![]() ![]() His son Trevor suffers from dramatic night terrors exacerbated by stress. This rings truer and truer throughout the film as Ellison neglects his family to chase the elusive dragon of success.Įllison ignores his family. One of his taped interviews asks Ellison why he writes and he thinly jests that it is for “fame and money”. Ellison has no videos of his own family all he has is the perverse family moments of others combined with a stack of VHS recordings of his own interviews about “Kentucky Blood”. It is interesting to juxtapose the box of home videos that Ellison watches with his own preferred viewing material. Įllison indulges in almost all of the Seven Deadly Sins. Therefore, in this case Sobchack is dead right when she argues that “In the contemporary horror film, the sins of the fathers are truly visited upon the sons and daughters”. Interestingly enough I can think of no time when the daughter Ashley is exposed to any of the images. This is solidified by both Ellison’s childlike egocentrism and Deputy So and So who reminds Ellison, “You put yourself in it”. In this case it is the father who is lured in through the images which by association likens him to a child. Professor Jonas states that Bughuul lures children through images so that he can eat them. This brings up an interesting point as Ellison in Sinister is likened to a child. Sobchack argues that during the dynamic between father and child, the father gives up his power and authority to the children thus rendering himself childlike in status. Therefore, the greater narrative seems to be that only through responsible parenting can one prevent children from becoming horrific.Īn extension of this argument for patriarchal failure is articulated by Vivian Sobchack in “Bringing It All Back Home”. In fact, Sinister seems to blame the transfer of power from parent to child on ineffective parenting. However, this couldn’t happen without the ineffective parenting of the father. ![]() On one hand we could immediately read this text as if children threaten the balance of power within the household today. Weakened patriarchy is never restored as Ellison’s daughter Ashley overpowers the family and assumes control. During the 80s and 90s fathers in horror struggled to maintain patriarchal hegemony amid notable women’s advancement. Scholars write about horrific fathers as representations of both challenged and repressed patriarchy manifesting in bursts of anger and fear. Vivian Sobchack calls Rosemary’s Baby the “radical beginning of patriarchal failure”. Without Ellison, Bughuul seems to be an impotent threat especially in comparison to the devil in Rosemary’s Baby. Henceforth, Ellison is actually the conduit for horror to enter the world. However, I argue that in the case of Sinister, the actual monster Bughuul poses no threat to the family without the negligent acts of the father. Much like Guy Woodhouse, Ellison Oswalt is not the monster per se. Both are married more to their work than to their family, thus opening doors for evil to seethe from within. Both men are dismissive or unaware of the problems festering inside of their loved ones. Both fathers are obsessed with money and power. If indeed this is correct, then who is challenging the power and why?Įllison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke) most noticeably elicits images of Guy Woodhouse from Rosemary’s Baby. Scholars such as Vivian Sobchack and Tony Williams suggest that the horrific father is often indicative of challenged patriarchal power. More importantly, it is part of a smaller subsect of horror films that critiques the biological father rather than the interloping step-father. Sinister is one of the few films centered on the ineffective father. Most often it’s monstrous mothers to blame for allowing evil into the sacred temple of the family home. It goes without saying that mothers bear the brunt of blame in horror films.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |