Chad

orlmac

This is one of the top 5 films that I have seen this month. Very spooky in parts, the acting was surprisingly good as this type of child character gets very old very fast, and the reactions of people around them seemed to be realistic to me. This was a great choice, very well done!

Undeadcow

I also really enjoyed The Babadook; it's effective at blurring the lines between psychological breakdown and supernatural horror. While the idea of a book being the trigger for so much duress is unlikely the mother has a believable frustration with being a depressed single parent and doesn't oversell things (until things got all abstract near the end, the change in style felt a little jarring but did fit with previous events and was creepy). I'm not sure if I liked all the muted colors but they did help sell the surreal atmosphere.

I wish they didn't include the near end sequence of the mother nurturing Babadook because it destroys some of the wonderful vagueness - if the Babadook is real or psychological.

The Babadook was on Kickstarter to successfully raise art funds, here's a link to the campaign for what it's worth (includes a video of the Monster short film, basis for Babadook) - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...f-the-babadook

arw6040

Undeadcow^ you wrote my thoughts exactly though I don't mind that it was psychological in the end. And that's cool about the Kickstarter fund. I suggested this because I had seen this a while ago then rewatched it again today and I enjoyed it just as much. It's definitely one of the better horror flicks out in this decade. I think the Babadook looks creepy, it's psychological horror which is one of my favorite subgenres in horror, and the main lead actress does a fantastic job.

Undeadcow

Interesting that we both enjoyed the film but got slightly different interpretations. I perceived that the scene of the mother feeding dirt and worms to the Babadook in the basement suggested the creature is a real entity; but it's also possible that scene (like much of the movie) was thematic rather than literal. The vagueness between external horror and psychological is handled really well here.

Spiderbite

I agree with everything above, especially the bolded part. Maybe I can just imagine that it is all in her head and that is how she is keeping it away, by acting it out physically.

I really enjoyed this one and thought that the acting was great. And no cheap jump scares! But I was still a little let down by the ending. Not sure what I was expecting but the ending just didn't pack the right emotional punch since almost the entire movie was an emotional rollercoaster.

arw6040

Well the first time I saw it I wasn't sure myself then I saw many articles online that explained it so watched it again knowing it was most likely psychological due to well explained things matching up but you can interpret it any way you wish which is nice with movies like this that can go either way. Yes I agree it's handled very well.

ntnon

I agree - it was utterly terrifying in many places. Not least because a lot of it hit VERY close to home.

I was quite glad for the epilogue "proving" it wasn't all in her/his head... ambiguous enough still, but also firmly suggesting that she wasn't just utterly bonkers. Which gives me some element of hope to hold onto for them. Especially after the ostensibly-unattended birthday party. Which is a terrible, but surmountable, thing for a child.

Both children - the cousin too - seemed very well cast and to actually act like children: honest to a fault (sometimes), cruel, hurtful, belligerent, insistent, violent... and also fiercely protective and stubborn.

ntnon

I disagree completely - the book seemed just fine as a 'final straw'. She had festering resentment of her 'weird' son (made worse by a frustrated-and-therefore less-than supportive sister) and deep sorrow/anger over the loss of her husband. Since her sons' outsider/weird tendancies were manifesting in a fascination with protecting her from monsters, ANYTHING monster-y was enough to send her over the edge. And a genuinely terrifying story, on top of lack of sleep and the good use of TV clips all piling on the stress.... I can see the book as a final straw. The whole world was against her, and this story reinforced that AND her sons fears, making everything immeasurably worse.

Trevor

My wife hates horror films, but she agreed to watch The Babadook with me tonight. She was freaking out and cringing in fear constantly, and her little screams made my daughter Elise upset. Jen went downstairs to comfort her, and in telling her why she was scared it made Elise even more upset.

As they hugged each other on the couch, both almost crying, I crept downstairs, turned out the lights and loudly whispered "baba dook dook".

Their screams may have woke the neighbors.

3onameathook

Movie was good, but if I recall correctly when it came out it was given very good ratings. To me the film was good but IMO has been over rated a bit. I have the dvd so I'll be watching this one again at a later time.

pagefrance

When it first came out many were disappointed at the vagueness of the movie and the fact that The Babadook was not a Freddy Kreuger-type character (and thank God for that). I admit it puzzled me at first but the second viewing really brought the movie to life. I love the vagueness and the mixture of madness and possibly the supernatural. The acting by the mother and child are WAY better than what you usually get from a horror movie, so real that at times it was difficult to watch. A movie that will in my opinion grow in stature with time and one of my favourites of recent years.

rbrown498

And again I stand, a lone dissenting voice in the wilderness...because the more I see The Babadook, the less that I like it. That's not to say that it doesn't have its merits; I think that the acting and the cinematography were very good.

I was part of a big discussion of the film on another board, and here's part of what I said there:
And then again, from later on in the discussion:
That's just the way that I see it. I have a friend that remarked that The Babadook is what Repulsion would have been if Catherine Deneuve had had a son, or what The Exorcist would have been if Ellen Burstyn had been possessed instead of Linda Blair. The film is obviously open to whatever interpretation that you care to bring to it; I see it as a film about a mental breakdown as seen through the eyes of the person having that breakdown. I haven't found anything in the film that unequivocally insists that there's something supernatural going on.

Trevor

Arguing that it's not horror? Are you drunk?

Trevor

And yes, there was nothing supernatural. It was all mental imho.

Spiderbite

That's what I liked about it. Mental illness is far scarier than anything supernatural (especially since the supernatural doesn't exist).

Trevor

You are absolutely correct on both points.

ntnon

I see that argument, but I can't subscribe - it's horror whether or not there's a 'real' monster. Otherwise 3/4 of slasher films are just 'crime' and many monster films are just 'sci-fi' or 'fantasy'. There are awkwardnesses of classification, but anything this tense, frightening and disturbing is clearly within the horror genre as most definitions term it.

Also, much as I agree with most that it's probably all in her head, she still kills the dog and attempts to kill her son. Which is horrific without anything else - The Nanny is horror, surely?

Lastly - to me the reappearance of the book does imply something in the real world. (Unless the book only reappears in her mind, I suppose.) But your explanation makes sense. I saw the charcoal as being from the fire, not drawing however.

And I'm curious about your implicit suggestion that "horror" needs to be supernatural...

Undeadcow

Those are insightful observations; however for me the book being torn up then reappearing on the front porch with revisions points to me at Babadook being a real entity. Granted you could chalk that up to an unreliable narrator or scene from perspective of the cracked woman... but that's a cop out and the sort of logic that could nullify any movie regardless of how clear events seemed (hey, maybe Die Hard or is a Bruce Willis having a schizophrenic fever dream in a padded room). If the woman were fabricating the book, burning it would not prevent her from repeatedly making however many copies she needs. To assume she has dual personalities magnifies the psychological elements to an extreme I don't think fits the rest of the film (if there is a schism it's more minor and in her awareness because she reponds to it with one voice and is later unified - there's no evidence of entirely different personalities, which would seem too cartoonish for the film).

In Babadook there seems to be a clear shift in style from more natural towards a muted expressionistic style (to me the expressionism suggests dementia/psychological/over exaggeration) and the book reappearance is set during a straight forward scene on a sunny day. The dirt/worm feeding scene implies to me that Babadook is a real but subdued entity that became inflated by the mother's fragile mental state.

I see your point, but don't feel like physical menace or supernatural presence is a prerequisite for horror - seemingly ghastly imagery in an imposing setting alone could fit the bill. I don't believe the film removes all doubt that Babdook is psychological.The loss of her husband years ago or current child behavioral problems seems too long standing to suddenly trigger a massive psychological meltdown such as implied if one believes the film is entirely mental - Babadook abruptly appears and quickly intensifies, which hints at it being more than an externalization of long standing problems. It is poetic that a simple bedtime story would unravel this woman so much but the pacing feels misrepresented to me if mental projection alone is the film's intention ['now that my husband has been dead 3+ years I'll go crazy'].

rbrown498

Trevor, I'm not trying to convince anyone else that it's not horror; there is truth to the "if it looks like a duck..." saying. The reason that I don't see it as primarily a horror film is that the set-up makes the viewer think that there could be something supernatural going on, but (from my perspective at least) that's not the case. There is undoubtedly something terrible going on inside that house, but I felt like I'd been the victim of a bait-and-switch--what happens to Amelia and her son doesn't engender horror in me; it makes me feel sad for them. I'm certainly not offended that most everyone else sees it as a horror film, nor do I think them wrong; I just look at it somewhat differently than most, but everyone's made some valid points. I'll grant you that there are some horrific elements, but again, for me, the film is not a horror film first and foremost. (For the record, I also don't think of April Fool's Day and Mark of the Vampire as primarily horror, either. Sure, they've got all the trappings, but at their core they're not out to horrify the viewer.)

Horror certainly doesn't have to be supernatural for me, but it sure helps! I don't have issues with Psycho or Repulsion or most other psychological horror films simply because they never tried to lead me to believe that there were supernatural forces at work. The Babadook did, and I didn't like not being given what I was promised. It's the same reason that I hated the aforementioned Phenomenon--it promised one thing and delivered another.

I did notice one thing this viewing that changed my perception of the film just a little bit and keeps nagging at me--if Amelia WAS the creator of the book, how did she know that she was going to kill the dog and strangle her son? Since I don't believe that either of those happenings was premeditated, that does put a fly in the ointment of my theory. However, those acts appeared in the "second edition" of the book, which showed up very close to her total breakdown, so maybe her homicidal thoughts showed up there first.

I don't want to debate it forever; let's just acknowledge that each person's interpretation of the film is going to be different. It's not one of my favorite films, but it has been fun to talk about.

ntnon

No, I don't think it's sudden at all - that's just skewed because the film starts when it does. Clearly the son has been seeing monsters for a while, and equally-clearly his behaviour is getting worse each year - as is her recurring sense of loss whenever the anniversary rolls around. Seven seems about right to also be the age wheee the sister finally pushes back about the shared party and the son's independence and disobedience comes to a head.

Tipping point, not starting point.

exharrison

^Sense of loss probably accompanied with a sense of hopelessness from the loss as well.

clckworang

I really liked this movie. It has been one of the highlights of the challenge for me thus far. In the beginning of the film, I was thinking that things could be in her head, but I ended up falling more on the side of this entity being real. I can understand the interpretation that it was all in her head, but that wasn't what I took away from it.

Interesting discussion, though. I think the fact that people can come away with different meanings speaks very highly of the film. There's a good story there regardless of how one chooses to interpret it.

ntnon

Exactly. And after reading a dozen essays on American Psychos "real vs. imaginary" opinions, I think it's an excellent idea to agree there are different interpretations and not tear it apart looking for the 'right' one - which after all, IS about viewers' opinions. (That said... have the cast or director opined one way or the other, I wonder..?)

CrazyMat

As mentioned above I can see the resemblance to Repulsion in some ways, but I liked this movie better.

It was very Spooky in Parts and annoying in a few and I found the vagueness between Psychological and Supernatural horror very clever

On a entirely different and funny note. When the Baba Dook Dook Dook part came along I nearly burst out laughing and for some reason it lightened the mood temporarily.

A bunch of thoughts and scenarios popped in my head