Connect with us

Editorials

Arthouse Exploitation? Exploring the Meta-Horror of ‘Nocturnal Animals’

Published

on

Nocturnal Animals

Meta-narratives may have only recently become popular in mainstream media, but stories within stories have been a part of human culture since ancient times. From One Thousand and One Nights to Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman, our fascination with the repercussions of storytelling has itself been transformed into fuel for compelling stories, and this also applies to the horror genre.

Cosmic horror yarns are chock-full of characters who go mad after reading cursed tomes, and we’ve already covered the meta-terror of Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves, but few movies have managed to capture the magic of being deeply disturbed by an unnaturally gripping story. One exception to this is Tom Ford’s controversial thriller Nocturnal Animals, with the fashion-designer-turned-filmmaker using the film’s Russian doll setup to explore how horror narratives can be used to communicate.

Based on a novel by Austin Wright, the 2016 film follows art gallery curator Susan (Amy Adams) as she works her way through an unsettling manuscript mailed to her by her ex-husband Edward (Jake Gylenhaal). The manuscript describes a terrifying thriller about an unsuspecting family being harassed by criminals during a Texas road trip, with the father (again played by Gyllenhaal) being forced to embark on a grief-filled quest for closure after the horrific incident. Along the way, Susan is slowly affected by her reactions to the deeply personal novel, with the film intercutting her life and memories with the story she’s reading.

While critics almost unanimously praised Adams, Gyllenhaal and Michael Shannon (who plays a cancer-ridden detective in the story-within-the-story), many reviewers accused the film of being excessively dense, pointing out the paper-thin connections between the layers of narrative and some baffling creative decisions (like that bizarre opening). There was also plenty of criticism directed at the film’s treatment of women, with some outlets even labeling Nocturnal Animals as an exploitation flick masquerading as an arthouse picture.

Despite these controversies, the movie was ultimately well-received by film festivals and awards shows, proving that Ford wasn’t just a one-trick-pony when it came to filmmaking.


So Why is it Worth Watching?

For starters, the aforementioned praise of the film’s performances wasn’t exaggerated. Almost every single actor is at the top of their game here, from Gyllenhaal’s frantic grieving father to Shannon’s doomed detective. And while Adams’ character is mostly a reactive figure, even she finds ways to insert nuance and personality into a complex individual that could have easily come off as unlikable.

Aaron Taylor Johnson also delivers some of the best acting of his career as an all-too-believable sociopath, with the filmmakers being confident enough to let the actor portray the character as a flawed human being instead of taking the easy way out and making him a cartoonish villain. It actually takes a while for you to register Johnson and his buddies as a genuine threat, but once things kick into gear, they quickly become some of the most hateable antagonists in fiction.

Other than the smorgasbord of memorable performances, the film also works as an intellectual exercise, letting viewers figure out the stories’ connections on their own time without spelling out any obvious answers. While certain recurring themes, like the contrasting depictions of masculinity, make it clear that there is an overarching narrative at work here, the story also functions at face value as a surprisingly harrowing thriller.

After all, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and the film’s individual pieces work on their own as excellent bits of genre entertainment, making it so that you can still enjoy Nocturnal Animals even if you’re not willing to engage with its narratological baggage.


What Makes it Horror Adjacent?

Nocturnal Animals horror

Backwoods horror may not be as prevalent now as it was back in the 70s, but it’s hard to watch the story-within-the-story of Nocturnal Animals and not be reminded of uncomfortable classics like Deliverance, Straw Dogs and even Wes Craven’s The Last House on the Left. Ford’s film may not be a bona-fide horror flick, especially during the melodramatic “real life” segments, but it certainly emulates a lot of genre thrills and even features an unexpected jump scare or two.

That being said, Johnson’s character and his gang come off as genuinely scary individuals precisely because of how stripped down the narrative is, with Ford (and Wright before him) forgoing common genre tropes and focusing on the primal emotions behind this awful situation. This grounded perspective transforms a familiar setup that could easily be the opening act of a Liam Neeson flick into a truly horrific ordeal.

Hell, the kidnapping itself feels so real that it could have been ripped straight from tabloid headlines (even if the ending gets a bit more symbolic), but the build-up is just as terrifying. It slowly dawns on the viewer that things are worse than they appear and there’s nothing that these characters can do to escape. Honestly, I can’t even remember the last time that I was so uncomfortable while watching a movie, and the knowledge that this is just make-believe doesn’t actually make things any less terrifying, with audiences being left to question why exactly Edward would want Susan to read this.

Sure, the tension lets up a little bit once the family’s ordeal is concluded and Gyllenhaal’s character is left to pick up the pieces, but that first half of the story will certainly appeal to fans of realistic terror. I don’t quite agree with critics who accused Nocturnal Animals of being an exploitation flick, especially since it features some really poignant reflections on ill-fated relationships, but there’s no denying that the film has at least one foot in the horror genre.


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Born Brazilian, raised Canadian, Luiz is a writer and Film student that spends most of his time watching movies and subsequently complaining about them.

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