It seems fans of the film don’t undertand it either
As a fan of this film...
I agree with that assessment. Even look at the iconic candyman quotes lol. Like what is he going for?
Perhaps one of these days, I'll sit down to analyze it (along with Us). But right now, with Candyman, I pretty much vibe with some of the ideas and themes it kinda throws at the viewer via a strangely surreal, quasi meta-fictional thing. I'm not sure if reading the original short story might help provide some insight (though it's understandably a radically different story).
My takeaway from a few casual viewings iirc is that Candyman is just fucking with Helen because he wants her. He wants to elevate her to a mythological level so that they can be together. Burning themselves together was a way of connecting with the original legend, and perpetuating it: the evil, the blood, the rage, etc.
Helen defies this by saving the child, creating her own myth in the process. This kinda fits with the theme that the community created Candyman as a scapegoat for the tragedies that fill their lives. Helen's myth demonstrates that boogeymen don't have to be all bad. There can be hope, and something good can come from the collective unconsciousness, and break the cycle.
But I also imagine someone could also watch Candyman and just interpret it as a fanciful, mythological interpretation within that community about a woman who had a psychotic break and went on a murder spree. (But similarly, said woman did something good at the end, so they community keeps her memory positively than it did the Candyman.
This is actually part of why I cannot stand the new movie. The new movie tried to explain, ground, and carve out meaning out of something that was originally vague and open to interpretation...and it did so in a very poor manner because imo, there was no coherent vision for it.
I believe there was a vision for the original Candyman, even if it's not immediately obvious.
reply
share
kuatorises (7467)
3 years ago
"My takeaway from a few casual viewings iirc is that Candyman is just fucking with Helen because he wants her. He wants to elevate her to a mythological level so that they can be together. Burning themselves together was a way of connecting with the original legend, and perpetuating it: the evil, the blood, the rage, etc."
He had her. He used the baby as bait. She came/held up her end of the bargain. But she fought him because he wouldn't let the baby go. He does and she stays. But he wants to kill the baby because.....?
And why does fire kill him?! He's dead! So is she for that matter - he outright says it: https://youtu.be/JxvpTKXrqaE. So the be thing killed her, but he needs to burn her? The ending is just a mess.
reply
share
acidraindrop (3055)
3 years ago
Again, I haven't watched recently (aside from rewatching your clip), and I still think that it's a mistake to interpret Candyman too literally...
But I'm thinking not only is the baby just bait to Candyman (if it dies, it dies), but the baby's death is also yet another tragedy in this community in addition to the serial murders. Had Helen not saved the baby and escaped, the baby would have been lost (and/or found to be dead among the pyre).
Candyman roughly represents a symbolic explanation for all the pain and suffering in this community. Candyman is terror and chaos and suffering. He intends to kill the baby like he'd kill anyone else.* The untimely death of another young black boy (effectively burned to death by his own community) is just a continuation of the vicious cycle in this shitty community. So yeah, she already held up her end of the bargain, but if the baby survives, this story has a happy ending. Candyman doesn't want that either.
And why does fire kill him?
I'm inclined to think that it doesn't. He's not human. He's not even demon or a ghost; he's an idea and a concept. So burning him off is just a cinematic representation of Helen fighting back (no, I don't think the figure at 3:20 is literally the body of Candyman).
So is she for that matter - he outright says it:
She is? When does she "die" before this scene? I thought that was just more of the random, lofty quotable things that Candyman says that are just dramatic and edgy (e.g. "They will say that I have shed innocent blood. What's blood for, if not for shedding?").
* (Or maybe he's trying to create a family of wraiths...but I don't think there's enough in the film to support that idea so fuck that.)
reply
share
kuatorises (7467)
3 years ago
Of course it's him burning, she set him on fire. It's not some rando.
"She is? When does she "die" before this scene?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68UrTOUJqtE
Which ends up doing absolutely nothing - despite him saying "You're mind now" - because she gets up walks away, and saves the baby and sets him on fire.
It's sloppy as fuck.
reply
share
acidraindrop (3055)
3 years ago
Of course it's him burning, she set him on fire.
He's not human lol. He's an idea. He doesn't have a real body.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68UrTOUJqtE
I didn't think that was her dying.
It's sloppy as fuck.
Sloppy or not, I really think you're taking this movie too literally. It's like watching Mulholland Drive or Lost Highway and taking everything you see on the screen as happening in reality.
I conceded that this movie is all over the place but all your criticisms are based on stuff that's besides the point. Like based on your comments, you really think her setting him up on fire was like a person setting another person on fire. This isn't a normal slasher like Halloween or something. Candyman is not a dude, Shape or not, walking around that you can interact with physically in a consistent way.
reply
share
kuatorises (7467)
3 years ago
"He doesn't have a real body."
But can be killed by fire......
"I didn't think that was her dying"
100s of bees stinging someone wouldn't kill them?! He literally says they are both dead a few minutes later, LOL! But she's not, because the fire kills her. Kills him too even though he's already dead.
"but all your criticisms are based on stuff that's besides the point."
It's my thread, I determine the point of the conversation; and I have laid it out several times now. You even agreed:
"I agree with that assessment. Even look at the iconic candyman quotes lol. Like what is he going for?"
reply
share
acidraindrop (3055)
3 years ago
Yeah, I was agreeing with the other person that a lot of fans of this movie don't know really know what's going on. Not uncommon really lol, but this movie is particularly notable because as we've all agreed, it's so utterly convoluted and seemingly nonsensical.
But I think we're not seeing eye to eye in this back-and-forth because we're seeing the movie entirely differently.
BTW, I actually did miss the first thing in your original post:
I thought when he unleashed his bees on her that he killed her and they'd be "together", but she somehow survives because she later dies while saving the baby.
And again, to that, I would just say, she didn't die there. lol. (Yeah, I know he said they're both dead in the next scene over. I got nothing for that atm.) But this is why we're differing. You view the movie literally, and every answer I give to your questions is based on my reading of the film, which is not as concrete as yours.
The way I see it, Candyman died like over a hundred years ago or whatever. He's an imaginary concept that's been given quasi-flesh from the thoughts of the community. You can't burn him to death anymore because he's not alive. He can only be truly dead if he's totally forgotten (or perhaps, overwritten).
So I can just agree to disagree, because even with your original thread, I just don't agree with some of the premises you've come to describe, so I don't think I can come up with any sort of response you'd agree with, or disagree with either for that matter. We're kind of arguing in parallel because I don't think the movie functions if you take it too literally (versus something like Hereditary where you can choose to look at it literally or symbolically.)
reply
share