reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (11/26/84)
***************************** 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 seem-
ingly 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 mon-
sters 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, par-
ticularly 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 Termina-
tor" 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 bru-
tally 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 par-
ticularly 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 ac-
complished performance is integral to the film's relative suc-
cess.
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 scien-
tists, a hat with the murderer's name inscribed. Blakely, con-
veniently seeking the solace of liquor, makes things worse by in-
stalling 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 profes-
sor, which shows up in some surprisingly good dialog. Craven
even manages some biblical allusions, specifically to Jesus' ad-
monitions 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 par-
ticular "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 appear-
ances 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 sa-
tisfied with it, on its own terms, if Craven had just been wil-
ling to forego his final, meaningless twist.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher