 The film’s use of depression as a toxic burden on the family proves that the film should’ve stayed in the two and a half minutes format (previous a short film) instead of creating a feature film and tainting the memory of a good scare. Monsters in horror films are rarely just monsters. Psychoanalysts thrive on the opportunity to analyse a horror film. Monsters are the Other that we expose in order to kill and reinstate normality. Monsters are the part we don’t like about ourselves. Monsters are communism, technology, gays, lesbians, depression, patriarchy, sexual abuse, our past – you name it. Sometimes the filmmakers are well aware of this and they shape their films with what they want to convey, others don’t realise it and it is up to critics to pick the subtext apart. Nevertheless, if it can be explained on the screen, then the filmmakers have to accept it. How the films are analysed and interpreted are beyond the filmmakers’ powers, and once it has been shown on the big screens, then it us up for discussion. Jennifer Kent wasn’t aware she was directing a film that presented a metaphor for depression, but in the end that’s what she ended up doing. The Babadook (2014) was a pivotal film in the sense that it turned the spotlight to female directors and helped open up the conversation of diversity behind the camera, but more importantly to this essay, The Babadook also presented a rich metaphor for depression. Mother and son struggle to lead a normal life as a monstrous presence makes itself known in their house and starts to tear apart Amelia and Sam’s relationship. As Amelia’s husband’s death anniversary comes up, the presence of the Babadook grows even stronger and it is up to Sam to bring his mother into safety. Babadook lives inside Amelia and turns her into a monstrous figure, making her resentful and violent towards her son. After surviving the many attempts to end his life, Sam defeats the monster, even if momentarily, by being kind to his mother and giving her nothing but love. Sam’s affection brings forth something dormant in Amelia and she is able to let go of the monster. The film was praised for its good representation of the mental illness, especially in its ending where the character of Amelia accepts the monster as part of her life and lives with it. She tames the monster and acknowledges its power, but she also nurtures it and moves on without letting it dictate her life. On the other hand, a film that deliberately wanted to create a metaphor for depression and backfired was David F. Sandberg’s 2016 Lights Out. Sandberg stated he wanted to portray the disease as he suffered from it and had seen it taking the best of people who were close to him. He turned the monster in his film into a vessel for depression, but the way he did it was painful to watch. Although it was a good film once we turn a blind eye for the problems, some are hard to ignore. The character of Sophie has to take care of her son, Martin, after the death of her husband. So far, the story mirrors the plot in The Babadook, but then we learn that Sophie had also abandoned her older daughter, Rebecca, when she was a small child. The use of Sophie as reckless and terrible mother due to her depression is harsh. Moreover, the use of the word “crazy” is thrown around to justify Sophie’s behaviour and Sophie herself won’t take antidepressants because, as she says it, she is not crazy. To represent antidepressants in such a way, especially when the medication is already considered taboo in our society, is negligent and ill-advised. In addition, blaming the mother and her depression for everything bad that happens in the family is beyond victim-blaming. The only good thing about this narrative is Martin’s love towards his mother, who despite being put in danger still loves and wants to help her – The Babadook all over again. All of these problems could be accepted if in the end we were presented with an intelligent storyline as Kent did with The Babadook, but no, I was shocked to see that the old trope of “killing the monster to reinstate normality” was used. Sophie commits suicide to kill the monster (as it exists in her head) to protect her family, therefore conveying the idea that suicide is a good way out when it comes to depression to save others from the distress of living with someone who suffers from mental illness. That comes from a director who stated he wanted to talk about depression as his friend took his own life because of it. A noble attitude, but done in a bad way. Sandberg defends the ending by saying that it is not actually a happy ending as he has ideas for a sequel in which he plans to explore the effects of Sophie’s suicide through the eyes of her children, stating that they were not “saved” from her mother’s death, but deeply ruined. The film’s use of depression as a toxic burden on the family proves that the film should’ve stayed in the two and a half minutes format (previous a short film) instead of creating a feature film and tainting the memory of a good scare. The Babadook and Lights Out have similar monsters but different messages – it just goes to show that it doesn’t matter how well-intentioned the filmmaker is, he or she must be careful when approaching a sensitive subject which begs for positive representation.  Bruna is passionate about film, especially horror. Her favourite films are Halloween, Scream and Cabaret. She has an MA in Film Studies from Kingston University and she is currently doing her PhD in horror films. Her writing can also be found on London Horror Society and UK Film Review. You can find her ranting on Twitter @Bruna_FinalGirl and posting nonsense stories on Instagram @foletto.b   the heart and soul of horror review websitesComments are closed.
|
Archives
April 2023
|
RSS Feed
|
|