The WHF Film Club

[expat_mike]

Immediately after watching the film, I was struggling to understand why it had won an award. Unable to identify it’s merits, I have read some of the reviews posted by members of the public. I now realise that there is more to this film than I thought, but even so I am still not sure about why it was an award winner.

I will try and describe some of my thoughts about the film, but I accept that i mostly have questions, that maybe will trigger some ideas among the rest of you.

For the first section of the film, it appears to be about the events happening to a trainee nun, just before she takes her vows. But then it changes, into what feels like a road trip movie, before closing with Ida returning to the convent.

Although Ida and Wanda are relatives, they are clearly two different personalities, who are linked by terrible tragedy during the war. Wanda has spent much of her adult life as a prosecutor, helping the state seek revenge from guilty individuals. I do wonder if she was subconsciously driven by emotions, related by the loss of her son. Ida in contrast has spent all the life that she has ever experienced, being taught about a religion, with a core tenet of forgiveness. The result is that even when she learns that her family farm was stolen, and her family murdered, her response is to forgive the perpetrator.

The film also touches on the social aspect, that many of the locals must have known or suspected what happened to Idas family, but no one wanted to talk about it. I think this happens in the aftermath of many conflicts – people prefer to hide/forget the past, and try and move forward with a better future.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Immediately after watching the film, I was struggling to understand why it had won an award. Unable to identify it’s merits, I have read some of the reviews posted by members of the public. I now realise that there is more to this film than I thought, but even so I am still not sure about why it was an award winner.

I did enjoy the film, and I'd kind of like to watch it again, if only just to make sure I didn't miss anything important, but I doubt I ever will.

As you said, it's a little bit unclear on first viewing why it's such a highly regarded, and award winning movie. I never felt any emotional attachment to Ida or her Aunty, so I didn't really feel any emotion when we discovered the fate of Ida's parents, other than a frustration at her own lack of emotion.

 

[expat_mike]

I never felt any emotional attachment to Ida or her Aunty, so I didn't really feel any emotion when we discovered the fate of Ida's parents, other than a frustration at her own lack of emotion.

It seems that Ida was played by a young lady who was discovered in a cafe. She has not been through any formal acting school. The director had already auditioned more than 400 actresses, but without finding the person he was looking for. So the director tried the alternative approach of using the girl with no acting experience, because she represented a blank canvas. This does not sound so strange, when one remembers that the character Ida has spent all her formative years inside the claustraphobic, closed and rigid environment of a convent. This may mean that she has learnt less facial body language than normal people exposed to the outside world - and this may have been turning out to be difficult to portray by actresses who have been trained for years how to display emotions, but not display a lack of emotions.

 

[John Duncan]

I watched The Babadook a couple of nights ago, having seen it mentioned on here and it being in the 5-for-£30 rack at HMV.  Quite scary, though somewhat obvious what the 'monster' is.

Is it The Babadook? *biggrin*

No, that is -who- it is...

 

[John Duncan]

I watched The Babadook a couple of nights ago, having seen it mentioned on here and it being in the 5-for-£30 rack at HMV.  Quite scary, though somewhat obvious what the 'monster' is.

Absolutely, "the monster" is explicitly allegorical (I'd argue this is always the case with horror cinema), which is what's so unsettling.

The Babadook is about an abusive relationship. These issues aren't resolved by the film's end, but repressed (or locked in the basement).

I think it's an excellent film (even better when you consider this was Kent's debut feature). If not for a few clunky moments early on I'd go as far as to describe The Babadook as a genre classic. At worst the film comes pretty damn close to such an accolade.  

I'm not sure I would agree that it's 'repressed', in the sense that that word generally carries connotations that suggest that that would be a bad thing. Suppressed, perhaps? Acknowledged, accepted, -tended- even, are what the ending suggested to me.

EDIT - can you expand on what you mean by abusive relationship? Between the mother and the Babadook, or do you suggest there was one between her and her late husband?

 

[strapped for cash]

I'm not sure I would agree that it's 'repressed', in the sense that that word generally carries connotations that suggest that that would be a bad thing. Suppressed, perhaps? Acknowledged, accepted, -tended- even, are what the ending suggested to me.

Well, I apologise in advance for the forensic examination, which I know some people don't like.

Beware, spoilers ahead...

The film is hugely expressionistic; in other words, what we see on screen externalises or represents character psychology, including the use of cinematic space.

In Freudian terms, the basement space represents the unconscious, "repressed" component of the psyche, where the Babadook is ultimately locked away and tended (I'm very happy with that word, too). I use the term repressed because it stems from Freudian theory ("the return of the repressed" being a universal theme in horror cinema -- the werewolf, vampire, killer, etc. are all manifestations of repressed sexuality and violence that disrupt civilised space).

There's a chapter on the American horror film in Robin Wood's Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan, which outlines the kind of Freudian argument I make above. I found a link to the chapter for Ben a long time ago, but I can't seem to locate it now. It's a great essay.

can you expand on what you mean by abusive relationship? Between the mother and the Babadook, or do you suggest there was one between her and her late husband?

Neither, I mean between mother and son. The greatest fear in The Babadook is that the mother will harm her child, in no small part because he's a constant reminder of her husband's death, meaning she cannot process her grief, which is therefore repressed and ultimately violently expressed.

The Babadook or "monster" is therefore the mother's repressed grief, which accumlates energy until it is directed toward her son. There's evidence of this throughout the film, notably through the mother's threats and visibly violent actions, but also during moments when the monster itself attacks the boy (dragging him upstairs and hurling him against a wall), and through the still visible bruises on the boy's neck at the very end.

However much mother and son appear to have moved on by the film's conclusion, these issues are not resolved, and threaten to resurface. For the mother to have a functional, loving relationship with her son, her grief must stay locked away, in the basement, while it must be periodically visited and tended to prevent its escape (I still like your term, which is why I nicked it).

Read in this way I think the film is both troubling and very human. Hope that all makes sense.

 

[richardw42]

I never felt any emotional attachment to Ida or her Aunty, so I didn't really feel any emotion when we discovered the fate of Ida's parents, other than a frustration at her own lack of emotion.

It seems that Ida was played by a young lady who was discovered in a cafe. She has not been through any formal acting school. The director had already auditioned more than 400 actresses, but without finding the person he was looking for. So the director tried the alternative approach of using the girl with no acting experience, because she represented a blank canvas. This does not sound so strange, when one remembers that the character Ida has spent all her formative years inside the claustraphobic, closed and rigid environment of a convent. This may mean that she has learnt less facial body language than normal people exposed to the outside world - and this may have been turning out to be difficult to portray by actresses who have been trained for years how to display emotions, but not display a lack of emotions.

as she has been shut away in the convent for most of her life, I don't think she knew what to do with the information she faced during her time with Wanda.

Wanda provid d the emotion in the film, after her suicide Ida seemed more prepared for the future. She made the decision to go back to life as a nun rather than drift into it.

 

[strapped for cash]

I decided to give Crimson Peak a go this afternoon, despite somewhat mediocre reviews.

It's certainly languid of pace, but builds eventually to an effective conclusion, even if the signposting feels heavy handed.

I kind of give del Toro et al. a pass with regard to sledgehammer subtlety, since this feels entirely in keeping with gothic romance, melodrama and expressionism, where everything's thrown out there.

I'd have prefered more subtlety in terms of referentiality, though. The film checks everything, from Hitchcock and The Changeling to Hammer and Bava. It can be nice to pay homage, but clubbing the audience around the head until they "get it" can feel insulting.

It was fun watching Jessica Chastain's Mrs. Danvers routine (with a splash of Billie Whitelaw). Judith Anderson still sets the standard, however:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgMDDNYIsNs (5:18 - 6:17).

Oh, and CGI ghosts have always been cr*p (fortunately they're bit players in Crimson Peak).

 

[Frank Harvey]

October Horror Fest going well - 48 films so far...

 

[strapped for cash]

October Horror Fest going well - 48 films so far...

Anything new? Which re-viewed films have you enjoyed the most?

 

[Frank Harvey]

Anything new? Which re-viewed films have you enjoyed the most?

54 now, as of Thursday 22nd...

I'm not necessarily using this as an excuse to watch all the great horrors. As I had almost 300 films to choose from, I had to narrow that number down by A LOT! I took out any horrors I'd seen over the past 2-3 months, unless it was the first time I'd seen them (I like to revisit a film shortly after seeing it for the first time). I also took out the ones I watch on a regular basis. I've been trying to watch stuff I haven't seen for a long time, or stuff I may not have seen at all. I've only watched a few classics, as I wanted to hear them with the new processor.

But some of the more interesting ones have been The Hidden, a film from 1987 which I've seen a couple of times before the end of the 80s, but not at all over the past 25 years. It's held up ok, but I think it's begging for a remake. Basically a small alien form gets inside a human body and takes over it, using it for evil like killing, openly robbing banks etc, and once the body becomes too damaged to continue, it finds another body to start all over again.

I used this month as an excuse to watch the original Blob as well as the 80s remake. I do like the remake, so it was interesting watching the original for the first time (at least knowingly watching it for the first time anyway).

On the subject of remakes, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Thing, Evil Dead, and Maniac have been the standout examples (seen all of these before).

Peter Jackson's The Frighteners is always hugely enjoyable to watch, despite the dodgy digital effects.

The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari (1920) is an interesting watch too. Amazing picture quality on Bluray for it's age, and I love the sets, which are more reminiscent of a stage show rather than real life sets, with its painted shadows, and oblique angles - nothing is square or perfect.

Of the classic films I've watched, The Exorcist and The Shining are always good viewing.

Of the films I have watched for the first time ever (not very many), I wouldn't say any of them have particularly struck me as impressive - Night Of The Hunter and Roman Polanski's Repulsion are the main ones I could mention. I know these two aren't strictly horror, but as I hadn't seen them before, I wasn't really aware of exactly what they were about.

The Serpent And The Rainbow hasn't held up too well...

 

[strapped for cash]

But some of the more interesting ones have been The Hidden, a film from 1987 which I've seen a couple of times before the end of the 80s, but not at all over the past 25 years. It's held up ok, but I think it's begging for a remake. Basically a small alien form gets inside a human body and takes over it, using it for evil like killing, openly robbing banks etc, and once the body becomes too damaged to continue, it finds another body to start all over again.

I haven't seen The Hidden, but it sounds interesting and open to psychoanalytic interpretation (the monster that forces us to engage in criminal and disruptive behaviour is really our unconscious self, or id).

I used this month as an excuse to watch the original Blob as well as the 80s remake. I do like the remake, so it was interesting watching the original for the first time (at least knowingly watching it for the first time anyway).

It's a long time since I've seen either. Of all the 1950s horror-sci-fi classics I've returned perhaps most often to The Incredible Shrinking Man. I could certainly give The Blob another go.

On the subject of remakes, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Thing, Evil Dead, and Maniac have been the standout examples (seen all of these before).

If you mean the Carpenter remake of The Thing I can happily climb onboard. I haven't seen the Mary Elizabeth Winstead starring version. I got about 15 minutes into the Texas remake.

Sorry, but I've struggled greatly with the latest round of horror remakes, which seem largely pointless and tend to substitute greater violence for any meaningful updating of themes. To be honest, I'm not even that crazy about Raimi's original Evil Dead trilogy (that's sacrilege among horror fans, I know).

Peter Jackson's The Frighteners is always hugely enjoyable to watch, despite the dodgy digital effects.

I haven't watched this for a very long time. I remember it being pretty good fun, but I'd really need to revisit the film to offer any worthwhile observation.

The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari (1920) is an interesting watch too. Amazing picture quality on Bluray for it's age, and I love the sets, which are more reminiscent of a stage show rather than real life sets, with its painted shadows, and oblique angles - nothing is square or perfect.

In many ways the genesis of the horror film and its expressionist roots, and an early example of the twist ending. A true cinematic landmark.

Of the classic films I've watched, The Exorcist and The Shining are always good viewing.

No argument there. Of the 1970s and early 1980s wave of Hollywood horror, I'm perhaps fondest of Carrie.

Of the films I have watched for the first time ever (not very many), I wouldn't say any of them have particularly struck me as impressive - Night Of The Hunter and Roman Polanski's Repulsion are the main ones I could mention. I know these two aren't strictly horror, but as I hadn't seen them before, I wasn't really aware of exactly what they were about.

I'm happy to regard both as horror films and both are genuinely fantastic.

Pearl's riverboat song is an outstanding sequence in The Night of the Hunter. The imagery is mesmerising in the context of the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMF0Wc_hm4A

The images of Shelley Winters floating are haunting, too, as is Robert Mitchum's late night rendition of "Leaning," as the children hide out in the barn.

It's one of cinema's great injustices that Laughton was never allowed to direct another film.

It's worth tracking down the German Repulsion BD (titled Ekel). I managed to buy this from Amazon, though it's now listed as out of stock.

It's a direct port of the Criterion BD (same bitrate throughout) and a huge leap quality-wise over any of the DVD releases. Kudos to Arrow, too, who did a great job with The Night of the Hunter BD.

The Serpent And The Rainbow hasn't held up too well...

I'm willing to take your word for it. I saw this in my teens, when it was first released on VHS.

I'd imagine The People Under the Stairs doesn't hold up too well, either.

 

[strapped for cash]

If anyone's interested in 1920s Hollywood, stardom and scandal, there's a BBC4 documentary on late tonight about Clara Bow.

Bow certainly had an interesting life and a short career, ended by tabloid moral outrage and fabrication (she was a Brooklyn girl from a very poor family thought to be having too much fun, which really meant Bow enjoyed life more than the staid figures that condemned her).

 

[thescarletpronster]

I recorded the Clara Bow programme and plan to watch it tomorrow. Although I was always more of a Mary Pickford boy m'self.

 

[Frank Harvey]

To be honest, I'm not even that crazy about Raimi's original Evil Dead trilogy (that's sacrilege among horror fans, I know).

Try watching it in black and white...

 

[strapped for cash]

I was always more of a Mary Pickford boy m'self.

I've no issue with Mary Pickford.

As one of UA's co-founder's, Pickford's an important figure in Hollywood history (UA was one of the "little three" that challenged the "big five" studios' stranglehold on film production and exhibition).

Pickford wasn't a vehement racist like Lillian Gish, either (overt racism was popular at the time, but to the best of my knowledge, Pickford wasn't openly bigoted). Have you seen Broken Blossoms? It's an interesting film historically, which is not to endorse its representation of Orientalism in any way.

I flagged up the Bow documentary because her career was destroyed by tabloid journalism, rather than as a devout expression of fandom, though Bow arguably brought a naturalism to acting unseen at that time, amid the more staged and histrionic performances common in silent cinema.

 

[strapped for cash]

Try watching it in black and white...

I'll give it a go David. Maybe the violence will seem less cartoon-like in B&W.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Try watching it in black and white...

I'll give it a go David. Maybe the violence will seem less cartoon-like in B&W.

The rubbish make up looks less...rubbish

It's still no masterpiece mind, but I just enjoyed it more, partly for the reason above, and also because the film doesn't really rely on blood - it's more physical violence.

 

[thescarletpronster]

I flagged up the Bow documentary because her career was destroyed by tabloid journalism, rather than as a devout expression of fandom, though Bow arguably brought a naturalism to acting unseen at that time, amid the more staged and histrionic performances common in silent cinema.

Sorry, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek about silent era starlets. I'm looking forward to watching the Bow docu.

I've just been reminded of my very weird in-cinema Louise Brooks experience.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I've been neglecting this thread a little, apologies.

I know we said about watching The White Ribbon before the end of this month, what do the others think about this? Or should we watch it as November's film instead?

 

[expat_mike]

I've been neglecting this thread a little, apologies.

I know we said about watching The White Ribbon before the end of this month, what do the others think about this? Or should we watch it as November's film instead?

I'm easy about that - I haven't watched it yet, so I was hoping to find time this weekend.

I have been watching all the posts about horror films, but because I rarely watch them i have had nothing I could add to the discussions.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I've been neglecting this thread a little, apologies.

I know we said about watching The White Ribbon before the end of this month, what do the others think about this? Or should we watch it as November's film instead?

I'm easy about that - I haven't watched it yet, so I was hoping to find time this weekend.

I have been watching all the posts about horror films, but because I rarely watch them i have had nothing I could add to the discussions.

Let's see what Richard thinks about The White Ribbon.

I don't watch a lot of horror either, though I will watch some of the classics of the genre.

 

[strapped for cash]

The rubbish make up looks less...rubbish

It's still no masterpiece mind, but I just enjoyed it more, partly for the reason above, and also because the film doesn't really rely on blood - it's more physical violence.

I have no issue with the low-grade production values, stop-motion animation, etc.

I know the camp plot and styling is much of the appeal, even more so with the sequels, but the unrelenting excess makes me tune out.

Evil Dead fans feel free to beat up on me now!

 

[strapped for cash]

I've just been reminded of my very weird in-cinema Louise Brooks experience.

Were you watching a Louise Brooks film, or did she make a personal appearance?

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I watched Under The Skin last night. I'm not sure how many of you have seen it, but for any of you who don't know it, it's certainly not your usual Scarlett Johansson movie, and it's also a film that will definitely divide opinion, and does.

I enjoyed it.