Skip to main content

Your friend needs a psychiatrist, not a vampire killer.

Fright Night
(1985)

(SPOILERS) Horror laced with comedy, or comedy laced with horror, has now been so defined by Buffy the Vampire Slayer that precursors tend to look like they’re setting the stage rather than acting as an influence. It’s difficult to believe Joss Whedon didn’t at least have the tone of Fright Night in his head when he wrote the 1992 movie (and it’s notable that the serviceable but personality-free Fright Night remake was penned by Marti Noxon, ex of Whedon’s writing team). How does the picture stand up? It’s pretty much the same; scrappy, goofy, over-indulgent to its (endearing) special effects and anchored by a hugely charming performance from Roddy McDowall and a smoothly charismatic one from Chris Sarandon.


It might be one of those movies that presents a more consistent tone in the trailer than the actual thing, but that’s probably part and parcel of a first-time director. Tom Holland, having experienced the terrors of Michael Winner unleashed on his material (Scream for Help) opted to call the shots himself, tapping into a burgeoning horror-comedy trend with results that were more frequently hit than miss. By and large, he knows what to play straight and which tropes to have fun with; teen Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is instantly suspicious of his new next door neighbour Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) when he sees a coffin delivered, and for good reason, but his protestations of vampirism fall on deaf ears, such that girlfriend Amy (Amanda Bearse) and buddy “Evil” Ed (Stephen Geoffreys) pay down-at-heel-actor-cum-late-night-horror-host Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall) to convince him Dandridge isn’t in fact one of the undead. Which all seems to be going fine… until Vincent discovers he is.


Ragsdale, who has since etched out a successful TV career in the likes of Herman’s Head and Justified, is the perfectly earnest straight man in the proceedings, as all around him grasp the mettle of showier roles. The picture’s key conceit is one it appropriates from the decade’s earlier lycanthrope movies The Howling and American Werewolf in London; the characters are fully aware of all the tales and fictions of surrounding vampire lore, fuelling much of the comedy (it’s this post-modern approach, more than anything, that Buffy owes its debt to). When Charley calls the police, after seeing what he’s certain is a body being bundled into the car boot of Jerry’s cohabitee, Renfeld-esque Bill Cole (Jonathan Stark), he’s initially cautious about voicing his supernatural suspicions, until, with no joy during the interrogations, he can’t help but suggest the officers look in the basement for a coffin: “You’re going to find Jerry Dandridge in it, sleeping the sleep of the undead!


Jerry Dandridge: Of course, now that I’ve been made welcome, I’ll probably drop by quite a bit. In fact, any time I feel like it. With your mother’s permission, of course.

And, while the proceedings establish themselves rather like Rear Window (or Disturbia, if you’re a millennial) with vampires, Charley’s concerns are at least as much hormonal as they are vampiric. Jerry’s arrival distracts him from his fumblings with Amy: the sexually-experienced alpha male proceeds to steal her away (and, as Kim Newman has noted, Charley’s sudden disinterest in the ready-and-willing sex offered by his girlfriend, as soon as a handsome man appears outside his window, yields a gay subtext all its own).


Sarandon’s apple-eating (he was inspired by fruit bats), Strangers in the Night-whistling vamp pulls off pullovers down the disco far better than Michael Douglas could hope to in Basic Instinct, and it’s not for nothing that he’s feted as one of the screen’s most memorable bloodsuckers, a suave, confident, personable creation, one capable of showing a range of emotions (he appears genuinely concerned over Amy’s feelings, reminding him as she does of a lost love) and convincingly making the moves on the dance floor (a scene only somewhat punctured by the terrible ‘80s beats; Brad Fiedel furnished the score, Holland having been impressed by The Terminator, and there’s a similar “quality” of it being little more than discordant synth noise at times).


Holland conceived of a “younger and hipper” Christopher Lee, and he certainly got that. The only area this falls down is in the transformed Dandridge, which is closer to a deadite than anything effectively vampiric. That said, I love the deranged vampire bat incarnation that tries to chew chunks out of our heroes at the climax (it was, apparently, a reject puppet from Ghostbusters; Richard Edlund handled both movies), and there are various effectively wacky elements, such as the wolf-ish Evil Ed (why he turns into something wolf is beyond me) and the vamp Amy, all nightmare teeth (Bearse, a decade older than she was playing, soon went on to Married with Children).


Judy Brewster: What about your nightmare? Do you want a Valium?

Holland said “I wanted a teenage boy going mano a mano with the great vampire of the world” which certainly solidifies the movie’s pre-Buffy status, as well as paving the way for similarly-poised The Lost Boys and Vamp. And, like Buffy, Charley has an oblivious mum who even looks a bit like her (and is entirely charmed by Jerry, naturally; one of the best scenes has Jerry making innocently veiled threats, having been granted access to the Brewster home by Judy).


Also like Buffy, Charley has an uber-geeky sidekick, one who provides the requisite comic relief. Geoffreys has since become more (in)famous for eking out a career in hardcore gay porn, but his eccentrically-vocalised, wired-haired teen with a memorably sarcastic catchphrase (“You’re so cool, Brewster”) is easily identifiable as one of the decade’s great lead-eclipsing buds (the other main notable being Two and a Half Men’s Jon Cryer as Duckie in Pretty in Pink; Geoffreys’ performance is gauged somewhere between Duckie and Bobcat Goldthwait’s Zed from Police Academys 2-4). It was surely Holland recognising his star turn that earned Ed the final line.


Ed: Then he’ll be able to suck his way through the entire town. Not that it would be much of a loss.

There’s also a gay subtext to Ed’s “seduction” by Jerry, who observes how the teen is persecuted for being “different” (albeit, while readily endorsing this reading, Holland has stated he rather had in mind Ed being simply a bullied EC Comics geek). It’s further evidence of the empathy exhibited by Dandridge. Ed’s certainly a more unnerving transformed vampire than Jerry, particularly when he appears in Judy’s bed sporting a red wig, waiting to scare the living daylights out of Peter Vincent. Who is also given to curious compassion; having staked Ed, the whimpering wolf creature garners his sympathy, before he thinks better of getting too close.


For me, it’s McDowall who made this movie as memorable as it is, portraying an unapologetic ham actor and coward required to rise to the challenge of a real supernatural threat. He’s basically Bob Hope in The Ghost Breakers, or Abbot and Costello up against the Universal horror catalogue, but transposed to the ‘80s.


Holland has it that Love at First Bite killed the vampire movie for a spell (despite John Badham’s Dracula coming out later the same year and doing reasonable business). That may have been the case, but he’s really taking his cues, as noted, from Dante and Landis, particularly the former. After all, in The Howling it’s Dick Miller occult bookstore owner who provides the lowdown of the movie-popularised defences one should use against the werewolf curse, and Vincent serves a similar function (“So far, everything has been just like it was in the movies. We just have to keep hoping”). Dandridge even professes “Mr Vincent, I’ve seen all your films. And I found them… very amusing” (with titles like Orgy of the Damned, and the footage we see, that’s about right). Asked by Charley if he is serious about vampires being real, Vincent replies:

Peter Vincent: Absolutely. Unfortunately, none of your generation seems to be. I have just been fired because nobody wants to see vampire killers any more, or vampires either. Apparently, all they want are demented madmen running around in ski masks hacking up young virgins!


Of course, if Holland’s borrowing from Dante, Dante would return the compliment in Gremlins 2: The New Batch, with Robert Prosky’s has-been Grandpa Fred and his cable show, bemoaning the lack of respect for old fare (one might consider that, rather than George Hamilton, it was those very madmen in ski masks who made the traditional vamp seem rather passé). Lest there’s any doubt about the Dante influence, the original ending of Fright Night (the screenplay) had Peter Vincent transform into a vampire live (dead) on air, which was exactly the ending of The Howling, only with a werewolf.


Indeed, reaction at the time was as much concerned with the effects as the gags, and not everyone was overly impressed. While Nicholas Royle in Time Out called it “a farrago of cartoonish exaggeration… knowing humour and ‘80s camp, it shouldn’t even begin to work, and yet, strangely, it does, sort of, thanks to the assured handling of writer/director Holland and two performances in particular – Geoffreys as Charley’s pal Evil, and McDowall as the timid vampire killer”, Kim Newman contrasted it with its superior werewolf predecessors, commenting in Nightmare Movies that it “should do for vampires what The Howling does for werewolves, but gets side-tracked and emerges as a Count Yorga movie jazzed up with some admittedly astonishing transformation effects and an unhelpful dose of high school comedy”.


He felt such an approach was negative, bracketing Fright Night with the likes of The Lost Boys, arguing they “reduce the genre to Scooby Doo, Where Are You? with children, adolescents or childish young men in the leads, and with one scene of knockabout looning for every dose of effects-dripping monstrousness, the films provide the MTV generation with something to watch every three minutes but are unable to get seriously scary, or even seriously funny. All they prove is that nobody needs a safe horror movie”. A little unfair, but from a horror diehard like Newman, probably understandable, as he has his own dubious standards to uphold.


Vincent is back on his show come the final scene, which is a relief, and McDowall and Ragsdale would return for Fright Night Part 2, sans Holland, which I have to admit I've never got around to seeing (I may have to remedy that; I always found the trailer amusing, but recall the movie being roundly slated). I don’t think Fright Night quite stands the test of time the way some other horror comedies of the period do (Evil Dead II, Vamp), but then, that may be because it was never that great in the first place; it’s the nostalgia factor that has elevated it. If Holland’s directing chops are fairly rudimentary, he undoubtedly brings a confident tone, martialling scares, laughs and fine performances (McDowall and Sarandon especially). And buckets of green goo. It was the ‘80s.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

It was one of the most desolate looking places in the world.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, broadcast by the BBC on the centenary of Armistice Day, is "sold" on the attraction and curiosity value of restored, colourised and frame rate-enhanced footage. On that level, this World War I documentary, utilising a misquote from Laurence Binyon's poem for its title, is frequently an eye-opener, transforming the stuttering, blurry visuals that have hitherto informed subsequent generations' relationship with the War. However, that's only half the story; the other is the use of archive interviews with veterans to provide a narrative, exerting an effect often more impacting for what isn't said than for what is.

What about the panties?

Sliver (1993)
(SPOILERS) It must have seemed like a no-brainer. Sharon Stone, fresh from flashing her way to one of the biggest hits of 1992, starring in a movie nourished with a screenplay from the writer of one of the biggest hits of 1992. That Sliver is one Stone’s better performing movies says more about how no one took her to their bosom rather than her ability to appeal outside of working with Paul Verhoeven. Attempting to replicate the erotic lure of Basic Instinct, but without the Dutch director’s shameless revelry and unrepentant glee (and divested of Michael Douglas’ sweaters), it flounders, a stupid movie with vague pretensions to depth made even more stupid by reshoots that changed the killer’s identity and exposed the cluelessness of the studio behind it.

Philip Noyce isn’t a stupid filmmaker, of course. He’s a more-than-competent journeyman when it comes to Hollywood blockbuster fare (Clear and Present Danger, Salt) also adept at “smart” smaller pictures (Rabbit Proof Fence

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.