Article Index :: Front Page
The Nightmare on Elm Street Series
By Kevin - 07.17.01
Updated on 11/16/03 - Looking at this article in retrospect, there are many things that I'd now like to do with it. For starters, it, like much of the rest of the site, needs some minor editing so as to become more readable. Having seen some of these films a second time since, and having learned much more about film in general and the horror genre in particular, there are some notes that I'd like to add to supplement my original commentary. Finally, a new Freddy film has found its way out, the largely successful Freddy vs. Jason. Additional notes will appear after a bold marker, and a new blurb about Freddy vs. Jason will appear at the end.
Wow, this is my first article in about a month, but it is also my longest and most intense yet. This series is dear to my heart in several ways, but a few things should be explained as to why I choose to write this and invest so much time in it. I was born in 1983, which would have made me 1 when the first film was made. In 1994, the 7th, and final (to this date) film showed up on the scene and I was a mere 10 years old. At that time, the only R-rated films that I was allowed to watch were of the action variety, and showed, in the microcosm of my life, just how desensitized America is to violence and how much we shun things like nudity. My point is, I was by no means old enough to have seen any of the films at the times in which they were either in the theater or "groundbreaking." In fact, I had not seen a single one of these movies until 5 months ago. More backtracking: about 9 months ago, I began to see and assess the relative aesthetic merits of horror films, and became interested in film writing in genearl. My first loves, films that still "ring especially true," are the Evil Dead trilogy and the Living Dead trilogy (those are different articles altogether). Because of this, I purchased a book entitled Creature Features by John Stanley, which gives small, capsulated synopsizes of horror, sci-fi and fantasy movies. After literally reading it cover to cover, I realized just how many truly great horror films I had not seen, and especially realized how many cool series’ of films there are. I had seen the first Halloween (none of the others), the first Friday the 13th (none of the others), and, wait, what is this, NONE of the Nightmare of Elm Street films!! I rented the first one, loved it, then saw the next two over a period of a few months, but never got the rest. That is, until a week ago (around June 10), when I watched 3 of them in one day and saw the last one a few days later.
As a generalization, Wes Craven and subsequent Nightmare directors did something really cool with these pictures. The Horror genre, post-production code, had been "written" by directors such as Romero, Tobe Hooper, and John Carpenter. They had established rules in the wake of the legacy of Hammer Studios, ones that almost all successful films followed, that went relatively unchanged until 1984 and the first Nightmare. Craven started a series in which main characters, sometimes THE main character, at whatever point of the movie, died, a series where no two characters died in the same way, and a series that was driven as much on paranoia and suspense as it was on gore and blood. And now, my thoughts on each of the movies:
Note: Having learned much more about the history of not only the films in question, but horror films in general, there are a few noteworthy books that could illuminate these vibrant films beyond what I am able to impart. For a look at the decade that shapped the style/themes that were to permeate films such as A Nightmare on Elm Street, look into John Kenneth Muir's excellent Horror Films of the 1970's. For the best critical evaluation of horror films that are part of larger series', seek out Ken Hanke's A Critical Guide to Horror Film Series. The slasher genre has garnered recent scholarship: an especially noteworthy effort is Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film, 1978 to 1984 by Adam Rockoff.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)- As is stated above, this the one that began it all. It marks the first of two times that Craven has redefined the horror genre (the second example is the revamping of the teen-slasher, Scream). A teenage girl, Nancy, and her close friends all begin to have nightmares in which they find that they can actually become injured. The one common element to all of them is that they all feature a burned/scarred man wearing a clawed glove, who is later found to be the manifestation of the dead child-killer, Freddy Krueger. The body-count builds, and soon only Nancy remains, discovering that she must overcome all psychological, social and parental odds to destroy Freddy. All of the Nightmare movies have the same ultimate goal (that being the destruction of Freddy,) but here it is presented in the purest possible form. Also, the first Nightmare has one of the coolest surprise endings, and several of the other films follow suit, each managing to shock right to the last seconds. Probably my favorite and generally regarded as the best of the series.
Notes: This still holds up as the greatest of the series. I was wrong in my initial assertion that this was "the first of two times that Craven has redifined the horror genre": there are two others. First, he is responsible for perpetuating the controversial subgenre of films known as the "rape-revenge" pictures with his 1972 film The Last House on the Left. In this cycle of films (for which I Spit on Your Grave is another good example,) a woman is raped/assaulted to the brink of death, only to come back and enact vengence on her malefactors. For a very recent example, check out Tarantino's Kill Bill Vol. 1. His additional redefinition of sorts can be found in the below-mentioned Wes Craven's New Nightmare. Here, the Freddy franchise is given a "post-modern" treatment. While it is important to note that this penchant for self-referentiation can be found in previous horror films, from The Mark of the Vampire (1935) to 1987's Howling III, it takes on an added level of significance due to the fact that the actors in Wes Craven's New Nightmare make mention of their careers and the characters that they played in previous installments of the series, thus going beyond previous such films. In light of the recent surge in Johnny Deep popularity, A Nightmare of Elm Street is of elevated note, since this was his first feature film. Perhaps there are touches of Captain Jack Sparrow in his portrayal of a confused teenager.
Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge (1985)-
This one was made quickly and was hot on the heels of the previous year’s smash. Directed by Jack Sholder, it is the same basic film as the first one but features a hero that is male. The opening sequence, which is the best in the entire movie, was actually first conceived as an ending for the first one, but was scrapped. In the first Nightmare, Freddy is hardly seen, and instead much of the horror is based around the implications of what he can do: in this one, it is based on what he actually does, and the horror is all on-screen. This detracts from the tone set by the first and takes away from Craven’s mastery, but makes for an above-average, visceral thriller by other standards. One of the weaker in the series, but is necessary as being the “least memorable” and thus making it the bare bones standard.
Notes: The last statement is intended to set this film up as the "middle range" or C grade Nightmare film. While neither the deaths, characters, script nor the overall approach to make it exemplary in any way, it stands as a good film against which to compare the others. One thing that it does hint at, which becomes more exagerated in forthcoming films, is the celebrity status of Freddy. While anti-heroic in all respects, Freddy becomes the reason to see a Nightmare film. The characters that he kills are generally so banal and snotty that they are almost asking to die, and since he does them in in fun ways, he deserves respect. From here on out, it is not uncommon to have audiences root predominately for Freddy over anyone else. It is interesting to establish a repoire whereby the triumph of good is a cause for disappointment, but starting with Freddy's Revenge on, this is arguably always the case.
Nightmare on Elm Steet 3: Dream Warriors (1987)- Craven penned Dream Warrior's script and it shows when compared to the previous effort. This one has more stars then the others: Heather Langenkamp reprises her role as Nancy, Patricia Arquette is one of the target kids, and Laurence Fishburne is a hospital staff member. Some parts are really campy, but it is once again cool to see that this movie is not afraid to kill seemingly innocent main characters. If you watch closely, you can see how it quite obviously is contradicted by things that take place in the 5th film. A cool idea and a nice change of pace from the first two.
Notes: I recall more empowerment in this film then others. The fact that kids who appear to have mental problems can effectively combat Freddy may be slightly expected, but it is a nice bend on the previous film. Enclosed spaces such as the hospital add a claustrophobic element that further highlights the feeling that Freddy can get someone no matter where they are.
Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master(1988)- A lot of people seem to hate this one: I love it. The main character for the first 20 min of the movie is killed, which is a daring thing to have done. For a few minutes, the viewer is left searching for someone to focus on: while the film eventually does this, it creates an element of uneasiness that does not rely on normal perceptions of character association. The ending is mediocre, but I love it anyway. The heroine actually manages to stay alive through the next film, which is cool. Plus, the film is one of the most humorous, and features many hammy lines by Freddy that are downplayed in the 5th installment. A welcome addition to the series, if the cliched phrase may be used so liberally.
Notes: The suprise death of the first heroine is carried out in a similar grain to the sorts of sudden deaths in Final Destination (2000). While perhaps expected to some extent, they bank on surprise and swiftness. Most Freddy-induced deaths are elaborate affairs that demand a build-up: the speedy execution becomes welcome. Moreso then other films in the series (perhaps owing to the year in which it was made,) this film comes off as an episode of Saved By The Bell gone bad. The teenagers are stereotypes of the worst sort, and there is a larger emphasis on the high school dynamic then before.
Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989)- I have to admit, I hated the acting in this one: some of the kids are too stereotypical, even by standards set by the previous film. The deaths aren’t that creative, but it's still pretty fun to watch, and has a few suspenseful moments. The director (Stephen Hopkins) was told to tone down the humor and try and make Krueger more grim/vengeful. The only real standout scene is the M.C. Escheresquechase at the end, but it climaxes in a fairly disappointing way. Strong but not comparable to the others, it remains one of the weaker films.
Notes: The dark/sinister Freddy is little more then a lame version of The Cell's (2000) Carl Rudolph Stargher. By this point, the Freddy formula had been established, and a Nightmare film was supposed to play up camp and humor, as a credit to Freddy and his sometimes illogical means of killing kids. Without the humor, Freddy is just a balls-to-the-wall nut who isn't even all that creative. While this may not be Crystal Lake, and while it certainly isn't the Friday the 13th series, "camp" is still essential.
Nightmare on Elm Street 6: Freddy’s Dead (1991)- This was one of the dumbest of the bunch. Its main plot deals with the discovery of Freddy’s child, but it seems streched (as if the concept of a serial killer who is continually resurrected and haunts the dreams of teenagers isn’t iffy enough as is.) It starts off with a really cool, apocalyptic sequence, but quickly becomes a repository for stupid adolescent jokes. There is a particularly campy video game sequence, and it even makes a Power Glove reference, so it gets props for that (even though it is really, really dumb). See this only if you are seeing the whole series.
Notes: Not much to add to the above. Freddy's Dead is a noble attempt at ending the series by bringing some of Freddy's bretheren into the mix, but as the next two films that contain Freddy will show, it couldn't end it. By this point, it was becoming entirely clear that Freddy was an immortal foe in the vein of Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees. One cannot finally stop him - he can only hoped to be contained. However, what this film did do (by some mix of disappointment at the box office, luck, or craftsmanship,) was end the adventures of Freddy in the traditional sense. His next two films are vastly different from the previous ones, thank the lord.
Wes Craven’s New Nightmare (1994)- This installment is radically different from the others and works very well at destroying preconceptions. The film deals with the characters of the original A Nightmare on Elm Street, and puts Freddy in the real world. The story unfolds as Heather Langenkamp, Nancy from the first film, begins considering a reprise of her role for the 7th and final Nightmare film. She starts to see Freddy in her dreams and people start dying, as Wes Craven’s script becomes a vehicle for Freddy’s entrance to reality. Quite cool, with great acting, including the little kid from Kindergarten Cop (1990) whose father is a gynecologists (“Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina,” and “My Dad is a gynecologist, he looks at women’s vaginas all day long.”)
Notes: As noted above, this film can be read in the vein of other self-referntial works of art. It takes cues from the multiple diegeses of films like Godard's Les Carabiniers (1963) and Luis Bunuel's The Milky Way (1969), with one important difference: it acctually makes sense! By ostensibly setting the film in the "real world," it is not only able to show the actor's as themselves, but also comment on the Nightmare on Elm Street phenomenon. When a film can make fun of its previous features, derrides the way that promotional toys have been developed, and even have the creator of the series talk about his series from the position of a fictional character within the series, one can only expect the best. While not as good of a horror film as 1984's A Nightmare on Elm Street, this may be a better film overall.
Freddy vs. Jason (2003)- With the acquisition of the Friday the 13th license from Paramount, New Line Entertainment gave itself an open invitation to create the crossover that horror fans had been waiting for: a showdown between the quiet desporado that is Jason Voorhees and the cackling imp of Freddy Krueger. Of course, we all knew that the camp factor would be higher then that of Meatballs 4 (1992), and that the jokes would flow like wine, but we weren't ready for the spectacle that the summer of 2003 finally afforded. Freddy vs. Jason is a hilarious rendering that finds an inventive hook early on and keeps the laughs/deaths coming. Since this one probably has the most appeal of any of the other Friday films due to its recent release, I am going to spare some of the plot spoiling. The basic premise is as follows: stuck in Hell with no hope of getting back to the land of the living (Springwood has covered up all traces of his existence so that he stops terrorizing dreams,) Krueger hopes to re-ignite his cult of personality by freeing Jason Voorhees, who then kills indiscriminately in his name. Once things get out of hand, as they often do with Jason, Freddy tries to stop him and make sure that the glory is for his name only. Deaths, jokes, references, and hammy acting ensue. Fans of the previous films in both series will love some of the subtler touches, but it is an enjoyable experience for just about anyone. A long time coming for sure, but exactly what the world needed.
~Kevin
Article Index :: Front Page
|
|
