WES CRAVEN KICK PART 2 - IT'S ALL ONE BIG NIGHTMARE
Wes Craven was one of the defining directors of the 1980s.
By 1984 Horror was already turning to a more supernatural and creature features, but A Nightmare on Elm Street refined it and perfected it. And because of this, and Craven's general talent, he worked a lot in the 1980s. Even what is to come in his career I would say the 80's is considered his peak. The Nightmare and what Craven could do with it define what kinds of movies he was allowed to make. Within these confines, Craven was still able to make a wide verity of movies that are filled with different ideas.
THE HILLS HAVE EYES 2 1984
Yes, it's the movie where the dog gets a flash back. But to be fair, Beast saw some shit in that desert. My first reaction to Wes Craven's sequel to The Hills Have Eyes is that it looks a lot like the original. As in Wes went back to the shed, picked up the same camera and lenses and went to work. Looking on Wikipedia, the budgets for the two movies didn't look hugely different. I defiantly had more fun with The Hills Have Eyes 2 than expected, but it's biggest crime is that is can be really boring at times. I just didn't feel like Craven's heart was completely in it. But you know he was also working on Elm Street - so what are you going to do. There is still a lot to like or at least to appreciate. One, Beast is back. Two, I like the idea of Ruby going back to desert to face what is left of her family. Even if the all the interesting diabetics of the cannibal family has been watered down to the comical Reaper. While watching it in the midst of watching Craven's other movies, this feels most like a common variety slasher. A group of teenagers in the desert getting picked off one by one. You can still see Craven thinking and trying to infuse ideas, some second sight here, family reunion over there. It's not my favourite Craven movie, but I don't think it's his worst (cough - Invitation to Hell - cough). And besides Craven had other things on his mind like changing the direction of 80s Horror and Genre Movies.
A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 1984
When the booby traps really becomes effective.
A Nightmare on Elm Street was a quiet hit in a year filled with massive and important game changer movies, The Terminator, Gremlins, Beverly Hills Cop. But as sequels were made Freddy Kruger became the 1980s. I have gone up and down on Elm Street over the years, but there is no denying the original Elm Street is a Masterpiece. Every choice Craven makes is the right one. My last watch Elm Street really played, this movie moves like a well oiled train. It seamlessly flows through scene to scene, each perfectly setting up what is to come. More than that, Craven is able to very efficiently create characters with, just a flick of Freddy's claw. Just look at the opening of Kruger building his claws, it tells you everything you need to know about Freddy, especially in how he taunts Tina. It sets up the movie perfectly for where it's going to go.
The characters in Elm Street are incredible. Nancy is one of the great final girls for a reason. Right from the get go, Nancy is fiercely independent. The child of divorce, and of parents going through their own trauma of vigilante murder. Nancy had to grow up fast and fend for herself. Nancy never asks her parents for help until she has no choice, and it's John freaken Saxon, and even then her house is filled with booby traps to try and catch Freddy. There's so many brilliant ways Craven illustrates the strained relationships between parent and child, the way Nancy says 'Mother' or the way Ronee Blakely starts Houdining bottles of vodka with greater and greater frequency. There's a lot of history of petulant fights in those moments. This is direct comparison to Johnny Depp's Glen, who has a tradition loving family. Glen parents want to know where their son is and who is hanging out with. Glen see's what is happening around him, but he's sheltered and gets eaten by a bed in spectular fashasion. Nancy on the other hand gets organised and fights back. I love the idea of her going down to her library and borrowing survival books
A Nightmare on Elm Street was a movie that really blended the idea of the Nightmare World coming into reality. I recently watched Dreamscape (which is going to be included in a future piece on Freddy Krueger riffs) is a much more contained, it's a movie where fantasy and reality are kept seperate. In Nightmare on Elm Street Craven blends these two worlds. In his past movies, Craven worked in the conflict between differen worlds, but here in Nightmare I think it's more of a blended realationship. And it's with the practical effects that achieves this, and are still some of the best in Horror. Tina being pulled along the ceiling, Freddy pushing through the wall, Nancy being pulled into the bath tub. Kruger is not just a monster of your dreams, he's in the very walls of your house. This is Freddy's world and we just visit.
CHILLER 1985
Overall Chiller is fun. But I am not going to lie I was thrown by the almost identical The Thing Opening credits, and more than a tad more than disappointed I did not get a made for network TV The Thing rip off. But what I did get is a Frankenstein's Monster story of Gordon Geko. I thought it was a given that to be in high position of corporate and government you had to be a soulless monster. I just assumed that both Jeff Bezos and Mitch McConnell sleep in a Cryogenic Chamber every night.
I still have one more major TV movie of Craven's to watch, but this feels like this is the last time Craven gets to make something that doesn't feel like it's connected to Elm Street, at least in the 1980s. Chiller feels more classic or 1970s Craven. Good Christen moral people that come into contact an evil outside force, in this case science. Poorley maintained Science. For me, it's the cast that elevates the material. Paul Sorvino, Beatrice Straight and Jill Scheolen all help to build Michael Beck's game who is in I'm angry mode for most of the movie.
Chiller feels very conventional, but there are a few moments where you can feel Craven having some fun. When Paul Sorvino starts getting a tad to close to a scowling Michael Beck's plan of general awfulness, he is hit by a car, and there is this great moment when you see the head lights stop and the car starts coming back. It gives the yeses, it adds some energy that is missing for most of the movie.
But even as average as Chiller was, I finally released, Oh Film Making. It's taken a long time. As a kid watching, probably far to much TV, I was always confused why in soap operas, while two people having a discussion some one would turn pour themselves a drink and keep talking. They suddenly looked like they were in an ABBA Video. It seemed weird and an uncomfortable way to have a conversation. But this is back to basic film making. So I finally read up about raitos. 133.1 - according to Wikipedia (I didn't do a huge amount of research) was the first industry standard and also was perfect for TV. Or in my partners's terminology, the one with the black bars. You block for the space you have. And for an older Millennial this ratio can feel a little restrictive on the story telling, especially since Cravn's imagination was boundless. Chiller feels very contained and boxed in. But then there's Michael Beck's angry face.
DEADLY FRIEND 1986
I think you could watch Deadly Blessings and Deadly Friend as a Double and have a great time. I have a soft spot for Deadly Friend. I don't think I can dislike anything with Anne Ramsey. Deadly Friend is dopey, I think it's on purpose. Craven was making a Summer Kids Adventure Movie, that just happen to have a killer robot. We are now in the late 1980s, gore, practical effects and Horror go hand in hand. And as boy genius Paul and his mother move into town you cannot help but wonder, are they just moving to a University Town, or has Robot BB left a pile of bodies in the last town? This is why kind of like Deadly Friend. BB's a terrifying presence from the get go, and so is Paul as a Doogy Houser Doctor Frankenstein. Paul is the ultimate nice guy, passive aggressive and lords his intelligence over everyone. Paul is the type of guy to guilt trip a friend to help steal a dead body only to turn her into, well BB. All while standing in a metaphorical fire, saying it's not my fault, it's fine, I can fix this. Paul is the worst, and is the true Deadly Friend.
By now Wes Craven is the man who creates nightmares. Does Deadly Friend need the nightmare sequences it has? No. But it's Craven directing and I am sure there was a call for more nightmare and gore. The dream sequences feel out of place almost like reshoots and inserted. The dream Kristy Swannson has of murdering her Father feels the most egregious. But it shows what was expected of Craven. After Elm Street it would take awhile for Craven to be able to make a movie that wasn't filtered through a nightmare lense.
THE SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW 1988
Do the Dead Dream? Do Zombies Dream?
The Serpent and the Rainbow is a gorgeous, sprawling dream like movie. It's one of my favourite Wes Cravens. The Serpent and the Rainbow feels like Craven's epic, his Year of Living Dangerously or even his Lawerence of Arabia, with the all problems this entails. Yes, Bill Pullman is very much the White Savior who enters a community and becomes the best of them. Does Bill Pullman's easy charm and prettiness distract me from this? Yes, yes he does. However, I do think that Craven is interested in Haiti. He's was too humaninstic and curious to film in Haiti and the Dominican Republic and not let it impact him and his work.
The Serpent and the Rainbow is not just about Zombies and Haiti is not just one thing. Haiti is a place of vibrancy and colour as well as oppression and darkness. The Zombie is more a state of mind, whether it be an illness - insanity, an anesthetic, a madness a form of control or even a tourist trick. The Zombies are infused into the movie whether it be the church, the grave yard or the watering hole Cathy Tyson takes Bill Pullman. For me The Serpent and the Rainbow is all dream logic, Freddy is not hiding in the walls, there is no different between between, dream, awake or even death. It's such a luxuriant movie, The Serpent and the Rainbow is a movie that swirls more than moves, it's beautifully sensual and sexy. There is a way Craven moves between a Noir travel log, to a movie of magic and the power of coruption. The movie itself is impacted by the events happening around it. Craven uses news footage of the an actual coup that is happening in Haiti. The Serpent and the Rainbow is a movie the steams and bubbles. For a movie abotu the living dead it feels very alive.
SHOCKER 1989
The world might have been a slightly better place if Wes Craven had complete control over the Elm Street Franchise. Or at least got all the money from it. But then maybe we wouldn't have gotten Shocker, which I kinda like or at least have a soft spot for it. Mitch Pileggi's Horace Pinker is a weird and inexplicable mixture of immoveable force and personification of a bald Head Bang. If you look in the dictionary for these things you get this photo of Horace Pinker. Shocker is a very metal movie but without being overtly metal in anyway shape or form
Shocker feels like the movie that Craven was expected to make after Elm Street. And the fact that his 1980s output is as varied as it is a minor miracle. But I don't think Shocker is that stock and standard Elm Street riff either. Effectively, Shocker is two movies, maybe three if you count the third act zipping around TV land. Hunting the serial killer, serial killer going on a possession fueled revenge and the afore mentioned serial killer goes on TV Journey. The rules of Horace Pinker are not as clearly define. But I am also going to enjoy a sweary eight year old which ever movie it is in. I like these different movies to varying degrees.
Wes Craven's 1980s movies are legendary and it was blast to go through them. They where so legendary infact that a whole genre sprung up around them. And it's those movies I will be tackling next time.....
Comments
Post a Comment