On the basis of John Charles' review in Video Watchdog a few issues back, I watched VACANCY today. As it happens, I watched 1408 last week, and a few weeks ago THE DESCENT, so the coincidence of my viewing them so close together revealed the coincidence of them sharing the idea that their protagonists begin their hellish adventures grieving the loss of their children. I've already argued (in my J-HORROR book, among other venues) that modern Japanese horror movies frequently tie their ghost stories to real-world issues of child abuse and neglect, and that this theme is part of what makes them so effective. Maybe because I'm a father, I respond very strongly to scenes of children in danger or suffering, and these fears resonate with me more meaningfully than a ghost story whose haunted house, say, is haunted 'cuz it was built on an Indian burial ground. But, I've seen this trend in Japanese films as being linked to the fact that the changing economy has put new pressures on families that have brought these issues into people's minds now more than before, and Japan is only now confronting the issue of child abuse (having previously argued that it as a matter of definition could not happen in Japan!). I don't see any such social environment driving this into American horror movies--and we're not talking about child abuse here, but just plain ole' dead kids, from disease or accident. In momentary flashes, it feels as if these movies are suggesting that only by enduring these horrific experiences can the grieving ex-parents overcome the cycle of guilt that consumes them... but this idea never pays off (and is kind of dubious to start with). You can't argue that the hero of THE DESCENT emerges from her ordeal psychologically better off, and while 1408 is more ambiguous I'm also not sure he comes out "healed." The ending of VACANCY leaves that issue unresolved, but even if the heroes have come through better off, is the movie saying that torture is a form of therapy? Is the idea that being forced to star in a snuff movie is better than burying your son, or worse? Not only does the movie fail to answer the question, I'm puzzled why you'd want to ask such a strange question to start with? What gives?

Without meaning to imply an opinion on this as an ongoing, 'real-world' issue, I'll throw this out: maybe it's to do with thirty-somethings (perhaps now with families) dealing with free-floating guilt lingering from a hastily-considered abortion in their youthful, more self-obsessive past?

I'm a parent as well and one who has experienced the loss of a child (albeit in our case, still in the womb but not a miscarriage) and like David the birth of my children and their overall vulnerability has opened a new door of horror to me. Anyone who has jumped out of bed in the middle of the night to comfort a child whimpering against the onset of night terrors will understand.

I haven't seen 1408 but I have seen THE DESCENT and VACANCY.

Worst things first: unlike brother Charles, I thought VACANCY was garbage, typical Hollywood mousse with its dead kid backstory nothing more than window dressing, a narrative strap-on employed only to push things closer to the sleaze and the stuntmen hanging off the car roof. I didn't think it had a thought in its pretty little head about profound loss or profound horror or why people do terrible things to other people.

I didn't at the time of viewing it see the thematic relevance of the dead child in THE DESCENT but I've been rethinking that lately and am going to give myself another shot at the film by way of looking at the whole of the narrative as a kind of perverse birthing process for the heroine, who descends as a baby does prior to birth and even enters the world (again, in her case) via a distinctly vaginal egress, covered in blood and screaming like a newborn baby would. Might be a stretch but we'll have to see.

I've actually written a highway horror screenplay called FOUND ON ROAD DEAD , whose protagonist buries in his heart the Terrible Thing That Happend to His Child while trying to figure out The Terrible Thing Currently Going On. (My writing of this in its earliest form predates my own personal experience.) I'm also making notes on another, as yet untitled horror screenplay in which the two protagonists are (now) single parents who have both lost their children. It's a (sadly) interesting horror vein and more profound than even those mining it often realize.

Another slightly more simplictic possibility occured to me while reading all this. Perhaps these elements are thefts or echoes of Don't Look Now, which isn't as well known among general horror movie goers as other classics, but has certainly cast a big shadow in it's influence in the genre. I'm not even sure if that's the case here. What do you think?

Thanks for this thread and all the thoughts and feelings openly shared.

It's an interesting post. I haven't seen VACANCY but I'm curious about it, as I rather like the director.

I did see 1408 and I didn't like it all, mainly for the reasons Mr. Kalat points up in his thesis -- it felt not so much like a horror movie as a kind of extended therapy session -- the Overlook as "good for you", in some odd way. I do disagree with the notion that Cusack's character isn't "healed" by the end -- I think he most definitely is, at least to the extent anyone can be in this sad world of ours, I think that's the point of the whole enterprise, actually. (The alternate ending, which I saw on youtube, is just a variation on the same theme.)

THE DESCENT is much more interesting, and like Mr. Harland Smith it makes me curious to revisit the film with this thesis in mind. At the time I didn't think about especially feminine metaphors at all, but now I wonder.

MINOR SPOILER

An all-female horror movie that explicitly plays with caves and blood to the extent that one did is already playing around with some heavy symbology. I now want to look at the creatures in THE DESCENT again, I have some vague ideas.

As for the general thesis or question, my only contribution is that it is the middle and upper middle classes, generally, that have the wherewithal to respond culturally, and particularly in horror movies one can at least argue that it's their fears that are being brought to light.

Oh, and as other examples to ponder, I suggest SILENT HILL and the second Hollywood RING movie.

doug

What's so vague about rampaging spermatozoa? :lol:

And then you have THE MIST.

I'm not even sure how to discuss that one without getting into heavy spoilers which doesn't seem fair seeing as a lot of folks are about to see it for the first time over the next few weeks.

I will say that I'm looking forward to hearing Darabont's commentary on that one almost as much as I am to see the new, black-&-white transfer. Man, that dvd can't come out fast enough.

Interesting, but that doesn't play quite so well with the original UK ending of the movie. You've got me thinking though.

I haven't seen VACANCY or THE DESCENT; did see 1408, DON'T LOOK NOW and, I might add to the list, DEAD CALM. Certainly the death of a child would suggest the loss of innocence on the part of the protagonist; this plays into Cusack's cynic, at least. (And if, as Tom suggests, THE MIST turns on related thematic elements, someone with better knowledge of and appreciation for Stephen King might have additional insights, there.) Gathering that VACANCY includes torture elements, the roots of that loss of innocence might be glaringly obvious. You can also look at it as grieving the death of some aspect of the lead never allowed to mature; for Cusack, again, that would be the "serious" writing career he seems to rue early on in the film. Finally, as the loss of our own childhood is often not without its unresolved issues, all these films might deal as well with the working out of buried traumas we carry on into our fantasy lives.

All of which is why I love horror!

If you want to take the cynical approach, "dead child(ren)" is a super easy dramatic note to hit. Sadness, sympathy, tension of the parents blaming each other or generally "Falling apart"... it's also something *almost* everybody will feel the same way about (as opposed to dead teenagers or adults, where half the audience might think everyone is better off or that they had it comin'). It can also be a quick and easy explanation for why the killer went psycho (Friday the 13th, Pumpkinhead, etc). Also, as you say, a lot of people will just have very strong reactions to children in peril or children mistreated that can let a mediocre writer sneak through and shake up audiences (s)he otherwise couldn't get to.

I think we might be seeing it a bit more in horror trends today, too, because of the backlash against "wimpy" horror of previous decades. Let's face it, in most horror flicks of the past, you know the children and the family pet are in no real peril, you can usually pick the survivor in the first 3 minutes, you know certain real life dangers (i.e. sexual assault) won't be inflicted on the characters... and all these things just kill the suspense and the power the film holds over the audience. Once you know the story is restrained because "Hollywood won't go there" then you don't worry about it happening. When Halloween first came out, audiences genuinely feared for Jamie Lee Curtis' safety and were hoping she'd get away on the edge of their seats. By Prom Night 4, we all knew the nice brunette girl would get away unscathed, so when the film tries to build tension the same way, audiences react like, "get on with it! Let's see some gore or something!"

So movies today are trying to show how unafraid they are to go to darker places. Little kids can be dead, comic relief is replaced with brooding and "heavy issues," people will be tortured rather than just instantly dispatched, the surivor may even go through ordeals so horrible that surviving might not be worthwhile (I think that's a point some recent horror films have been trying to make, rather than suggesting they're "psychologically better off")... etc etc. Of course, every film and every filmmaker can be different... but in general, I think the basic trend is a result of that: a need to impress jaded (with fair reason) audiences that "no, this is REAL horror!"

P.s. - I totally missed the mega-Freudian interpretation of The Descent! :D

Ha! Having just seen VACANCY and having liked it a lot, I do admit that, in retrospect, the dead child in the couple's past was unnecessary. I thought that the forced teaming against the menace was enough to bring them back together, as they moved past the wedge and rediscovered one another. Stiil, that wedge could simply have been infidelity or even boredom!

I think the issue is central to THE DESCENT, though, and that it was a girl child (and that SPOILERS...


...the death could be traced back to the infidelity of the husband with the otherwise trusted superwoman Juno leant it an interesting kind of "See, it ain't always the guys you have to watch out for" aura).

Still, who's to say that Juno is evil? We only know so much about the situation. "The dead/absent child" concept was presciently spoofed by Edward Albee in his classic play WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF.

Tom, I'm salivating for THE MIST, too!

Repeated, well-documented longitudinous studies of clinic patients have revealed no significant pattern of psychological troubles from undergoing the termination of a pregnancy.

But then, of course, you burn in Hell.

If that's in direct response to my hypothesis (if you can call it that), I'd only submit that a lack of serious psychic fallout doesn't necessarily preclude a generalized sense of regret at the road not taken, which for a writer might be just enough to grease the wheels of invention toward narratives involving couples caught in the aftermath of loss.

Their experience might allow for a consideration of a parental dynamic, but also limits their ability to depict it as current and ongoing, with the sense of it falling apart tightly woven into the emotional tapestry.