bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (11/28/84)
- - - mod.movies - - - - - - Volume 1, Issue 10 - - -
"A Nightmare on Elm Street"
reviewed by Peter Reiher
***************************** Warning******************************
This review contains spoiler material, since I couldn't say what I
wanted to without it. I don't think it will much affect anyone's
viewing pleasure, but purists might want to skip the following review.
Horror films, like other genre art, must follow certain rules.
There is some flexibility in the rules, and they may even be broken,
but breaking one of them is an extraordinary event which in some sense
comments on the genre rather than just adding a bit of spice. One of
the most hallowed rules of the monster pictures is that any monster has
a weakness, and, by exploiting that weakness, the heros can triumph.
It's OK to tell a story in which the heros are destroyed because
they falter or deviate from the required procedure, but if they perform
the correct ritual, they succeed. The rule is followed in Dracula
movies, in the monster films of the 50's, in "The Exorcist" and "The
Omen", in fact in almost all horror films up to the late seventies. A
large part of the effectiveness of "Halloween" was based on seemingly
breaking this rule, but in reality it was only bent: the monster
couldn't be killed as a normal man was, but no one ever said that he
was a normal man. They presumed he was, but monsters are allowed to
be deceptive. "Halloween's" indestructible boogey man falls into the
same category as Jewish vampires repulsed by the Star of David rather
than a cross. Deception about the nature of the monster is a fair
twist.
Lying about it isn't, and that's what Wes Craven does in
"Nightmare on Elm Street". Craven's major failing in this film is his
failure to play by the rules he himself sets up. Craven gives us a
hint about how to stop his monster, reinforces the hint later, has the
heroine use it, apparently successfully, then arbitrarily and without
explanation has the monster come back again. This device is very
common in recent horror movies, particularly mad slasher films, where
it is practically de rigueur. For obvious reasons, I call it the
Carrie Syndrome, and I'll state right out that I've had about enough of
it. "The Terminator" squeezed just about the last drop of creative
juice from this concept, and it is now fit only for parody.
Ending aside, and disregarding a few minor infractions of his
self-imposed rules, "A Nightmare On Elm Street" is a good horror film.
A child murderer who was incinerated by maddened parents comes back
from the dead in the nightmares of their adolescent children. So
effective is his return that he can brutally kill the children in
their sleep. As long as they remain awake, they're safe, but even a
momentary nap propels them into his realm.
Parents always fail to put two and two together in this sort of
film, and this time the mathematical illiteracy chores fall mainly to
John Saxon and Ronee Blakely, as the parents of a particularly bright
and resourceful girl. Saxon and Blakely portray their stupidity fairly
well, but this isn't their picture. It belongs to Heather Langenkamp
as the teenaged heroine. Her accomplished performance is integral to
the film's relative success.
After two of Langerkamp's friends are killed by the maniac, she
tries to stave off disaster first by staying awake, then by dragging
the creature out of her nightmares and into the real world. Her
parents ignore the most obvious signs, such as when she brings back
from her dreams, under the observation of scientists, a hat with the
murderer's name inscribed. Blakely, conveniently seeking the solace of
liquor, makes things worse by installing an elaborate security system
on the house, effectively locking the girl in and her police chief
father, Saxon, out. Craven thus sets up what should have been the
final confrontation between the heroine and the monster.
The most noticeable thing about "A Nightmare On Elm Street" are
the gory special effects. In terms of dismemberments, Craven is a
little bit tamer than one might expect, but he makes up for it with
flashy, bizarre murder methods. These involve a lot of blood. Craven
also has the monster, who sports a glove with long razor blades
attached to the fingers, slash himself up once in a while for shock
effect. Not a film for the weak of stomach, but they wouldn't even
consider going to it, anyway. Technically, the effects are very good.
Good photography also helps.
Believe it or not, Wes Craven used to be an English professor,
which shows up in some surprisingly good dialog. Craven even manages
some biblical allusions, specifically to Jesus' admonitions to Peter,
John, and James in the Garden of Gethsemane. His direction is sure
handed, as it should be. Craven has had ample chances to make his
mistakes in the horror genre (in particular "The Last House on the
Left", which I still view as the kind of mistake that should end a
career), so he should get most things right by now. Craven has a lot
of fun with mixing up dreams and reality, perhaps too much, and with
surprise appearances of the monster. These latter make much more sense
in the context of a nightmare than they do in the average horror film.
Particularly good is a sequence in which the heroine dozes off in the
middle of a bubble bath...
"A Nightmare On Elm Street" is head and shoulders above trash like
"Maniac" and "Friday the Thirteenth - The Final Chapter Until We Think
We Can Milk Some More Money Out of You Suckers". It's almost good
enough to recommend to those who do not normally patronize horror
films. I would have been quite satisfied with it, on its own terms,
if Craven had just been willing to forego his final, meaningless
twist.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher