Skip to main content

Just because you dreamt it, doesn’t mean you did it.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge
(1985)

(SPOILERS) The homoerotic one. Generally derided on release for its spurning of Freddy lore – his work ethic, even – A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge has gained cachet over the years for its not-so-much gay subtext as outright text. That doesn’t necessarily make it a particularly good movie, but it means that, in a genre where the thematic content tends to be overfamiliar and not-so rewarding, it actually has a few things going on under the hood, and plants a distinctive flag for itself amid the formula of the Elm Street series.

It seems a possession pitch was pretty much set as the driving plot device for the first sequel; Leslie Bohem’s pregnancy outline would later be realised with The Dream Child. Perhaps, then, Robert Shaye was influenced on some level by Craven’s disinterest in turning Elm Street into a franchise – New Line wanted to do something actively different to straightforward kills in terms of plotting, the dreamscape equivalent of Jason (which, give or take the series became, certainly in the public consciousness). Craven wasn’t keen on this as realised in Freddy’s Revenge, considering it a betrayal of the basic need to identify with the hero (or heroine). But again, that bucking of the inclination to formula could be deemed in its favour.

Five years on from A Nightmare on Elm Street, a new family has moved into Nancy Thompson’s home, and we follow gender-fluid in name Jesse (Mark Patton), screaming with the girlie best of them – Patton, after dropping out of acting due to Hollywood homophobia, made a 2019 doc entitled Scream, Queen! My Nightmare on Elm Street, and seems to have fashioned a mini self-promotion industry based on his association Elm Street 2 – as Freddy beckons him in dreams, and he wakes up all sweaty. Jesse’s good looking but with a fatal touch of the Gary Numans. He doesn’t quite fit (as the opening, mocking bus trip nightmare illustrates, with a couple of teen girls shunning him, evidently conscious of more than he or the filmmakers were). He’s interested in a girl, Lisa (Kim Myers, more Natasha McElhone than Meryl, with hindsight), but more interested in the developing bromance/persecution with/from Ron Grady (Robert Rusler of Weird Science, Vamp and later Babylon 5).

The result of all this, a movie where a child molester – oh wait, he’s not that in the final movie, is he? – interferes with the “normal” sexual development of a teenage boy, attempting to take possession of him – “You’ve got the body. I’ve got the brains” – and so instilling pronounced homosexual angst – “He’s inside me. I’m scared!” – is the “gayest horror film of all time” (Village Voice, per director Jack Sholder). David Frankel would surely deliver a great remake (and a considerably funnier one; there are numerous occasions in Freddy’s Revenge where more wit wouldn’t have gone amiss. Curious, since Sholder’s subsequent The Hidden is often very funny).

From the first, Jesse’s uncomfortable masquerade as a normal teen is undermined, be it his family remarking that something is wrong with him (“Why can’t Jesse wake up like everybody else?”), to his attempts to impress the girl undermined by Grady (pulling his shorts down on the field and tussling with him); their relationship develops from there. Sharing push ups on the field. Jesse showing up at Grady’s room with his shirt open after failing to consummate with an understandably frustrated Lisa (and then, still in denial, savagely murdering Ron).

There’s also the little incident of his being taken back to the school gym for a shower after being discovered by his teacher at an S&M bar, one said teacher (Marshall Bell, of Aliens fame) frequents. The sequence leads to Coach Schneider’s naked buttocks being whipped by Freddy, prior to his meeting a decisive end (“Snyder got wasted last night!”) After all, he had to; he discovered Jesse’s dark secret (Snyder’s meanwhile, is a fairly open one (he “hangs around S&M joints down town” – presumably giving Jesse the idea of going there?)

The degree to which this is intention or “happy” accident is still debated. Future series director Rachel Talalay referenced the psychosexual crisis of the “shockingly homoerotic” movie. Sholder noted that Patton (Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean) was “very feminine” and "Looking back on it, there were a whole bunch of decisions, starting with casting Mark that really… If you look at some of the exegeses as to why it’s the gayest horror film of all time, some of it is people reading stuff into things, some of it was intentional and some of it was stuff that people added that fed into that idea".

At points, Sholder seems to be suggesting he was oblivious to the subtext, but he was clearly clued-in enough to observe the production team planting props that alluded to this subtext (the game Probe in Mark’s closet). One might surmise he didn’t think any such suggestions were any more than that, that this wasn’t the sum total of the movie, and it seems that for years no one involved was on-board with an intentional element to the subtext.

Later, you hear of performative intent (from Patton) and also writerly. Of the latter, David Chaskin eventually came out and said he had expressly written it that way. Really? Having previously laid it at Patton’s door for playing the part “too gay”? It sounds a little like he’s making the claim to capitalise on the hype. Sholder remains detached from an over-committal response: “Mark seemed obsessed with the idea that Dave Chaskin had written this gay subtext. And I was like: Who cares? Get over it. I thought it was funny that this was the way the film was being interpreted”.

The main thing to note here is that, regardless of the ins and outs of Jesse’s dread longings, Patton fails to do much with the part beyond a convincing line in perma-trauma. One might reasonably argue that was all that was required, but for the central idea to work effectively – possession and murder – you need to be more on side with the character (his “Kill me!” pleas under the Freddy makeup are about the extent of the pathos). Myers makes the less central and more one-note Lisa much more sympathetic. And its arguable that, given the actual real-world antagonist aspect here, it would have made more sense for the detective plot of the first movie to be transposed to this one (we never find out the repercussions of Jesse/Freddy’s murder spree, but maybe it was put down to a potty pizza-faced guy at a pool party).

Sholder mounted a defence of the movie’s egregious treatment of Freddy lore, that the series’ “logic is slightly tenuous anyway”. Which is true. Not being a particular aficionado, I have no strong feelings about the choice; I’m more concerned with how effectively the chosen avenue has been explored, and it’s undoubtedly patchy. For a prize hook – imaginative/gross dream sequences and deaths – largely eschewing them is a curious direction (aside from the bus bookend, dreams consist mainly of Freddy addressing Jesse). And I sympathise with the view that Freddy appearing at a pool party and cutting a swathe is a less than convincing method to elicit terror. Albeit, I don’t think he’s particularly terrifying in the original movie either. I’ll admit though, I enjoyed the incongruity of an attempt to maturely communicate with the bogeyman (“Just calm down… Relax. No one’s going to hurt you. I’m here to help you”) and the concise response (“Help yourself, fucker!”)

The picture isn’t then, one where you’re overly conscious of the effects work. The Freddy mask is redesigned and has more texture/grue (and it’s generally better lit too). Freddy bursting out of Jesse (and later, Jesse climbing out of the remains of Freddy) were doubtless memorable at the time, but are plain cheesy now. Likewise, Jesse’s overreaching tongue during make out. In that regard, the opener with the bus stranded on a pillar of hell is both striking and misleading (the poster I’m more familiar is the video release’s, with the bus on it, not the psychosexual mirror image).

There are moments here that suggest Sholder, if he’d had more prep time, could have made this much more fun. The opening sliced tomatoes gag – cutting from a Freddy dream – is very Joe Dante circa The Howling, but the picture too often settles on overwrought rather than layered. The Risky Business dance scene serves to emphasise misfit cred, but might have been better invoking the tonal quirkiness of The Breakfast Club. And the enraged parakeet is also a missed opportunity for twisted humour. The presence of Fu Man Chews in the same scene is, well… I’m not sure you could do that even in 1985.

Sholder suggested there are those who express themselves through the horror film (Craven) and those who express themselves in spite of the horror film (himself). A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge isn’t scary, but then, neither is the first movie. And while it may be Englund’s least favourite in the series, Freddy’s actually less silly in it (no wavy arms); even if making him corporeal is a fudge, his status is growing. Jeffrey Wells (Hollywood Elsewhere) makes an appearance in the DVD doc talking about how he based his publicity pitch on the iconic appeal (cool villainy) of Freddy. From here on, Kreuger will be ever more Bond-like in his quipster leanings.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Did you not just hand over a chicken to someone?

The Father (2020) (SPOILERS) I was in no great rush to see The Father , expecting it to be it to be something of an ordeal in the manner of that lavishly overpraised euthanasia-fest Amour. As with the previous Oscars, though, the Best Picture nominee I saw last turned out to be the best of the bunch. In that case, Parasite , its very title beckoning the psychic global warfare sprouting shoots around it, would win the top prize. The Father , in a year of disappointing nominees, had to settle for Best Actor. Ant’s good, naturally, but I was most impressed with the unpandering manner in which Florian Zeller and Christopher Hampton approached material that might easily render one highly unstuck.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

So the devil's child will rise from the world of politics.

The Omen (1976) (SPOILERS) The coming of the Antichrist is an evergreen; his incarnation, or the reveal thereof, is always just round the corner, and he can always be definitively identified in any given age through a spot of judiciously subjective interpretation of The Book of Revelation , or Nostradamus. Probably nothing did more for the subject in the current era, in terms of making it part of popular culture, than The Omen . That’s irrespective of the movie’s quality, of course. Which, it has to be admitted, is not on the same level as earlier demonic forebears Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist .

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

Nobody trusts anybody now. We’re all very tired.

The Thing (1982) (SPOILERS) The Thing has been thesis fodder for years, as much so as any given pre-1990 Cronenberg movie, and has popularly been seen as a metaphor for AIDS and even climate change. Now, of course, provided we’re still in a world where film is studied in the aftermath and we haven’t ball been assimilated in one form or another, such staples are sure to be scrubbed away by an inundation of bids to apply the Coronavirus to any given text (much in the way Trump has been popularly overwritten onto any particular invidious fictional figure you care to mention in the most tedious shorthand). And sure, there’s fertile ground here, with rampant paranoia and social distancing being practised among those in Outpost 31 (the “virus” can even be passed on by pets). That flexibility, however, is the key to the picture’s longevity and effectiveness; ultimately, it is not the nature of the threat (as undeniably and iconically gruey and Lovecraftian as it is), but rather the res