[Editorial] Eden Lake (2008): How a Film’s Potential is Destroyed by Bias

When you are a fan of Horror films and genre cinema as a whole, you tend to watch very little else. I often ponder if the reason we as fans of this much maligned genre watch so many films that fall within the scope of this genre is due to us being protective of it, or because we are searching for the hit which we felt on our very first time watching a film that got under our skin?

I tend to usually reach the conclusion that it is ultimately a bit of both. I mention this recurring musing of mine for the sole reason that I have not been as affected by a film as I was by Eden Lake (2008).  When I initially pitched this piece, an entire month had passed since my first watch of the film and it had not left my psyche, this film had burrowed deep inside me, that I needed to write about the film, otherwise I would be twisted and contorted by this incredibly disturbing film. I sit down to write this piece with the spectre of this film looming over my shoulder, hoping that once the words have left my brain, I will be rid of the utter despair this film has shrouded me in. 

I have been sitting on this piece for a while, the thoughts circling my mind as I claw at them in a desperate attempt to formulate them into coherent sentences. The one question that was a flashing neon sign on a dark cloudy night was “what disturbed me?”. On the surface that would seem to be a very simple question, as there are many shocking scenes and set pieces designed to create discomfort and tension. However, for me the question has a deeper root, it is less about the visuals and more about the world these characters exist in. 

LISTEN TO OUR HORROR PODCAST!

Horror films and tv shows tend to follow similar beats regardless of subgenre, there is a protagonist who you are rooting for as they have to endure terrible event after terrible event due to the actions of an antagonist or villain, but ultimately they come through it and survive, with a helping dose of trauma. Eden Lake rejects that format, pulling the rug out from under you and delivering an emotional gut punch that leaves you feeling hollowed out, as if some eldritch being had reached inside you and scooped out everything that made you the person you are, leaving behind an empty husk. 

I think it would be impossible to have any discussion about Eden Lake without acknowledging that it is a film steeped in classism, it is a part of the fabric of this film. The focus of this piece will centre on why I feel that there is an unsettling message about the cycles of violence in society being commented on in this film, but that message is lost behind the classist biases of its director. 

The main characters of this film are the couple Jenny (Kelly Reilly) and Steve (Michael Fassbender) from London who are on a weekend trip to the countryside for a break from their busy lives. When Jenny and Steve are on their drive from the city out to the countryside, there are two moments which I feel are of important significance to what I feel the film is attempting to do. On the radio there is a conversation happening, effectively talking about how parents need help with children that are causing problems. On an initial reading, this could just be saying “these young people are dangerous”.

However, this could also be read as a commentary on how there are communities which lack support structures which can lead to a cycle of poverty and violence, because these communities have been failed by an elitist and classist society which at best lacks empathy, and at worst is intentional in keeping these communities down. The other important moment was a throwaway comment from Steve about how they need to visit the quarry now before it disappears ahead of the housing developers coming in. On the surface, this could be making you sympathetic to Steve as he cares about the quarry. However, I think what is actually happening is that this is a commentary on gentrification and how again society does not care about local communities and displacing people for the sake of profit. Steve does not care about the quarry, or the area, he does not care that it will be destroyed by the developers, all he cares about is being able to take advantage of its existence while still there. 

I draw your attention to these two moments because I feel that the film is aiming to make these commentaries, criticising societal structures and the gentrification of rural neighbourhoods. However, while I do feel that this is something the film is attempting to do, it is mired by its obsessive portrayal of classist negative stereotypes of rural communities, but more specifically those who are working class. 

LISTEN TO OUR HORROR PODCAST!

When Jenny and Steve first arrive at the accommodation they will be staying in (a small pub that has upstairs lodging), Steve is shown to be fed up with the lack of good service, making a comment to Jenny as he waves his bank card about. My reading of this scene is that it is there to show how entitled Steve is, and on a wider perspective, how entitled the upper class are too. They expect everyone to serve them at the drop of a hat. However, through a lot of the messaging the film employs, this could also be read as another example of how “uncivilised” those outside the cities are. I think that this is one of many instances throughout the film where the director James Watkins is aiming to create a sense of ambiguity but ultimately in my eyes fails because while the character of Steve feels real, the people of the village whom he encounters feel like exaggerated cartoon versions of working-class people. 

These caricatures of the working class permeate the film, and their constant presence is a malignant tumour attached to this film’s potential. I genuinely believe that bubbling beneath the surface is a powerful story about the cycles of violence within society and how these cycles transcend class and is propagated by a patriarchal system of toxic masculinity. The characters of Steve and Brett (a young Jack O’Connell) are in my view, two sides of the same coin. They are both representative of toxic masculinity viewed through a prism of class. Steve is an example of how toxic masculinity can look in a man of a high social class, an overpowering stench of entitlement and believing that one is better than those around them. Whereas Brett has elements of how toxic masculinity can manifest in a man who is working class. I specify “elements” because so much of how Brett and his social group is portrayed feels so incredibly biased, and as their behaviours are always in opposition to Jenny and Steve, you are expected to view their behaviour as villainous.

The actions of Brett and his social group (under his influence) all take place in a vacuum which lacks the context of why people who live in rural communities (that have been deliberately neglected and forgotten) may be angry at the world around them. Everything they do is constantly portrayed as being violence for the sake of violence, as having no explanation, no possible catalyst other than “just because I can”. There are numerous scenes which I could focus on as an example of this bias fuelled phenomenon taking place within the film, though I think the one which stands out for me is when Brett burns the young boy Adam alive. Narratively this scene is the first time we see a shift between Brett and his group, confirmation that Brett holds so much sway that up to this point the group felt compelled to go along, however now some have reached their limit of what they are willing to do. The reason this scene stuck with me is I could see myself in Adam. I was that young child who did not have a social group and could not see how the bullies’ attention I was given was not coming from a positive place. Seeing Adam be a victim of Brett as a representative of toxic masculinity, I saw the parts of myself which had been sacrificed on the altar of our patriarchal society, and I grieved for what toxic masculinity had taken from me.

This film is often lauded as being a film that gets under people’s skins, and I believe that the reason for that for many people is the conveyor belt of violent scenes. To be more specific, it is how the violent scenes are framed in this film, as having no possible explanation. This is why I believe this film does get under a lot of people’s skins, it is not the violence itself, but rather the apparent senselessness. However, I will admit that there is a part of me which wonders if the people who find this film so affecting are people who see themselves in the characters of Steve and Jenny? I wonder if many who have viewed this film have drunk the proverbial kool-aid and have ascribed to the belief that all working class people are dangerous and violent, so when they watch the film they are seeing something they believe is possible? 

Now, I realise this is just conjecture on my part, but it is something I feel needs to be asked, primarily because of how this film has been so affecting for me. I found this film so affecting due to the depictions of the working-class characters. How this film stripped these characters of their humanity and made them out to be evil villains is what stuck with me. This was a film utterly lacking in empathy, and seeing how little this film cared for the working-class characters and communities left a sour taste in my mouth. Though ultimately the main reason this film was so affecting was how despite it being from 2008 and very much a film of its era, it also feels like a very real insight into how people still view the working class and those who exist on the outskirts of society. As I write this, I can think of an alarming number of stories of unhoused people, Trans/Queer people, and people who are working class that have been the victims of violence, and this is down to the way negative views of these marginalised communities go unchecked and are propped up by a biased media.

I think deep down, Eden Lake got so under my skin because I could see that necessary story about the cycles of violence that transcends class. When I reflect on this film I can envision the criticism of toxic masculinity and how it destroys young boys and creates men who are unable to be vulnerable and understand their emotions, as all they know is anger. This is the potential I can see throughout this film, but it is a potential that has had its life quashed before it could even begin.

RELATED ARTICLES

---