She loved her son much like Abraham did
But Abraham did not hate his son. He did not resent his son since the day he was born for the very fact of his existence. He did not loathe intimacy with him. He did not associate his son's life with death and devastation. That is why Abraham's test of faith was so extremely hard -- because he felt the opposite way about his son, because he felt none of those things about him.
I do wonder if many of these biblical characters were insane and most probably had big mental problems.
Maybe when you read articles about ancient civilizations like the Greeks or Aztecs or Native Americans, you think the same thing about them. But it is worth considering that their traditions - say, head-hunting or sacrifices - are not necessarily symptoms of mental problems.
Also, if you approach the Bible with a strictly literal attitude, it is not hard to come to such conclusions. In that case you see only its prose, not its poetry, and then have not appreciated the most important available meaning.
This story tells a truth about the nature of the psyche. That truth is that it always seeks to project itself into the external world. The movie speaks to the primal sense that feelings within us can be so powerful they can develop into an independent entity, an emotional spirit so overwhelming it can burst its psychic bounds and become an autonomous force, out of one's control. Depending on the health of the psyche, that can be the flowering of something influenced by fierce compassion, or it can be the extrusion of something corrupt and malevolent.
This movie can of course be seen from the strictly literal viewpoint, just like the Bible can. But the essence of psych-horror, of which The Babadook is an example, is about upsetting literalism by focusing through another way of seeing. A way that is always with us, and is in fact much more influential than the literal view, even though our awareness of it is suppressed. I think that suppression is a mental problem.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
thekingconrad
8 years ago
You sound like an abused partner "He loved me! He just wanted to kill me because a voice told him... He loves me! It was my fault!"
Hearing voices of someone telling you to kill your child is insane. The fact you defend this tells me all I need to know.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
And the fact that you didn't understand the sentence "if you approach the Bible with a strictly literal attitude, it is not hard to come to such conclusions" tells me all I need to know.
Actually, all that was needed to know was in your OP -- the fact that you didn't know the obvious difference between the natures of these two parents' relationships with their sons. Which shows you have no access to the meanings of either story.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
thekingconrad
8 years ago
I disagree. You are the one giving your own opinion on the natures of these people... You are quite happy to say that this movie is based on a women who hates her child but when given a Biblical story you come up with excuses.
Not thinking about how the child would have felt in this situation where his father is going to kill him because a voice in his head tells him so.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
I'm happy to say that about the mother in this story because it is completely obvious. She hates her child for the reasons the film makes totally clear. That situation is the opposite of the Abraham story, since Abraham loves his child and has no hate for him. You were mistaken.
As for the Biblical story, no excuse for the literal behaviour was offered or even implied. The comment referred only to the non-literal interpretation, which is how the story's significant meaning is accessed. The idea that I am excusing abuse and not empathizing with the victim's feelings is another clear example of locked-in literalism.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share