A Friday film on Friday

Lest it seem that I’m only writing about great, older, classy movies, here’s a discussion of a great, older, trashy movie.

Friday the 13th, part 2 (1981)

A cheap cash grab. A totally uninspired, throwaway slasher flick. A body count film. A dead teenagers movie. All of these could be ascribed to Steve Miner’s film, and I expect they have.  They would even be accurate. Doesn’t matter.  This is simply a terrifically entertaining movie that knows exactly what it is, and has great fun doing it.  It delivers solid suspense, scares both cheap and earned, a generally likeable group of young people that you mostly don’t want to see eviscerated, teasing play with audience expectations, and one of the all-time great final girls, who you really want to root for. And on top of all that, in spite of the fact that it seems to so knowingly draw on slasher conventions that it almost seems to be sending them up (coming out at the height of the post Halloween slasher boom—there were at least 30 released in 1981 alone), it also actually takes its antagonist seriously—probably the only Friday the 13th film in which there is any real psychological underpinning to the character of Jason.

The story is as simple as can be. After a cold open wherein Alice (Adrienne King), the lone survivor of the first film, replays nightmare memories in her head, recapping the key points of the first outing of the series (a lot of camp counselors getting killed, the revelation that the killer was Mrs. Voorhees, the mother of a developmentally disabled boy, Jason, who drowned while some counselors were having sex, Alice decapitating Mrs. Voorhees, Jason rising out of the water of the lake, apparently less dead than had been thought), she wakes up and, in a genuinely suspenseful sequence, gets creeped out exploring her apartment. Oh, it’s just the cat being thrown through the window. Whew—nothing to worry about…Nope, actually she finds a head in her refrigerator and then gets an ice pick to the noggin.  The opening titles literally explode and we’re off to the races.

This time we find ourselves across the lake from Camp Crystal Lake at the Packanack Lodge Camp Counselor Training Center where a nice bunch of youngsters have come to learn to be better camp counselors, and generally drink and screw around in the woods.  With one exception in the form of a sleazy, sexually aggressive dude who eventually gets his comeuppance for consistently harassing one of the girls by being hung upside down and having his throat slit, the rest of the trainees are nice kids that are easy to spend time with. It’s a shame that they find themselves in this movie, but oh well. 

The last to arrive is Ginny (Amy Steel) who rolls in late and gives Paul (John Fury), the owner of the Center, a good natured hard time. It’s clear that they’re an item and in this, we immediately get something a bit refreshing for the genre.  For all that the tropes have been pretty well established by this point and that this series never shied away from the regrettable Reagan era Sex = Death slasher formula, Ginny does not quite fit the mold of the ‘final girl’.  I mean, sure, it is technically possible that she is a virgin—it’s never explicitly stated, but the sense is that she is a self-possessed young woman, in a relationship and free to express her own sexual desire, who has a life and interests beyond mere survival (she’s studying childhood psychology—which becomes relevant by the end of the film); and she does survive in the end by trading on her wits, education, and empathy and not only running  and taking up a penetrative phallic object to use against her assailant (though of course, there’s plenty of running and stabbing).  In a crowded field, she stands out by really feeling like a person.

Anyway, most of the rest of the plot requires little description.  One by one, the kids start getting picked off until only Ginny remains.  She stumbles upon the shack in the woods where Jason has been holed up, building a candle lit shrine to his dead mother’s head and nice, chunky knit sweater, surrounded by the corpses of recently murdered teenagers.

 In a bit of quick thinking, she uses her child psychology super powers to get inside his head and, donning said sweater, speaks to him as his mother, gaining an advantage.  At the end of the day, everyone else is dead, Jason gets away (there are still 9 more films to come, after all), and Ginny seems pretty traumatized, but she makes it through.

Most of the plot itself simply ticks boxes and fulfils viewer expectations.  But moment by moment, the movie takes real pleasure in subverting some of those expectations.  Time and time again, the audience is teased with the suggestion of prurient subject matter which then doesn’t pay off (in the sense of shower scenes and kills, this one is much less explicit than you might expect), and then there are solid jumps when suddenly the knife flashes into view or the wire wraps around the throat, or the spear…, well, you get the idea.  It really feels like the film makers are playing with the form.  And it is fun and funny when the movie successfully pulls one over on you.

And there is plenty of comedy throughout, particularly in the editing. Visual gags abound, such as when a cute little dog comes across Jason in the woods.  We don’t really know his policy on canines as opposed to humans, but we assume it will end badly for the pup. 

Quick cut to hot dogs roasting on a grill.  Later, at the end of the movie, just when it seems that everything is finally over and Jason has been killed, Ginny hears a sound outside. Oh no—what will she do? Wait. It’s just the dog.  Oh, good—it was ok all along. CRASH! Jason jumps through the window behind Ginny, grabbing her as we cut to black.  These little tricks seem so obvious, but when obvious works, it can’t be faulted.

Beyond this sense of play, and well executed cattle prod cinema, eliciting jumps and laughs at appropriate (and inappropriate) moments, a real strength of the film is that Jason gets to be an actual person, and for my money, that makes him scarier here than in any of the later installments.  In the first film, he basically doesn’t exist.  He’s a sad story—an impetus for revenge on all the naughty teenagers of the world who dare visit this lake.  In later films, he is an evil tank.  Wearing his characteristic hokey mask and mostly standing menacingly when he isn’t skewering somebody, he is the beefed up uber-version of the silent masked killer archetype. 

In this film, wearing a sack over his head and seen running, scrambling, desperate, angry, wild, he is a broken, dangerous human being—nothing supernatural.  Just a person who has had a terrible life and grown into a vicious killer, filled with rage over the death of his mother, the only one who cared about him.  The film sees him, and Ginny can empathize.  To be fair, this is repeated with Tommy Jarvis (Corey Feldmen) in the fourth part, but it really lands here.

No one could make the claim that the sequel to Friday the 13th, itself, a cheap American retooling of Bava’s Bay of Blood, is some kind of classic of world cinema, but it does what it does excellently and in my opinion, is the scariest, most fun flick this series has to offer. Miner went on to direct the next sequel one year later (in 3D: Dangling yo-yos! Eye balls jumping out of sockets! Popcorn kernels popping!) and managed to produce another fun movie, but for me, failed to quite catch lightning in a bottle the second time around.

Still Blurbin’

Stagefright (1987)

Michele Soavi’s late 80’s Italian slasher has got to be one of the most fun entries in the subgenre.  A killer wearing a giant owl mask stalks the theatre where a troupe is rehearsing a weird, terrible, doomed musical, ostensibly based on his life and crimes. As their compatriots are slaughtered one by one, the actors really should leave, but between the fact that none of them can afford to lose this job and that the director has locked them all in so they’ll have to keep rehearsing through the night, the only egress is death—by power drill, by chainsaw, by axe, by golly (with apologies to The Mutilator).

This is a film of pure excess—a delightful juxtaposition of 80s slasher exploitation sleaze and classic Italian artistry growing out of a Bava/Argento-influenced giallo style. Cats jump out of places they have absolutely no reason to be, the lighting is more colorful than could ever be realistic, and the actors are all poorly dubbed.  Really, I’m having trouble selling just how much fun it all is. Plus, it does actually succeed in the suspense and startle department, all while looking and sounding fantastic.

And I think one of the things I most appreciate about it, coming from the theatre, myself, is its presentation of a theatre group making something bad.  Deep down, they must all know how bad, how unsalvageable it is.  The director can see it—it’s clear in the disdain with which he watches every absurdity play out on stage, and yet, he keeps trying to make the small adjustments to make it just a bit less awful.  The obvious failure that looms is more horrifying in its familiarity than any feathered madman haunting the catwalks could hope to be.

A perennial favorite that never grows old. I’m sure one day, I’ll return to it at greater length – but for now this blurb will have to suffice.

Slasher Studies Summer Camp

Back in August, I had the opportunity to take part in something really special, the Slasher Studies Summer Camp, as organized by Daniel Sheppard and Wickham Clayton.

I have long been fascinated with academic readings of horror films (of which there are a great deal) and some of the seminal texts have focused on the Slasher subgenre.  This conference (online and free to attend—one nice thing to come from the pandemic), featuring three days of paper presentations (more than 40, most of which I was able to watch), keynote speakers, and industry guests, sought to delve into some of the rich research and analysis currently being undertaken by a very international coterie of scholars.

And it was amazing.

I was continually struck by its live-ness, by the instant community, by the fact that, sans-pandemic, had this taken place at a physical university in England, there is no way I ever would have been able to attend. 

I’m sure I’ll probably return to some of these papers in these pages, but today, I just want to highlight a few that really struck me at the time.

Tools of the Trade: A Statistical Analysis of Slasher Hardware

This paper, written and presented by Marc Olivier offered something that I think can be lacking in cultural analysis: numbers.  This quantitative analysis mapped out, based on a very large sample of slasher films, exactly which items have been used how many time by what kind of person to kill what kind of person. I hope this is going to be published as I think it is really useful fuel for focusing analysis.  He described a ‘chainsaw effect,’ wherein some items carry an outsized impression of their use.  Notably, chainsaws have barely killed anyone at all in the vast corpus of the genre. 

The numbers really destabilize some expectations about who the killers are, who the victims are, and what the character of the slasher film is.

While there is a great deal of theorizing about what is intended by creators or perceived by viewers, I think it’s pretty rare to get this kind of hard data. Kudos. I plan to pick up his book, linked to above.

“There are certain rules that one must abide by: An Examination of the Problematic Relationship Between Conservative Morality and the Slasher Film”

Every since Carol J. Clover coined the term ‘final girl’ in her essay, “Her Body, Himself,” there has been a fixed cultural idea of who and what this character was, which has flavored much of how the genre is perceived.  The final girl is a “good girl” who doesn’t drink, who doesn’t do drugs, and who doesn’t have sex.  This is in obvious opposition to her friends who do, and who subsequently don’t survive the film.

And in turn, this establishes a rather conservative viewpoint of the genre: sex = death.

This is just what the author, John Kavanagh, set out to disprove.  Presenting a sizable collection of exceptions to this pattern, drawn from many films, he laid out the thesis that really the most likely victims are not those who ‘misbehave,’ but simply those who are distracted (which is very much how John Carpenter described the difference between Laurie and her friends in Halloween, a film which really helped establish the slasher tropes), and that final girls are even very likely to have transgressed when it comes to drugs, alcohol, or sex.

Personally, I found his tone to be kind of defensive, a fan protecting the honor of the genre, but I think fair points were made.  The title draws from a key scene in Scream in which Randy lays out the “rules” of surviving a horror movie, a scene in which he explicitly presents the sex-death equation, a scene which serves as an object lesson in how the genre has accepted and now reifies said formula.

But did that formula really exist, or do we all just perceive it because we’ve been told that it’s there?  Did Clover, or probably more to the point, others who selectively read Clover, ignoring her larger concerns, create this trope, rather than the film makers of the first Slasher cycle of the late 70s-early 80s?

It is food for thought.

The Metamodern Slasher Film

Dr. Steve Jones, the first keynote speaker presented an analysis of many cycles of the genre.  First there was the original cycle in the early 80s; then it became more supernatural and perhaps silly in the late 80s; in the mid 90s, there was a cycle of ironic, self aware, ‘postmodern’ slashers; and most recently, starting in the 2000s/2010s, there has been a cycle of what he terms the “Metamodern Slasher,” following Mas’ud Zavarzadeh.

Whereas the postmodern slashers made fun of the tropes of the genre (the above mentioned speech by Randy in Scream or Jason in Jason X killing two holographic campers after they enthuse how much they “love having pre-marital sex,” the metamodern brings a new sincerity to the genre, while often still having a playful awareness of those tropes.

Some examples might include Happy Death Day and its sequel, The Final Girls, The Cabin in the Woods, or Freaky. All of these are very funny takes on slashers/horror-in-general, which deliver some legitimate violence/gore, but also have real heart. 

Jones discussed how, whereas the 90s were a time of ironic detachment, our present moment is very sincere.  Youth culture today, i.a., takes things seriously, takes offense easily, is focused on fighting climate change before it’s too late, and is very keyed into issues of social justice.

This sincerity is notably present in many recent slashers.

All of this really rings true for me and I really like all of the films that he cited, or that others proposed as fitting the pattern.  I appreciate it when death means something in a horror film, when there is room for mourning, for weight.  And a lot of these really land comedically.

But this is this other thing I wonder about: As this cycle continues and we get more and more slashers featuring well drawn, believable characters who we feel for, who we root for, as there is more of an earnest heart to the proceedings, as the sub-genre becomes more ‘humane,’ does it suffer a loss as well?  Many of these films feature gore and some have solid jump scares, but none are what I’d consider ‘hard.’ They may startle me and they may make me cry or laugh, but they don’t horrify. 

Maybe that’s ok, but it’s a trend I notice.

And to be fair, this is nothing new.  The postmodern slasher cycle of the mid 90s-mid 2000s was slick and sometimes well produced, but also, with its recognizable casts of TV pretty young stars, never felt hard, never felt all that horrific.  As described already, the slashers of the later 80s/early 90s, with Freddy killing teens with a Nintendo power glove, or Leprechauns in space, got pretty goofy.  And some of the first cycle were such instant cash-ins on a financially successful craze, that they instantly fell into self-parody.

At least, e.g., Freaky is a good movie.  But I wouldn’t want to lose the meanness, and the menace of something being made by someone with at least a touch of ill intent. 

Still, Jones’s presentation was captivating and I certainly want to follow him in the future.