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.


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.

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.

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

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

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.

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…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism