Some time during, oh, the fourth Saw flick or so, this much should have been clear to even the most ardent horror defender: we’re the ones who are really being tortured. We slog through so much garbage and for what? To find that rare diamond in a rough like back in the VHS days? To see just how far cinema will go to freak us out and make us squirm? To actually freak out and squirm? Because being smarter than garbage beats being dumber than art? I don’t know really what the point is (probably a little from each of the presented scenarios), but I know that I’m a gleeful masochist.
Horror's got more than just torture in store. The underbelly of cinema that used to exploit via portrayals of cultures, subgroups, and fetishes, now exploits the audience. Maybe it always did, and maybe there’s a fine line between appealing to an audience and exploiting it, anyway, but the modern horror industry seems to diabolically understand what we’ll spend our money on: sequels and remakes. It hasn’t stopped working yet. And our eagerness to spend money on infinitely warmed-over crap makes at least one thing clear: we are the new freaks.The remake offers a lot to freak out about, too, as it’s an inherent conversation between the past and present – no matter how aware we are that a horror remake is an easy, creatively bankrupt trash bag for our cash, curiosity tends to get the best of us. Did they do our beloved tale of creative carnage and suffering justice? Did they not, creating something infinitely more gawkable? Did they even bother to translate it to modern time? If not, will the ‘70s or ‘80s hairdos at least stand up? It’s all too much to resist. Never take for granted nostalgia’s narcotic properties.
A lot of these remakes are basically just sequels anyway – further chapters that adopt and reject the series’ mythology at will, and are ultimately about fresh meat for the slaughter. Slashers like Friday the 13th, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween, that basically chronicle a dude walking (or running, depending on how the mythology is adopted or rejected) around killing people, have been ripped off so much anyway that a conscious remake of one of those seems like an unpretentious antidote to all the carbon copies. That’s not the case with Nightmare on Elm Street, though, which had a singular investment in fantasy and absurdity, thanks to its dream world milieu (the investment in fantasy and absurdity in other slashers was mostly a means to explain further installments in the series – he can’t be killed!). Because it was so unique, Nightmare seemed a particularly pointless remake, at least to me, especially because the original was the movie to ignite my love of horror. You never forget your first, you can’t improve upon perfection, I like my burnt child molester just the way he is, thank you very much, etc.
The new Nightmare, though, announces its worth by presenting a story that’s deeper than its predecessor’s. Where the first one concerned a bunch of kids who were paying for the sin of their parents (the lynching of a child child murder), this one double-bakes its victims. Freddy Krueger has gone from murderer to molester (finally?). His origin again involves him being lynched (an act we see here, as this remake has prequel tendencies), but his beef is with the kids who reported him after he molested them in preschool (he worked there gardening and such, and was Groundskeeper Willie to a T, in what feels like a parody of a parody). The movie is about the kind of monster who persecutes after being persecuted for initially persecuting. This reminded me a lot of the bigots who cry foul when they’re labeled as such, or who bristle at the notion that they don’t have a right to deny others’ rights. It’s such a rotten thing, the aggressor’s victim play, and this movie realizes that it's best conveyed via the flesh-torn face of evil.
The little details here matter so much. As an abuse survivor, Nancy is a more sympathetic heroine – we are no longer rooting for her just cuz. The body’s breakdown as a result of sleep deprivation is handled more carefully than ever (as opposed to having the teens just slump over eventually). There’s an incredible scene that takes place after Nancy has been awake for a few days and the micro-naps are setting in – the scene strobes between her actual environment (the aisle of a pharmacy) and the boiler-room nightmare one. The movie even takes into account the idea that the brain goes on living for a few minutes after the heart stops (Freddy rejoices of the “six more minutes to play” that he has with a victim).
Jackie Earle Haley’s Freddy is more caustic than ever. He is, after all, an actual, unambiguous child molester, and the script allows for some low-key, truly creepy sentiments (after interacting with Nancy for an extended period of time, he tells her matter-of-factly, “You smell different”). These come between the campy one-liners that have long defined Freddy (“How’s this for a wet dream?” he says again, referencing Nightmare on Elm Street 4). Instead sporting makeup based on what pizza looks like, this Freddy is meant to look like an actual burn victim, all melty and weirdly smoothed out. The effect is like seeing an actual great white shark for the first time after getting used to what sharks look like in Jaws. It’s not OK, but you know it’s right.
The Nightmare remake is by no means perfect. The first half hour, which essentially serves as a recap of the cinematic legacy that's led up to it, feels laborious and protagonist-free. There is exposition in the place of innovation. The new development – that these are kids with whom Freddy has interacted before, to say the least – gives the film an urgency and soul that Nightmare has never had, but it also asks you to believe that they’re all suffering from collective amnesia, thus they can’t remember Freddy or recognize his name or even realize that they all went to preschool together (please – I could name you 10 kids I ate paste with in preschool without even thinking about it). Even if you buy into the concept of repressed memories entirely, this is too much of a stretch in a film that attempts to iron out all the wrinkles of this saga's mythology. When it actually is making sense of this universe and with visual flair to boot, though, it seems like a downright shame that it’s telling a story that’s already been told.
I've been a huge fan of the franchise since the beginning, and definitely like the remake. Ever since it was announced, I hoped they would make crystal meth part of the plot. I think it would have made the movie more realistic (what would you do if you absolutely had to stay awake?) and would have allowed for a really interesting and twisted plot. I'm not saying all of them should have been tweakers, but I definitely think there should have been a bad kid who had an advantage.
Posted by: protoclown | May 05, 2010 at 03:37 PM
Haha, is that the protclown from imockery? LOL!
Anyways, I just get so annoyed with the remake machine, I get that there are some movies that had more imagination than budget and maybe should be given a second chance, but it seems like the only ones who get a remake are the ones that are already good enough to stand on their own.
At any rate, I'll probably throw the NOES remake into my pile of movies to watch...eventually....just like the Friday the 13th remake and the Halloween remake, movies to stay on my netflix queue until I find there is literally nothing else I want to see...
Posted by: matty | May 05, 2010 at 03:54 PM
I know this is a bit off topic, Rich, but are you aware NPR did a segment on Morning Edition about the no cell signal trend in horror films? NPR.org links to your youtube compilation.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126391047
Posted by: Kath | May 05, 2010 at 04:38 PM
I had a traumatic early childhood and I can't name anyone I went to prek-1st with. It's not so much that I can't remember ANYTHING, like as if I didn't exist, it's more like a fogged up mirror that my brain refuses to wipe clear.
So, that sounds plausable that they wouldn't remember each other.
Posted by: Alexis | May 05, 2010 at 05:10 PM
Rich, great insights, as usual.
The original Elm Street is one of my favorites, for the reasons you identify--the surreal makes for great horror, the stiffling fear of being unable to get away, etc.
In remake, I agree with you that making FK a child molester is a good move. For several reasons--it makes him really a monster, one that is less likely to be co-opted as anti-hero; and the theme of the lingering effect of child abuse, I think, worked really well.
The problem I had, and what I think damned the movie for me, was that first 30 or so minutes without having a central figure. Again, you point this out, but for me, without Nancy front and center from the begining, I could not identify with anyone and felt like I was left adrift.
Also, I think the remake did less with the potential of the nightmare than it could have. The original is more nightmare-ish. With a few exceptions, the movie never felt dream like.
What really disappoints me is that with the changes they made, and Haley doing a great job as pre-dead Freddy, the movie could have been really great.
Posted by: D | May 05, 2010 at 05:15 PM
I really wanted a tonguephone, or at least a tonguecellphone that could be flipped closed to hurt the tongue. But yah this freddy was way darker, and creepier. He's hardly admirable as a horror icon, which is kind of cool I guess.
Posted by: Dodger | May 05, 2010 at 06:03 PM
Huh, I actually had no interest in seeing this movie, but you piqued my interest!
Posted by: EEE | May 05, 2010 at 06:32 PM
It's funny, because I saw Nightmare On Elm Street when I was very young by mistake one night on television and I literally did not sleep for at least 3 years after that. I was incredibly scared I was going to die in my sleep. Now that I'm an adult I've watched it many times (and I'm a huge horror fan now, go figure) and all it does is make me laugh and appreciate 80's horror (especially the tongue coming out of the phone part). I have mixed feelings on the remake, but the trailers look pretty good. That said, I'll probably wait until it's on a torrent somewhere and download it so I can watch it alone.
Posted by: Kim | May 05, 2010 at 06:37 PM
I loved the original so much I don't think I could bear to see this. It looks like a Halloween episode of Melrose Place.
Posted by: LittleEvie | May 05, 2010 at 09:21 PM
I'm still traumatized from watching the first one at a 5th grade sleepover in 1986.
Posted by: Bobbie | May 05, 2010 at 11:04 PM
Hmm, I hated this movie. Nancy was comatose, the teens didn't seem to have any interaction with each other besides having a meal at the diner Nancy worked at and Freddy's creepy blade screeching turned into sparklers.
These remakes all focus on the villain character development and nothing else. And they could have done so much more creepy dream imagery. Hated it.
Posted by: rustyspigot | May 06, 2010 at 12:08 AM
Loved it! I think the original was awesome, but the horribly cheesy 80s musical background made me giggle at times rather than shudder.... The remake takes all of the great parts of the original, but adds great special effects and a more harrowing backstory.
Also, so glad they left the bodybag scene in...creepy!
Posted by: C.L. | May 06, 2010 at 01:26 AM
Great write-up. That is all.
Posted by: Simon/Ripley | May 06, 2010 at 03:54 PM
but it also asks you to believe that they’re all suffering from collective amnesia, thus they can’t remember Freddy or recognize his name or even realize that they all went to preschool together
Oh, let me guess, the writers were fans of Final Fantasy 8?
I don't handle horror well so I just hate that this review makes me want to see the movie.
Posted by: RP | May 07, 2010 at 01:26 AM
I loved the original and one of the sequels (Dream Warriors wish-bonus-had Patricia Arquette and a Dokken theme song.)I have broken down and watched a few of the horror remakes because although I'm not a horror fan now but I was back in the day when this shit first came out. Friday the 13th? Pointless. Halloween? Weird instead of scary. The Amityville Horror? A horror of suck. My Bloody Valentine? Actually, not bad but not particularly shriek-inducing either.
I was iffy on seeing this. Alas, your essay has pushed me into the want column.
Posted by: Vanessa M | May 07, 2010 at 04:36 PM
I didn't hate it. Some part were quite enjoyable and I'll take dark, twisted Freddy over old, wise-cracking Freddy any day. Sure, he was fun but I never felt like I was watching a horror movie because of him. There would be some really good freaky parts and then he would ruin it with his jokes.
Earl Haley did a great job, but I think they could have done so much more with the other characters. Most of them felt so lifeless. Decent movie though! Great review.
Posted by: David | May 07, 2010 at 07:12 PM
Thank you! I've been trying to justify my enjoyment of this remake all week to the shock of my fellow horror bloggers who just want to bash another needless remake. This wasn't a perfect film, but it brought new depth to an old story and told it well.
Posted by: Emily | May 07, 2010 at 11:16 PM
I really tried to like this remake, but I just couldn't stop comparing the first. The CGI of this century really took away the awesomeness of the Wes Craven masterpiece. I actually had to come home and re-watch the classic to remove the previous 90 minutes.
Posted by: Ryman | May 08, 2010 at 12:46 AM
What the original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" lacked in the way of exposition it made up for in tension. I felt none of it with this remake. Example: Craven's original, arguably epic mutilation of Tina in her own room compared to the 2 minute, hyperstylized quickie bang-and-slash Bayer delivers with this newly renamed "Chris" character. Style without suspense.
While the development of the teens as victims of Freddy was a noble turn (as noble as a plot involving child molestation can be) it never went anywhere for me and when it tried, it fell tremendously flat. Jackie Earl Haley's turn as Freddy was caustic, but you're reminded of how deeply rooted in the past his character is as soon as he utters lines like "Why don't you just fucking die already?!"
Posted by: j | May 08, 2010 at 04:52 PM
I have watched the Nightmare. The fist half of the movie was worth seeing but the second half was quite boring. I just wasted my time and money.
Posted by: Acai Max Cleanse | May 10, 2010 at 02:23 AM
Most remakes of non-obscure or non-foreign-language films leave me with the same question: If the original was good enough that people are still interested, why think you can improve on it? And if it wasn't, why bother revisiting it?
Posted by: Melissa | May 11, 2010 at 02:21 PM
That brain thing really freaked me out. Holy shit.
Posted by: Tony | May 12, 2010 at 12:07 PM
I didn't like the lack of narrative center--the movie has a POV problem until Nancy takes up the mantle of the story about halfway through. It was really disruptive for me that the characters, whose POV was effective the narrator's, kept dying.
Posted by: Charlie | May 14, 2010 at 02:27 PM
I hated the remake. Well hate is a bit much, but I didn't like it at all. The whole thing was nothing but cheap Jump-Scares, and we didn't even get to know any of the characters. I could care less if they died or not.
Posted by: LisaL | May 22, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Horror fans simply must check out the indie scene - it's where the best movies in this genre are being made.
Consider "Eden Lake," "Splinter" and "Rogue" as three examples. Even "The Descent: Part 2" is a satisfactory shocker, far better than this new "Nightmare" which is as weak as you describe.
Posted by: A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) | May 24, 2010 at 01:50 AM