely just her psyche" and that isn't as much fun as an either or. Throw out the 'practical' part of it, it's just a bit boring to end with it in the basement in the way it did. It's like in Science Fiction when suddenly an item you didn't know the main character had solves the problem at the final moment by miraculously fixing the spaceship. Fine spaceships aren't real at all so it shouldn't matter but you've got an in-universe explanation in your head until then and it gets ruined by the suddeness. Like I said before, it just doesn't play right. It all leaves you with a vague underwelming feeling. While I felt It Follows ended pretty reasonably even though it is exploring really similar issues. Taear fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Taxi Driver was such a poo poo movie. The ending makes no sense! Why did Travis just SUDDENLY become an action hero!?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
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. With regards to the Babadook this works both on the symbolic level and the "practical" level much in the same way. On the practical level she's found out that although you can't get rid of the Babadook you can weaken it and by keeping it in a basement and feeding it worms you gain some power over it. Yeah the whole point of the movie is that she ignored the Babadook in the first place (the Babadook being her guilt and grief over her husband dying and resentment of her son), which is how it got out and how she went insane and nearly killed her son. To just ignore it like before would basically be repeating the same mistake over again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:51
|
|