5 Comments
User's avatar
Dylan Oxley's avatar

Thanks for the recs, Jeff! Particularly intrigued by Censor 👀

Daniel Lona's avatar

Great topic! I appreciate you putting a spotlight on female directors. All the more so for horror. And you're right that these movies clearly have a different perspective than well-known, male-directed horror films. Which shows the value of having a diversity of perspectives behind the camera and/or script.

Andrei Petrovitch's avatar

Good list (although I think the Babadook was overrated).

But the best woman-directed horror movie for me has to be St. Maud, directed by Rose Glass.

Wayne Reed's avatar

I’m sorry but i didn’t find the Babadook scary.

Frank Sterle Jr.'s avatar

One can only hope that an infant or toddler was not used for any melodramatic scenes of horror. …

When an Oscar or other acting award nominee wins and accepts the prize at the podium, he/she typically thanks the various other participants in the relevant film’s creation. For me what’s always conspicuously lacking in the brief speech is any mention of the infants or toddlers used in filming negatively melodramatic scenes, let alone any potential resultant harm to their very malleable psyches, perhaps even a childhood post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD).

Long before reading Sigmund Freud’s or other academics’ theories/thoughts on early-life trauma, I, while cringing, was (still am) astonished at how the producers and directors of negatively hyper-emotional big-/small-screen ‘entertainment’ could comfortably conclude that no psychological harm would come to their infant/toddler ‘actors’ as they screamed in bewilderment.

Cannot one logically conclude by observing their turmoil-filled facial expressions that they’re perceiving, and likely cerebrally recording, the hyper-emotional scene activity around them at face value rather than as a fictitious occurrence? More so, how could the parents of those undoubtedly extremely upset infants/toddlers allow it?!

Admittedly, I’d initially presumed there had to be a reliable educated consensus within the entertainment industry and psychology academia that there's little or no such risk, otherwise the practice would logically and compassionately have ceased. But then I became increasingly doubtful of the factual accuracy of any such potential consensus.

Contemporary research reveals that, since it cannot fight or flight, a baby stuck in a crib on its back hearing parental discord in the next room can only “move into a third neurological state, known as a ‘freeze’ state … This freeze state is a trauma state” (Childhood Disrupted: How Your Biography Becomes Your Biology and How You Can Heal, pg.123).

Also known is that the unpredictability of a stressor, and not the intensity, does the most harm. When the stressor “is completely predictable, even if it is more traumatic — such as giving a [laboratory] rat a regularly scheduled foot shock accompanied by a sharp, loud sound — the stress does not create these exact same [negative] brain changes” (pg. 42).

If allowed to continue for a sufficient amount of time, the absorption of such traumatic experiences will cause the brain to improperly develop. It can readily be the starting point towards a childhood, adolescence and adulthood in which the brain uncontrollably releases potentially damaging levels of inflammatory stress hormones and chemicals, even in non-stressful daily routines.

The entertainment industry’s misuse of animals during filming rightfully isn’t tolerated as a general rule; and, likewise, it should not use infants and toddlers in adversely hyper-emotional drama — especially if substitutes, such as mannequin infants and/or computer-generated imagery (CGI), can be used more often.