Jennifer Kent’s The Babadook is unlike anything else you are likely to see this year. Calling it the best horror picture of the year — though it is — does it a grave disservice, since it is, in fact, one of the best horror films of our relatively young century. It is on the high end of creepiness. This is a movie about which The Exorcist director William Friedkin said, “I’ve never seen a more terrifying film than The Babadook. It will scare the hell out of you as it did me.” Hyperbole? Maybe, but maybe not. The truth is that, yes, it’s one hell of a horror movie, but it’s considerably more than that. It’s a horror film that is an examination of denied grief and denying the dark side that exists in all of us — yet it never forgets that it’s a horror picture. It is not for nothing that it has been picking up awards at fantasy/horror film festivals, but it should be noted that critics and critic groups — who usually look down on the genre — are singling it out for praise as well. I’ve seen it three times now, and if anything it worked better each time.
Unfortunately, a lot of people will avoid it simply because it is a horror film. This is a great mistake. The Babadook is not what you probably think it is. It is not by any means a gore-fest. In fact, it’s not even very bloody. Writer-director Kent eschews those all-too-familiar tropes. Moreover, she has approached the film from a classical stance. There’s no shaky, hand-held camera here. The film is done in a formal style that relies on craftsmanship, sound design and other traditionalist methods. The effects are all practical in nature. There’s no CGI cartoonishness here. It may remind you of classic horror. Its “monster” is, by Kent’s own admission, grounded in the image of Lon Chaney in London After Midnight (1927) — a particularly shrewd choice since that film is lost and the image is all we have. It may remind you of Kubrick’s The Shining (1980) or Polanski’s horrors like Repulsion (1965), Rosemary’s Baby (1969) and The Tenant (1976). There are also intimations of Wes Craven’s original A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). But in the end, The Babadook emerges as fresh, original, uniquely its own thing.
The story is both straightforward and complex. Amelia (Essie Davis) is a widowed mother living with her young son, Samuel (Noah Wiseman). Samuel’s father was killed in a car crash on the way to the hospital when his son was born. Amelia’s deeply buried grief has slowly turned into resentment of her son — and this resentment is fueled by the fact that Samuel is what is known as a problem child. More, he’s become convinced that there is a monster in their house — one that he’s preparing himself to fight off with homemade weapons that might alarm even the most well-wrapped of mothers, which Amelia clearly is not.
Things take a very bad turn when a singularly disturbing pop-up book called Mister Babadook mysteriously appears. Samuel is soon certain that he is being haunted by this creature. It isn’t long before Amelia is having her own issues with the Babadook — especially when the book magically incorporates new and more disturbing images that portend murderous events. Ignoring the book’s warning that the more she denies the Babadook, the stronger he becomes, Amelia’s life and sanity go rapidly downhill into a morass of hallucinations (brilliantly depicted on TV) and increasingly unsafe — even threatening — behavior toward her son. It’s as if she’s living out the events of the pop-up book.
That’s as much as I’ll say about the plot — except to note that it subverts our expectations at almost every turn. Yes, it’s horror — no mistake — and, yes, it’s intense and disturbing. But it’s not horror as we have come to expect it. As noted, it isn’t gory and has no interest in grossing out the viewer. Rather, it’s horror with something on its mind, and that — along with the impeccable craftsmanship and artistry of the filmmaking — makes all the difference. It makes The Babadook a film you should see. If you’re a quality horror fan, it’s a flat-out must-see. But see it soon, since the Christmas rush all but guarantees it won’t be around long. Not Rated, but contains language, violence, adult themes and disturbing images.
A horror movie that isn’t poorly crafted with d-level “actors” and bloody cgi at every turn? How un-modern.
I’m in.
I do not think you will be sorry.
Is the babadook kind of like the gobbledigook?
No.
I caught the first show today at Carolina Cinema, based on the strength of your review. You were spot-on. Best–and scariest–horror movie I’ve seen since The Shining.
Glad you liked it. I think it’s pretty darn terrific. Unfortunately, while you were watching it, I was watching Exodus, which is pretty darn the other end of terrific,
Ken
Eerie. I recall seeing something as eerie in my own youthful nightmares.
One who watches this film shall never look at shadows the same way again.
That may well be true,
Yes, this is fantastic and rather terrifying, and it deserves to be seen in the theater. Aside from the regular benefits that come with the big screen, the work done with sound here, especially the stuff involving voices and vocal distortion, is exceptionally creepy, and it really should be experienced in the intended setting. This is just darned fine horror, and that’s not something we get very often.
I couldn’t agree more — and the sound mix also makes the best use of the multi-channel system I’ve encountered in a while.
About the theatrical experience, there was an awards screening of Foxcatcher Sat. at the unholy hour of 9 a.m., which caused me no joy, especially because I had received an awards screener the day before and the trip was superfluous in that sense. But I went to the screening — in part because I’d had a hand in setting it up, but mostly because it’s how the film was meant to be seen. Well, Foxcatcher isn’t a story that much interests me and Bennet Miller does even chart on my list of favorite directors, but seen in its proper venue, it held my interest for 134 minutes in a way I doubt would have happened with the screener. More, there is one point in the movie where I actually jumped — and I don’t think that would be the case on TV.
Really gratifying support for this over the weekend. Delighted to see this kind of movie getting support.
Do not, however, get complacent. I’m betting it’ll be gone come Xmas Day. With four screens of Hobbits and a mystifying two screens of Night at the Mooseum 3, it gets hacked down to two shows — 6:45 and 10:15 — on Friday.
Hmmmm… I’m afraid this movie left me cold. It seemed to me right from the beginning that it was obvious that Amelia was mentally unstable – ie: the white glop she was cooking for dinner, the sterile, dark home decor, and in general the way she behaved. Even the ending – where she acted more normal on the outside and ‘hid her instability’ in the basement confirmed that the creep didn’t exist outside her own mind. What made me squirm… the horror for me – as a father – was how she was treating her son. Perhaps I’m just jaded… although I have an open mind and I’m always looking for a fresh ‘horror’ face.
I’m still not sure Mr. Babadook doesn’t exist.