The Informal Revue

movies & tv you want to see but don't know why

[informalrevue]

ROCKETMAN is everything BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY should’ve been -- but decidedly wasn’t

Last year, BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY rocked us as the QUEEN biopic we all waited for --for some. The Singer-directed project drew in droves of people who wanted to reminisce without being too uncomfortable. The story was told to us straight-up (literally) without any sort of experimental vibes; just story and acting and music, which was karaoke’d.

ROCKETMAN is decidedly not that film. It has experimentalism, original covers and arrangements of Elton John’s oeuvre, and a beautiful queerness that navigates John’s life—since ultimately, his queerness and addiction did navigate it. Terry Eagleton is brilliant as John -- even his voice is resoundingly similar. The costumes are phenomenal, the music is beautiful, even the choreography and drug abuse is beautiful. What sticks out most in this film, what I loved most, is that it reminded us why this must’ve been a film: the magic of memory.

There are scenes where the young Dwight sings with the present Elton, there are scenes when Elton flies to the moon, there are scenes when he dreams himself into an orgy. These (some of these) are things we’d never be able to do or see in real-life, of course; and that is exactly why we should do it for ROCKETMAN. Unlike RHAPSODY, which was told to us in a straightforward traditional plot, ROCKETMAN is a flashback and rumination from the now-sober John about his life. As such, it is colored and presented with that color and spice.

The truth is Terry Eagleton is brilliant as John and the story of Elton John is brilliant. You should see it for those two reasons. But more than that, this film is constructed so that we are reminded how beautiful filmmaking can be—what it provides as an art; something BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY surely and decidedly lacked. Watch this film if for no other reason than Brian fucking Singer didn’t direct it and there’s an actual gay narrative that doesn’t skid around the bush and result in lead actors saying things like “he didn’t define himself, so I don’t know that I’d call him gay” (yes Rami really said this).

Only time can tell if the film will live up to the RHAPSODY love; I suspect it will not. I suspect it will be forgotten, as often experimental and queer films are. Nonetheless, the film is beautiful and a beautiful testament to the life of one of the greatest rock-and-rollers of all time. 

[informalrevue]

BOOKSMART is perfect.

Olivia Wilde’s directorial debut is absolutely and 100% perfection. The beauty lies not just in the fact this is one of the first (if not the first) fully female directed, produced, and written blockbuster comedies ever.

Kaitlyn Dever and Beanie Feldstein are more than brilliant. They are so brilliant, the dialogue feels like a documentary on Gen Z. Their connection, their friendship, the comedic situations they inevitably find themselves in (because..high school) is so great, I had to see it not once, not twice, but three times. What is particularly brilliant for me about these two actresses is that they may fit the classical ‘outcast’ personality type and identity, yet they are the valedictorian and saludatorian and Feldstein’s character is the Class President. Moreover, the cast is a great set of Gen Z people who, by the way, never make fun of any of the queer characters.

The queerness of any of the characters in this film never takes over the narrative. Their queerness is, of course, a navigating factor for their actions (as any high school’s sexuality would be): queerness doesn’t take a backseat. However, no one gets HIV, no one dies of AIDS, no one is bullied or beat up for their queerness. And sure, those stories are important and sure this may be a little unrealistic -- even in California. But I think the point here is that this reality could exist for queer people. This reality could be. Isn’t that one of the things art’s supposed to do for us? Show us what could be?

Wilde’s direction is honestly un-matched. This film is bound for cult-status in the sense that its use of uncharacteristic formal direction is beautiful and totally not for show alone. There is magical realism all in and woven throughout the film but it’s hilarious and it doesn’t navigate the story. On the contrary, it complexifies the story; it helps us better understand the characters, their lives, and their experiences.

Fave scene: uber driver van watching porn. That’s all I’ll say if you haven’t seen it, you will still be happy; if you have, you know you busted a gut. GO SEE THIS FILM NOW. 

[informalrevue]

EUPHORIA is a must-see GenZ drama

HBO has put a lot of marketing into capturing the Gen Z crowd with EUPHORIA. The Zendaya-led cast is inclusive (sort-of?) and ultimately a beautiful tale of addiction.

For starters, Zendaya has never -- I repeat never -- been this good on screen. Her addiction feels real, her highs feel uncomfortably realistic, and her lows hit with a thousand bombs. She’s always been a beautiful actress, but I don’t know until this show that she’s proven to me that she’s a good one. In this show, she’s both and more. Her character is something with whom we immediately empathize—her sardonic tone, her clever wit, and her awkward friendliness. I can’t wait to see where she takes us and how.

The show’s creator, Sam Levinson, is a recovering addict but he is not Gen Z. The kind of life and empathy he brings to the Gen Z characters that make up this show is something I haven’t seen before from an inherently conservative disdain that television has for this generation. This to say that the show is realistic and it paints a holistic picture of the characters in the world without making them jokes or stereotypes.

However, where the script fails for me is in the character of Jules, a trans* girl who befriends Zendaya’s character. I hope we see Jules grow more; but as it stands, we see a stereotype of trans* experience: search for sexual fulfillment in dark motel rooms with creepy old men and relentless bullying by peers. Levinson’s impetus, of course, to portray this reality for many trans* teens is commendable, though, I often wonder if art ought to complexify the sadness surrounding queer and trans* subjects. Only time will tell if Jules is more than a stereotype. For now, I love her confidence, her love for her father, and her insistence to be noticed and taken seriously.

If you need another reason to watch the show, the show is breaking barriers in its portrayal of male nudity, which at least in the first episode far outweighs female nudity, a notable subversion of the status quo when it comes to premium television shows. So, if you want to see penises, watch Euphoria. 

The show is must-see television. I can’t stress how excellent Zendaya is, how empathetic the characters already are, and how beautiful the direction has been.

[informalrevue]

THE FAVOURITE proves it: Yorgos Lanthimos is a master!

Yorgos Lanthimos is one of the most creative and innovative writer-directors of our time. His first hit (if you can call the man’s work hits) was The Lobster (nominated for the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay). Now, he’s nominated again for Academy Awards, this time for Best Picture and Best Director for THE FAVOURITE, a riveting story about the power dynamics in Queen Anne’s court.

The script is original, brilliantly funny, and brought to life with performances from Academy Award nominees Olivia Colman (Best Actress), Rachel Weisz (Best Supporting Actress) and Emma Stone (Best Supporting Actress). These three women are nearly perfect in this film. I have not taken kindly to Emma Stone’s tread into ‘serious’ acting, but she’s got more than a few really great moments in THE FAVOURITE. Rachel Weisz is the perfect villain (if she can be called it). More than them both, Olivia Colman as Queen Anne is the phenom of the film. She’s witty, hilarious, beautiful, and empathetic to watch. We laugh, cry, eat, and vomit with her -- gladly.

Lanthimos did not write the script, which garners Tony McNamara and Deborah Davis an Academy Award nomination; however, his staging and keen eye for beauty on screen is essential to the experience that is this film. It really is beautiful to see unfold. It is psychologically thrilling, smart and inventive, breathtaking and clever. Lanthimos can no longer be swept under as simply an absurdist director -- he is among the masters.

Great films remind us why films ought to be made, why they are essentially art -- and this does that. We are involved in a power struggle in every scene, which we see unfold in the lensing, the staging, the music -- GOD, the music -- and the quiet transitions and overlays or cuts.

This film, to be clear, may be my favourite of the year. It’s nearly genius.

[informalrevue]

EIGHTH GRADE is smart and honest

In a nearly perfect debut, Bo Burnham hit us with EIGHTH GRADE, a beautiful and smart story about a girl finishing her middle school life and embarking on high school one (played by the magnificent Elsie Fisher).

The story is honest and intricate and while most of the reviews takeaway the large use of electronic devices to mediate one’s experience in middle school and high school (as is articulated in the film), not many reference how inventive Burnham’s direction is at times because of his being a millennial: there are moments of interruption when Kayla’s crush walks by, there are moments of panic when Kayla is unsure or afraid of what comes next, and each of these moments are punctuated with music, slow-mo Youtube/Vine-isms that Burnham, of course, didn’t invent but which he nicely references and uses to his story’s advantage. These moments are full of emotion and set the tone for much of the film, which is itself broken up by moments of voiceover from Kayla’s own videos.

Elsie Fisher’s performance is breath-taking to watch. She is truthful, smart, and quirky. Her awkwardness plays to the character’s advantage and everything from her pacing, her stammering, to her silence draw us into a more empathetic connection with her experience. I have very few complaints about this film and none of them are with Fisher, who holds this disparate film together and seems to give hope in a world where I’m not entirely sure we ought to be hopeful.

This story is an epic and its male characters are Homerically static: cast as either good or not-good. I worry for the #notallmen-ness of our moments with the good male characters, who though they are good are not entirely three-dimensional either. Our focus is on Kayla, but her woes and adventures are made in her connection to others, something she both laments and enjoys. This means we need characters who are as complex as our protagonist. I’m not sure we get very many.

Luckily for Burnham, Fisher is brilliant enough for critics. The film has maintained a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes since its premiere.

[informalrevue]

Every parent or loved one of an addict should watch BEAUTIFUL BOY

I am typically not for Steve Carell playing dramatic roles because whenever he yells I won't not see him as Michael Scott. However, despite this flaw, he is a wonderfully complex and intensely lovable father in BEAUTIFUL BOY.

Timothee Chalamet is just about to become the bet up-and-comer since maybe Brad Pitt? He's fucking phenomenal in this film and you ache, you pain to see him suffer. He is so raw here that you genuinely can't decide if CALL ME BY YOUR NAME was his best work or whether he somehow can be better than perfect.

This is a wonderfully teachable film. Everyone who has a family member or loved one with addiction must see this film. It will be hard to see--bring your tissues. But it's well worth it. You will feel heard and understood by the skeptical and realistic ending. You won't be torn by the tragedy or triggered by its suffering. You will be ready to fight addiction for your loved one, with your loved one, forever.

There is something really special about this movie. It is beautiful and the characters are flawed. It's absolutely real. Must-see film.

[informalrevue]

BOY ERASED is very good but it's got one really big problem

Lucas Hedges has been doing really well lately so the critics say. And one of his lead roles of note this year is BOY ERASED, a story of a boy sent to a conversion therapy camp by his preacher father when he comes out to his parents. It's a tragic story but it lacks hope.

And to be clear, the film is a spectacularly real portrayal. It's based on a memoir and it sticks to its basis. Lucas Hedges is..."brave" as they say. Nicole Kidman legitimately made me cry-- she is such a brilliant mother in this film and her southern accent is a bit flawed but she makes up for it tenfold. We get some really really good stuff here and it's certainly a good teachable film in that it tells what we should never do to each other.

But all the truth and impact of this film is marred but something missing: hope. I know this is based on a memoir and the events are all real. My point is this: the writer is a very successful and happy man now. We don't see that in this film. We don't see queer love. We don't see queer happiness. We see deep and horrific tragedy, generations of anger and abuse, and the only sex we see is a rape.

Am I suggesting we censor the bad? Absolutely not. Tragedy is important to tell. But there were calculated choices made here, as with every film, and the fact is we don't get to see that queerness is full of hope, that living your truth is brave and difficult but does have its rewards. Given this, I think the film is a bit of tragedy porn for the privileged viewer who doesn't have to go through this trauma and potentially dangerous for those victims of sexual assault who are unknowingly forced to witness a scene of what seems to at first be affection but which quickly and violently becomes rape. This kind of directorial decision seems more than offensive. I'm not suggesting we necessarily need a trigger warning but here's the question left unanswered: what do we accomplish when we force the audience to relive a deep trauma like rape? Why trick the audience (like the character was tricked) into thinking this was affectionate advances when it was going to be rape?

BOY ERASED is an important and impactful story. But its direction was immoral and the film is therefore much less than perfect.

[informalrevue]

BODYGUARD is racist; consider watching COLLATERAL instead

At the Golden Globes, star of the Netflix syndicated British series BODYGUARD, Richard Madden (who also appeared in GAME OF THRONES), won the best actor award for a television drama. However, the show's ending rendered my initial skepticism about the show's portrayal of non-white people correct: it's racist. The brown people in BODYGUARD are rendered past-less, static, and stereotypically evil. They are caricatures of mainstream political racism that says Muslim people are all bent on blowing up white anglos.

Conveniently, the "twist" at the end of the show seems to be a nod to feminism? Our villain says that the British officers were so quick to believe a Muslim woman was working at the behest of her oppressive husband that they couldn't possibly think she was, get this: an Islamic terrorist. This is not only a cheap twist, it still renders the character static and racist. So she's not oppressed but she's still a brown character without a past, very few lines or action, and a caricature villain of an "Islamic terrorism" plot.

Instead of BODYGUARD, you should consider watching the Carey Mulligan-led COLLATERAL. This show is much less psychological but its twists are just as satisfying. And to top it off: it's not racist. Each character, male and female, white and brown, are three-dimensional and complex. Because you know who the villains are fairly quickly in COLLATERAL, you can enjoy the fast-paced fallout and the lively and interesting characters.

Carey Mulligan is only one of several brilliant female leads of the show who take us deep into the corrupt and racist machinations of an MI5 plot against a refugee. Watching COLLATERAL just after BODYGUARD rendered, for me, the latter's protagonist (now Golden Globe-winner) overly self-consumed and rather static. Is it interesting, truly, to labor over the anxiety of a rather well-off bodyguard who serves a very blatantly racist politician? The big story is...his job? BORING.

In COLLATERAL, we have higher stakes: morality. Much bigger questions about what it means to be fighting for what's right. And if you needed more reason to watch it: did I mention BODYGUARD is racist?

[informalrevue]

DISOBEDIENCE is a slow, desirous burn...but it's marred by its rigid backdrop

There is a quandary here for my review. I think the quietness and subtlety of the desire between Esti and Renit leading up to their love-making in the third act is beautiful in theory. But watching the film is not tantalizing the way this ought to be. It is quite boring, actually. So the quandary is this, then: is the quiet mundanity make the incredible passion more so or does it limit its effect because we wait too long?

To parallel this to another story of subtle desire turned passionate romance, it is no CALL ME BY YOUR NAME. This film does not toy with you in its conservative moments the way CMBYN does. This is, of course, a beautiful story about the limits of desire in life-taking conservative environments. It is an important story of lesbian romance portrayed by two of our most beloved actresses. However, they are both in reality heterosexual and the formulaic story does not surprise you-- it will end the way you expect: in beauty.

The love triangle is not revealed until after the first act of the film and this is to it's detriment. Why wait? The death that brings them together and the ostracization of the prodigal child who's returned is uncomfortably long. Don't waste the space on these moments when the story is so much more compelling when we have Esti and Renit gazing at each other. Their desire is beautiful and their hidden love is exhilarating. Yet when we see them with others they are rarely on-screen watching one another (or avoiding doing so) because they are rendered two-dimensional, their story taking a backseat to the structured conservatism of their setting.

When the film finally breaks and the kettle finally whistles, it's brilliant. We take too long to get there. Unfortunately, the final act of the film cannot makeup for its slow beginnings and it's for that reason I don't think this film is necessarily worth the watch. Special shout-out goes to the music, which is at times so beautiful you might just cry.

[informalrevue]

A VERY ENGLISH SCANDAL is ... very English

I will confess that British television is not quite my cup of tea as they say but I enjoyed A VERY ENGLISH SCANDAL nonetheless. More still, as someone who had no idea of this story prior to the watching of this show, it was a compelling and really quirky show.

The humor and dialogue is characteristically British: subtle, quieted, crass, and dry. If this rings your bell when you see it elsewhere, you'll love it here as well. I am becoming more and more of a Ben Whishaw fan as I continue to see him in things (first for me in CLOUD ATLAS). He is much more central in this narrative, and his chops showcased well. In what is a better role for Hugh Grant than his recent FLORENCE FOSTER JENKINS role, he becomes an easily believable villain in this despite our sympathy with him at the start.

If the best part of this show is its comedy, the worst is its storytelling. We seemingly say screw it to years at a time in the second episode of the 3-part miniseries and this derails a lot of the tension we've gotten built up to this point. While we ought not blame Prime for its commitment to reality (using John Preston's nonfiction book of the whole affair as basis material), we would've liked to have seen a bit less flybys and more love-making. It's worth pointing out the only scene of sex we see is a troublesome and not-entirely-consensual situation between our two protagonists. We do not, unfortunately, get to see beautiful or romantic queer sex -- what should be an industry standard at this point but which is traded in for the tragic or harmful for the sake of drama, tragic queerness on display for mass consumption.

[informalrevue]

SHARP OBJECTS is an anxiety attack ... And I loved it

Likely my favorite drama of the year teams up a story from GONE GIRL writer Gillian Flynn and BIG LITTLE LIES director Jean-Marc Vallée. I am a slut for a miniseries and drama is my preferred genre, but this notwithstanding, SHARP OBJECTS is fucking incredible. When I say it's an anxiety attack I truly mean you should not watch this show if you are easily triggered by images of self harm, intense violence, blood, or other horrors.

Amy Adams if I'm correct is in her small screen debut here and no where else have I recently seen someone so commit to a television role as this. Her character scaffolding is of course set up nicely with Flynn's novel, but you can't learn deadness in the eyes like Adams' portrayal from a book. She is a startling sight in this show and it only further proves her insane abilities to bring a story alive.

Patricia Clarkson is our villain and the critical haphazard and laissez faire carelessness she performs is spot-on. She is a victim of her own sickness as much as she is the villain for and destroyer of others in this tale. The town is a perfectly crafted small southern town and having grown up in and around similars to it, I'm gonna say this story's horror is believable and its setting is and will continue living after you finish the series.

Vallée's direction is what gives you the sense you're in an anxiety attack. It's so breathtakingly real, each scene and jump cut seemingly taking you into the very consciousness of our characters, you may be triggered into one if you can get past the gore and creepiness of the story itself.

The worst part of this story is that it's short-lived. It's not something I think I can mentally or emotionally handle rewatching but it's easily my favorite television of the year and if you can take it, I'd say don't miss it. Truly, this show is fucking art.

[informalrevue]

KILLING EVE doesn't stop wowing you

I was worried. I was worried I'd never see Sandra Oh as anyone but Dr. Christina Yang. But I was wrong. Because in KILLING EVE, it doesn't matter. She may navigate the story for us, but she isn't our reason for binging the whole first season in one sitting.

KILLING EVE is a near-perfect formula of a narrative. It doesn't waste time on fluff and the worst thing that can happen DOES -- and quick. This isn't just another thriller, though. It's helmed by a nearly all-female leading cast in the most exciting (read: untokenized) way. More than Sandra Oh's curiosity, which we love and share with every scene, is the breathtaking psychopathy of Villanelle. The best part of the show is its continuous shocking you, mostly at the hands of Villanelle. You don't stop watching and it never stops shocking you.

The show has an easy, subtle direction because the plot is anything but. You are seduced and subdued at every episode and by its closing credits you fumbling for the remote to get the next one. If you like dry British wit you'll enjoy the dialogue and if you like thrillers you'll enjoy the surprises. If you like soy stories and action you'll love it's updating of this genre. And if you like none of these then why are you watching television?

One of the best dramas of the year, it's no surprise it holds a 97% on rotten tomatoes, deservingly I'd add.

[informalrevue]

HOMECOMING is harrowing and probably inevitable

While this isn't Julia Roberts' first soiree into the small screen, it's certainly her most memorable. From the creative team behind MR. ROBOT, this show perfects Sam Esmail's artistry. The direction is breathtakingly creepy and every scene as the short episodes unfold suffocates us with anxiety about this being the likely future if not present of the US military industrial complex.

Julia Roberts is more than perfect here. She's relatable and intellectually peculiar. She's so good she outshines her screen partners Stephan James, Bobby Cannavale, and Shea Whigham. James's performance is lacking and he pushes sometimes to the point it made me uncomfortable (not in a good way). Cannavale is a great villain (always has been/will be). Sissy Spacek's brief performance as Roberts' character's mother is reminiscent of her role in BLOODLINE, which was more fleshed out there but she nonetheless is buyable.

The brilliance of this show is most encapsulated in its direction. The change of screens indicates to us which time period we are within, whose storyline we can believe; and the music and pace is at times terrorizing for us. This show is an anxiety attack in the best way and more than bingeworthy if you ask me. Best new drama of the year, easily. It's political, it's beautiful, it's frightening, and it's probably going to be (if it isn't already) real. Amazon may have found its own BLACK MIRROR.

[informalrevue]

VICE is Adam McKay at his best...and worst

The first film McKay ever did that didn't star Will Ferrell was THE BIG SHORT and it earned him huge Oscar buzz and a win for Best Adapted Screenplay. He wowed us with his ability to make something seemingly dry and boring (like finance theory) into entertainment -- and he did it with style and comedy. VICE is a replication of this style and comedy. The direction has beautiful parallels and gestures to the type of how-to-make-this-palatable style he created with THE BIG SHORT. But what THE BIG SHORT did well, VICE plays up and it isolates a little more than he may have anticipated.

To be clear, as a staunch leftist and anticapitalist liberal, I loved VEEP. It's funny, clever, and makes a very tragic and legally dubious time in US history very accessible to a mass of people who (if they are, like me, a millennial didn't learn about it or remember it happening). However, the film gets a little more preachy and didactic than THE BIG SHORT and its to this film's detriment.

The performances and transformations of Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Sam Rockwell, and even Tyler Perry and Lily Rabe are AMAZING and well worth the watch. The ease with which McKay explains vast concepts like unitary executive theory is itself proof of his brilliance. There are moments when two scenes are cut back and forth between each other that aren't happening simultaneously where the artist JUMPS OUT.

But to this film's detriment, the comedic absurdity of the circumstances play out less like grief at the destruction of the state or a warning that yet another danger lurks if Trump exercises his real power and more of a set of conspiracy theories that come to life. We don't hold conservative films (or even mainstream racist, sexist, and xenophobic films) to the same integrity I'm holding this film to. I nonetheless want more of this film. Is this a warning like Ava DuVernay's 13TH or a condemnation like Raoul Peck's I AM NOT YOUR NEGRO (note that both of these are documentaries)?

[informalrevue]

HEREDITARY was really good but that ending was unnecessarily hoaky

I'm an OG fan of Toni Collette (I went on a binge of her films and television after I was captivated by her performance in THE UNITED STATES OF TARA). And she's fucking brilliant in HEREDITARY -- my problem isn't with the performances or even the direction, which I thought was cleverly creepy; it's with that reveal at the end.

Let me just say that most times I'm here for an ending that makes you rethink the film; some aren't okay with this because it betrays the trust of the viewer. But this ending.....so unnecessary. Here's the thing: we don't need it! The film is already scary, creepy, and unique. Adding (haphazardly) yet another layer to the story not only hoakily gestures to other recent horror films (THE WITCH), it undermines all the good things about the film.

So my big question is just why? Why do we have to make this about a demon that wants a male body that was some decades back summoned by grandma and her bestie? Say we take that out and the story remains about how the complicated grief concerning the death of a mostly horrible woman and the subsequent accidental death of a little girl tears a family apart. The hauntings don't need to be explained by the long ago summoning of a demon-- they can just be hauntings.

The film is scary, the characters are believably in thrall, and the direction is SO CREEPY and beautiful-- but now all I will remember about this film is its unnecessary, hoaky ending.

[informalrevue]

ANNIHILATION is beautiful and richly complex

It's been since BLACK SWAN (2010) that we've seen Natalie Portman in a thriller, but this one's worth the wait.

ANNIHILATION isn't a psychological horror like Aronofsky's BLACK SWAN, it's a scifi thriller. Nonetheless, it packs an equally as impactful blow. Portman's character work is persuasive, at times peculiar, and mostly brilliant. We expect nothing less of her, of course. Gina Rodriguez is also a memorable performance as a butch paramedic. But let's talk about this production design.

It's one large feat to bring a story about a rare biological phenomenon that "refracts DNA" as Tessa Thompson's character notes halfway in. But they do it and beautifully. No scare tactics here, just sheer peculiarity and the awesome might of theoretical biology creep us out as the team goes deeper into The Shimmer. By the final scenes, most of which happens without dialogue whatsoever, we don't notice because it's just so goddamn weird and engaging.

Alex Garland, who wrote and directed EX MACHINA, is the adapter and director of this one as well. It may not have done as well in the box office as his first film but it ought to be in the top films of the year for adaptation and design.

[informalrevue]

Haunting in THE BABADOOK

The Babadook is an Australian film based on a short film entitled Monster, both of which were directed and written by Jennifer Kent. In the film, a widow and her precocious son are left a book on their front porch about a monster called Mister Babadook that haunts and will not stop haunting until he gets what he wants. The book shows up in various forms, the most frightening of which shows up after the mother rips it up and incinerates it. In this formulation, the pop-up book has been glued back together and updated to include scenes where the widow chokes the family dog to death and then her child before slicing her own throat. As the film goes on, the child's behavior gets worse and in the climax, the widow kills the dog and almost kills her son before choosing instead to fight Mister Babadook. In the end, Mister Babadook lives in their basement and is fed by the widow while they live out their now-quiet life in the suburbs.

The target of Mister Babadook's haunting is the widow. The film seems to suggest with its dream sequences in which the dead husband takes the place of the Babadook, a more deceptively evil representation that uses seduction, that the monster itself represents the widow's grief. The Babadook wants the boy, saying more than once to the widow "give me the boy." If the monster represents grief, then, this would seem to say that grief can destroy relationships between survivors of a traumatic event (the father died in a car crash taking his wife to the hospital to give birth to the son). The widow's anger toward her son, which manifests in her lack of acceptance of his behavioral issues, is displaced from her grief onto her son. This anger toward her son, therefore, is a way the haunting affects both the widow and her son. While the monster may be a representation of the widow's grief, it is still a very real and dangerous monster to the child. This is worth noting because in haunting the child, the monster (or the widow's grief) also haunts the widow. In fact, the widow first denies the monster even exists, leaving the son as the only character that believes in the monster. According to the book that began the haunting, denial of the monster only makes him stronger. It is worth noting, also, that denial is often listed as the first step of the grieving process (Kübler-Ross).

The film has been touted as a metaphorical representation of the grieving process, which includes denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. One could chart out the plot of the film onto this process. The haunting is, therefore, used as an impetus to begin this process and see it along its way. In other words, beyond being a metaphorical film, the film is also a horror movie. The placement of this metaphorical interpretation onto the film comes second to the fact that it requires articles of horror in the film itself. These include the scratching sound of the monster's nails, the look of the monster itself, and how the book and its various formulations create fear and creepiness for the characters and the audience.

The Babadook in the wider cultural lexicon has also become a film featuring a monster touted as a "gay icon," which has been explored by many of the largest cultural blogs in Vulture, Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, and Vox. However, this interpretation of the monster does not rely on its haunting nor does it seem to be anything more than an extended inside-made-outside joke from Tumblr and beyond.

Works Cited

Kübler-Ross, Elisabeth. On Death and Dying. Scribner, 1969.

The Babadook. Directed by Jennifer Kent, Causeway Films, 2014.