The failure of The Barbarian and it's relationship to the other

*includes spoilers for Barbarian and Frankenstein*    

 Horror is a genre I'm frequently drawn to as a critic, because it's one of the most analytical genres out there while also utilizing technical elements. Horror is a genre that is overlooked by critics and viewers alike.  Horror is seen as dramatic or silly, but looking past the surface level it ends up being one of the most complex and diverse genres. Some horror films are obviously deep when applying critical theory, and other just focus on the more technical elements. For example, my favorite horror film is the 1974 Black Christmas. Black Christmas doesn't have any deeper meaning, although it builds suspense better than most modern era films and being the first camera point of view slasher film. There's also camp b-movie and comedy horror that typically lacks critical elements as well, but they're enjoyable and are meant to be viewed in a similar way as most romantic comedies. Some big budget modern horror has manage to fail both technical and story elements of the genre. I'm not going to be talking about anything by Jordan Peele or Ari Aster, as generally they manage to do both. I'm also not mentioning anything made by Neon or A24, because generally those take more creative ideas and look great. I'm talking about the latest set of large scale horror films that rely on just jump scares and fail to build any suspense and do not pass any sort of analysis. The lenses I am going look through are technique, deeper meaning and scare factor. 

    The film I'm going to focus on is The Barbarian. The Barbarian pretends to be an art film, it cosplays as such from it's opening and attempt to trick you that it is a stranger danger film to it's vague storyline about gentrification. It fails to do any of these things, and instead creates a film that not only lacks tension after the opening scene, but also doesn't have any particular focus. The film opens beautifully with a women arriving at an Airbnb in collapsing suburb of Detroit, where someone else is in the house. By the end of the morning, he is no where to be found. The film than reveals that there's something wrong with this house, revealing it to be some sort of monster film. Tess stays for a couple days, while working on a documentary. Throughout the film, the house reveals itself as each day progresses between her trying to get her beat, and her interactions with a homeless man who we'll get to later. It revealed forty-five minutes in that there is a monster in the house. Towards the end, the audience learns the house was a place where women were raped and forced into incest creating a monster known as the mother(a very deformed women) who was a product of such violent acts. There's also a background plot of the owner of the house being a sexist actor, who doesn't actually do anything other than die after some monologue that he's not such. The mother even at one point protects the main character showing the mother has some semblance of sympathy and is really human. And than the main character kills the mother, because the mother is the monster in this film.

    My main criticism of this plot is it has no concise message. It tries to tackle racism, sexism, inherited trauma, motherhood and gentrification, however it doesn't really cover any of them sufficiently. The strongest thread it has is a metaphor for inherited trauma or how rape can affect people, and it fails. The monster was created due to circumstance. Someone who has only been taught rape and a VHS tape about babies is going to be violent. This movie should've copied the Babadook, allowing the monster to live to have a positive message of unlearning and escaping toxic environments. Killing the mother in this film punishes this women who didn't have a choice in her circumstances. This entire plotline shows it's creator fundamentally doesn't understand the female perspective or how to make a powerful metaphor. The message becomes especially horrible when you realize that the monster is a victim of a man who caused her circumstances. The man may be long dead during, but he is the actual monster within this film. Why do we blame the creature in this film rather than it's circumstances?

This all goes back to the other, if you make a monster movie you must understand the concept of the other either implicitly or explicitly.  It is a concept is based in psychological, philosophy, and phenomenology. The other represent anyone or anything that is not a part of the picture perfect society. There has always this correlation between the monster and the other. The other is portrayed in most monster movies and most horror novels in some capacity. The other or the monster has changed overtime depending on what we fear. This concept dates all the way back to classic horror stories and fables.

    The first monster novel was Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. There are so many ways to interpret what happens in Frankenstein, but the general consensus is that the creature represents anything that goes against society, from race, sexuality or even the proletariat. Some people also parallel Frankenstein's monster to that of a golem, intended to protect people, but is instead a larger threat to society. Frankenstein's creature is a clear example of the other regardless of interpretation. Unlike many other monster stories following Frankenstein, the monster is coherent and intelligent and even gets point of view chapters within the book. At one point the monster even sees his own reflection and comprehends why people are scared. Frankenstein's creature is sympathetic, despite the fact he is a monster in the context of society. The novel end with the monster being burned on the funeral pyre. The monster in Frankenstein asks to be burned alive after being unable to process the death of his creator. The first monster novel understands the other and differentiates it from society, while also posing questions of whether or not Frankenstein is truly the other, despite his appearance. 

The monsters that immediately follow Frankenstein are about societies prudent nature and larger societal fears. Witches were typically to represent any sort of female societal change. Werewolves represent anyone who doesn't follow typical traditions or look distinct from society. Vampires are similar, but instead look and act like society. This is all changes when we get to film. Instead of the ideas of the monster changing every hundred years, they begin changing roughly every decade. The creature feature was popular in early cinema, with Dracula, King Kong and Creature from the black lagoon and over time changed to more of a variety. These early films generally were about certain distinctive groups and occasionally homosexuality.  Between the 1950s and 1980s the monsters became people, who were typically mental ill. Think about Psycho or the Shining and how the villain is portrayed compared to the main protagonists. Looking backward, we understand this portrayal of mentally ill people was not ideal and even harmful towards those suffering with mental illness. The ending of films in this era would have the mentally ill dying a brutal death, showing the viewpoint of what society thought of mentally ill folks.

    When we apply this critical idea of the other to the Barbarian, it doesn't show any progression on how we view the monster despite the understanding that majority of American society no longer fears those who are different from us. When you take this into account, the film is either saying kill something, because of it's isolation from society or completely ignore the context in which it was created. This lacks nuance and sympathy towards the monster. 

Sadly my only criticism is not only the way it treats "the monster". The Barbarian fails to understand race and poverty. The only other black character, other than the main character, is a homeless man who is portrayed as insane for most of the film. He is the only character in the film who tells her to leave, but up until the the reveal we are expected to consider him less than. He is an example of a magical black character by being portrayed as all knowing. The main character calls the cops who end up being racist despite the fact Detroit is 77.7% black. This movie film also never actually uses Detroit or it's rich history. It just portrays it as this city stuck in the past and still suffering from the decline of American Industry. This movie could've taken place in any rust belt city, but Detroit. The racism that takes place in the film feels misplaced and making Detroit feel like an afterthought rather than a setting that could be used. 

The film fails technically as well. It initially does something almost identical to the film Audition, setting up scenes with little to no suspense, but as the film continues the cinematography begins to fail. 

My point is that Hollywood should be careful when financing horror films, as we should aim to improve upon our previous fears and avoid creating new work that falls behind older film. Frankenstein should not be a more nuanced portrayal of the monster than a work created in this century. When creating a sympathetic monster, being careful with the ending is essential as understanding what the monster represents. This is why it is important to have diversity behind the camera, as it allows those who identify with "monsters" to get that much needed catharsis. In the future, I hope we get more Frankenstein's and fewer film that disregard the basic idea of the other. 

(I forgot to cite my sources, got distracted there are so many essays on Frankenstein)