Post by No Personality on Mar 10, 2010 9:38:49 GMT -5
Let me make a bit of a bold statement right off the bat- Freddy's Revenge is a story about the dramatic misadventures of a young gay American high school student. It's also desperately afraid to come out of the closet. With that in mind, now all the truly bizarre, stick-out-like-a-sore-thumb elements of this movie finally make a lot more sense. The most obvious of which being the scene where Jesse cleans his room. Though not exactly the gay version of Footloose (I can hardly resist... I mean, gayer version), this scene was so excited to be filmed (I say the "scene was so" because I can't tell why it's so gay- either it's actor Mark Patton or screenwriter David Chaskin) that it culminates in cutey Jesse doing a private dance number to the very passive "Touch Me (All Night Long)" featuring very lively butt-wiggling and eventually- suggestion of masturbation... in extreme closeup.
No, I didn't know straight boys could get down like that. The reason for that is- they can't. Oh, they can try. But they come off like J.D. in Scrubs; trying to look cute by boogeying to black music, rhythms, beats. Eventually, someone has to come along and tell him (as Turk did)- only gay guys can get-down in the daylight in public. In the 80's, well, look no further than Heathers for a document of what straight guys were more likely to be doing, even in private. I won't use the ultra-dated "B" word like they did (I'll leave that to the over-the-hill Dads who wish they were back in college in the early 80's again), but I will say that a straight Jesse would more likely have been listening to something more along the lines of what Joey from The Dream Master was in his bedroom. Something with more head-bang to it.
I was a gay teen in the 90's. Thankfully, to avoid being seen as gay (which I avoided - by staying in the closet - like we all did for safety reasons) because of our interests, we got to listen to rap music. Even in the early "Aughts" (2000's), when I was first cruising gay chat rooms, rap was considered a dirty word there. I presume among the legions of Britney Spears fans. Oh yeah, I remember Britney Spears (in this current era of Lady Gaga mania, I can't think of anymore more uncool in comparison to her than Britney). When "Baby One More Time" came out and I saw it on Mtv, I thought- this girl could be interesting. But even with my open mind, she really wasn't my type of music. That same year, Madonna (who I'd always loved) did Ray of Light, and I wasn't too crazy about that. Let alone the post-Spice Girls tween-aimed, Disney Channel bubblegum pop factory.
In the 1980's, filmmakers and studios believed that audiences had incredibly short attention spans. Maybe they did (I was only 2 when this came out). Or maybe it was just an issue of audiences walking into a movie practically off the street, paying money and not caring what they were watching (like the girls in 1992's Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or... Saved by the Bell). That the fact that they could say they went to the movies just so they could brag about having a social life was of more relevance than what they saw. I could easily see people in theaters allowing their eyes to turn away from the screen during this movie. Preferring to talk to each other or pop out into the lobby just to move around or because they're bored (I did that once, during Primal Fear). Hilariously enough- that example was a lot like my junior high school was in the mid-90's. If you were popular, teachers didn't care if you left the room and didn't come back for 20 minutes. They'd never even ask where they were going or had been.
And you'd better believe that used to piss me off ("jealousjealousjealous" / reference from: Roseanne, season 4-episode 6). But now, I love the differences between me and them (my old age) (27
). I don't catch everything they miss. But at least, the fact that this movie is so embarrassing doesn't bother me. Much. The 80's factor is already a strike against it. And, admittedly the somewhat infamous barbecue-massacre scene remains to the core downright agony. Never before has the horrifically 30-something appearence to the extras in an 80's high school movie been more painfully apparent to me than in this movie, in this scene. And I don't think the dreamlike quality inherent in this franchise is ready to explain that away. 
We just have to face facts, being a gay man is not likely to ever be all that mainstream - except as the punchline to a puerile joke. Hell, even Brokeback Mountain's success was pure fluke (it was produced and intended entirely as an independent film, likely that was an attempt to steer clear of the intense homophobia of mainstream conservative media pinheads, or from being dismissed as a piece of "Hollywood" propaganda). Were it not for the fact that this had "Nightmare on Elm Street" in the title and that Freddy Krueger was already a horror icon based on the huge success of the first film, this film would have disappeared completely- only to exist on the old VHS (much like Gregg Araki's awesomely confused but outstandingly gorgeous 90's underground valley-teens flick, Nowhere; thanks for nothing New Line!).
New Line for years remained somehow baffled at why this sequel wasn't as well liked as the first movie. Oh, it did great business. As I said, it was more Freddy Krueger for 80's movie theaters. But the teens of the time were a little more sheltered than in the 90's at what behaviors suggested a person was gay (only one person even asked me if I was gay, and he was from a big city). Apparently- they stuck closer to the fans of their franchises than oh, say Paramount, and felt the need to state publically afterward that the movie wasn't very good, the series' fans were displeased, and that the franchise needed to be taken in yet another direction. I give them props for being able to do that successfully with 1987's now underrated Dream Warriors. But maybe the bigger issue here is that they never listened to Wes Craven's input in the first place.
Nightmare on Elm Street was never meant to become a franchise. And were I Craven, I would have seriously resented the way they forced the twist ending on him as a way of suggesting an open door for a sequel. Then, this sequel comes, Craven kind of refuses to do it (a deal wasn't able to be worked out, he ended up doing Hills Have Eyes II instead), and no one knows how Freddy is going to even come back. So they did what Friday the 13th (the template for dumb-idea reinvention, which all slasher franchises took inspiration from) did- pretend that the first movie never happened. At least as far as logic is concerned. In the original film, Freddy did whatever he wanted to, could come and go as he pleased. In this sequel, for whatever reason, Freddy can't kill teenagers in their dreams. He has to be brought into the real world through the sleeping body of whatever teenager(s) live(s) in Nancy Thompson's old house.
The best way to judge this movie is like the first never existed. Even without the gay angle, this sequel does have its' charms. For example, the Mr. Boogedy-esque haunted house hijinks. Which are all refreshing additions, since this movie really doesn't have the budget to bring us to all the other world mini set-pieces of the later Nightmares. Those sequels had the money to get by on awesome, expensive sights and sounds. This movie is almost stuck playing the sad, pity-me, internalized horror card for all its' worth. And it does- making me very uncomfortable as Jesse breaks down, covered in fake blood, at Lisa's house, belting out such classic whiners as; "what do I have to do to make you understand me?!" Even a gay guy would understand- you're talking to a real woman here. There's nothing she won't be able to handle.
On the whole, this sequel is a victim of the first Nightmare's originality and cutting edge. Compared to that film, this one is the oldest story in the book. Jesse is like the vampire who can't stand that he's changing. When he's being bullied by the evil gay coach (a stereotype that doesn't bother me, since many writers have written pervert characters based on 'dirty old men' types that are out there and who's pick up lines we all know by now), the fact that he has a kind of power to dispose of the people who anger or oppress him doesn't give him any sense of newfound empowerment. But there was all sorts of room to play around with the dark implications of Jesse's lonerness. Instead, again it just comes off as over-the-top, whiny "pity-me." Though, I can relate. When I see Jesse sitting down, hunched over his stomach, holding his midsection, I remember... sitting on the bathroom toilet as a kid, praying I wouldn't throw up (yes, I used to have a traumatic fear of vomiting).
I do like the movie. It's not because I'm so hard-up for a movie (or a horror movie) to finally deal with being gay, to incorporate gay characters in it. The film's rejection by straight audiences has only served to grant it a new appreciation, by gay horror fans. It probably will never graduate to cult status either way. That may be because it looks like the movie's playing it straight. But that's because director Jack Sholder is straight and claims he had practically no idea of how many "homo-erotic" elements are in the film. On that level, I expect this sequel would let down most gay moviegoers. Since the set-ups never lead to any kind of real eroticism. The closest any two men even come to touching each other is one guy's hand over another guy's mouth. Unless you consider Freddy slicing through the film's almost entirely male bodycount erotic.
I personally find myself aching more for David Chaskin to come out - and tell us what the hell is going on in the story. The closest we'll get to that is an interview in Bloody Good Horror in which he barely seems to remember anything but says it was intended to confuse the target demographic attending the films and make them uncomfortable. Well, it worked on me and after I'm finished posting this, I'm off to look at some pics of hot guys! Many horror fans are flaming hypocrites to begin with. This film just makes that more obvious. Chaskin's other claim to fame is working with John Carpenter on the lousy In the Mouth of Madness, but by that point, the guy had pretty much lost his master's touch.
Fans also say in very general terms that the film was more a failure because it didn't have a female lead. But really, how many times have the horror-going audience made a dent in the women's rights movement? No, fans weren't really disappointed by lack of a female lead (though 80's trends might beg to differ). Kim Myers in her role is enough of a contribution to the film that she becomes the heroine or lead very shortly after the party scene begins. Besides, she sure had a larger part here than Johnny Depp did in the original. How's that for a gender reversal? The writer here thought there was more he could do with a female love interest than Wes Craven was able to write for a future Hollywood megastar. Not to mention Kim Myers' first-rate performance is so good, she's able to hit all the major points, even blubbering (something I could never do- though I'm not a real actor, I can make myself cry on command) in the finale.
The gay 'subtext' doesn't really lead Jesse as a character astray from his natural heterosexuality (though Freddy has a little too much fun playing various head games with Jesse). But, he does start to come close to the role or a rebel. At least, in so far as the '80s was a decade of seeking personal independence. One of the worst things for every young person was not being in control. How many movies made under the Republican rule from Reagen to Bush featured people getting made over in some way, teen boys getting their first car then becoming party animals, girls having their first kiss and becoming mature young women, people getting pressure from their parents and unraveling - it was a combination of that enthusiasm to really start out in the world on one's own, and to get away from anxiety from parental pressure - everyone sought to become more independent.
The film's male lead, played by adorably chubby Mark Patton, is a million miles away from your typical teenager. Even by gay standards. He looks more like the type you saw in new wave rock bands like The Cure / Flock of Seagulls / Echo & the Bunnymen with their pop-goth '80s make up, dyed hair, and dark black clothing. His look showing his internal emotional and psychological states is defined by perpetual dark circles under his eyes, an intense look of introversion plastered on his face at all times, and the occasional overly nervous mannerisms. Not generally the type of guy the camera loves. But his isolation is another thing that allows you to remember what franchise you're watching. We aren't taken to another world but this guy certainly doesn't look like he's from Elm Street. Which is understandable, since the movie's story begins with a shot of his bedroom revealing moving boxes all over the floor.
Most people think of movies of the '80s as being a technical step above the '70s (merely lacking the freedom of the '70s) but being limited by their own excess. One scene here that is a perfect example of this 2-way pull is the climactic power plant finale where Lisa searches for Freddy Krueger in Jesse's body. While the potential excellence of the scene is hampered by some damn sloppy mutant creature effects- the scene's lighting, camerawork, editing, and ensuing meltdown of Freddy's flesh (through stellar goo and dripping-gore effects), are outstanding. Taken as a low budget film, there are some good moments of FX and camera-work showmanship. If you're looking, you can tell. An incredible camera pan up from the basement, up the stairs on 2 floors of the house, down hallways and all the way up to a bedroom in 1 shot - now, that's impressive! And other inspired assorted imagery - Jesse's sister jumping rope to the "Freddy stalk" tune, the quirky "Fu Man Fingers" moment, a bolt of lightning striking the room next to Jesse while he's standing inside his kitchen.
