Max Kalmanowicz's "The Children" (1980) exudes a cinematic quality that might be deemed a throwback to the mid-70s. Despite the celluloid undergoing a transformation by the late 20th century, it wasn't as uniform as we see today. Moreover, this is a production constrained by budget, publicity, and distribution.
We encounter a somewhat original portrayal of malevolent children. The film can be described as a mix of toxic, demonic zombies with an overt malevolence and a notable peculiarity: they possess the ability to scorch anyone who pauses to accept their seemingly earnest embrace. The script wastes no time on pleasantries and, after setting the stage with a toxic cloud from a chemical plant engulfing a school bus, it unleashes its miniature monsters to wreak havoc on any adult in their path.
Technically, the film aligns with the B-movie aesthetics of its time, with stark contrasts in quality and professional commitment across different areas.
The cinematography, showcasing Barry Adams' narrative skill behind the camera, and the apt soundtrack by Harry Manfredini, which channels the essence of horror classics, stand out as strengths. These well-executed elements are paired with special effects and set designs that, despite the era's technological constraints, could have been more polished. Yet, the production design manages to create convincing spaces that immerse the viewer and effectively contribute to the straightforward plot.
The narrative unfolds modestly, penned by Carlton J. Albright and Edward Terry. Although the climax presents some confusion, the script manages to shape and satisfactorily conclude the basic premise.
The relatively unknown adult actors display a competence that dignifies a film which could easily have slipped into the more vulgar and slapstick realms of its genre. Their involvement and charisma lend credibility to the final product, contrasting with the more clumsy aspects, such as the toxic children's movements, their makeup, and the rather peculiar methods devised for their elimination. The absurdity of having to sever their hands for extermination is never clarified, and it's debatable whether we should take this seriously. Yet, the film compels us to do just that.
It's possible that this was a deliberate choice to inject a touch of humor and distance from the core horror elements.
According to a "Var News" article from October 15, 1980, since its release on September 26 of the same year, the domestic gross had climbed to 7 million dollars.
The film itself is a social and familial critique woven into its narrative. "The Children" underscores the transformation of childhood innocence into objects of horror and calamity. Among the plethora of titles in this subgenre, "The Children" stands out for its underlying theme of children as instruments of adult atonement for sins.
The embedded notion that "children will wash away their parents' sins with their blood" establishes a cultural status where the young pay for their elders' transgressions. This theme is reminiscent of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, whose essence has been inherited by many films featuring terrifying children. In one version, the liberated children exact revenge on their town's adults for their deceit and greed.
In "The Children," the adults' sin is their negligence in handling chemical substances, toxic to people, animals, and Mother Nature alike. This theme was already well-trodden when "The Children" was filmed, and today, it's been handled so much that it slips through our greased consciousness.
The children assume the role of harbingers or prophets. The message is clear: "This is what you've done to the planet. You will not only lose your offspring, but they will also become your executioners." Like other films of the era addressing similar topics, regardless of the narrative agent-be it children, zombies, or irate mutant bugs-humanity must ultimately account for its environmental mismanagement.
In comparing this apocalyptic vision with Tom Shankland's "The Children" (2008), we find a contemporary reimagining of this narrative, prompting reflection on the persistence and transformation of fears. Thus, we delve into a comparison that highlights thematic similarities and executional differences, offering deeper insight into the genre's evolution. Both films share a common thread in horror: children transformed into threats to adults. This theme, differently explored in each film, is rooted in the disturbing transformation of childlike innocence into a source of horror, creating a dissonance that strikes at the very heart of psychological terror.
Both films utilize isolation and claustrophobia to heighten narrative tension. Kalmanowicz's version stems from a rural setting and chemical disaster, while Shankland opts for a family gathering in a secluded house to craft his claustrophobic scenario. Despite differences in context and era, both films reflect a "home terror" aesthetic, where the safe and familiar space becomes a place of fear and unease; more endogenous, indeed, in Shankland's case.
Beyond terror, both versions offer social and environmental commentary. The 1980 film focuses on explicit environmental criticism, while the 2008 film can be seen as a reflection on the pressures of modern family life and social expectations. These underlying themes enrich the plot and resonate beyond superficial fear. The portrayal of children as not only victims but also agents of terror is significant. This suggests a thematic influence where the loss of control over the next generation becomes a deep and disturbing source of fear.
In "The Children" (1980), adults confront "zombified" children head-on, reflecting an era where evil was met with resolve, even if it meant extreme decisions. This contrasts with the 2008 film, where parents hesitate to acknowledge the evil in their children, symbolizing a contemporary society that shies away from confronting evil if it stems from the intimate and familiar. This difference underscores a cultural shift towards greater protection of childlike innocence and a reluctance to accept that evil can manifest in our most cherished figures, thus challenging our notions of morality and parental responsibility. The different approaches to child antagonists in both films reflect a significant shift in sociocultural values and parental attitudes over nearly three decades. This evolution may be influenced by shifts in parenting psychology and philosophy, moving from a more authoritarian view to one that is more understanding and child-centered. In cinema, this translates to a narrative that resists simplifying good and evil in absolute terms, presenting instead a more nuanced and psychologically complex reality.
So, if you want your offspring to remain adorable, do things right, especially regarding waste recycling. Otherwise, just ask the "gremlins".
We encounter a somewhat original portrayal of malevolent children. The film can be described as a mix of toxic, demonic zombies with an overt malevolence and a notable peculiarity: they possess the ability to scorch anyone who pauses to accept their seemingly earnest embrace. The script wastes no time on pleasantries and, after setting the stage with a toxic cloud from a chemical plant engulfing a school bus, it unleashes its miniature monsters to wreak havoc on any adult in their path.
Technically, the film aligns with the B-movie aesthetics of its time, with stark contrasts in quality and professional commitment across different areas.
The cinematography, showcasing Barry Adams' narrative skill behind the camera, and the apt soundtrack by Harry Manfredini, which channels the essence of horror classics, stand out as strengths. These well-executed elements are paired with special effects and set designs that, despite the era's technological constraints, could have been more polished. Yet, the production design manages to create convincing spaces that immerse the viewer and effectively contribute to the straightforward plot.
The narrative unfolds modestly, penned by Carlton J. Albright and Edward Terry. Although the climax presents some confusion, the script manages to shape and satisfactorily conclude the basic premise.
The relatively unknown adult actors display a competence that dignifies a film which could easily have slipped into the more vulgar and slapstick realms of its genre. Their involvement and charisma lend credibility to the final product, contrasting with the more clumsy aspects, such as the toxic children's movements, their makeup, and the rather peculiar methods devised for their elimination. The absurdity of having to sever their hands for extermination is never clarified, and it's debatable whether we should take this seriously. Yet, the film compels us to do just that.
It's possible that this was a deliberate choice to inject a touch of humor and distance from the core horror elements.
According to a "Var News" article from October 15, 1980, since its release on September 26 of the same year, the domestic gross had climbed to 7 million dollars.
The film itself is a social and familial critique woven into its narrative. "The Children" underscores the transformation of childhood innocence into objects of horror and calamity. Among the plethora of titles in this subgenre, "The Children" stands out for its underlying theme of children as instruments of adult atonement for sins.
The embedded notion that "children will wash away their parents' sins with their blood" establishes a cultural status where the young pay for their elders' transgressions. This theme is reminiscent of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, whose essence has been inherited by many films featuring terrifying children. In one version, the liberated children exact revenge on their town's adults for their deceit and greed.
In "The Children," the adults' sin is their negligence in handling chemical substances, toxic to people, animals, and Mother Nature alike. This theme was already well-trodden when "The Children" was filmed, and today, it's been handled so much that it slips through our greased consciousness.
The children assume the role of harbingers or prophets. The message is clear: "This is what you've done to the planet. You will not only lose your offspring, but they will also become your executioners." Like other films of the era addressing similar topics, regardless of the narrative agent-be it children, zombies, or irate mutant bugs-humanity must ultimately account for its environmental mismanagement.
In comparing this apocalyptic vision with Tom Shankland's "The Children" (2008), we find a contemporary reimagining of this narrative, prompting reflection on the persistence and transformation of fears. Thus, we delve into a comparison that highlights thematic similarities and executional differences, offering deeper insight into the genre's evolution. Both films share a common thread in horror: children transformed into threats to adults. This theme, differently explored in each film, is rooted in the disturbing transformation of childlike innocence into a source of horror, creating a dissonance that strikes at the very heart of psychological terror.
Both films utilize isolation and claustrophobia to heighten narrative tension. Kalmanowicz's version stems from a rural setting and chemical disaster, while Shankland opts for a family gathering in a secluded house to craft his claustrophobic scenario. Despite differences in context and era, both films reflect a "home terror" aesthetic, where the safe and familiar space becomes a place of fear and unease; more endogenous, indeed, in Shankland's case.
Beyond terror, both versions offer social and environmental commentary. The 1980 film focuses on explicit environmental criticism, while the 2008 film can be seen as a reflection on the pressures of modern family life and social expectations. These underlying themes enrich the plot and resonate beyond superficial fear. The portrayal of children as not only victims but also agents of terror is significant. This suggests a thematic influence where the loss of control over the next generation becomes a deep and disturbing source of fear.
In "The Children" (1980), adults confront "zombified" children head-on, reflecting an era where evil was met with resolve, even if it meant extreme decisions. This contrasts with the 2008 film, where parents hesitate to acknowledge the evil in their children, symbolizing a contemporary society that shies away from confronting evil if it stems from the intimate and familiar. This difference underscores a cultural shift towards greater protection of childlike innocence and a reluctance to accept that evil can manifest in our most cherished figures, thus challenging our notions of morality and parental responsibility. The different approaches to child antagonists in both films reflect a significant shift in sociocultural values and parental attitudes over nearly three decades. This evolution may be influenced by shifts in parenting psychology and philosophy, moving from a more authoritarian view to one that is more understanding and child-centered. In cinema, this translates to a narrative that resists simplifying good and evil in absolute terms, presenting instead a more nuanced and psychologically complex reality.
So, if you want your offspring to remain adorable, do things right, especially regarding waste recycling. Otherwise, just ask the "gremlins".