Connect with us

Editorials

Let’s Break Down That “Holy Shit” Twist from This Week’s Episode of “Castle Rock”

Published

on

This article contains spoilers.

“People around here, they forget. They forget the past. It’s written… in blood.”

There have been a few main storylines at play in the second season of Hulu’s “Castle Rock, the most compelling of which has focused on a young Annie Wilkes (Lizzy Caplan), the villain from Stephen King’s Misery. Another storyline brings Tim Robbins back into the King Universe as “Pop” Merrill, an important figure in the town of Castle Rock whose final days have been playing out in front of us. And yet another storyline focuses on Pop’s son Ace, killed by Annie but resurrected by mysterious forces deep beneath another iconic King town: Jerusalem’s Lot.

Ace hasn’t exactly been himself since Annie shoved an ice cream scoop down his gullet, but rather his body has been inhabited by a literal ghost from Salem’s Lot past. And this week’s “The Word” set about answering the question of precisely who is inhabiting the bodies of Ace and his murderous pals, taking us back 400 years into the town’s past. In 1619, to be precise, a young woman named Amity and her lover were cast out of New Jerusalem (the town that would later become Jerusalem’s Lot), her own father believing her to be a witch. Out in the woods beyond the town, however, Amity is encountered by a hooded “angel” who turns her life around. She returns to New Jerusalem and fast becomes the new leader of the town, mysteriously restoring New Jerusalem’s crops and saving those who cast her out.

But the good fortune comes with a price, and the so-called “angel” ultimately beckons Amity to kill herself (along with everyone in town) under the promise that they’ll all be resurrected on the 400th anniversary of both Castle Rock and Jerusalem’s Lot. They’ll be able to rule over a whole new world, they’re told. Turns out, Ace’s body has been inhabited by Amity’s lover these last several episodes, and the intended host for the reborn Amity is none other than Castle Rock’s newest inhabitant: the woman who unknowingly set this whole chain of events into motion by killing Ace Merrill and burying him beneath Jerusalem’s Lot, Annie Wilkes.

The possibilities are literally endless in the world of “Castle Rock,” a series that has given itself complete freedom to play around in Stephen King’s sandbox and has this season in particular proven itself to be a real treat for King fans. After all, where the hell else can you see the villain from Misery mashed together with the sordid history of Salem’s Lot? But where “Castle Rock” got really crazy this week was in playing with its own original storytelling from the previous season for a surprise twist you probably didn’t see coming – I sure didn’t.

We had been told that “Castle Rock” would be an anthology series of unconnected tales of King-inspired horror, and though season two has thus far referenced the first season’s events in passing a couple times, “The Word” firmly linked the two seasons together in a way that actually manages to retroactively improve the unsatisfying debut season. The big mystery at the center of the first season of “Castle Rock” was in regards to the identity of “The Kid” (Bill Skarsgård), a mysterious man who starts and ends the season locked up in the bowels of the Shawshank prison. We’re never quite sure who (or what) “The Kid” is throughout the first season – at one point, I was entirely convinced he was Pennywise – and even the season’s finale deliberately made us question whether what we were told about him was even true.

To make a long, convoluted story short, “The Kid” claimed that he was actually an alternate reality version of the season’s main character, Henry Deaver (André Holland); as he explained it, he traveled through a portal in the woods of Castle Rock and became trapped in the wrong timeline, thereby causing all kinds of chaos in the town. This was revealed to us in the season’s penultimate episode, but the finale once again took everything we thought we knew and tossed it out the window. André Holland’s version of Henry Deaver ultimately decided that “The Kid” needed to be locked up in Shawshank regardless of whether his story was true or he’s actually the Devil in the flesh (as many believe). And so he returned “The Kid” to the place where he was found at the start of the season, leaving us unsure of what was really going on.

But over one year later, “The Word” has now come along to finally provide us with an answer that the first season seemed content to only dangle in front of us like a carrot. As we find out in the surprising final moments of this week’s episode, the “angel” who guided Amity to wipe out New Jerusalem back in 1619 was none other than the man we know as “The Kid”! The episode came to a close by returning to the moment Amity and her “angel” met (an encounter briefly glimpsed earlier on), and this time the man removed his hood to reveal Bill Skarsgård underneath. In other words, “The Kid” truly is the Devil – or some form of the Devil, at least – and his master plan is to rule over Castle Rock and Jerusalem’s Lot with his devoted flock, asleep for 400 years and now reborn in the bodies of the present day townsfolk.

One of the episode’s final scenes saw Ace unveiling a statue of “The Kid” during the town’s 400th anniversary parade, with a horrified Pop Merrill looking on – Pop, after all, has been around Castle Rock for a long time, and he seems keenly aware of what’s coming. As for “The Kid,” we’ve been led to believe that Ace has set him free from Shawshank; and with just three episodes remaining, he’s sure to pop up soon to continue his reign of terror.

Unless “Castle Rock” throws another set of curveballs our way this season – and don’t be surprised if the writers do – it would seem we now have the answers we’ve been seeking from the very beginning. “The Kid” is the evil force we’ve always believed him to be – he’s not exactly “It” or “The Man in Black” but he might as well be – and it’s he who has been guiding the various horrific events that have been plaguing Castle Rock and Jerusalem’s Lot dating back to at least the 1600s. In a wild twist on Stephen King’s established world, the only person who may be able to stop him and the denizens of the Marsten House is… Annie Wilkes.

And speaking of which, the Marsten House is of course an iconic location from Salem’s Lot, and it’s certainly not lost on us that “The Kid” and Kurt Barlow aren’t actually all that different. The second season of “Castle Rock” has been brushing up against the storytelling of Salem’s Lot without ever outright delving into the world of vampires, and while the show isn’t likely to head down that path this season, it would seem safe at this point to at least speculate that “The Kid” is the show’s version of Barlow – and that’d make Ace, naturally, his Richard Straker.

Granted, this sort of speculation is probably as off base as my speculation last season that “The Kid” was the entity known as “It,” as “Castle Rock” has primarily been in the business of toying with iconic Stephen King elements rather than outright adapting his stories, but it’s certainly fun to imagine. After all, we still haven’t been provided with the character’s real name at this point in time, so it would seem that anything is very much still possible.

As we build towards a battle between Annie Wilkes and a sort of alternate version of the vampire Kurt Barlow, it’s pretty clear to me that the writers of “Castle Rock” have cracked the code and figured out what the show ought to be, remixing familiar elements from the Stephen King Universe and mashing them together in fresh, exciting new ways. Whereas the first season only lightly touched upon the potential for messing around in the King sandbox, the second season has proven to be a veritable buffet of treats for Constant Readers.

Oh and “The Word” totally brought Tim Robbins back to Shawshank. I rest my case.

Writer in the horror community since 2008. Editor in Chief of Bloody Disgusting. Owns Eli Roth's prop corpse from Piranha 3D. Has four awesome cats. Still plays with toys.

Editorials

What’s Wrong with My Baby!? Larry Cohen’s ‘It’s Alive’ at 50

Published

on

Netflix It's Alive

Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.

Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.

Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.

It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.

At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.

It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.

As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.

Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.

Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.

Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.

I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.

Continue Reading