It Comes at Night left me with an upsetting feeling left behind by its disquieting atmosphere and punishingly bleak ending. The disquiet was compounded by the execution of the film's narrative as well. This was through a combination of what I believe the intent to be as well as not meeting my own expectations.
I've been struggling the past few years with worrying about wasting my time. As many of you probably know, there is often a concern over what you should spend your time doing. I've found myself really trying to avoid movies I don't have any interest in or that I don't think I'll enjoy. I'm trying to optimize my time. However, sometimes you do get that standard viewing experience where you are interested in a film and it ends up disappointing you. Such is the case with It Comes at Night.
This is not to say that the movie is bad by any means. I'm not comfortable with that statement. In some ways, it's pretty much what I expected. We find a family struggling in the wilderness during a global epidemic which has apparently affected much of the world, though this is mostly just alluded to. That's fine though, as that has been covered in many stories in various mediums. The focus here is on a small group dealing with very basic struggles for survival within such a scenario. I'm pretty sure this has also been covered before but perhaps not in such a deliberately quiet manner.
I struggle to think of another way to describe this but it seems the plot, characters and general atmosphere is generally understated. That was my main issue with the movie, as I got the film I pretty much expected but with everything dialed down just slightly, including the atmosphere.
I watched this right around Halloween and was hoping for some of that arthouse/avant-garde/slightly surreal horror we've typically gotten from groups like A24. Other than hanging on some haunting imagery, such as the inserted dream sequences that are sometimes hard to distinguish from the main narrative, and shots of ambiguous concern in well framed shots, the movie is mostly straightforward in the general situation. However, it's in the understated forming of the characters where the movie may become most frustrating or intriguing depending on the viewer.
In a movie like this, where it's really a snapshot of a situation (which I tend to like), this is usually a way to really explore the humanity of the situation through the characters. While I do think the narrative manages to convey a great deal without us learning too much, I believe it could have beneficial with more dialogue or at least a slightly longer runtime to flesh things out. Yet the story is served well by the minimalism, suggesting the character dynamics and inner struggles through the previously stated haunting imagery, actors' body language and the use of the little dialogue there is.
As a writer, I've always admired Ernest Hemingway greatly, as I'm sure others do. Though traditional "literary fiction" isn't generally what I've been drawn to read or write, something about Hemingway's minimalist style always spoke to me. In terms of writing style this economical efficiency has always greatly impressed me, being able to express so much with so little. Or at the very least, it allows the reader to add so much of their own experiences into the story while still keeping the main structure of the characters intact.
I believe some screenwriters and directors use similar techniques, whether through the dialogue or simple visual language. Sometimes the intent versus the audience's input can get blurry when things aren't so clear, but perhaps that's part of the fun of the artistic exchange. It Comes at Night utilizes this approach to convey big ideas of family struggles and interpersonal conflict when survival becomes the key priority. Prioritization of keeping oneself going as well as the lives of loved ones becomes paramount, even when there doesn't seem to be a shred of hope.
One must ask what drives these people to continue, when they are essentially cut off from civilization, if there even is any. What happens when bigger ambitions of the human race as a whole disappear and we are stripped down to more primitive, almost pre-tribal ways of being? Then, when two families meet and dare to dwell together, a civilization begins again and inevitably tears itself apart due to a fear of the other and a need to preserve one's own. Mankind seems to become so divided, even when we lean into the better part of our nature. Maybe the paranoia and self-focused need to survive was ultimately correct in this case, as opposed to learning to work in harmony with another group.
I realize I sort of rambled with that last paragraph but I just wanted convey how many thoughts the movie did awaken in me, even though none of them were really pleasant ones. Much of movie also seems to be about the idea of fatherhood and exploring the resentment children have against their parents. We often don't appreciate our parents early in life, especially when they give us strict boundaries and rules. In the best circumstances, this is done with the child's well-being in mind, but it's hard for a younger person (in this case the adolescent son) to understand this. There is also the exploration of the idea that there is no complete guide to being a parent and parent may in retrospect may not have made the right/best choice. At the very least, even in this rather extreme setting, we hope the parent cares and is trying the best they believe they can do.
So, as you can see, there seems to be much we can extrapolate from the narrative, but does the film have any answers? No, not really. At least none that will satisfy the average audience member. I found the film bleak and upsetting and it continued this course until the final punch at the end. There is strong thematic foreshadowing, as the film begins with the stricken grandfather having to be put down brutally by the father (in front of the son). This action, like all the rest, is driven by the desire to protect the family, yet equally building more distrust and resentment from the son.
Was it all worth it? Well, not really, according to the whole vibe of the film. Yet, what choice did anyone have? While I found myself disturbed, unsettled, horrified and ultimately greatly saddened by the events of the film, I was struck by another idea. In this scenario, everyone is trying to save the one they love most and it seems is almost forced to make horrible decisions where there are no other choices. Characters are punished for trying to go beyond the animalist need for survive. Compassion and trust in outsiders is a weakness. In the end though, all the worst choices are resorted to and yet it cannot correct that mistake of kindness. The damage is done.
So, are there such scenarios where we cannot risk ever giving more compassion to the outsider? Perhaps this speaks to some deeply embedded survival instinct we still have and the film may be suggesting could display itself with ugly necessity in such a situation. As much as I hope for a world where everyone can love, agree and get along easily, that is not the current truth. We have a strong tendency to be tribal and we keep are closest emotional circles very small. There is a combative and defensive nature we all have that perhaps serves some purpose but I hope we all can overcome.
Unfortunately, I think It Comes at Night suggests that when the chips are down, are greatest ideas and conceptions about compassion, community and civilization will not be as important as our animalistic and cold pragmatism for pure survival for its own sake. I will admit that while I hope that is not the case, perhaps there is some truth in it, at least very much in our current time. In this film, there are no heroes and there are no winners. That is the feeling of what comes at night, when there is no light and the ambiguous darkness of what's beyond seems most frightening. That, I will admit, is pretty effective horror.
No comments:
Post a Comment