The following article is a potted history of the films that he directed and influence they had on the genre.
“It’s only a movie ….”
Wes Craven was born in Ohio, in 1939. He had a strict Baptist upbringing and during his academic years he actually earned degrees in Philosophy, Psychology, and writing. He worked as a teacher and professor in several colleges, but the lure of film-making beckoned and he started to get involved with the industry in New York City. In the early 70’s he started to edit, produce and direct films. It might surprise some fans to learn that Craven actually was directly involved in making “X-rated” films (and not the Horror kind!) at the start of his film career. He admitted in the documentary “Inside Deep Throat” (a film I bet you never thought would be referenced on this site!) that he mostly performed editing duties but also directed a few under pseudonyms. He met Sean S. Cunningham (future director of “Friday the 13th”) on the set of one of the aforementioned movies, an educational sex-flick called “Together” which starred the infamous Marilyn Chambers. It was a “White-Coater” film, which meant that a bloke pretending to be a doctor in a white coat turns up at various points to qualify the rumpy-pumpy as being “educational”. During the editing phase of the movie, they became good friends and started to discuss making another, different kind of movie. That movie was “The Last House on the Left”, and it would rock the horror genre!
“The Last House on the Left” was released in 1972, and was a milestone in horror and exploitation history. This was Craven’s first film as an official director and also as a writer. Originally, along with Sean Cunningham as producer, it was mooted as a graphic “hard-core” movie, but they decided to make it “softer” and envisioned it as a ground-breaking exploitation film. Famously it was based on the same storyline as Ingar Bergman’s, “The Virgin Spring” (don’t forget Craven’s academic credentials, after all). This boils down to a very simple plot synopsis, whereby a group of immoral degenerates victimise and kill two young girls. By a twist of fate, these murderers then seek refuge in the house of the parents of one of the girls. These “civilised” parents then succumb to exacting extreme acts of violence and revenge on the killers, stooping to the same sense of immorality. To be blunt, it is an extraordinary film for its time (or any other time in fact). Far from being a simple exploitation film, it raised a mirror to the current society in America. One of naivety (the two murdered girls are hippies and actually go to the killers house to score drugs), extreme violence and sadism (the 3 killers are without redeeming features and have no moral code at all), and human/primal instinct (the parents are driven to acts of violence by self-preservation and grief). It is not misogynistic in any way either, as one of the three killers is a woman, and the mother uses sexuality to kill one of the gang.
Thanks to a superlative advertisement campaign (the classic “To avoid fainting ... Keep repeating … It’s only a movie … only a movie … etc.” and also “Maria is dying … even for her the worst is yet to come!”), and a grim reputation, the film did huge business at the US box-office and spawned a number of imitators, both in the US and abroad. David Hess (he gives a superb performance as Krug, the gang’s leader) found the role a curse and blessing, but was synonymous with the character for the rest of his life. Generally well-regarded in the US, in Britain however it was a different story … In the 1970’s the BBFC refused to certificate the film altogether until severe cuts were made. It was then released un-cut in the 80’s but was caught up in the loathsome Video-Nasty era. Banned for many years, it was only then released un-cut again as late as 2008!
Off the back of this success and controversy, Craven surprisingly went back to the adult film industry (but only as an editor), for 4 years. He then returned to mainstream again in 1977, with another revenge horror film, and this time he was in the genre for keeps!
“They didn’t want to kill … but they didn’t want to die!”
“The Hills have Eyes” was Wes Craven’s next film as director and was released in 1977. A minor hit at the time, it has nonetheless evolved into a cult horror film. A loose update of the Sawney Bean legend (Scottish Cannibals in the highlands preying on travellers in the 16th Century), it depicts the fate of an All-American family travelling across the American wilderness. An in-bred gang of cannibals live in this region and soon target the camper-van living family. In common with “Last House”, it depicts the effect of raw savagery, and what civilised people must devolve to, in order to survive. Although it feels a little bit dated these days, the violence depicted against the innocents by what are essentially opportunist savages is still a little shocking. Let’s just say that age makes no difference to these villains! The cast includes genre icons Dee Wallace and Michael Berryman. In fact Berryman became an icon of sorts following this film and made a lucrative career in the genre. In perhaps his first example of genre self-reference (which would go on to form the basis of “New Nightmare” and “Scream”), Craven films the murdering cannibals destroying the camper-van and blatantly ripping a film poster of “Jaws” in half! The obvious context being; “Now THIS is REAL horror!”
“The Hills have Eyes” was Wes Craven’s next film as director and was released in 1977. A minor hit at the time, it has nonetheless evolved into a cult horror film. A loose update of the Sawney Bean legend (Scottish Cannibals in the highlands preying on travellers in the 16th Century), it depicts the fate of an All-American family travelling across the American wilderness. An in-bred gang of cannibals live in this region and soon target the camper-van living family. In common with “Last House”, it depicts the effect of raw savagery, and what civilised people must devolve to, in order to survive. Although it feels a little bit dated these days, the violence depicted against the innocents by what are essentially opportunist savages is still a little shocking. Let’s just say that age makes no difference to these villains! The cast includes genre icons Dee Wallace and Michael Berryman. In fact Berryman became an icon of sorts following this film and made a lucrative career in the genre. In perhaps his first example of genre self-reference (which would go on to form the basis of “New Nightmare” and “Scream”), Craven films the murdering cannibals destroying the camper-van and blatantly ripping a film poster of “Jaws” in half! The obvious context being; “Now THIS is REAL horror!”
The following year in 1978, Craven directed a made-for-TV horror film, called “Summer of Fear” (aka “Stranger in a house”). A slight effort in comparison with his films so far, it depicted the arrival of a teenage girl into a family, having been orphaned and subsequently adopted by her Aunt. However, it soon becomes apparent that she is not so innocent and is dabbling with witchcraft. Although it was a surprise success on US TV at the time, and even released theatrically in Europe, it is mostly known now as the earliest “supernatural” horror made by Craven and a starring role for Linda Blair as the innocent teenager who correctly twigs her witchy cousin’s wild ways. Although it is obviously constrained by US TV standards and censorship (no HBO back then!), it’s still a fun little film.
It wasn’t until 1981 until Craven directed another film, “Deadly Blessing”. Another cult horror, it develops some of his themes from “Summer of Fear” and confirms his ability to direct scenes of supernatural tension and all-too human menace. Based in a religious community, similar to an extreme Amish estate, it follows the story of an innocuous couple who run a local farm but are not part of the community itself. After some mysterious murders, the lead female character is accused by the locals of being an “incubus”. Bodies pile up and sinister truths are revealed as the OTT climax draws near. It contains a lovely scenery-chewing performance by Ernest Borgnine, an early role for Sharon Stone, and the last film appearance by Maren Jensen (Battlestar Galactica). To be honest, the story is a little muddled and over-blown, and some of the twists (like an unexpected gender change of one of the characters!) are a little surreal. However, it does show the first seeds of some of Craven’s later work (Jensen is menaced by a snake in a bath, similar to Nancy being freaked by Freddy Krueger in “Nightmare on Elm Street”. There are also a number of dream sequences reminiscent of “Nightmare”). It wasn’t critically well received and failed to do big business.
Craven’s career took another bizarre switch now and he veered away from horror for the moment. In 1982, he made a film of the much-loved DC comics character “Swamp Thing”. Made on a higher budget than he had previously worked with, it was … err … terrible. Based on the first origin story of the character (and not Alan Moore’s current-at-the-time update, which had shot the characters profile into the stratosphere), it followed the fate of Dr Alec Holland, a top-secret bio-engineer who is working in the Louisiana swamps on an animal/plant hybrid … as you do. He is attacked by terrorist leader Dr Anton Arcane who wants the formula for himself. It all goes nipple-skywards or course. Holland ends up covered in chemicals, runs into the swamp and later returns as a muscle-bound plant creature, who then fights against Arcane and his similar mutated creatures. It was (unbelievably) not badly received by critics, but comic fans and most of the audience were not impressed. The mutant creatures look like they’ve come from a Troma film, and are dead-eyed and unrealistic. Swampy himself is just a veggie-Hulk and displays none of the powers or ethics of the comic character. However, full marks to Craven for shoe-horning in an impressive (and completely superfluous) topless scene for genre actress Adrienne Barbeau. Sorry girls! Craven admits that he did the film (and screenplay) because he wanted to prove he could handle action, stunts, and a more mainstream audience. Opinions are divided…
1984 would prove to be a career defining year for Craven, but not for the first film he released. He returned to the land of TV movies with “Invitation to Hell”. This is an absolutely wacky genre movie that defies belief! Marrying supernatural and family concerns (similar to “Deadly Blessing” and “Summer of Fear”) it also adds a dash of science fiction. Get of load of this … A US scientist is working on a heat-resistant, life-detecting space-suit for NASA for a manned trip to Venus. However, a country-club & spa has opened in the town where he lives with his family. The club is run by a demon/succubus and it’s situated over a mouth to Hell! The succubus manipulates and influences the town, and kidnaps the scientist’s family. But wait a minute! He can use that space-suit to go into Hell and get them back! Yay for American Science! Joking aside, it’s absolute nonsense. Robert Ulrich (Vegas) and Joanna Cassidy (Blade Runner) give it all they’ve got, but really … What was Craven thinking about?
It’s probably a good job that he followed this up with one of the most famous horror films ever, and a life-changing franchise!
It’s probably a good job that he followed this up with one of the most famous horror films ever, and a life-changing franchise!
“One – Two, Freddy’s coming for you!”
Craven’s comparative success with the majority of his previous films had given him the leeway and confidence to create a particular type of horror film. He began to write the script for “A Nightmare in Elm Street” in 1981, and following the release of “Swamp Thing” he started to approach the major studios with the idea. Most studios turned it down for several reasons, in fact Paramount apparently turned it down because they were making a “similar” film called “Dreamscape” (it flopped!). Disney studios were interested in the concept (?!) but obviously wanted it toned down in violence and horror, along the lines of “Honey, There’s a serial killer in my dreams”. Of course, history now records the funding of the film by the fledgling studio New-Line, for which the investment was returned a thousand fold, and it became known as “The House that Freddy Built”.
Craven’s comparative success with the majority of his previous films had given him the leeway and confidence to create a particular type of horror film. He began to write the script for “A Nightmare in Elm Street” in 1981, and following the release of “Swamp Thing” he started to approach the major studios with the idea. Most studios turned it down for several reasons, in fact Paramount apparently turned it down because they were making a “similar” film called “Dreamscape” (it flopped!). Disney studios were interested in the concept (?!) but obviously wanted it toned down in violence and horror, along the lines of “Honey, There’s a serial killer in my dreams”. Of course, history now records the funding of the film by the fledgling studio New-Line, for which the investment was returned a thousand fold, and it became known as “The House that Freddy Built”.
The origins behind the film come from many aspects of Craven’s life, and urban legends that he had heard. The idea of people dying in their sleep came from a medical condition in the 70’s, where Cambodian refugees suffered from continuing nightmares about the Khmer Rouge and combat. Some actually died in their sleep. (NB: This is now attributed to an inherent genetic condition known as Brugada Syndrome), Freddy Krueger was the name of a bully who tormented Craven in his school years.
Krueger’s look was inspired by an old guy who leered at a young Craven through his window. The film and plot hardly needs explaining these days due to its fame and popularity, but for the time it was filled to the brim with innovative ideas and horror scenarios. In a nutshell, a small-town serial child murderer gets acquitted on a technicality; this was Mr Krueger, of course. (NB: In the original film, Craven always maintained he was a serial child-murderer, NOT a molester or paedophile). The enraged parents burn him alive at his place of work, the high school boiler-room.
He returns years later as a disfigured spirit who invades the Elm Street teenager’s dreams and manipulates them so that they die in their sleep. One girl decides to confront him and fights back.
The film just clicks on all fronts and was a monster hit. All the ideas work so well, and it is a genuinely scary experience the first time that you see it. Craven was extremely lucky with his cast. Robert Englund is perfect and menacing as the metal-clawed Freddy Krueger and took the role seriously. Heather Langenkamp should also be credited with her strong and mature performance, as Nancy (pretty much the heart and soul of the best “Nightmare” films); she is a feisty and strong-willed character, much more so than Jamie Lee Curtis in the original “Halloween”.
In the film, you can see Craven evolving his main themes around family unity (the Elm Street kids are paying for the sins of their fathers), and a rubber-reality that you can’t really trust (hinted at in “Deadly Blessing”). There are some iconic images that remain part of pop culture today; Freddy’s glove arising from Nancy’s bathtub, Freddy’s face “stretching the wall” above Nancy, the geyser of blood erupting from one character’s bed, the melting staircase, and Freddy’s arms extending across a wide alleyway preventing escape. It should be noted in this first film that Freddy was NOT a wise-cracking wise-ass killer. He remained mostly in the shadows and taunted the teens with disturbing threats before finally striking. Most terrifying of all, this was a villain that you could NOT escape from. He was waiting for you when you fell asleep, and no matter how much coffee you drank … you had to fall asleep sometime.
Freddy Krueger became an icon. With Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers, an unholy trinity of horror franchises now came to pass in the 80’s. The sequels to “Nightmare” started to roll out within a year, but Craven had never intended this to be a franchise, as he had his own ideology around the concept. As far as he was concerned when Nancy faced Freddy, refused to be afraid of him, that took his power away and that should have been that. He was moving on to other things…
“Don’t bury me … I’m not dead!!”
Craven was now a recognisable name to the cinema audience. All his films from now on would be “From the Director of A Nightmare on Elm Street!” or simply “A Wes Craven film”. From this point, genre fans knew that they were at least going to get something interesting from the filmmaker. Oddly enough, his next few pieces of work in 1985 were based around TV and an unadvised sequel. “Chiller” was yet another made-for-TV movie, this time with respected actor Paul Sorvino. It depicted the story of a young man who had been cryogenically frozen (it was big in the news at the time), and recovers after being accidentally thawed. However, he seems changed and his mother becomes convinced that he is a heartless murderer. Sorvino is the priest who realises that he isn’t heartless, he just left his soul behind when he thawed out! Some nice ideas, but the whole film is just a little po-faced and dull. Craven then followed this up with some work on a new “Twilight Zone” series. This was also the year that Craven made the one film without any real redeeming features, and one that even his fans will smirk about when reminded of it. The woeful “The Hills have eyes – Part II”.
Craven was now a recognisable name to the cinema audience. All his films from now on would be “From the Director of A Nightmare on Elm Street!” or simply “A Wes Craven film”. From this point, genre fans knew that they were at least going to get something interesting from the filmmaker. Oddly enough, his next few pieces of work in 1985 were based around TV and an unadvised sequel. “Chiller” was yet another made-for-TV movie, this time with respected actor Paul Sorvino. It depicted the story of a young man who had been cryogenically frozen (it was big in the news at the time), and recovers after being accidentally thawed. However, he seems changed and his mother becomes convinced that he is a heartless murderer. Sorvino is the priest who realises that he isn’t heartless, he just left his soul behind when he thawed out! Some nice ideas, but the whole film is just a little po-faced and dull. Craven then followed this up with some work on a new “Twilight Zone” series. This was also the year that Craven made the one film without any real redeeming features, and one that even his fans will smirk about when reminded of it. The woeful “The Hills have eyes – Part II”.
Whereas the original film was gritty, nasty, and had genuine suspense, this was a dopey, contrived sequel. The plot takes the young survivors from the horrific incident in 1977 into the desert again, as part of a Moto-cross bike team (just one example of a stupid set-up). Of course some of the cannibal gang have survived. Of course the tour bus breaks down, and the two groups clash. Neither very bloody nor scary, the film includes loads of recycled footage from the first film, and even (notoriously) a flashback from the family dog!! Quite why Craven decided to do this after backing away from the Elm Street franchise is beyond me …
In 1986, Craven made and released “Deadly Friend”. Based on a popular Sci-Fi novel, it is nowhere near as bad as “The Hills have Eyes – Part II”, but is still seen as something of a mis-step. Originally Craven wanted to make a straightforward family-friendly film, but was cajoled into making it more of a gore-fest by Warner Bros. This was mainly due to the test-screening reviews, where fans were befuddled by the lack of blood in a film by Craven. The film itself concerns a nerdy science student (Paul) who falls in love with his beautiful neighbour Samantha. Unfortunately Samantha has an abusive father and he beats her to the point of death. It now gets all Frankenstein on us, when being unable to bear losing her, Paul installs some circuitry from his crappy 80’s robot into her brain. Of course it works, but there’s no happy ending, as Samantha loses her humanity and gains super-human strength, slaughtering those that tormented her. It’s not very good, but there are a lot of things to like about the film. The abuse and “death” of Samantha is unexpectedly touching and well-handled. A young Kirsty Swanson gives a lovely performance as Samantha, especially when her humanity ebbs away. The gore scenes that were added to the film are also OTT and glorious! The highlight being when a super-powered Samantha throws a basketball at an old dears head and it explodes into smush! The decapitated body then wanders around for a bit, viewed by a jaw-dropped Paul. Fun but not exactly art.
Craven returned with another out-and-out horror film in 1987. For my money, this is one of his most underrated and enjoyable efforts, dealing with “real-life” voodoo and zombies in Haiti. “The Serpent and the Rainbow” is actually (very loosely) based on a non-fictional book by Edmund Wade Davis, a famous anthropologist and botanist. The book covers his research into powerful natural hallucinogens, and particularly covers the example of a man in Haiti who had been poisoned by a “witch-doctor”, and believed to had died and become a zombie slave to him. In actuality the “death” was caused by a virulent poison (part of which was Tetrodotoxin, an essence from puffer fish), and it could have many positive uses in modern medicine. To say the film takes liberties with the facts is an understatement! Although the poison and its effects are very real, the plot of the film supposes that elements of voodoo are still mystical and throws guardian spirits and possession into the mix! For all that it is an effective, thrilling and surprising horror film. The plot throws Dennis Alan (a substitute for Davis) into Haiti, looking for the aforementioned drug. He falls foul of the local “police” (the real-life sadistic “Tonton Macoute”, a government backed group of thugs). Tortured and then ultimately poisoned by the commander of the Tonton Macoute, he has to embrace voodoo magic and his own strength before he can defeat the evil in Haiti and return to the US with the drug. This has some fantastic performances from Bill Pullman (as Dennis Alan), Cathy Tyson as a Haitian nurse, and Zakes Mokae as the absolutely evil commander of the Macoute. Despite the fantastical additions, it remains quite a dark and harrowing film. In one extraordinary scene, bereft of mystical elements, Alan is ruthlessly tortured by the Macoute, who threaten to hammer nails into his testicles … and then do it! Another fantastic scene sees Davis buried alive (having been paralysed by the voodoo drug). As he lies helpless in his coffin, we get a POV from his eyes as he becomes shrouded in darkness. Seconds pass. And he recovers but is still trapped. Screaming for his life, the screen remains black all this time, and it’s not until he’s eventually dug out by an ally that the screen becomes viewable again. This really is Craven at the top of his game! The use of further voodoo images like moving desiccated corpses and rituals is all well used. An excellent pounding soundtrack by Brad Fiedel is just the icing on the cake. It is really worth checking out!
“No more Mr Nice Guy!!”
After the positive response to “The Serpent and the Rainbow”, Craven joined up with Universal Studio to create a new franchise. He is quoted at the time at feeling a little aggrieved as to where the “Nightmare” franchise had gone, and that he had been somewhat short-changed on profits and artistic ownership of the Krueger Empire. So “Shocker” was born in 1989. Subtitled “No More Mr Nice Guy!” it introduced the imposing figure of Horace Pinker, as played by Mitch Pileggi (Skinner in the “X-Files” TV show!). A merciless serial killer, Pinker uses his job as a TV repairman to get close to victims and slay them. However, the adopted son of the local chief (Jonathan) has some kind of psychic link with the killer and tracks him down, but too late to save his girlfriend. Before execution, Pinker reveals that Jonathan is actually his son (hence the psychic link, all Father/Sons have this, don’tcha know). He has also made a deal with the devil, and becomes an invulnerable electric entity once he is executed on the county jail electric-chair. More deaths ensue as he possesses people and electrical items.
After the positive response to “The Serpent and the Rainbow”, Craven joined up with Universal Studio to create a new franchise. He is quoted at the time at feeling a little aggrieved as to where the “Nightmare” franchise had gone, and that he had been somewhat short-changed on profits and artistic ownership of the Krueger Empire. So “Shocker” was born in 1989. Subtitled “No More Mr Nice Guy!” it introduced the imposing figure of Horace Pinker, as played by Mitch Pileggi (Skinner in the “X-Files” TV show!). A merciless serial killer, Pinker uses his job as a TV repairman to get close to victims and slay them. However, the adopted son of the local chief (Jonathan) has some kind of psychic link with the killer and tracks him down, but too late to save his girlfriend. Before execution, Pinker reveals that Jonathan is actually his son (hence the psychic link, all Father/Sons have this, don’tcha know). He has also made a deal with the devil, and becomes an invulnerable electric entity once he is executed on the county jail electric-chair. More deaths ensue as he possesses people and electrical items.
This really is something of a mess. The trouble is that Craven has thrown too many ideas at the wall, to see what sticks. The possessions, the electrical villain, the ghost of the girlfriend makes an appearance, the unexplained deal with the devil, etc. the irony is, the first half of the film is pretty damned good! As Pinker commits atrocities as a run-of-the-mill serial killer, and Paul tracks him down only to see his girlfriend killed, it’s actually pretty suspenseful and gripping. But once Pinker becomes “Electro”, and the dark-eyed ghost of the girlfriend turns up, it just becomes too much! By the time Jonathan and Pinker are inside a TV set and fight across the top of soap operas and war movies, your belief will be well and truly beggared! There’s a bit of a Craven family love-fest going on as well, as his son, daughter, and even Heather Langenkamp turn up in cameos. You won’t be surprised to hear, that due to the overwhelming negative response to the film, there was no franchise, and “Shocker” was Pinker’s one and only film … and it was quite well-named.
In 1991, Craven’s next project was a suburban scare movie called “The People under the Stairs”. Playing on the current what-are-the-neighbours-up-to type paranoia that seemed prevalent in the US at the time, it follows the fortunes of a young gang member called “Fool” who is intimidated into breaking into a seemingly wealthy property in an estate, by his fellow Ghetto colleagues. Once inside, he is shocked by the environment within. The couple who own the house (Twin Peaks Everett Mcgill and Wendy Robie) are actually perverse siblings, who kidnap children and lock them in the cellar when they disobey them. The “People under the stairs” are actually these kids, and over the years have degenerated into white-skinned cannibals to survive. With the help of “Fool”, revenge is eventually taken against the mad pair. Sparking off from some of Craven’s familiar themes (Distorted family values and abuse), it’s a bit of an odd film, and has an uneven tone. There are some nice ideas, with the house being a fortress of traps and hidden passages, but the OTT acting of Mcgill and Robie and the sometimes slap-stick humour sits uneasily with the themes of abuse and perversity. It did well enough at the box-office but is not remembered as one of Craven’s better efforts.
For the next couple of years, Craven returned to TV again. He created and produced a short-lived series on NBC called “Nightmare Café”. The series only ran for six episodes and featured a sentient Café (No.Really.), which manipulated time and space to help those in danger and turmoil. Basically it was “Twilight Zone-Lite” and its main attraction was Robert Englund as the owner “Blackie”.
But in 1994, he joined up with a couple of old friends again …
But in 1994, he joined up with a couple of old friends again …
“This time the terror doesn’t stop at the screen!”
Since the original “A Nightmare on Elm Street”, Craven had distanced himself from the franchise. He did write the story and produce “Part 3 – Dream Warriors” (easily the best of the sequels), but had no part of the other films. After the disappointing “Freddy’s Dead –The Final Nightmare” in 1991, there were rumours that Craven was about to return to the franchise. The rumours were sort of true … Craven originally stated that he was working on a film called “A Nightmare on Elm Street 7 – The Ascension”. He was deliberately misleading the fans, and the film was made and came out as “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare”. Not only was it Craven’s response to the cartoonish character that Freddy Krueger had become, it was his first step in mastering the self-aware concept of a new generation of genre fans. It directly spoke to the more-mature audience that had grown up with Freddy and horror films, and this was his gift to them…
Since the original “A Nightmare on Elm Street”, Craven had distanced himself from the franchise. He did write the story and produce “Part 3 – Dream Warriors” (easily the best of the sequels), but had no part of the other films. After the disappointing “Freddy’s Dead –The Final Nightmare” in 1991, there were rumours that Craven was about to return to the franchise. The rumours were sort of true … Craven originally stated that he was working on a film called “A Nightmare on Elm Street 7 – The Ascension”. He was deliberately misleading the fans, and the film was made and came out as “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare”. Not only was it Craven’s response to the cartoonish character that Freddy Krueger had become, it was his first step in mastering the self-aware concept of a new generation of genre fans. It directly spoke to the more-mature audience that had grown up with Freddy and horror films, and this was his gift to them…
The plot takes place in the “real world”. Heather Langenkamp plays herself, Robert Englund plays himself, and John Saxon plays himself. Hell, even Wes Craven plays himself! The film supposes that “Freddy” is a real demonic entity. Wes Craven has been influenced by the demon into creating the character, along with Robert Englund, but the demon has been unable to break into the real world as the character of “Nancy” forms some kind of block. This means that Heather and her family are for the chop! For my money, this is a real treat! An existential horror film that doesn’t talk down to the fans. As per the cast list, “Freddy” is played by “Himself”, but it’s another great menacing performance by Englund. “Miss Me?” he growls at Heather on his first appearance. Yes, we have! Here he is (appropriately) more demonic and terrifying than ever. The film is filled with classic moments, and has fun with riffs on the real life history of the films. Heather is ignored by rabid fans once Englund makes an appearance, and the snotty Doctor who accuses Heather of abuse by allowing her son access to the films and sets is a real hate figure! (NB: Heather’s son and husband are fictional characters in the film, but she is married to the owner of a SFX company as depicted, and the “stalker” element is based on a real-life incident).
Wonderful performances by all the cast (including Craven!) makes this a great genre film and a fitting full-stop to the franchise (Pity about “Freddy vs. Jason” and the awful remake!). Sadly, the box-office wasn’t great, although the critic’s reviews were very positive. It was probably badly marketed (it was sold as just another “Nightmare” film, when it is a separate entity), and is now a cult film, and recognised as a kind of “prequel” to “Scream”.
I’d love to ignore Craven’s next film in 1995, though… “Vampire in Brooklyn” was another vanity project for Eddie Murphy! Craven has never spoken much about his reasons for doing the film, but in terms of reputation it didn’t do the star or director a lot of good (although it didn’t do too badly at the box-office). Of course Murphy plays several characters (*sigh*) and it tells the (crap) story of a Caribbean vampire (presumably so that Murphy could do the accent and play fish-out-of-water in America again) entering Brooklyn for a lame reason. Not funny, not scary, not saying anything else…
Luckily, Craven’s biggest success was just around the corner…
-Scream-Ghostface-Opt-4.jpg)
Luckily, Craven’s biggest success was just around the corner…
“Someone has taken their love of scary movies one step too far …”
In essence “Scream” (released in 1996) is just another “slasher” film. In reality it was a ground-breaking movie that changed the direction of the genre, and its effect is still felt today. At the time Craven was lucky enough to join up with (then) aspiring screenwriter Kevin Williamson. Williamson was looking at doing a film based around the true story of the “Gainseville Ripper”, a horrible series of murders in a sleepy suburban middle-American town. With Craven, this morphed into a serial-killer tale, where the identity of the murderer is teased and twisted until the climax. He preyed upon the stock teenagers in a small town, but these teenagers were different. They had grown up with “slasher” movies, and they knew the rules. They knew who Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers were, and they know you should never split up and go into dark rooms alone. The trouble was, so did the killer…
In essence “Scream” (released in 1996) is just another “slasher” film. In reality it was a ground-breaking movie that changed the direction of the genre, and its effect is still felt today. At the time Craven was lucky enough to join up with (then) aspiring screenwriter Kevin Williamson. Williamson was looking at doing a film based around the true story of the “Gainseville Ripper”, a horrible series of murders in a sleepy suburban middle-American town. With Craven, this morphed into a serial-killer tale, where the identity of the murderer is teased and twisted until the climax. He preyed upon the stock teenagers in a small town, but these teenagers were different. They had grown up with “slasher” movies, and they knew the rules. They knew who Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers were, and they know you should never split up and go into dark rooms alone. The trouble was, so did the killer…
Following the story of Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell), whose mother was (supposedly) killed by a jailed murderer, both her and her friends become victims of a sick stalker who phones and terrorises his targets. Having already slaughtered two kids (including famously Drew Barrymore in the opening scene), the body count rises and fingers are pointed in all directions as the survivors try to figure out the killer’s game-plan.
At the time, this really did turn the “slasher” picture on its head! The genre fans were tired of endless sequels and also-ran films where a faceless killer slices up the teenage population, especially when said victims were so dumb and prone to falling over and making stupid decisions. During the film, the “Scream” characters even quote the unspoken rules of the “slasher” flick; 1) don’t have sex 2) Don’t get drunk or take drugs 3) Never say “I’ll be right back!” Initially called “Scary Movie” in its writing phase, it did have some problems with the MPAA and the violence, but Craven used some tricksy methods to get the best scenes through intact. It also eschewed the idea of having “unknown” actors in lead roles, Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, Rose McGowan and David Arquette (not to mention Drew Barrymore) were all familiar actors and known to be capable of good performances. On top of those was the iconic “Ghost Face” mask worn by the killer(s), and the superbly classy soundtrack by Marco Beltrami which raises some of the more emotional scenes.
The film was an unadulterated smash. The young and old audience loved it, and the critics appreciated the messages and satirical comments that it made. Inevitably other studios copied the formula, and the genre was soon awash with young casts being massacred by Urban Legend figures, whilst avoiding being dumb (mostly).
Of course Craven followed it up almost immediately in (his franchise phobia now gone …) with the pretty-good sequel “Scream 2” in 1997. This had himself and Williamson still on board, and the entire surviving cast, which certainly helped with continuity. The story followed Sydney into College where another Ghost-Face killer starts to kill the cast off. There are several things that make this a worth-while sequel. The cast is bolstered by genre faves like Sarah Michelle Gellar and Jerry O’Connell. As well as playing with the idea of horror film rules, the film now plays knowingly with the expectation of sequels. In one scene the classroom discusses whether there are any good film sequels (“The Empire Strikes Back” and “Godfather Part II” are the only ones they agree on!). The opening scene is an absolute doozy as well, with Jada Pinkett portraying one of the best screen deaths in recent years, when “Ghost-Face” kills her in a packed cinema audience of horror fans. There were some problems with a version of the script leaking onto the Internet, which meant some last minute changes, and is probably why the killer’s motives seem a little screwy. However, it was another huge hit, and a real vindication for Craven’s talents.
Craven took a bit of a break from the genre, and his next film was the music-drama film “Music of the Heart” with Meryl Streep, which is quite well regarded and proves he could handle mainstream subjects … if he wanted to.
Then came “Scream 3” in 2000. This was a somewhat troubled shoot. Whilst Neve Campbell and the rest of the surviving cast came back, the previous writer (Williamson) did not, and it showed. Sidney Prescott (still Campbell) has moved on with her life and is now a “crisis counsellor” for abused women. However, she is drawn out of seclusion by another “Ghost-Face” murderer, who is stalking the cast of “Stab 3”. The “Stab” films were a fictitious franchise that grew out of the murders in the original “Scream”, and is another chance for Craven to have a wink at the audience. Whilst it’s a nice touch having Sidney stalked by the killer in replicas of her original home, on a movie set, the rest of the film doesn’t really click. The killer’s motives are unfathomable; the set-pieces are a little dull and uninspired. Tellingly the script is nowhere as sharp as the first two movies. As the critics stated at the time, “Scream” had devolved into the very thing that it spoofed… Box office takings were strong, but nowhere near as strong as the previous films. It was time to put the franchise to rest.
“What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”
As we now come to the latter phase of Craven’s career (which is by no means over, and remains promising), his last films are a mixed bag.
“Cursed” was eagerly awaited by genre fans and was released in 2005. It re-teamed Craven with Kevin Williamson, and starred Christina Ricci and Jesse Eisenberg as siblings who are scratched by a werewolf, and must break the curse before they are driven to kill by blood-lust. All the signs were good. However, the movie itself had a highly publicised and tortuous journey to the big screen. The script and shooting schedules were reset, time and time again. Some actors (such as Heather Langenkamp, Mandy Moore, and Corey Feldman) shot sequences that entirely vanished. The film itself just didn’t seem to be sure whether to be a comedy-horror, or a scary update to the werewolf myth. The main problem was that the studio and distributors actually wanted a PG-13 teen-friendly horror, and true to form, Craven didn’t want to comply. Added to this is the fact that the wolf effects are hilariously poor and dated. When it was eventually released, the film made a dismal non-dent at the US box office. It has since gone to have a bit of a cult audience, but that’s probably due to the many versions of it floating around on DVD.
As we now come to the latter phase of Craven’s career (which is by no means over, and remains promising), his last films are a mixed bag.
“Cursed” was eagerly awaited by genre fans and was released in 2005. It re-teamed Craven with Kevin Williamson, and starred Christina Ricci and Jesse Eisenberg as siblings who are scratched by a werewolf, and must break the curse before they are driven to kill by blood-lust. All the signs were good. However, the movie itself had a highly publicised and tortuous journey to the big screen. The script and shooting schedules were reset, time and time again. Some actors (such as Heather Langenkamp, Mandy Moore, and Corey Feldman) shot sequences that entirely vanished. The film itself just didn’t seem to be sure whether to be a comedy-horror, or a scary update to the werewolf myth. The main problem was that the studio and distributors actually wanted a PG-13 teen-friendly horror, and true to form, Craven didn’t want to comply. Added to this is the fact that the wolf effects are hilariously poor and dated. When it was eventually released, the film made a dismal non-dent at the US box office. It has since gone to have a bit of a cult audience, but that’s probably due to the many versions of it floating around on DVD.
“Red Eye” was released the same year (due to the fact that “Cursed” had been moved around so much). This is actually a decent thriller starring Rachel McAdams, Cillian Murphy, and Brian Cox. It’s not a genre film as such, but it does contain one of the most wince-worthy neck injuries that you’re likely to see outside of a splatter film. McAdams plays a hotel manager, who is drawn into a convoluted terrorist plot engineered by Murphy. She can only foil the plot by using her grey matter whilst on a flight where she is shadowed incessantly by Murphy’s character. Despite the leap-of-faith plot and daft set-ups (and would you really trust a man called “Jackson Rippner”?) this is actually a fun film. It does come across as more of a Jason Statham type film, than a Craven one however! Mind you, I’d rather see it again, than watch “The Bourne Legacy” once more …
It was five years before we saw another genre film from Craven. After all, he’s quite comfortably set-up now. He doesn’t have to churn out a film a year! In 2010, Craven returned to supernatural-horror and gave us “My Soul to Take” (in 3D no less!). Unfortunately it turned out to be another let’s-throw-a-load-of-ideas-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks film. A serial killer known as “The Riverton Ripper”, who has multiple personalities, dies after committing several murders in one night. It is then suggested (but never elaborated upon properly) that each of these personalities transferred to one of seven children born that night. Sixteen years later these seven kids are gradually whittled down by an unknown killer. Is it one of the kids, or has the original “Ripper” returned somehow. You won’t be blown away with the answer. Muddled beyond belief, with OMG-I’m-the-son-of-a-murderer revelations and more soul transference, it doesn’t really make any sense. There are some nice spooky scenes as the kids are stalked by a shadowy figure, but the 3D is pointless and it just doesn’t feel like a Craven film. It bombed badly, stoked by very negative reviews. So for his most recent film, Craven looked to his past again…
“New Decade. New Rules”
As “Scream” was originally intended to end as a trilogy, fans were surprised to hear about a “Scream 4” in production. Again Williamson was back (at least initially, but had to leave after his first drafts because of contracting wrangles) and Craven was committed. This was very much “Scream: The Next Generation”. This time Craven had fun with the notion of remakes, and mimicked some of the current trends, especially a “found footage” sequence as CCTV captures a murder in barn. Specifically the cast includes the old guard of Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette as the same characters. Sidney has moved on, faced her fears, and has written a book about her life and the killings. On a book tour she returns to her old home town of Woodsboro (the setting of “Scream”) and links up with her cousin. But wouldn’t you know it; another “Ghost-Face” turns up and begins killing the current young generation.
“New Decade. New Rules”
As “Scream” was originally intended to end as a trilogy, fans were surprised to hear about a “Scream 4” in production. Again Williamson was back (at least initially, but had to leave after his first drafts because of contracting wrangles) and Craven was committed. This was very much “Scream: The Next Generation”. This time Craven had fun with the notion of remakes, and mimicked some of the current trends, especially a “found footage” sequence as CCTV captures a murder in barn. Specifically the cast includes the old guard of Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette as the same characters. Sidney has moved on, faced her fears, and has written a book about her life and the killings. On a book tour she returns to her old home town of Woodsboro (the setting of “Scream”) and links up with her cousin. But wouldn’t you know it; another “Ghost-Face” turns up and begins killing the current young generation.
This is actually a hell of lot better than “Scream 3”. The cast has been injected with a heady mix of fresh young talent, including Anna Paquin, Kristen Bell, Emma Roberts, and Hayden Panettiere. Paquin and Bell take part in a terrific opening sequence again, which is a film-in-a-film-in-a-film twist. Roberts is particularly good as Sidney’s cousin, as (without giving anything away) she has to play a multi-faceted character. The plot is clever, and the kills are imaginative. Whilst not scaling the heights of 1 & 2, this is actually pretty good.
And that’s Mr Craven’s filmography so far. There have been constant rumours about a “Scream 5”, some coming from Craven himself, but the latest statement from Neve Campbell is that it probably won’t happen … at least not yet.
So there we have it. Despite some disappointing efforts, Craven’s output and his importance to modern-day horror should not be underestimated. Themes of Family trauma run through his work, along with man’s reversion to savagery and inhumanity. His ability to question the very nature of the genre we love is endearing and intelligent. I’m sure that in the near future, we’ll be hearing about future projects. Whether that is “Scream 5” (which I wouldn’t be adverse to actually), or something different. So here’s to you Wes. Thanks for Freddy, for Scream, and all your other classics. Just don’t try to remake any, please?
No comments:
Post a Comment