The horror scene of the 1980’s was a highlight for the genre. Many of the most iconic and memorable scary movies spawned from that glorious decade. One of them was the Wes Craven masterpiece, A Nightmare on Elm Street; the story of a terrifying slasher named Freddy Kruger who hunts you down in your dreams. Instantly recognized by his trademark red & green striped-sweater, his brown fedora, and his bladed-finger glove. It is a film that jump started many wonderful and fascinating things, including the creation of the production company New Line Cinema, and the debut of then-newcomer, Johnny Depp. Naturally, with Hollywood’s fear of originality (or lack of brand recognition), it was only a matter of time before they got around to producing a remake of the cult-classic. Does it hold up when compared to the original? Let’s find out.
SPOILER WARNING from here on out.
First, let’s take a look at the one thing that both films did right.
Freddy Kruger
In both films, the central conflict revolves around Freddy. For those of you who don’t know, here’s a quick backstory. In the movie, Freddy Kruger was a child serial killer who was eventually caught and arrested. However, due to a filing error of the warrant, he was released and no charges could be pressed. When the system failed, the parents of Freddy’s victims decided to take justice into their own hands. They banded together, tracked Freddy down to his old boiler room where he committed his crimes, and they barricaded him inside setting the place ablaze. Burning Freddy as punishment for his atrocities. However, that was not the end for Freddy Kruger. Years later, he would return as an evil spirit with the power to invade peoples dreams, taking his revenge on the next generation of children. Now, the teenagers of Elm Street must find a way to confront and destroy Freddy once and for all, before they never wake up again.
In the original, and in all six sequels (plus a TV show), Freddy Kruger was portrayed by renowned character-actor, Robert Englund. He single-handily brought the iconic horror villain to life in every performance. It Is said that actors enjoy playing the villain, not because they’re evil, but because it allows them the chance to have fun with the role. Villains offer actors a means to stretch their abilities and play with their craft. Not only has Robert Englund taken full advantage of this notion, he has become synonymous with Freddy.
The remake was tasked with the challenge of finding an actor who possessed the same level of talent and finesse required to play such an iconic character, and they found one in Jackie Earle Haley. At the time, Mr. Haley was in the middle of a rare career comeback. After spending his early years as a successful child actor, he vanished for a little over a decade, only to resurface with an Academy Award nominated performance for the film Little Children, followed up by his show-stealing portrayal of Rorschach in the feature-film adaptation of Watchmen. As Freddy Kruger in the 2010 remake, Mr. Haley succeeds in making the character his own, while paying homage to the evil revelry made famous by Robert Englund. It is an incredible performance, which, in all honesty, deserved to be in a better movie.
Which brings me to where the two films differ, and why the remake ultimately failed.
The Story
As I mentioned earlier, the story follows a group of teenagers trying to survive Freddy’s rampage in their dreams. However, a significant part of that story relied on the mystery of Freddy and his origin, as the main characters are initially ignorant of his motivations. For the remake, the filmmakers realized that, given Freddy’s status as a horror icon, they could not simply rehash the same mystery. So, they devised a solution. Now, Freddy starts out as a friendly gardener at the children’s kindergarten, and is eventually accused of molesting children rather than killing them. Also, all of the victims have conveniently repressed their memories of the events. Meaning they cannot recall if they were genuinely abused or not. So, the new mystery is that Freddy may have been innocent, which is why he has returned for revenge.
The problem with this new twist is twofold: First, while establishing a more tangible connection between Freddy and the main characters sounds like a good idea on paper, it robs Freddy of his essence, because the audience is now expected to sympathize with him. The most significant reason Freddy is so terrifying is because he is pure evil with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Trying to make him more sympathetic deflates any tension the story might otherwise have. Second, removing Freddy’s origin as a serial killer means there is no narrative justification for his bladed-finger glove. As far as the remake is concerned, Freddy only has it because that’s what he’s known for, except now, there’s no narratively-sound explanation for it.
In an attempt to make the story more mysterious, they’ve instead made it nonsensical!
The Dream Sequences
In the original film, dream logic is king! Literally anything can happen, making Freddy’s power all the more horrifying and visceral. He can come up with manifestations of your worse fears and have them chase you down with no chance of escape. Eventually, you find yourself in Freddy’s boiler room; a claustrophobic maze of steaming pipes and dark red walls with no way out. A true image of Hell if ever there was one.
While the boiler room is a constant dream location in the remake, it fails to come up with creative visuals for proper dream sequences. Instead, the remake opts to utilize a plot device called “micro naps”, which are explained as infrequent bite-sized dreams caused by a sleep-deprived brain. This gimmick does lead to a few creative transitions between dream and reality, but it only serves to have Freddy show up whenever they want. This was likely an attempt to make him more menacing, but it quickly drains any tension from over-exposure.
Monsters are scarier when you don’t seem them too often.
Conclusion
Aside from the spot-on conviction of Jackie Earle Haley’s performance, and one or two creative bits of visual-effects, the remake of Nightmare on Elm Street cannot hold a candle to the original. It fails to provide an intriguing mystery, it has no idea how to utilize its iconic character, and it robs a talented actor of an outstanding feat. If you have still not yet seen the original film, I encourage you to check it out this Halloween. It will, unquestionably, haunt your dreams.
Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment