Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Halloween Movies: Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein

 

           For those who don’t know, Abbott and Costello were one of the funniest comedy duos of classic Hollywood; the forties’ equivalent to Laurel and Hardy. Lou Costello was the chubby, short, ‘funny man’ while Bud Abbott was the thin, taller, ‘straight man.’ Their comedy style involved a combination of fast-paced word-play (including their famous “Who’s On First” routine), broad slapstick, and the contrast between Abbott’s mild bullying and Costello’s childishness.
            By 1949, however, their films were beginning to make less and less money. At the same time, the Universal Horror series had likewise begun to falter as after a pair of “all-star” films (House of Dracula and House of Frankenstein) there didn’t seem to be anywhere for them to go. At this point, someone at Universal had the insane, yet brilliant idea to combine the two series’ and, amazingly, inexplicably, it worked!
            The plot: Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) makes a desperate call from London to a baggage-check room in Florida. He’s answered by Wibur Grey (Lou Costello) and tries to warn him not to deliver a certain pair of packages until he can get there, but before he can explain properly the full moon rises and he transforms into the Wolf-Man (“You’re awfully silly to call all the way from London just to have your dog talk to me!”). Back in Florida, Wilbur and his partner Chick Young (Bud Abbott) deliver two large crates to McDougal’s House of Horrors. During the delivery, Wilbur witnesses Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi) and the Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange) rising from the crates and vanishing into the night. When McDougal (Frank Ferguson) finds his prize exhibits missing, he throws the pair in jail, from which they’re bailed out by a beautiful insurance investigator named Joan Raymond (Jane Randolph) who intends to seduce Wilbur into leading her to the missing exhibits.
            Meanwhile, Dracula is planning to revive the Frankenstein Monster to be his servant, but in order to avoid the mistake of Dr. Frankenstein he intends to use the simplest, meekest brain he can find. Three guesses whom he has in mind. To that end he’s working with Sandra (Lenore Aubert), who’s dating Wilbur (Chick, of course, can’t understand what all these beautiful dames see in Wilbur).
            Talbot makes contact with Wilbur and Chick and tries to convince them to help him destroy Dracula. Of course, Chick doesn’t believe him and Wilbur is too scared. From then on the boys are caught in the middle of all the different parties.
            Horror comedy, as I’ve noted before, is a famously tricky genre to do well. Indeed, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein may be the first successful attempt at it. Not only that, but it remains one of the best examples of the genre.
            The key thing is that the monsters themselves are pretty much played straight: Dracula is recognizably Dracula, Talbot is still Talbot, etc. Part of the reason that this works is that the horror characters react to the duo pretty much exactly as they should: by clearly being amazed that anyone could be so stupid. Talbot in particular loses his temper with Wilbur at least twice. The effect is literally as though Bud and Lou simply wandered into a horror film and the horror characters don’t know what to make of them, while the comedy duo are unprepared for the fact that they’re genuinely in danger.
            This dynamic pays off in a number of clever scenes that work equally well as horror and comedy set pieces, such as a bit where Wilbur wanders around Talbot’s apartment while the Wolf-Man stalks him.
            Scene for scene, it’s probably more of a comedy than a horror film, and the comedy is hilarious: Bud and Lou are in top form, with rapid-fire dialogue and note-perfect slapstick. Here are some of their funniest set-pieces, like the ‘moving candle’ bit recycled from the earlier Hold that Ghost (but still funny), or the bit where Wilbur ends up unwittingly sitting on the comatose Monster’s lap.
            At the same time, there’re some unambiguously creepy scenes, such as when Dracula decides to take a more direct route with Sandra, or when Talbot suddenly stops freeing Wilbur because he notices the full moon outside (“What's the matter? Is someone else coming after me?”). I also need to make note of the spectacular special effects on the Dracula-bat transformations, which are simply superb and render Dracula more active and convincingly powerful than ever (one startling scene has him meeting Wibur in the woods, transforming into a bat to chase him down and subdue him, then turning back into himself to hypnotise Chick all in the space of about a minute).
            As noted, Bud and Lou are in top form here. Most of the rest of the cast is no more than adequate. Lenore Aubert makes a sinister femme fatale, while Frank Ferguson has some funny moments as the blustering Mr. McDougal, but other than that the supporting cast doesn’t make much impression (though there’s also a surprise cameo by none-other than Vincent Price reprising his own first horror role). Glenn Strange as the Monster pretty much just has to walk around stiffly, as this Monster lacks a fully-functioning brain (he does get a couple of good scenes opposite Lou, however). 
Chaney and Lugosi, meanwhile, don’t seem to be trying as hard as usual, though they still play their iconic roles professionally. Chaney can do the ‘tragic loner’ act in his sleep, and here he projects a real sense of long-suffering and weariness at his curse. The impression is that hunting Dracula is pretty much his only purpose for living now, and he pursues his goal with a palpable single-mindedness (his impatience with Wilbur’s jokes is also a nice touch).
Lugosi, meanwhile, is a lot more lively (ironically enough) than he was in Dracula, but that can easily be accounted for by his having been more ‘in the world’ in the meantime. This was only the second and last time Lugosi assailed his most famous role on screen, but he inhabits the role as though he had only just played it yesterday. Lugosi’s Dracula is still as formidable, cunning, and convincingly dangerous as ever, and it’s actually somewhat touching to see him take the role one last time.
And it is the last time: Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is generally considered the last of the classic Universal Horror films; the end of the story for Dracula, the Wolf Man, and the Frankenstein Monster. These characters (and others) had a very long and winding road, but it’s a road that ends here. It’s a fitting climax: Dracula and the Wolf Man have their final showdown and the Monster meets his end, once again, in fire. We’ve come full circle.
So it’s doubly fitting that Lugosi should be here as Dracula: the actor and the role that began the series is here once again to see it end. 
But enough sadness and introspection. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is ideal Halloween viewing: compact, scary, atmospheric, and side-splittingly hilarious. It’s simply a good time all around.

Final Rating: 4.5/5 Highly recommended to horror fans, comedy fans, and people in general.

Memorable Quotes :

Chick: “You know people pay McDougal to come in here and get scared?”
Wilbur: “I’m cheatin’ him; I’m getting scared for nothing!”

Wilbur: “You know that person you said there was no such person? I think he’s in there – in person.”

Chick: “You’re making enough noise to wake up the dead!”
Wilbur (pointing at Dracula’s coffin): “I don’t have to wake him up; he’s up!”

Chick (about Wilbur): “I’d like to know what he’s got that I haven’t got?”
Sandra: “A brain.”

Talbot: “I came all the way from Europe because Dracula and the Monster must be destroyed!”
Wilbur: “I can’t. I’ve got a date. In fact I’ve got two dates.”
Talbot: “But you and I…have a date with destiny.”
Wilbur: “Let Chick go with destiny.”

Talbot (on the phone with Wilbur): “I believe you’re in the house of Dracula right now! You can find the Monster and I’ll…” (thud) “Hello? Hello?”

Wilbur: “You’re right; we gotta search the place! You search in the basement, I’ll search outside.”
Chick: “No you don’t!”
Wilbur: “Alright then, I’ll search the outside, you search in the basement.”
Chick: “That’s different! Come on.”
Wilbur (to the camera): “It worked!”

(To Wilbur)
Dracula: “What we need today is young bloods and brains!”

Dracula: “I have other ways of securing your cooperation.”
Sandra: “You’re wasting your time. My will is as strong as yours.”
Dracula: “Are you sure?”

Talbot: “So, we meet again, Count Dracula.”

Sandra: “You’re so full-blooded: so round, so firm…”
Wilbur (nervously): “So fully packed. And I’d like to stay that way.”

Wilbur: “Franky, don’t let ‘em do it to you! Franky, I’m telling you it’s a bad deal! I’ve had this brain for thirty years, and it hasn’t work right yet. Ask me what one-and-one is; go on, ask me! I don’t know.”

(Chased by the Monster, Wilbur and Chick run into McDougal)
McDougal: “Now I’ve got you!”
Wilbur: “You sill want your exhibits?”
McDougal: “Yes…”
Wilbur: “Well here comes one of them now!”

Chick: “Now that we’ve seen the last of Dracula, the Wolf Man, and the Monster, there’s nobody to frighten us anymore.”
Voice: “Oh, that’s too bad, I was hoping to get in on the excitement.”
Chick: “Who said that?”
Voice: “Allow me to introduce myself: I’m the Invisible Man.”

Halloween Movies: The Wolf Man


            The success of Dracula kicked off a fair craze of horror films. First came Frankenstein later that same year, then The Mummy and The Invisible Man the next year, followed by a string of sequels; Bride of Frankenstein, Dracula’s Daughter, Son of Frankenstein, Son of Dracula, The Mummy’s Hand (not actually a sequel, but what we today would call a ‘reboot’), The Invisible Man Returns, and so on.
            The surprising thing is that, while the Vampire, the Mummy, and the man-made monster came in quick succession of each other, the Werewolf took a rather long time to make its appearance (although first werewolf film, Werewolf of London starring Harry Hull and Warner Oland, came out in 1935 it didn’t make much impact). It wasn’t until 1941 that Universal Studios, the House of Horror, added a Werewolf to its monster stable.
            The Wolf Man opens with Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) returning to his ancestral home in Wales following the death of his elder brother. Larry had been away in America for several years and is estranged from his father, Sir John Talbot (Claude Rains). Though father and son are very different people, they both seem to appreciate the chance to reconcile and Sir John begins by introducing his son to his own hobby of amateur astronomy. While testing on the telescope, Larry notices a beautiful woman (Evelyn Ankers) living over an antique shop and heads down to ask her out.
            The young woman, Gwen, is rather put off by Larry’s clumsy (and moderately creepy) advances, but agrees to go on a date with him all the same, despite being engaged to another man. During their conversation, she shows him an antique cane with a silver handle in the shape of a wolf’s head, which he takes a liking to and purchases.
            That night Larry arrives for their date to find that Gwen has brought her friend Jenny (Fay Helm) along to make things less awkward. They go to a nearby camp of gypsies to have their fortunes told, but when the gypsy, Bela (Bela Lugosi) tries to read Jenny’s fortune he becomes agitated and frightened, warning her to “go now…and quickly!”
            Alarmed, Jenny runs out into the woods. Larry and Gwen, who’ve been going for a stroll, hear her screams and Larry, rushing to her aide, is set upon by an enormous wolf which bites him on the chest before he can club it to death with his silver cane.
            Gwen helps him back home, where he’s bandaged and laid up in bed. Meanwhile, the police find Jenny with her throat torn out, lying next to Bela, who appears to have been clubbed to death…
            There are three major strengths in this film. The first is some really incredible atmosphere, thanks largely to the art-direction and the presence of the gypsies, exemplified by the old woman Maleva (Maria Ouspenskaya). Appropriately for a werewolf story, the film depicts a clash of the old, wild, pagan, and supernatural with the new, civilized, Christian, and scientific. The movie jumps back and forth from the quaint, but well-ordered town and the soaring, book-filled Talbot Manor to the dark, mist-shrouded forest with its tent-filled gypsy camp.
            Maleva gets the task of providing most of the exposition about Werewolves: it is she who pronounces the famous ‘rules’ that define the werewolf as we know it: whoever is bitten by a werewolf becomes a werewolf himself, and werewolves can only be killed by silver (oddly enough, the moon is only obliquely involved here). The interesting thing about her is that, even when she’s pronouncing dire warnings and strange incantations, she remains an entirely sympathetic character. She does what she can to help Larry, while frequently expressing compassion for his plight and that of Sir John. Nevertheless, she simply drips with old-world spookiness: the kind that speaks of curses, deals with the devil, and makes the poor modern man doubt his science and fear the night again.
            The second strength is the compact, efficient writing. In a little over an hour’s screen-time (which would hardly even count as a feature-length today) the film manages to feature a moving father-son relationship, a romantic triangle, two werewolves (along the way establishing the famous ‘rules’ for werewolves), the conflict between science and the supernatural, a man’s life collapsing into tragedy, and two striking poems, all without feeling the least bit rushed or confused. I’ve seen two-and-a-half hour blockbusters that don’t have half that much going on! There’s enough material in almost any one of those to fill an entire movie on its own, and yet they’re all included and, moreover, feel complete. It’s truly a masterpiece of compact storytelling.
            The movie’s final strength is its acting, especially the two central performances by Claude Rains as Sir John Talbot and Lon Chaney Jr. as Larry Talbot. Rains, of course, was one of the finest actors of his age and gives an effortlessly commanding performance (indeed, he very nearly blows Chaney off the screen). He has the somewhat thankless task of expressing stubborn skepticism in the face of the supernatural, a necessary but usually onerous job in a film like this. Rains makes it work better than usual, however, as his response to his son’s increasingly desperate pleas for his father to believe him is not impatience or frustration but love and concern. Sir John clearly cares for his son and wants to help him, but he’s a scientific man and simply cannot accept the idea of werewolves.
            Not only that, but there’s an interesting subtext in their relationship: we know that father and son have been estranged for several years, though we’re never told precisely what led to the estrangement. Rains injects a real sense of regret into his performance: we get the impression that Sir John feels somehow responsible for having been absent from his son’s life for so long and is determined to do better this time, only to have Larry seemingly self-destruct before his eyes (in a typically subtle move, Larry calls Sir John by the formal ‘sir’ or ‘father’ the whole movie up until their last moment together, which is the first and only time he calls him by the more familiar ‘dad’). In a way his determination to ‘cure’ his son seems to be his attempt to make up for his past failures. It’s part of the movie’s tragedy that he fails.
            Lon Chaney Jr., it must be said, doesn’t quite have his father (Lon Chaney Sr.)’s acting talent. However, he’s perfect for this role. When Gwen’s fiancĂ© Frank (Patric Knowles) comments that there’s something tragic about him, we know exactly what he’s talking about. Chaney’s drooping eyes, large frame, and slow voice gives the unmistakable impression of sadness (an impression that, alas, was not just acting: Chaney had an often-hard life off-screen, culminating in a failed battle with alcoholism). Indeed, the relationship between slow, simple Larry and his sophisticated, multi-talented father dimly mirrors Chaney’s relationship with his own revered father (Chaney Jr.’s real name was ‘Creighton Chaney:’ the studios demanded he change his name to increase his market value, something he always hated). In both cases the older man inevitably overshadows his beloved, but less able son.
            But I’m sounding far too critical: Lon Chaney Jr. was a talented actor in his own right and Larry Talbot is the role of his career. His performance is what the film lives or dies on and as important and welcome as all the other elements are it is Larry Talbot that elevates the film to classic status. Chaney is both immensely likeable (in his cheerful handiness and his clumsy attempts at romance) and intensely tragic. We can’t help but feel for the poor man as his life collapses around him, leaving him questioning whether he has truly succumbed to a supernatural curse or is simply going mad: a terrible choice either way.
            Indeed, Chaney is so perfectly cast, so essential to the character that he’s the only one of the classic Universal monsters to never be recast: the Wolf-Man can only be Larry Talbot, and Larry Talbot can only be Lon Chaney Jr.
            Other roles range from good to adequate: I already mentioned the marvelous Maria Ouspenskaya as Maleva, but she is so good that she really deserves another mention. One of the best scenes in the film has her going toe-to-toe with Claude Rains in a kind of acting duel and proves a powerful match for him. Evelyn Ankers is attractive and has some good moments, such as the way she’s clearly trying not to be attracted to Larry when he asks her out, or her guilt after Jenny is killed. Bela Lugosi only has a few minutes of screen-time, but he gets at least one great moment where he realizes that Jenny’s going to be his next victim and tries to send her away without frightening her (he fails, but the effort is appreciated). The rest of the cast is pretty much forgettable, though veteran second-fiddle Patric Knowles at least makes Frank Andrews (Larry’s rival for Gwen’s affections) a decent enough sort that there’s actually a question of whether she should go for Larry.
            It may surprise you to learn, but most of the trappings of werewolf mythology that have so ingrained themselves in our imaginations originate no earlier than this film (or, at the earliest, Werewolf of London): the idea that a man bitten by a werewolf will become a werewolf himself, the involuntary nature of the transformation, the weakness to silver, the pentagram sign, and the role of the moon all have their origins in these two films.
            This is a testament to how effective this film is that we never question these assertions; they have the feel of timelessness about them, as though things were always this way. There’s a real symbolic power, for instance, behind the use of silver to kill werewolves; silver can be tarnished and wiped clean again, making it a symbol for sin and the soul. Thus the silver could be viewed as cleansing the werewolf of the infecting evil (it also calls the mind the moon, underlying the lunar aspect of the werewolf).
            I mentioned the thematic clash between the old and the new: science and the supernatural. In many ways, of course, this clash is the entire point of the werewolf: the duality of man, the conflict between our instincts and passions and our reason, the danger of falling into mere brutality. The werewolf recalls St. Paul’s lament “The good which I will, I do not: but the evil which I will not, I do” (Romans 7:19), or Plato’s analogy of the chariot, with Reason struggling to control the contrary horses of Passion and Morality. It’s an image of the man who cannot control his own passions, whose reason is overthrown and unable to reign in his darker impulses. It’s an image that all of us, if we’re honest, can relate to: even a man who is pure of heart…
            The idea of the werewolf is inherently frightening in itself (though, like the vampire, it has suffered from overexposure, to the point that most audiences don’t even think about the implications anymore): the loss of control over one’s actions, the idea of inadvertently hurting loved ones, the loss of humanity.
This movie plays well on these fears, and manages at least a few scenes that are unambiguously frightening. For me the scariest scene was when Larry comes home feeling that something is wrong with himself. He starts stripping off his clothes trying to figure out what it is, finally tearing off his shoes to see wolf-hair growing on his feet (the fact that, in this instance at least, he’s apparently conscious of the transformation and is watching it as it happens makes the scene all the more chilling). Likewise the scene where Larry wakes up in bed after his first outing as a werewolf and frantically tries to clean up the muddy footprints has a powerful ‘guilty conscience’ fear, as does the sad moment where Larry hovers in the doorway of the church while the entire congregation turns to look at him one-by-one, as though silently condemning him.
            The film works best as a story of a man’s descent into madness. Larry’s helpless inability to control himself, his fears of his own sanity, and his impotence to do anything about it, or even to explain himself adequately are where this film becomes honestly frightening.
            (The film’s writer, Curt Siodmak, had a different, though equally horrifying subtext in mind: having recently come to America from Europe, he brought with him the idea of otherwise ordinary men who do terrible things to victims who are marked with a star…).
            The biggest flaw of the film, it must be said, is the werewolf make-up by Jack Pierce. It’s well-done, of course, but the look hasn’t aged well at all. Far from calling to mind a wolf, it looks more like Chaney simply had his head dunked in Rogaine. It’s, unfortunately, somewhat ridiculous rather than frightening, meaning this monster relies much more on Chaney’s performance than Pierce’s make-up for its effectiveness (contrast the exquisite make-up of Frankenstein).
            As noted, most of the supporting cast is unremarkable, especially Ralph Bellamy as Col. Montford (who’s supposed to be an old friend of Larry’s, but just comes off as a jerk). There are some plot-holes, such as the fact that no explanation is offered for the fact that Bela became an actual wolf while Larry becomes a half-wolf, half-man (or the fact that no one seems to really notice the difference). As noted, Lon Chaney Jr. can’t really compete on equal terms with Claude Rains, talented as he is, and in their scenes together he seems in constant danger of being overwhelmed (though most of the time he manages to hold his own well enough).  
            On the whole, though, The Wolf-Man is a solid entry into the Universal Horror pantheon that fully deserves its classic status. It’s tightly written, well-paced, gloriously atmospheric, and, like Dracula, is solidly anchored by three outstanding performances by talented actors.

Final Rating: 4/5. For horror fans, a must see. For film-lovers in general, it comes highly recommended as an example of compact storytelling and superior acting.

Memorable Quotes:

Sir John: “Even a man who is pure of heart / and says his prayers by night / may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms / and the autumn moon is bright.”

Larry: “I’m alright with tools, but when it comes to theory I’m pretty much an amateur.”
Sir John: “All astronomers are amateurs. When it comes to the heavens, there’s only one professional.” 

Larry: “Don’t try to make me think I killed a man when I know I killed a wolf!”

Sir John: “You policemen are always in such a hurry; as if dead men didn’t have all eternity.”

Maleva: “Whoever is bitten by a werewolf and lives will become a werewolf himself.”

Maleva: “A werewolf can only be killed by a silver bullet, or a silver knife, or a stick with a silver handle.”

Larry: “Hey, what’s all the excitement?”
Gypsy: “There’s a werewolf in camp!”

Sir John: “The scientific name is Lycanthropia, a form of Schizophrenia.”
Larry: “That’s all Greek to me…”
Sir John: “Well, it is Greek.”

Maleva: “The way you walked was thorny, through no fault of your own. But as the rain enters the soil, the river enters the sea, so tears run to a predestined end. Your suffering is over. Now you will find peace for eternity.”

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Halloween Movies: Dracula


               Dracula is a true milestone in cinema: the first American horror film of the sound era and, in many ways, the first true American horror film. There had been horror films in the past, of course, but unlike European films such as Nosferatu or The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, American horror films were scrupulously non-supernatural. Even when a film seemed to include supernatural elements (such as the lost Lon Chaney pseudo-vampire flick London After Midnight) they were explained away at the end as trickery and deception. Here, for the first time, American audiences were confronted with the unapologetically unreal.
                We open in the mountains of Transylvania, where British real-estate agent Renfield (Dwight Frye) is on his way to close a deal with Count Dracula. Disregarding the locals, who try to dissuade him with warnings about vampires, he arrives at the castle to be greeted by Dracula (Bela Lugosi). Renfield is unnerved by his coach-ride and by Dracula’s odd mannerisms and uncanny ability to pass through spider-webs without touching them, but he persists and soon has his deal signed. Once that is done, Dracula leaves him after offering a bottle of “very old wine.” Renfiled soon collapses and Dracula bends over his throat...
                Back in London Renfield is confined to a sanitarium, while Dracula begins preying on the citizens. He meets the sanitarium owner, Dr. Seward (Herbert Bunston), and his daughter Mina (Helen Chandler), her fiancĂ©e, Jonathan Harker (David Manners), and her friend, Lucy Weston (Frances Dade). Later that night, as Lucy lies asleep, Dracula enters her room…
                Like most pioneering movies, Dracula is an uneven effort. It’s fumbling, poorly-paced, and disjointed. Plot elements (such as poor Lucy Weston) are set up only to disappear without a trace. The dialogue often creaks and much of the acting is stiff and more suited to the stage than to film (most of the cast, including Bela Lugosi and Edward Van Sloan, are reprising their roles from the stage production). Odd moments, such as characters describing events instead of the film showing them, testify to the story’s stage-bound origin. In short, the film has all the problems of the early sound world and then some.
                That being said, Dracula has many strengths all of its own, and chief among them are three iconic performances, each one enough to make the film worth catching for its own sake.
                The first is, of course, Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula. Really, what more needs to be said?  After over eighty years this one performance has become so ingrained in the public mind that it exists beyond criticism. It’s become part of our cultural mythology to a degree beyond almost any other film performance. Everyone knows Lugosi’s Dracula, with his cape, tuxedo, and thick Hungarian accent. He’s the definitive film vampire; the image that this particular monster took when it entered the public mind. Lugosi’s Dracula is immortal.
                Setting all that aside and looking at the role simply as acting, it’s much like the film that contains it: uneven, frequently misjudged, yet ultimately powerful. To start with, Lugosi’s broad movements and expressions are too exaggerated; more suited to the stage. Then there’s the fact that his stiff, effectively unnatural performance from the early scenes in Transylvania inexplicably vanishes once he enters Dr. Seward’s drawing room and he suddenly becomes more easy-going and fluid (though this could be a conscious effort on Dracula’s part).
                But the strengths of his performance far outweigh the defects. There’s his wonderfully jerky, misemphasized way of speaking during the early scenes (“I have chartered a ship…that will take us to England…We will be leaving…tomorrow…evening”) which creates the disturbing impression that Dracula is unused to speaking (I also love the way some of his responses don’t quite match Renfield’s questions: as though Dracula had simply memorized and recited what he wanted to say). In the same scene, watch him when he serves Renfield the “very old wine:” he keeps his eyes fixed on Renfield rather than the wine.
                As noted, his performance loses something once he gets into England, but he still has some great moments, like the look of barely-controlled hatred he gives Van Helsing after the latter shows him a mirror. Also, he maintains throughout an aura of supreme pride and confidence: of being secure in his own power that makes him a compelling figure even in the film’s weakest moments. And, in what might be the first onscreen instance of a classic acting technique, Dracula never blinks once during the whole film.
                He’s well matched by Edward Van Sloan as Professor Van Helsing. Van Helsing is that rarest of cinematic breeds, the hero who actually seems to be just as good as the villain is evil. This is all the more impressive due to the vast difference between the tall, well-dressed, powerful Dracula and the bent, fidgety, elderly Van Helsing with his coke-bottle glasses (in one amusing moment, Dracula confronts Van Helsing, who quickly fumbles to put his glasses on). But Van Helsing soon proves himself every bit a match for Dracula, with a vast store of knowledge, an iron will, and a strong faith to counter Dracula’s unholy powers. Van Sloan gets some excellent moments, such as his gentle-yet-firm insistence on examining Mina’s throat after she has a ‘bad dream’ or the satisfied, knowing look he gives Dracula after the vampire smashes the mirror he showed him.  
                The latter is the first of several battles of will between Dracula and Van Helsing, which comprise some of the best scenes in the film. Both Lugosi and Van Sloan rise marvelously to the occasion and play off each other excellently. Van Sloan’s best scene probably comes when Dracula tries to get him out of the way; his fear and strain as he tries to resist is palpable.
                The film’s other great performance is Dwight Frye as Renfield, who’s probably the most delightful character in the film. He starts out as your average narrow-minded businessman who dismisses the warnings of the locals and studiously ignores the warning signs as he approaches Castle Dracula (really, Renfield should get some sort of award for his dedication to his job: I don’t think I’d still be trying to close a real-estate deal if my host kept talking about spiders and wolves and could open doors without touching them). Later, after he’s been bitten, he’s wild-eyed and crazy, alternating broadly between pronouncing dire warnings to the others and gloating over their predicament. He also provides one of the creepiest laughs in all of cinema; a strained, monotone chuckle that could make your hair stand on end. Renfield also achieves a kind of screen immortality for being Dracula’s first official victim.
                Outside the three central roles, the acting is mostly poor. Helen Chandler doesn’t make much impression as Mina, but she does have some excellent scenes after she’s been bitten, especially in a conversation with Dracula that leaves us in doubt whose side she’s actually on. She also has a delightful moment where she suddenly becomes less interested in Harker’s rhapsodies on the night and the stars and more interested in his exposed throat. David Manners as Jonathan Harker is a nightmare: his character is boring, useless, and pig-headed, with all the appeal and charisma of a cardboard box (Manners hated his role, but was unfortunately typecast as the “romantic lead” and soon quit acting in disgust). Herbert Burston as Dr. Seward is just as boring, his dialogue consisting entirely of “I find that hard to believe” and “be reasonable.” Frances Dade as Lucy has only two scenes before dropping out of the film, but she does get one good moment where she recites a grim poem about death, prompting an unexpected response from Dracula.
                Watching the film again, I was surprised to find that it’s actually quite creepy. There’s probably not much to disturb the average jaded horror fan of today (though more on that in a bit), but the film does have a number of shiver-inducing moments: Renfield’s stiff, silent coachman (actually Dracula, though Renfield doesn’t realize this) who communicates only in firm gestures like Dickens’s Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come; Dracula and his brides rising from their coffins and stiffly ascending to meet Renfield; Dracula entering through a mist-shrouded window before bending over the fallen Renfield; Dracula’s assault on a flower-girl in London (a scene loaded with disturbing subtext). Perhaps the creepiest moment in the film, however, comes courtesy not of Dracula, but of Renfield. After the Vespa arrives in London, the dockworkers find Renfield crouched in the hold, leering wide-eyed at them and laughing his unearthly laugh while (intentionally or not) the shadows fall around him make him look like he has spider-legs. Almost as disturbing is a moment later on where he crawls on all fours towards a fallen maid, teeth-bared, an inhumanly hungry expression on his face…
 Certainly one can see how this movie could leave unprepared audiences trembling.
                The element that makes Dracula most frightening, however, is one that will probably be lost on most viewers today, but was largely taken for granted when it came out: the fear of punishment after death. The loss of one’s soul, the possibility of Hell, the Last Judgment…these are all part of Dracula’s architecture as a horror film and are necessary to fully appreciate it. More than once characters make reference to the primary importance of saving someone’s soul “if not her life.” Van Helsing, trying to get Renfield to give them more information, warns him of the fate that awaits him if he helps Dracula. In this way, the most horrifying scene in the film is Renfield futilely begging Dracula not to kill him, since he knows his soul is too corrupted to face God…
                As this indicates, the film is frank about religious matters. It’s very first moments involve a pair of Translyvanian travelers who cut off a conversation about vampires with an invocation to the Virgin. Shortly afterwards, when Renfield expresses his determination to go on to Castle Dracula, one of the villagers gives him a Rosary to wear around his neck, which at least temporarily protects him from Dracula. Later on Van Helsing’s crucifix proves not only an effective defense against Dracula (“More effective than wolfbane, Count”), but the mere sight of it is enough to temporarily break Mina’s enchantment and prompts her to beg Harker to listen to Van Helsing.
                The opening scenes of the film have some marvelous imagery: the towering Carpathian mountains, Dracula’s crumbling castle with its huge cobwebs and coffin-filled basement (including such odd touches as an appearance by the rare Transylvanian armadillo), the iconic image of Dracula standing in the doorway, framed by the mist-shrouded night. These scenes are almost the definition of gothic horror, and as someone once said about the novel, the first act could work perfectly well as a short film in itself.
 The voyage of the Vespa (a nightmarish episode in the book and in Nosferatu) is here relegated to some stock-footage of The Storm Breaker, but does have one delightful moment where Dracula comes out on deck to survey to chaos, completely untroubled (and indeed, looking thoroughly contemptuous) by the storm. From there the film doesn’t have much to look at until the climax at Carfax Abbey, which manages to recover some of the gothic dread of the first act (the actual staking of the vampire, however, is a disappointment: it happens off screen in a hideous anticlimax).
Script-wise…well, simply as a script, Dracula is, as noted, horrible. Things happen for no apparent reason (i.e. where was Renfield going when Van Hesling and Harker follow him to Dracula? And what were they doing out in the first place?), characters repeat information, plot elements drop out of the story completely, things that should be shown as simply described (the worst example is where Harker describes the ‘large dog’ running across the lawn while looking pointedly off-camera). On the other hand, the dialogue, particularly among the three leads, is often simply superb. Lugosi gets all kinds of juicy lines to sink his fangs into (“Listen to them; children of the night! What music they make!”), while Van Sloan has his share as well (“When was the last time you saw Ms. Lucy after she was buried?”). Dwight Frye, meanwhile, gets perhaps the most evocative dialogue in the film with an almost biblical-sounding speech describing Dracula’s temptation of him (“All red blood! All these will I give you, if you will obey me!”).
In the end, Dracula is, for all its very real flaws, a worthy effort. Approached with a modicum of good-will and understanding for its place in film history and it’s a very enjoyable experience in creepiness. Whatever else may be said of it, here is one of the undisputed turning points of American Cinema: the birth of the horror film. Without Dracula, there would be no Frankenstein, no Psycho, no Halloween. Indeed, without Dracula it is likely there would be no Universal Studios, as it was the huge success of this film that saved Universal from bankruptcy.
Yet, the ending of Dracula’s story is not entirely happy. The great tragedy associated with this film, and its star, was that neither Bela Lugosi, nor Edward Van Sloan or Dwight Frye could ever quite escape its shadow. Van Sloan and Frye both did little but genre films (for the most part playing roles very similar to Van Helsing and Renfield) for the rest of their careers.
 Lugosi, who had played the role hundreds of times on stage, vowed never to play Dracula again (he only played the role once more on screen), but his image as Dracula had so ingrained itself in the public mind that people had trouble accepting him as anything else. He spent the rest of his career doing little but horror and science-fiction, and while he generally did these roles well (or at least enthusiastically), his career quickly began to deteriorate due to some poor choices on his part and the emergence of the more versatile Boris Karloff. He soon fell into a terrible morphine addiction, which he only managed to overcome shortly before his death.  His last years were spent making truly horrible bottom-of-the-barrel flicks, mostly for his friend, Ed Wood.
Despite his tragic fall, Lugosi remains one of the truly great stars of Hollywood’s golden age. His performance as Dracula alone would ensure that, but he really was a very talented actor and had a number of good-to-great films under his belt: Dracula, The Wolf-Man, The Black Cat (where he played the hero opposite Boris Karloff’s villain), The Island of Lost Souls, White Zombie, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. His career may be an example of just how bad the film industry can be (he sternly warned his children never to become actors), but it is fitting, perhaps, that he has achieved a kind of immortality that few actors even come close to. Everyone knows Lugosi, even those who have never seen his films, because he’s part of our cultural mythology: he was and is Count Dracula.

Final Rating: 4/5. Despite its stuffy, staged nature and deeply flawed script, the film’s strengths and Lugosi’s iconic performance make it a must-see for anyone who isn’t completely averse to early-sound films.
                 
Memorable Quotes:

Dracula: “I am…Dracula.”

Renfield: “Isn’t this a strange conversation for men who aren’t crazy?”

Dracula: “To die…to be really dead…that must be glorious!”
Mina: “Why, Count Dracula!”
Dracula: “There are far worse things awaiting man…than death.”

Dracula: “For one who has not lived even a single lifetime you are a wise man, Van Helsing.”

Van Helsing (to Renfield): “You will die in torment if you die with innocent blood on your soul!”
Renfield: “God will not damn a lunatic’s soul. He knows that the powers of evil are too great for those of us with weak minds.”

Renfield: “Flies? Poor, puny things! Who wants to eat flies?”
Martin: “You do, y’ah loony!”
Renfield: “Not when I can have nice, fat spiders!”

Renfield: “You know too much to live, Van Helsing!”

Renfield: “No, don’t kill me! Let me live, please! Punish me, torture me, but let me live! I can’t die with all those lives on my conscience! All that blood on my hand!”

Van Helsing: “Mr. Harker, I have devoted my lifetime to the study of many strange things. Little known facts, which the world is perhaps better off not knowing.”

Renfield: “And I thought I heard him say…’Rats…Rats!...RATS!...Thousands! Millions of them! All red blood, all these will I give you, if you will obey me!”
Van Helsing: “What did he ask you to do?”
Renfield: “That which has already been done.”

Dracula: “Van Helsing! Now that you have learned what you have learned it would be better for you to return to your own country.”
Van Helsing: “I prefer to stay and protect those whom you would destroy.”

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Halloween Movies: Freddy vs. Jason



                 Freddy vs. Jason is a kind of miracle picture. Here is a film that had every reason to fail. It was a crossover; a tricky genre at the best of time. It was the latest entry in two long-defunct franchises, both of which had long outstayed their welcome and neither of which had exactly gone out in a blaze of glory. Both of these franchises had begun at least two decades before, each operated within its own universe with its own specific rules, and both were internally contradictory to an insane degree…and now they were being brought together. By all rights this should have been an unmitigated disaster.
                  And yet…it isn’t. Against all odds it’s actually, well, pretty good. It’s solid, moderately intelligent, immensely satisfying, and even a little scary. Make no mistake; this is a much, much better swan song than either of these characters deserved.
                  We open with a brief recap of Freddy’s origin (in a nice touch, one of the parents firebombing Freddy’s house is clearly meant to be Marge Thompson) in which he establishes his ‘rules.’ From there we learn that Freddy  (Robert Englund, naturally) is stuck in Hell (the minimum security model that the villains of cheap horror films get sent to) where, we learn, he’s planning his comeback after a four-year absence. Freddy gets his power from fear, you see, and the children of Springwood have forgotten about him. No memory, no fear, no Freddy. But, Freddy being Freddy, he has a plan to get around that. A plan that requires the services of another one of Hell’s inmates: Jason Voorhees (Ken Kirzinger).
                  Jason, you see, has been cast into eternal slumber (since he can’t die), dreaming that he’s still killing people around Crystal Lake. In this manner he’s been safely contained for an indeterminate number of years when Freddy finds him. Since Jason is sleeping, Freddy can enter his dream, taking the form of Jason’s long-dead mother, Pamela Voorhess (Paula Shaw, gracefully filling in for Betsy Palmer). After quickly liming Jason’s ‘rules,’ Freddy sends him off to Elm Street, where teenager Lori Campbell (Monica Keena) now lives at Nancy Thompson’s old address: 1428 Elm Street.
                  Lori, we quickly learn, has been living in the shadow of a double tragedy for the past few years: her mother died in a car crash (supposedly: does anyone ever actually die in a car crash in these things?) and her boyfriend Will (Jason Riter) disappeared almost immediately afterwards. Her best friend Kia (Kelly Rowland) is trying to get her back in the world, which in Kia’s mind means hooking up with a semi-acquaintance: their friend Gibb (Katherine Isabelle)’s boyfriend’s friend (if you didn’t follow that, don’t worry about it). Fortunately, the evening is cut short (snigger) when Gibb’s boyfriend, Trey (Jesse Hutch) has a richly deserved encounter with Jason.
                  When the police arrive, Lori overhears one nervous deputy saying that “It’s gotta be him, right? It’s gotta be Freddy Krueger…” before the sheriff (Gary Chalk: forever Optimus Primal to me) shuts him up.
                  Meanwhile, at Westin Hills Psychiatric Hospital, Will and his friend Mark (Brendan Fletcher) are lining up for their nightly dose of Hypnocil (a dream suppressing drug) when Will notices a news report on the murder and recognizes Lori’s house. Frantic with worry, he convinces Mark to help him escape and the two head for Springwood.
                  At the police station, Lori asks Deputy Stubbs (Lochlyn Monroe) for information, but he can’t tell her anything. Then, trying to remember the name she overheard at the crime scene, she suddenly finds herself completely alone in the station…
                  I don’t want to give too much more away, since there’s actually a number of unexpected twists and turns along the way and one of the film’s joys is seeing how the conflict between Freddy and Jason unfolds. Suffice to say, Freddy’s plan doesn’t quite go off as he had expected and the two villains will soon be set against one another. The most surprising thing about the film, however, is the mere fact that it has some surprises. Here is a level of care and creative energy that’s rare for any kind of movie, let alone an exhibition match between two horror-movie villains.
                  For instance, the filmmakers didn’t just take incidents from previous films and recycle them. Instead they actually considered why things happened the way they did and how they could use those rules in new and interesting ways. A good example of this is the way they bring back and expand upon Jason’s relationship with his mother. It’s something that everyone knows about, that’s been referenced constantly throughout the series, but which hardly anyone has ever done anything with. Usually the fact that Jason had a mother who thought he drowned and whose death somehow drove him into his own killing spree is simply brought up and then dropped as part of ‘the legend.’ Here the filmmakers use Pamela Voorhees as a key factor in the plot. She’s both the means by which Freddy controls Jason and, in rather remarkable moment, the reason Jason turns on Freddy. The mere fact that the filmmakers decided to include Pamela Voorhees as a character at all shows a level of creativity and respect for the material that goes beyond anything we could have expected (since she hasn’t been seen at all since the second film).
                  That’s another thing, the filmmakers treated the Nightmare and Friday films with a startling level of dignity: far outweighing anything they actually deserve. The treat the stories seriously and lovingly build on them (rather than simply parodying or rehashing bits of them). This is especially clear in the case of Jason, who gets some very nice character touches. They not only draw inspiration from them, but they sprinkle the film with lots of loving little nods to previous films: things that most people wouldn’t register, but which fans will immediately pick up on, like the fact that Will had a habit of climbing the trellis to visit Lori, just like Glen and Nancy used to do, or the moment where Jason, as a child, gets a sugar-sack pulled over his head.
                   One of the really cool things about this movie is the way it keeps jumping back and forth between being a Nightmare film and a Friday film. That is, one scene will be done in the style of one of the Nightmare on Elm Street flicks: it’ll be brighter, with more focus on the adults and with a kind of silent dread hanging over it. You might suddenly start to notice little things that are out of place, like an off-putting sign on a nurse’s table, or a character suddenly acting more callously than usual…Then the next scene will switch to the style of the Friday the 13th films: it’ll be darker, grimier, characters will tend to be more crass and unpleasant, there’s more likely to be sex and nudity, and Jason will just show up and do his thing with little or no fanfare. The effect is almost a kind of storytelling dance where the writers shift and swirl the different styles around until they slowly blend together into an almost perfect mixture. From its very first moments (featuring an overlay of the haunting Nightmare theme and the ‘ki-ki-ki’ motif from Friday) this movie creates a palpable sense of a meeting of the worlds. It’s easily the most satisfying and complete crossover I’ve ever seen, one that rewards careful attention to detail and demonstrates an almost encyclopedic knowledge of its two sources. This persists all the way up the end, where the standard climaxes of a Nightmare film (the heroine confronts Freddy in one final dream) and a Friday film (the survivors battle Jason at Camp Crystal Lake) play out simultaneously.
                  The movie is compact and well-structured. Key elements are quickly set up (Hypnocil, the Springwood conspiracy, etc.) and then carefully used to direct the characters actions. In other words, this is the rare horror movie where you almost never find yourself rhetorically shouting “why would anyone do that?!” The characters make mistakes, of course, but they’re mistakes that you could easily see someone making under the circumstances. For instance, at one point the kids decide to make a run to Westin Hills, exposing themselves to Freddy and Jason. Why? Because that’s the only place they can get the Hypnocil they need to protect themselves from Freddy while they work out a way to defeat him. Thus, there’s a clear and logical reason for their putting themselves in danger.
                  Likewise, even when characters do something foolish we can see why they do it. When Stubbs goes to the sheriff to say he thinks a copycat of “the old Jason Voorhees Crystal Lake killer” may be the culprit, there’s a reason why the sheriff blows him off and refuses to explain why: because he’s sure it’s Freddy and he can’t risk exposing more people to him. In a similar way, when Freddy decides to get Jason out of the picture by killing him (rather than just trying to send him back to Crystal Lake), it makes sense because, well, it’s Freddy: he’d want to get back at Jason, and a non-violent solution simply wouldn’t occur to him.
                  Which brings me to one of the key elements to any good crossover: the setup. Here we have one of the niftiest ones to date: Freddy has been forgotten and drained of his powers, and so hits on the plan to use Jason to make people think he’s returned, generating the fear that will fuel his return for real. At the same time, however, Freddy naturally never stopped to consider the consequences of bringing Jason into things, meaning he’s caught off guard when Jason proves harder to control than he thought.
                  What really stands out about this setup is that it’s driven entirely by the characters themselves. The whole plot is based on two facts of Freddy’s character: that he’s a perversely brilliant thinker and that he’s too arrogant to adequately question his own plans or to back down when a plan starts to fail. Having unleashed Jason without a second thought, Freddy becomes increasingly furious at his inability to shut Jason down again, leading him to try a more direct approach.
                  That’s the thing: the filmmakers actually took the time to figure out who these characters were before they wrote the film. That in itself is a fairly remarkable achievement (sadly enough). For a contrasting example, consider Alien vs. Predator, where the Predators are introduced wantonly slaughtering a bunch of unarmed people on their way to hunting the Aliens. That’s completely wrong. The Predators are supposed to be honor-bound hunters: they may be merciless and brutal, but they don’t just kill wantonly and they don’t attack defenseless prey.
                  Nothing like that happens here. Both characters are spot-on in what they will and will not do. It’s completely in character, for instance, that Freddy twice wastes so much time taunting his victims that they are able to slip through his fingers. 
                  Robert Englund, as always, is perfect as Freddy. As I noted in my Nightmare on Elm Street review, here we have one of those rare marriages of character and actor that makes the role unacceptable from anyone else. Englund disappears completely into the character, to the point that it’s easy to forget that he’s acting at all and simply accept him as Freddy.
I should point out, however, that he’s much different than he was in the original Nightmare all those years ago. Freddy has changed through the years, and while he’s far better (and scarier) than he was in most of the latter Nightmare flicks, he’s still not the same shadowy boogeyman he was in the beginning. This Freddy is a lot more talkative, and while he doesn’t spout quite so many lame puns as usual, he still gets off a couple (though he’s played seriously enough that they don’t detract from the overall effect). Englund hams it up with gusto and is a joy to watch, but in tone he’s closer to the grim original film than to the comedic sequels. Boisterous as he is, Freddy maintains his edge throughout; he’s actually scary again.
Ken Kirzinger as Jason is, in some ways, even more impressive. Everyone knows that Robert Englund is the one and only Freddy, so it’s not much of a surprise that he nails the role. Kirzinger, on the other hand, is a newcomer, replacing four-time Jason portrayer Kane Hodder (who, it must be said, was an atypically energetic and effective Jason). For my money, though, Kirzinger is the best Jason we’ve ever had. Granted, that’s damning with faint praise since Jason isn’t a very, er, prestigious role, but nevertheless Kirzinger impresses with a combination of some subtle body acting (the scenes with his ‘mother’ are particularly good) and a pair of incredibly expressive eyes. Kirzinger was apparently hired for his eyes (together with his massive build) and they provide a surprisingly sympathetic view into Jason’s character; there’s cold fury when he’s killing people, wide-eyed rage when he faces Freddy, and even (in a particularly well done scene) child-like fear…
Kirzinger’s contribution is to make us root for Jason even after he kills dozens of people. Thanks to a combination of his surprisingly sympathetic portrayal and Englund’s ramped-up evilness, it works.
The other roles are generally adequate, but rather forgettable. Monica Keena makes a likeable final girl, though her deer-in-the-headlights expression gets a little old after a while. She’s best at the beginning and end of the film. Kelly Rowland is frankly annoying as Kia, though she improves as the film goes on. Jason Riter makes little impression either way, but has his moments. Brendan Fletcher as Mark sells some of the scariest scenes in the film very well. Paula Shaw ably fills Betsy Palmer’s shoes, to the point that we almost don’t notice the switch (she does an especially good job of transferring between the ‘mother’ and ‘disguised Freddy’ personas).
My two favorite performances (outside the title characters) are Katharine Isabelle as Gibb and Chris Marquette as Linderman. They stand out as two stock characters (the slut and the nerd respectively) who are given a surprising level of depth by their talented portrayers. Gibb isn’t just the standard ‘Slasher-movie slut:’ she’s clearly a nice girl who lets herself be used by her pig of a boyfriend and drinks and smokes in an attempt to blunt her self-loathing. Her plight is depicted as a real tragedy, one which her friends can only help by being there for her. Linderman, likewise, is in outline the standard ‘nerd,’ but at the same time he shows the capacity for real maturity and compassion towards other people. He’s someone who is able to understand and sympathize with a broad range of people, and in the end even shows himself to be a brave, selfless individual.
All the above is done in short, deft strokes (since neither character has a lot of screen time), but it’s part of the film’s effectiveness that it carefully sketches its characters as real people rather than just walking targets (for the most part). Like the original Nightmare, you could see yourself spending a film just watching these people dealing with their normal problems.
You may have noticed that I’ve dared to call this film ‘scary’ a number of times. Well, against all odds, it is in places. It’s not as effective as, say, Halloween or the original Nightmare, but it gets the job done. Scenes like the opening dream-sequence around Crystal Lake, a truly disturbing nightmare mid-way through the film, and the unexpected conclusion to the first fight are genuinely unnerving. It helps that the director, Ronny Yu, has a good sense of timing, as well as the aforementioned care taken in the characters.
But of course, all this is icing on the cake for the real reason we’re here: the fights. Well, they’re good: pretty much everything you’d want them to be. Not only that, but they do a good job of making them fresh and inventive. Freddy and Jason simply slashing at each other would get boring, so the filmmakers do neat things like having Freddy try a bunch of different tricks to off-set Jason’s size advantage (and having them occasionally backfire spectacularly on him). The fights hit all the beats we want them to (i.e. there are moments when their weapons clash, they each get to use the other’s signature weapon at one point, etc), but they also come up with a number of moments that we never could have anticipated, such as the hilarious bit where Freddy tries to kick Jason in the crotch and…well, let’s just say it doesn’t work.  
                  There are a lot of little pleasures in this film, like the jaw-dropping sequence where Jason comes across two obnoxious stoners in a cornfield (remember what I said about how most of the characters are people rather than walking targets? These are two of the exceptions), ends up getting lit on fire, and proceeds to massacre an entire rave. Or the part where the characters all sit down and pool their knowledge to figure out what’s going on and how they can stop it. I also like the sly literary reference where Freddy appears to a severally stoned character as a hookah-smoking caterpillar. Then, of course, there’s the film’s single best moment: when Freddy realizes that he’s been pulled into the real world just in time to meet a limitlessly enraged Jason. You will never see a better version of the expression “Oh, CRAP!”
                  Mixed in are some startling images: Freddy lounging (disguised) in a bathtub full of blood; Jason cutting a fiery swath through a cornfield as he pursues a fleeing victim; a spectral little girl with empty, bloody eye-sockets; a hospital ward full of coma-victims all sitting up and mouthing wordlessly; and (my favorite) a brief, wordless shot of Jason stalking slowly through a fog-bound Camp Crystal Lake…
                  Thematically, the movie is about memory: about things from out past that we’d rather forget which emerge violently despite our best efforts. In this regard Lori’s storyline is important: she’s living in the shadow of past tragedies that she doesn’t understand and can’t quite let go of, and which return unexpectedly to show themselves to be even worse than she imagined, requiring her to face them head-on. Likewise, Freddy draws his power from memory. “Being dead wasn’t a problem,” he tells us in his opening narration “but being forgotten; now that’s a bitch!”
Interestingly, this theme extends beyond the bounds of the film into the real world: Freddy and Jason are relics in real-life as much as they are in the movie. When this film came out it was twelve years since the last ‘canon’ Nightmare flick (Freddy’s Dead: the Final Nightmare) and nine since the meta-horror New Nightmare. Jason, meanwhile, had been revived the previous year for the moronic Jason X, but his series had properly ended ten years previously with Jason Goes to Hell. When we find Freddy, forgotten in Hell, and Jason, rotting away in the woods, we are picking them up after a decade’s absence. For us as for the characters, they’re just memories.
As things turned out, they weren’t being brought back to stay, but for a kind of swan song: a real finale for the two of them. With a pair of ill-conceived ‘reboots’ following years later, it seems that the original, the true Freddy and Jason have been laid to rest at last. It’s a better ending than either could have hopped for. In the case of Freddy especially it’s oddly moving: this was Robert Englund’s last turn in the role that defined his career, and it’s good to know he went out on a high-note.
Beyond that there is some very interesting subtext regarding the two: Freddy is a child murderer (as the film bluntly reminds us right off the bat) and Jason is a kind of child-man. Thus, Jason can be read as retribution being visited upon Freddy for all the children he’s killed. There’s also a pretty cool ‘fire and water’ symbolism going on throughout: Freddy died by fire, Jason by water. Freddy is introduced with fire (throwing a doll into a furnace) Jason with water (his latest victim goes skinny-dipping). Freddy’s scenes typically have a red color scheme; Jason’s have a blue one (in a nice detail, Pamela Voorhees’s trademark sweater – traditionally blue – is a Freddy-appropriate red here). Both elements are very much in view throughout, especially during the climax. Then, of course, there’s the amusing subtext of Freddy, the smug intellectual, getting his ass kicked by Jason, the blue-collar everyman, and who doesn’t like to see that?
It’s not perfect, of course. While the writing is generally solid, some of the characters are still skin-peelingly annoying or hateful, though fortunately most of them don’t last long. Kia, however, is an irritating character who’s around for most of the film. The gaps in the story where the filmmakers tried to fuse the two continuities are occasionally too big to paper over; such as the question of how directly Freddy is controlling Jason. Then there’s the fact that some people will simply find the blood and profanity unbearable, and there’s not a lot of help for that.
But beyond that there’s not a lot to complain about: the film is remarkably solid and well-written. I do, however, have to point out the amusingly dubious assertion the film makes that Springwood is within easy driving-distance of Camp Crystal Lake. I mean, yeah we never really settled on where Camp Crystal Lake was (though the implication was that it’s in New Jersey) and Springwood certainly has moved around a lot over the years (the first film was very clearly set in California, but one of the later flicks said it was in Ohio), but still: those poor, poor people living in that part of the country!
                  Basically, the secret to this film’s success could be summed up in the fact that, for the first time in living memory someone took these characters seriously (Jason in particular benefits from this. He’s never been more interesting…heck, he’s never been interesting period!). It’s one of those films that make me think that even the worst story is perhaps a little like Frankenstein’s monster: it only needs someone to be kind to it.

Final Rating: 4/5. Unless you’re especially adverse to this kind of film (which would understandable) it comes highly recommended. For horror fans, it’s a must-see. The best and most satisfying crossover to date.

Memorable Quotes:

Pamela Voorhees: “Jason. My special, special boy! Do you know what your gift is? No matter what they do to you, you cannot die. You can never die! You’ve just been sleeping, honey!”

Freddy Krueger: “Oh, that’s right! Everyone forgot! That’s why I needed Jason to kill for me, to get them to remember! But now, he JUST WON’T STOP! That hockey puck!”

Mark: “You want my advice? Coffee. Make friends with it.”

Deputy Stubbs: “You kids need some assistance?”
Gibb (thrusting her blood-soaked hands into his face): “WHAT THE F*** DO YOU THINK!?”

Freddy: “These children are mine, Jason! Go back where you came from!”

Eyeless Girl: “Freddy’s coming back.”

Mark: “SOMEONE PLEASE WAKE ME UP!”

Freeburg: “Better start thinking outside your little box, pal, because someone’s definitely been breaking the f**** reality rules.”

Pamela Voorhees: “Make them remember me, Jason! Make them remember what fear tastes like!”

Pamela Voorhees (to Jason): “You are like a big, stupid dog who can’t stop eating! Even though your master says you’ve had enough!”
Freddy: “Well, now it’s time to put this bad dog to sleep…for good!”

(Fighting in the dream world, Jason grabs Freddy)
Freddy: “Oh, scary!”

Freddy: “Ah, so you are afraid of something after all…”

Freddy: “Why won’t you die!?”