The OP didn't reply, so I will. When it comes to stories about mental illness, a post like yours is easy to refute by laying down a blanket theory of schizophrenia, delusions, and hallucinations, passed on from parent to child, viewed from the perspective of crazy people who think that they're seeing demons. What you see on the screen might not actually be happening physically to the characters, just mentally.
The film sets up quite a few dream sequences to clue the audience in on the idea that what you see might not actually be happening, for example when she wakes up to find her child dead, only to wake up again and find him alive. A film like this only lets you know what's happening peripherally, and you have to guess what is happening centrally, and really helps one empathize with the plight of the mentally ill.
Even side characters plainly state that the mother and son are crazy.
Now, for a point-by-point refutation...
Why was an invisible force pulling the boy upstairs and into the wall?
He wasn't being pulled by an invisible force. She was slamming him into the wall, or it wasn't actually happening at all except as a dream sequence. I can guess that he wasn't slamming himself into the wall because the pills that he was taking helped with his mental illness, except that he still believed his mom to be possessed or at least recognized her split personalities.
Why was the boy convulsing in the car?
Because he was having a psychotic episode and / or seizure.
He was also the first to see it in the house and car.
Because he was crazy and familiar with the babadook from the year before.
at one point it entered her
Again, it was all in her head.
I think in the end it helped her to wake up and finally accept her reality, truly love her son and receive his love in return, the way she was ment to.
Until his next birthday when she forgets what happened and goes crazy again.
"Baba Booey! Baba Booey!"
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
laying down a blanket theory of schizophrenia, delusions, and hallucinations, passed on from parent to child, viewed from the perspective of crazy people who think that they're seeing demons. What you see on the screen might not actually be happening physically to the characters, just mentally.
It's overstating to say that this intepretation "refutes" the other. Rather, it posits an alternative binary, the psychological symptom view. Put another way, that interpretation is the prose of the characters, and the other is their poetry.
Personally, I find more impact and meaning from embracing both interpretations. I don't believe the one cancels out the other. Certainly the movie itself doesn't lay down a blanket theory either way. Rather, it allows for the possibility of either or both contexts. People will gravitate to whichever of these three interpretations is most meaningful and impactful for them.
Jennifer Kent:
"What would happen if you pushed down on some grief or difficult feeling for so long and with so much strength that it developed an energy and split off from you?
"She has made a career out of suppressing the darkness and difficulties and stressing them so much that they were gaining so much energy that it was starting to control her. You can consider it the shadow side or a supernatural force, or however you want to read it. It can work both ways...
“People said to me, ‘Is it a supernatural monster – like, is it all in her head or is it real?’ And I say, ‘Yes.’ Which kind of irritates people. I’m saying yes to both, because the psychological place that this woman is in is very real, but for her and her son that monster is also very real. So there are a lot of layers to this story, if you want to look into it. And I worked on it so it could be viewed from all angles. If someone wants to see it as a psychological descent into madness, then that’s how they can see it. If they want to see it purely supernatural that’s how they can see it. Or it can be a combination of both. That’s something I worked on very carefully in the development of the screenplay."
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share