Read about what's happening over here
On Stephen King and His Work
I have always had a lot to say about Stephen King. If you let me, I would talk your ear off about him for hours, much of it hapless bitching about this and that. But, let me start positive. There is zero doubt that Stephen King is a remarkable writer. No other genre is so synonymous with a single person. His prose flows beautifully, and his ideas are phenomenal. Having said that, the man is very repetitive, and can’t end a book well to save his life.
The biggest argument I hear when stating my opinions on his works, is that I am missing the point. That his novels are not just about silly scares, but about the characters and everything they go through. To that, I say, you ‘re wrong. I absolutely understand what he is doing, and in theory it is wonderful. He loses me when he repeats those character building moments, over and over again. Case in point: In IT, Eddie has an incredibly overbearing mother that has convinced him that he is weak and sickly. He then marries a woman that is exactly the same. This is great stuff. The first chapter with Eddie and his wife, with him leaving her behind to go back to Derry, and his history explained – that chapter is fantastic, and makes Eddie a fully pronounced character. Unfortunately, this same stuff is repeated multiple times throughout the novel; each scene the same as the ones before it. Overbearing mother, yada, yada. By the time Eddie stands up to his mom, we’ve already read about 30 more pages of his plot line than we needed to understand him fully. When you apply this to every other character (and some that don’t matter at all) there are hundreds of pages of unnecessary words. It is very important to me that an author respect my time, and Stephen King is one of the biggest abusers of that privilege.
Luckily, the miniseries and new movie, don’t suffer from these things. There just isn’t enough screen time to overexplain anything. In fact, far more has to get cut completely.
My other main gripe with the content of the novel, is those things that are completely unnecessary. For an example of this, I am going to talk about Mike’s father. In the novel, and this is virtually left out of either movie, Derry is a remarkably racist community. Mike has to deal with some of that, and it adds to his character and the situation that the losers find themselves. However, we are treated to an insanely long series of chapters devoted to the racist things that Mike’s father went through, all of which adds nothing to the plot. It is decent storytelling on its own, but has no place in the book.
On the 1990 Miniseries
The miniseries was a lot of fun when I watched on TV in 1990. I was ten or eleven, and it was spooky. I still have a fondness for Tim Curry’s performance, but I had to long ago face the fact that the movie itself is very bad. A few scenes still entertain, but it didn’t age well at all. The miniseries, worse that the new movie and book, highlights the major shortcoming of the story – that being the “win because we believe” aspect of it. I have never been a fan of this trope, just as I have never liked the idea of “love conquers evil”. I get that IT preys on fear, and that is just fine; good even. I am still ok with IT losing power when the kids face their fear and stand up to it. The story loses me when it goes beyond that, and actually has magic go into rocks, and one object becoming another. I can suspend a lot of disbelief, but I can’t see how a child could suddenly, truly believe that his inhaler is battery acid, so that it becomes such. Etc.
On the New Film
Let me begin by saying that I don’t hate the new movie, I just don’t like it. It is a prime example of the middle of the road. I think many people have nostalgia colored glasses when it comes to this movie, and that in turn built a hype that I personally don’t believe it deserves.
This is getting long, so I am just going to leave a bunch of rhetorical questions right here that sum up a lot of what I think of the film.
What year is this? They say it’s the 80’s but they ride bikes from the 50’s in a town that looks straight out of the same decade. Where are the parents? Other than a handful of times, there are none. If my kid came home with a letter carved on his gut, I would notice and investigate. Even without the gangbang scene from the book, this movie still feels a bit pedophilic. Why would they swim in their underwear? They planned to go swimming, why not wear swim shorts? At 11 years old, or now, I wouldn’t ever go swimming in my underwear if I had a choice. What the hell is with that walking away one at a time scene at the end? Terrible. Where are the magic rocks and slingshot? Why is it that these kids ever thought they could do something about the evil clown in the first place?
A few things I liked: IT’s domain was pretty sweet, as were the floating people. I like that all the racist stuff was left out. I also liked that, even though the “believe and it will happen” stuff is still there, it was minimized. Richie was actually funny. I don’t think there is actually a moment in the book where he makes me laugh, but several in the movie.....Yeah, I guess that's it.
Not a lot from the first season. Just a family photo and an alternate to the final DVD cover
My least favorite season, but some great poster art.
This season was so over the top and wonderful!
My favorite, and the imagery is amazing.
Probably the most over the top season. Took me awhile to get into it, but I eventually did.
Still haven't seen this season, but I know they were trying to be as mysterious as possible with the promos
We'll see what happens. Seems polarizing so far, but the art is nice.
It was December of 2014, just a week or so before Christmas. Six months earlier, after a long stream of dates and hook-ups on OK Cupid, I had resigned myself to remaining alone for the rest of my days. It wasn’t a sad decision, I just knew that I had seen what was there, experienced a great deal of it, and other than a few fleeting, lonely moments, I was quite well all on my own.
This way of being was disrupted by a sudden message on Facebook from an old high school friend, Lindsay, asking if I would like to go see a movie. I said sure, not thinking anything of it at all. While playing pool with my buddy, he poked and prodded me with quips about her wanting me, that it was a date, etc. I called him a fool, but it got me thinking. Did I want another first date?
I had been married previously for one whole year, and I didn’t want any more dates, so if I would consider this at all, I was going to take Lindsay to a horror movie. My ex-wife hated them, and it drained me. I refused to entertain any notion of letting another person in, if they weren’t going to want to watch horror with me. If Lindsay didn’t want to see one, then my decision was easy. I asked to go see The Babadook, and she accepted right away.
Now we are married, as life loves more than anything to say, “Fuck your plans.”
Amelia HATES her son but does not see it. The hate for someone she should love is her shadow, and is manifesting itself in her life in confusing ways. We can watch her frustration, as even listening to the boy for a few minutes makes us want to punch the kid. The irony here, is that her boy probably grew up the way he is because Amelia herself is a spastic mess, and has been for the 7 years since her husband died.
Enter the book – and by the way, an anagram for Babadook is A Bad Book. It is unclear to Amelia from where the book came, but we can see that she made it herself. Graphite on her fingers, construction paper and scissors in the background, and mentioning at a party that she had written some “kids’ stuff.”
The movie does a fine job of making the audience think that the Babadook is connected to her insane child, and not Amelia herself. Then she hears banging on the door. The book is back, after previously being destroyed, not pasted together. The drawings are now of a mother killing her child, and then herself. Amelia is falling apart.
The banging sounds, the way the camera creeps up her covers, the Babadook trying to jump from the ceiling into her mouth, and the literal words, “LET ME IN!” all refer to the fact that the shadow self can’t be dealt with, without first acknowledging its existence. Or to put it another way, letting the darkness in.
Jung says that the transition between a person oblivious, and one with comprehension of their shadow is a very rocky one, and most people can’t do it. It is just too hard to accept some things. All of the things that Amelia sees and experiences, the suits, insects, phone calls – all of this is her shadow attempting to break into her consciousness.
Now, without going through the entire movie, let’s fast forward to the end. Amelia looks at the Babadook and a bright light shines, ending the horror. This is a literal interpretation of Carl Jung’s theory. He said, “To confront a person with his shadow is to show him his own light. Once one has experienced a few times what it is like to stand judgingly between the opposites, one begins to understand what is meant by the self. Anyone who perceives his shadow and his light simultaneously sees himself from two sides and thus gets in the middle.”
When Amelia finally confronts her shadow, it becomes one with her. She has accepted her hatred for her son, and can now realize how much she truly loves him. But, the shadow doesn’t disappear. Those aspects of ourselves still linger after we have confronted them, and just like any part of us, must be fed occasionally so that we can thrive.
Going down to the basement and feeding the creature is Amelia accepting that sometimes it is ok to hate her kid, because sometimes her kid is too much. By letting that hate exist- feeding it -she can then return to the love she truly feels for him.
The Babadook is a marvelous film on its own, even if you don’t get into the philosophy of it, and if you haven’t seen it, I suggest you go back in time and not read this, as it is full of spoilers. Silly rabbit.
Now, I’m going to go home and have sex with my wife.