THE BABADOOK: You Can't Get Rid of the Babadook

Director: Jennifer Kent
Writer: Jennifer Kent
Cast: Essie Davis, Noah Wiseman
Runtime: 93 mins.
2014

Welcome to the very special 50th post of Post-Credit Coda! Numbers are accidents, but it just so happens that we have a very special movie review to go along with the milestone. Earlier this month I wrote up It Follows, which is part of an exclusive new club of excellent high concept horror films that don't rely on cheap jump scares, retrogressive morality, and victims who aren't turning lights on for no reason. I would like to think this club was founded by The Cabin in the Woods, a metafictional horror masterpiece from a few years back that laid the smackdown on contemporary horror and all its infantile malarkey. Perhaps the club's only other member is our current topic of discussion: The Babadook. Even with only two or three movies in the club, folks are eager to herald these films as the sign of a high quality horror resurgence, the likes of which we haven't seen since Scream torpedoed the slasher genre, as I wrote about long long ago.

In many ways, It Follows and The Babadook are of a piece, but one major thing keeps them distinct in my experience. It Follows is easy. The Babadook is not.

After seeing It Follows with a friend, it was immediately clear that we had the exact same visceral, unsettling, enjoyable experience, for all the same reasons. The merits of that film are clear. But I've seen The Babadook with three different people at this point, and none of us had a remotely similar viewing experience. In fact, The Babadook has led to some of the more in-depth and difficult movie discussions I've ever had.

I say the movie is brilliant, beautiful, terrifying, feminist, singular, and thematically resonant. My friends say the movie is decent, too revelatory, a wee bit sexist, and unresolved. Who's right?

I'm right, of course.

IT FOLLOWS: STDos and STDon'ts

Director: David Robert Mitchell
Writer: David Robert Mitchell
Cast: Maika Monroe, Keir Gilchrist, Olivia Luccardi, Lili Sepe, Jake Weary, Daniel Zovatto
Runtime: 100 mins.
2015

The first and only thing I knew about It Follows before walking into the theater was that it is an allegory for STDs. That's already interesting, but what breaks the movie out of "interesting" and into "fascinating" is that it's so much more than that. Just when you think the film is sinking into its subtext, it's abandoned for pure horror movie thrills. Not to worry though, it always returns to its themes in more complex and circumspect ways than you could reasonably expect from a slashy horror film starring beautiful, sexually active young people. It Follows doesn't fall into the oldest of horror cliches: sex is bad, if you have sex you get killed. Instead it makes that trope the premise, thereby setting it on a pedestal for us to examine its subtleties.

It Follows is a horror movie with a lot on its mind that never forgets to be a horror movie.

The Cool Girl: Women in Film 2014

I want you to watch something for me.

You've seen some of these movies before. You're all familiar with this plot beat. The woman, almost always a love interest, has been captured by the villain, and the hero has to brawl or bargain to save her. There's nothing inherently sexist about the situation, just as the use of such a plot device doesn't automatically make a movie sexist. But that's beside the point. This supercut puts a lot of unpleasant Hollywood trends in stark relief.

For starters, notice how in most of these clips the woman doesn't even speak. She's a prop. The only important dynamic in the scene is that between the (generally) male hero and the (generally) male villain. Their relationship is the important one, the real one, the dramatically resonant one. The men have all the dialogue, all the power, all the agency, all the charisma, all the audience's rooting interests--everything. Meanwhile, the women just have weakness and manufactured tears. They are little more than poker chips in these scenes, an observation driven home when the heroes start offering money to trade for her: "I'll give up the gold," "I gave you the money," "I'll open the safe." Then, as if it wasn't apparent enough, we have the litany of scenes that make the utter unimportance of the woman explicit: "This is between you and me," "She's not important," "She doesn't belong here."

If she's really so unimportant to the central conflict, why is she even in the movie? The answer is even sorrier than the question: She exists in these films as nothing more than a pawn, a plot device, and an eventual reward for the man to take home and mount on his mantle. Figuratively speaking.

TOP FIFTEEN 2014

Around this time last year, I was looking back at 2013 with abject despondency. I had seen so few movies, and the ones I had experienced were hardly worthy to fill a top ten list. What was I going to round it out with, Man of Steel? The thought repulses me.

Now 2015 has rolled around and I find myself in the polar opposite predicament. Instead of waiting until December of the following year to scrounge up enough films for a worthy top ten, it is February and I already have too many! Despite having only seen twenty-eight movies, I couldn't deny myself the indulgence--this year's list will be a top fifteen.

Even that was difficult to pare down! There are films in my Honorable Mentions that I will rave about for years to come. There are even films featured in my Untoward Awards that I quite liked (Sorry The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1). All told, 2014 may have been a bad year for culture in general, but it was an excellent year for film. I feel confident stating as much even having missed the following potential gems (in order from most to least interesting for me):

Under the Skin, Boyhood, Force Majeure, Locke, Only Lovers Left Alive, A Most Violent Year, The Guest, Jodorowsky's Dune, Neighbors, Rosewater, The Rover, The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Foxcatcher

There's too much to talk about. This is gonna be long. So let's get started.

Ace Enjoys SEX: HOW IT WORKS

Today I am proud to bring you a Post-Credit Coda first--a guest-written movie review! My old friend Ace McKnight will be your guide today, and he will be whisking you through the details of a delightful little documentary called Sex: How It Works. I've known this interesting guy for a long time now, and I really appreciate his adding content to my blog. I always encourage that sort of thing. If anyone else out there wants to contribute, let me know. I would be happy to curate!

Enough from me. You came here to hear Ace talk about Sex: How It Works, and he will not disappoint.

FRANK: Something Perishable

Director: Lenny Abrahamson
Writers: Jon Ronson, Peter Straughan
Cast: Michael Fassbender, Domhnall Gleeson, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Scoot McNairy, Francois Civil, Carla Azar
Runtime: 95 mins.
2014

You think you know Frank. Just as our protagonist makes the mistake of believe he understands Frank's potential, Frank's desires, and worst of all Frank himself, you begin watching this film with a sense of superiority--or at least a sense of superior perspective. As the film opens on a young man desperately seeking inspiration but only coming up with a few facile snippets of pop fancy, you understand exactly where this must be going. This story is a Kunstlerroman--the development to maturity of an artist--with zany indie trappings. When our protagonist Jon (Domnhall Gleeson) joins a strange band called the Soronprfbs that jars him out of his sense of normalcy, you predict that this band will be the key to unlocking his nascent potential.

You've made a mistake. You couldn't be more wrong.

SELMA: An Impressive Movement

Director: Ava DuVernay
Writer: Paul Webb
Cast: David Oyelowo, Carmen Ejogo, Wendell Pierce, Common, Tom Wilkinson, Oprah Winfrey, Tim Roth
Runtime: 128 mins.
2014

I saw Selma a few weeks ago and tried to start a write-up, but nothing materialized. Then the Oscar nominations happened. Among the many reasons to be annoyed, perhaps the most pressing is the absence of Selma from all but a very few categories. No nods to Bradford Young for cinematography, no nods to Ava DuVernay for direction, not even a nod to David Oyelowo for what is clearly one of the most chameleonic performances of the year. I won't take any time now to complain about the Academy. Instead, watch this video interview with DuVernay in which she perfectly characterizes the issue in a matter of minutes.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/27/selma_director_ava_duvernay_on_hollywoods

In my reviews I typically like to dig into the minutiae of my positive and negative feelings toward a film, and connect that to a discussion of the quality, or at least the success of a film. Does the movie accomplish what it sets for itself to accomplish? Does it hinder itself, or trip over its own feet in any way? Criticism is a hard conversation for many reasons, foremost among them being the need to approach a work on its own merits, rather than what you as a subjective viewer want to see. Then there's the semantics of whether a film being good means it is important, or entertaining, or challenging, or airtight, or inspired, and so on. The simple and endlessly complex answer is: It just depends.

WE ARE THE BEST!: It's the Best

In which three young girls kick ass and take names--ideologically.

Director: Lukas Moodysson
Writer: Lukas Moodysson
Cast: Mira Barkhammar, Mira Grosin, Liv LeMoyne
Runtime: 102 mins.
2014

Normally going into these things I have a structure outlined in my head, and I work through the review beat by beat. I don't have that for We Are the Best! I think, in the spirit of punk, I'll bang this one out as I go along.

We Are the Best! follows two thirteen year old girls in 1980's Sweden as they sort of fumble around from day to day, hating what they hate and loving what they love, until they happen into this idea that they should really just start their own punk band--despite having no previous musical experience. Once they recruit an unlikely third member--a young Christian girl who has years of experience on the guitar--the band starts becoming something and taking on a central importance in their lives. Meanwhile they deal with drama and trauma surrounding school, parents, and especially love interests.

More than all that, this movie is about the spirit of PUNK. And the spirit of GIRLS. And the spirit of GIRLS doing PUNK.

But more than THAT this movie is about those girls--as people.

I'm going to reiterate because that is the most important thing I can say about this movie, as it is 2014 and this sort of thing is still a revolutionary concept in cinema:

We Are the Best! treats children as though they are people. We Are the Best! treats girls as though they are people. These are two of the most egregiously uncommon achievements of contemporary film, and two reasons why We Are the Best! has to be considered one of the most incredible things to be released in 2014.

The Great BOJACK HORSEMAN Experiment

Disclaimer: I have since finished watching Bojack Horseman, and it is one of the best shows on television. I am leaving this post up as a monument to drunken hubris.

Long ago I watched the first episode of Bojack Horseman in an airport. I was so viscerally displeased that I immediately swore the show off and launched into a series of theories about the problems with Netflix's original content model.

A month or so later, a good friend of mine was texting me in the midst of his marathon session of watching the show. He agreed wholeheartedly that the show was very bad, but he found his experience of marathoning the show all at once inexplicably engaging, and he recommended that I do the same.

Now it is many more months later, and I finally have.

What follows is the live journal of my experience watching the entirety of Bojack Horseman, transposed from a notebook to the world wide web without any alterations. Just pretend you can see the handwriting degenerate as time passes.

This blog post is brought to you by Admiral Nelson's Spiced Rum.

WHIPLASH: Crack That Whip

In which the protagonist's task is more challenging than getting pictures of Spider-Man.

Director: Damien Chazelle
Writer: Damien Chazelle
Cast: Miles Teller, J. K. Simmons, Paul Reiser, Melissa Benoist
107 mins.
2014

When you're young, movies have a direct line into your soul. They're like a flu shot--sometimes shocking, sometimes painful, inserting themselves into your body and altering your nervous system. Whether a child enjoys a movie or hates it is not necessarily beholden to quality or craft. Sometimes the things that make or break viewing experiences for kids can be a familiar image, or a character who talks a certain way, or the fact that the main character has a cat. This is why children can so easily watch movies with a sense of wonder, or a sense of terror, or a sense of unlimited empathy. It's also why children sometimes attach themselves to complete dreck.

As we stuff more and more movies into our craw, that sense of wonder gets calloused. We grow harder to please. We recognize obvious sentiment as obvious sentiment; tropes and cliches finally register as we see them for the seventh or twentieth time. We acquire expectations. We watch movies with our third eye open and wary. We criticize.

I just now made up that opaque reference to a third eye so let me try to explain it. One eye open picks out colors and shapes. Two eyes open situate those shapes in three-dimensional space. It would make sense that having a third eye open would situate physical objects in a greater contextual fabric, a fourth dimension if you will. That which is seen becomes important within the tapestry of time--it becomes historical, cultural, social. That third eye is our critical awareness, our consciousness of meanings and implications.

All of this speculation is totally irrelevant to Whiplash, because all I want to say about it is this: