Samuel Bayer’s 2010 remake of Wes Craven’s classic A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) relies too heavily on its predecessor and lacks the sincerity of the subversive original. Though Craven’s original borrowed heavily from Carpenter’s Halloween (1978) and its suburban slasher ethos it nonetheless remains quintessential to the horror genre. Bayer’s Nightmare relies heavily on nostalgia and intertextuality and in this way the film is a successful reinvention of the cult classic. Though self-conscious, the laughable dialogue, stereotypical and plastic characters make the film vapid and hollow. Though lack of narrative and trite characters are commonplace in the postmodern horror genre the fact that this film attempts to over rationalize the grotesque spectacle cheapens the remake.
The postmodern horror film attempts to subvert societal norms to reveal a nihilistic world. At its strongest moment the film questions paternal authority by revealing Freddy Krueger’s grisly murder by a group of parents who suspect him of molesting their children. Krueger is petrified, crying and screaming and the camera dwells on his being burned alive. Quintin, the character who witnesses this all in a vision, immediately doubts the guilt of Krueger and thinks that the children have lied about his crimes. Lowenstien in his article on the remake similarly notes the remake’s lack of subversion and posits that this scene puts into question the true origin of the monstrous.[i] The author notes that at this moment, “questions about just what monstrosity is, where and when it should be located, who exactly is responsible for it, and how might labels of guilty and innocent be distributed in the face of it—finally presents a glimmer of the sort of community critique delivered by the most powerful 1970s and 80s horror films” (21). The author then reflects on how at the end of the film all doubt of Krueger’s guilt is dispelled and replaced by his blatant perversion. This end is a reaffirmation of the authoritative society and dispels with the subversive.
The nostalgia and intertextuality of the film is apparent in the way the remake is shot. Many scenes such as the death of Tina, the boiler room scenes and the scene in which Tina's dead body is dragged through the school hallway are all tremendously similar to the original. Similarly Lowenstien notes the clever casting of Haley as Krueger who previously starred as a pedophile in Little Children (2006) playing a child molester. Some of the most potent lines of the film are when Freddy almost addresses the audience and says, “remember me?” The film alludes to not only the original film but the franchise as a whole. Within the original film Freddy (Robert Englund) barely speaks but in the remake Freddy seems to allude to the other films in the series in his self-conscious, brash and blunt commentary on the violence he is perpetrating.[ii] Within the original films these silly comments heighten the tension of the scene because they interject humour into a moment dominated by gratuitous gore. Arnzen states that the intermingling of humor and gore is distinctly postmodern and represents postmodern ‘play’ within horror.[iii] In the remake these moments seem forced and insincere. The humor is simply an allusion to the original lacking in subversion and the postmodern.
Though seeped in nostalgia for the original, the film seems to fall short in its lack of the postmodern. The original created a boogieman that was unrelenting, charred, sick and sadistic while the remake attempts to explain Freddy’s longstanding impact on the children with psychoanalysis. Nancy has repressed her molestation and struggles with her own angst. She then thereby attempts to face and uncover what really happened to her as a child. The original delves immediately into the horrific and there is no question as to the guilt of Krueger. The psychoanalytic is only briefly alluded to and once introduced it is immediately dispelled as obsolete and inert. The remake seems to lack any heart and is an empty shell of a film only alluding to the legacy and the subversive postmodernity but without following through.
[i] Lowenstein, Adam . "Alone on Elm Street." Film Quarterly 64.1 (2010): 21
[ii] Ibid 18
[iii] Arnzen, Michael A. "Who's Laughing Now? The Postmodern Splatter Film." Journal of Popular Film and Television. Winter, Vol. 21 (1994). 3
The postmodern horror film attempts to subvert societal norms to reveal a nihilistic world. At its strongest moment the film questions paternal authority by revealing Freddy Krueger’s grisly murder by a group of parents who suspect him of molesting their children. Krueger is petrified, crying and screaming and the camera dwells on his being burned alive. Quintin, the character who witnesses this all in a vision, immediately doubts the guilt of Krueger and thinks that the children have lied about his crimes. Lowenstien in his article on the remake similarly notes the remake’s lack of subversion and posits that this scene puts into question the true origin of the monstrous.[i] The author notes that at this moment, “questions about just what monstrosity is, where and when it should be located, who exactly is responsible for it, and how might labels of guilty and innocent be distributed in the face of it—finally presents a glimmer of the sort of community critique delivered by the most powerful 1970s and 80s horror films” (21). The author then reflects on how at the end of the film all doubt of Krueger’s guilt is dispelled and replaced by his blatant perversion. This end is a reaffirmation of the authoritative society and dispels with the subversive.
The nostalgia and intertextuality of the film is apparent in the way the remake is shot. Many scenes such as the death of Tina, the boiler room scenes and the scene in which Tina's dead body is dragged through the school hallway are all tremendously similar to the original. Similarly Lowenstien notes the clever casting of Haley as Krueger who previously starred as a pedophile in Little Children (2006) playing a child molester. Some of the most potent lines of the film are when Freddy almost addresses the audience and says, “remember me?” The film alludes to not only the original film but the franchise as a whole. Within the original film Freddy (Robert Englund) barely speaks but in the remake Freddy seems to allude to the other films in the series in his self-conscious, brash and blunt commentary on the violence he is perpetrating.[ii] Within the original films these silly comments heighten the tension of the scene because they interject humour into a moment dominated by gratuitous gore. Arnzen states that the intermingling of humor and gore is distinctly postmodern and represents postmodern ‘play’ within horror.[iii] In the remake these moments seem forced and insincere. The humor is simply an allusion to the original lacking in subversion and the postmodern.
Though seeped in nostalgia for the original, the film seems to fall short in its lack of the postmodern. The original created a boogieman that was unrelenting, charred, sick and sadistic while the remake attempts to explain Freddy’s longstanding impact on the children with psychoanalysis. Nancy has repressed her molestation and struggles with her own angst. She then thereby attempts to face and uncover what really happened to her as a child. The original delves immediately into the horrific and there is no question as to the guilt of Krueger. The psychoanalytic is only briefly alluded to and once introduced it is immediately dispelled as obsolete and inert. The remake seems to lack any heart and is an empty shell of a film only alluding to the legacy and the subversive postmodernity but without following through.
[i] Lowenstein, Adam . "Alone on Elm Street." Film Quarterly 64.1 (2010): 21
[ii] Ibid 18
[iii] Arnzen, Michael A. "Who's Laughing Now? The Postmodern Splatter Film." Journal of Popular Film and Television. Winter, Vol. 21 (1994). 3