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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.