Skip to main content

I dreamed about a guy in a dirty red and green sweater.

A Nightmare on Elm Street
(1984)

(SPOILERS) I first saw A Nightmare on Elm Street a little under a decade after its release, and I was distinctly underwhelmed five or so sequels and all the hype. Not that it didn’t have its moments, but there was an “It’ll do” quality that reflects most of the Wes Craven movies I’ve seen. Aside from the postmodern tease of A New Nightmare – like Last Action Hero, unfairly maligned – I’d never bothered with the rest of the series, in part because I’m just not that big a horror buff, but also because the rule that the first is usually the best in any series, irrespective of genre, tends to hold out more often than not. So now I’m finally getting round to them, and it seemed only fair to start by giving Freddy’s first another shot. My initial reaction holds true.

Making a hero of a villain is the lifeblood of a horror series. Were Amon Goeth not the uber-nasty in a serious, acclaimed Oscar-bait movie, he’d surely have little figurines fashioned of him by now (inevitably, someone has made one of him, but you can be sure, if they could get away with it, studios would have licensed them). My recollection was that Freddy – or Fred, as he’s called here – Krueger was a child molester in the movie (unless that’s the Mandela Effect at work). But no, he’s a moderately less despicable – as in, more acceptable to the movies – “filthy child murderer who killed at least twenty kids in the neighbourhood”.

Craven attempted to come up with the “most loathsome character imaginable”, not really such a stretch for the guy who unleashed The Last House on the Left, but he ultimately felt a molester was too extreme. Anyone wondering what the deal with this mild-mannered fellow manifesting the darkest of visions probably isn’t going to get any straightforward answers. Craven’s career trajectory was curious to say the least, segueing from humanities professor to porno director before Last House sealed his infamy. He was also given to citing very specific influences on his sporadically slapdash pictures, such as, in this case, nightmares among Southeast Asian refugees and an article in Scientific American inspiring Freddy’s famous red and green jumper (selecting colours that would clash most when viewed through the human retina). It doesn’t altogether surprise me, then, that following the famous bathtub scene, there should be a Monarch butterfly in the bathroom cabinet.

New Line was dubbed "The House that Freddy Built" thanks to the franchise transforming them from a predominately cheap-and-cheerful distributor into a bona fide production house. Craven reputedly wanted the film to be a one and done, but as a seasoned vet of the genre, he ought to have known this simply wasn’t how horror movies worked, even less so once (alarmingly) kids began dressing up as Krueger at Halloween (he was more sanguine when Robert Shaye later offered him a slice of pie as recompense for all the money the studio had made, albeit the accompanying New Nightmare was a resounding failure). The idea, however, that Craven’s purity of vision was subsequently sullied somehow, transforming Freddy into Roger Moore-esque quip master was, well, wishful thinking on his part. There’s nothing very worthy or responsible about Fred Krueger here, from conception on down.

Marge Thompson (Ronee Blakley) eventually tells daughter Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) how it came to be that Fred was burned alive; he got off his crimes on a technicality and “A bunch of us parents tracked him down after they let him out”. Far from an urban legend, then, these events must have occurred, surely, within Nancy’s lifetime (Marge isn’t even forty, and unless she has other kids, who aren’t mentioned if so, she intimates she was a parent at the time). In which case, every child in the neighbourhood would surely know all about Fred growing up. As for Fred, there’s further dilution, enabling him to become a “loveable” brand: we only see him he as a teenager killer, rather than a child killer. All he’s doing is preying on teens (well, actors in their twenties, except for Langenkamp). And we know they have it coming, because they’re ‘orrible ‘ormonal teenagers. The “sins of the parents” are invoked in his going after them, albeit Nancy’s the only one overtly identified in that regard. On a mission or not, though, shouldn’t Fred’s spectre be itching to return to what really inspired him?

You might suggest none of that matters, but it’s symptomatic of the very loose, unfussed approach that makes A Nightmare on Elm Street a bit limp overall. Fred’s supposed to be terrifying, but Englund – modelling his performance on both Klaus Kinski and Jimmy Cagney – does his best to make him laughable. If he isn’t heavy breathing, he’s gambolling unconvincingly, or producing ridiculously extended, wavy arms. Or pulling off his face and cutting off his fingers, among equally “Look, FX!” moments.

I’m sure, for a certain section of the audience, they count as showstoppers (“I’m your boyfriend now, Nancy”, Freddy intones, as her telephone produces a licking tongue). The series, as Kim Newman observed in Nightmare Movies, typifies horror of the ’80s “obsessed with make-up effects, loaded down with crowd-pleasing humour, fundamentally safe and silly”. But I was still left wondering why this cackling, shambolic buffoon had captured imaginations quite so strongly, as even Englund’s performance doesn’t stand out that much (when he isn’t played by a stuntman, that is, in a patently over-indulged flambé sequence). Craven may have complained, but at least the subsequent quip master has something. Freddy in the first one is neither fish nor fowl.

But if the Freddy elements tend to disappoint, it should be recognised that there are some genuinely inspired moments among the cheesy imagery. The (spandex-achieved) visual of Freddy pushing corporeally into Nancy’s bedroom is superb, while the slow-motion skipping to the Freddy rhyme is almost Lynchian in dreamy discord. The bathtub scene is understandably iconic. The death of Tina (Amanda Wyss), meanwhile, is perhaps the sole moment where the picture becomes genuinely disturbing, not least because, beyond the simple surrealism of the ceiling slaughter, it is so protracted. When Craven revisits his inventive set for demise of Glen (Johnny Depp), it has already transitioned into the arena of the gimmicky, complete with ludicrous Shining-esque geyser of blood. Indeed, it’s notable that The Evil Dead should show up on a TV at one point, as there’s a fair bit of slapstick in A Nightmare on Elm Street (but nothing that would compete with Raimi’s 1987 sequel).

Newman identifies part of the problem with A Nightmare on Elm Street, by comparison with Halloween, in that it never quite succeeds in generating a consistent sense of unease, such that “its interplay between dream and reality entails a lot of off-and-on mood reversals that don’t work up the cumulative suspense of Carpenter’s film”. There’s little distinction in palette between dreams and reality, but there needs to be something if the transitions are to work – the flip side is that the whole think looks like a Hollywood movie. You need to generate a degree of surprise when a character finds themselves in a dream all along, but the irony is that the weirdest stuff (the deaths, Freddy in Nancy’s house) happens in the real world.

Which is why Craven’s “happy ending” might not have offered the crude yuks of Marge being dragged through the front door window, but no one watching would have been in any doubt Nancy was in a too-good-to-be-true dream. Whether that meant a good or bad one would have been open to interpretation (but with all her friends miraculously alive, possibly not): “It was all a dream… and it still is”.

It has been pointed out that the “Don’t fall asleep” mantra is inherited from Invasion of the Body Snatchers. And the title lends itself to the paranoia of The Twilight Zone classic episode title The Monsters Came Out on Maple Street. The idea is of the family made foreign, which requires short memories of upheavals and an ability to locate benchmarks of normal reality (not the sort of thing that’s easy when there is an active attempt, such as right now, in the world at large, to rock the pillars of “normality”; benchmarks become increasingly in flux). Lin Shaye – now of her own horror franchise – warns “What is seen is not always what is real” and points to Shakespeare’s jaundiced take on what is rotten in human nature in Hamlet. Craven earns points for weaving in real-world responses to the dream happenings, via the manner in which developments baffle both the police/law and science (“The truth is, we still don’t know what they are or where they come from” Charles “Roger Rabbit” Fleischer’s doctor announces of dreams, less than sagely).

Unfortunately, in the same way that Craven never quite achieves a genuine surprise dream sequence, the police investigation never has a sufficient chance to interweave with developments, other than Lieutenant Don (John Saxon), Nancy’s dad, failing to be there for her when she needs him (so like her boyfriend, and her mum assuring her “He’s dead honey, because mommy killed him”; an ultimately rather less proactive mum than Ripley would be in Aliens, but that’s okay, because Nancy is enormously proactive, and with no Mary Sue-ness about her at all). Craven’s great idea is “I brought something out from my dream”, but again, he fails to capitalise on it a coherent or exciting way. The same with the Balinese way of dreaming, the “Turn your back on it and don’t give it your energy” being undercut by the final gag.

Not helping any lean towards nuance is the frequently godawful score from Charles Bernstein, devolving into an over-excitable drumbeat whenever Freddy’s after someone. It ensures the picture feels like the very thing it is, a cynically-minded horror flick, rather than reaching for something higher, let alone being a “bona fide classic”.

Performances are fine. As noted, Englund really isn’t that impressive on this occasion. Freddy doesn’t have a whole lot to say, and what he does isn’t exactly Oscar Wilde. Langenkamp is decent, as is Wyss. Corri is little too much like an extra from Grease, while Depp is the most unlikely jock ever (and he’s clearly still supposed to be one, despite the Balinese dreaming reference: “You’re the jock. You have a baseball bat or something?”) You’re left wishing Saxon had more to do, so at least they got him back for the second sequel. Blakley is good, but rather submerged by the rigours of the boozy mum bit. Obviously, the tropes are in full force: the promiscuous girl gets it first, then her crude BF, then the useless Glen. Parents don’t understand their kids but are also right that they horny little devils. The hero(ine) has to be repeatedly ignored or disbelieved.

The occasional non-Fred moment amuses; Mr Lantz (Ed Call) staring across the street at Nancy’s house and muttering “I think that kid is some kind of lunatic or something”. Later, he can only register bafflement as the medics arrive to clear up after Glen (“You won’t need a stretcher up there. You’ll need a mop”). And if Freddy definitely became the homicidal lunatic for the ’80s, though, someone you could imagine cutting a swathe through SNL, even if the funnier, as in peculiar, aspect is that, while I’m in no way immune to classic horror shock tactics, I didn’t find A Nightmare on Elm Street, one of the genre’s most revered titles, remotely frightening. Even thematically, I think the same year’s (flop) Dreamscape is a much more effective, satisfying movie. Okay, Part II, I’m coming for you…


Popular posts from this blog

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

Ziggy smokes a lot of weed.

Moonfall (2022) (SPOILERS) For a while there, it looked as if Moonfall , the latest and least-welcomed – so it seems – piece of apocalyptic programming from Roland Emmerich, might be sending mixed messages. Fortunately, we need not have feared, as it turns out to be the same pedigree of disaster porn we’ve come to expect from the director, one of the Elite’s most dutiful mass-entertainment stooges, even if his lustre has rather dimmed since the glory days of 2012.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

All I saw was an old man with a funky hand, that’s all I saw.

The Blob (1988) (SPOILERS) The 1980s effects-laden remake of a ’50s B-movie that couldn’t. That is, couldn’t persuade an audience to see it and couldn’t muster critical acclaim. The Fly was a hit. The Thing wasn’t, but its reputation has since soared. Like Invaders from Mars , no such fate awaited The Blob , despite effects that, in many respects, are comparable in quality to the John Carpenter classic – and are certainly indebted to Rob Bottin for bodily grue – and surehanded direction from Chuck Russell. I suspect the reason is simply this: it lacks that extra layer that would ensure longevity.

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un