DIE LAUGHING: The Deadly Art Of Horror Comedy.

Watching Zombieland (2009) for the first time on DVD recently reminded me how tenuous the sub genre of horror comedy can be.

While it seems ever more difficult to craft a horror movie that is actually scary and a comedy that is actually funny, some filmmakers willingly set themselves the task of combining the two opposing genres. In the case of Zombieland, though successful in box office terms, it fails as a sub genre candidate. It’s really just a comedy with some outrageously gory FX, which are played as sight gags rather than shock moments. In my opinion, a successful horror comedy should be just that, the horror before the comedy. Some of the best horror films have often incorporated humour to ballast the terror. In many ways the throwing of the girl into the river by Frankenstein’s monster had a degree of humour to it (it’s sequel Bride Of Frankenstein (1935) may well be the first ever horror comedy) and films like Steven Spielberg’s Poltergeist (1982) and Joe Dante’s The Howling (1981) are punctuated with humour threw out, the later more darkly so. The same could be said for any number of stalwarts of the horror genre. An American Werewolf In London (1981), Re-Animator (1985), Piranha (1978), Fright Night (1985), Gremlins (1984) and Critters (1986) are just some that use the push-pull of horror and comedy, some weighted to one side more than the other. However none of this films forgot to be scary, even the more innocuous (dare I say cute) examples like Gremlins and its inferior doppelganger Critters, both had death, blood and an overwhelmingly multiplying menace.
Perhaps Ghostbusters (1984) could be branded as the sub genre’s greatest success. I don’t think anyone would find Ghostbusters sitting in the horror section of their local video store (if you still go to one), it’s definitely a comedy, but in a couple of scenes, we are reminded of the ‘evil’ our heroes are up against. The scene in which Sigourney Weaver’s character is abducted, demon claws ripping from her couch, hell hound drooling at the ready, is definitely not played for laughs. There is a certain air of doom in Ghostbusters. While the characters deliver comic dialogue, we understand that the ghosts they are busting are nasty and that the events are spiralling towards some kind of apocalypse. The point being, the film is serious and scary when it needs to be, something Zombieland and many others didn’t quite grasp. *SPOILER* Ironically Bill Murray makes a cameo in Zombieland, and the characters actually watch Ghostbusters, as if saying, “Hey, we love that movie and this is our version of it”. Frankly, they have nothing in common and Bill Murray looks pained for the short scene he appears.
2009 also saw the release of Drag Me To Hell, from director Sam Raimi, a veteran of the horror comedy sub genre. Long before his well deserved main stream success with the Spiderman movies, Raimi had given us Ash (Bruce Campbell) and the Evil Dead. Much like those films, Drag Me To Hell is highly stylised in its photography, FX and score (a must-have from Christopher Young). Following a thunderous opening scene where a young boy is dragged to hell, we meet our heroine and some of the comedy begins, ranging from the mild (listening to self help tapes while stuck in city traffic) to the gross-out (think dentures, drool and bad candy). While the film has some great moments of both subtle and gross out humour, it never forgets the horror and slathers it on by the bucket load (there are moments similar to Paranormal Activity) right up to its knock out final scene. Alas, Drag Me To Hell didn’t reach box office heaven. It aimed for an audience slightly older than Zombieland and wasn’t wrought with Gen-Y conventions, think a classy and really good episode of Tales From The Crypt. The only thing they really share is a zeal for over-the-top FX, which Drag Me To Hell used with far more originality. Speaking of annoyingly Gen-Y, Jennifer’s Body was another horror comedy studio release in ‘09. I wasn’t a fan of Juno, but really like TV’s United States of Tara so was open to this sub genre effort from writer Diablo Cody. The premise sounded great, emo band sacrifices virgin to Satan in return for rock stardom. Unfortunately their ‘virgin’ is the biggest slut in town and she becomes a man eating demon, fabulous! Unfortunately, it never quite takes off. The humour is too self conscious and the horror is ho-hum, despite the quite savage sacrificing of Jennifer (Megan Fox). I don’t know if the budget was too small, but Jennifer’s Body could have seriously benefited from some of the bombastic FX used in both Zombieland and Drag Me To Hell. Like I said, the premise was good, the execution not so, it was neither comic nor horrific.
The horror comedies look to be few and far between in 2010. Though there is Piranha 3D. The 1978 original was director Joe Dante’s (The Howling , Gremlins) first foray into horror under the tutelage of B movie mogul Roger Corman. It definitely served large dollops of comedy with the blood and gore (notably Barbara Steele’s entire performance) and has gone on to be one the more fondly remember JAWS knock offs. The remake, now in the bloody French hands of Alexandre Aja (Hills Have Eyes remake) looks to be a hoot. We know Aja loves his gore and with a cast including Christopher Lloyd (Back To The Future), Eli Roth (Dir. Hostel) and even JAWS’ Richard Dreyfuss (reportedly reprising the role of marine biologist Matt Hooper) Aja’s tongue looks to be firmly in cheek. Piranha 3D’s success as a Horror Comedy is yet to be seen, but if the trailer is anything to go by it looks a lot of fun at the very least.


Die laughing with these other notable Horror Comedies:
Peter Jackson’s Brain Dead & The Frighteners. Kevin Bacon with giant earth worms in Tremors. Robert Zemeckis’ morbid comedy with Streep, Willis & Hawn Death Becomes Her. Wes Craven’s first Scream. Bride & Seed Of Chucky. Shaun Of The Dead. Slither. Fido. And for the curious, Teeth, about one nasty vagina.

Reoccurring Nightmare

‘A Nightmare On Elm Street’ circa 2010 suffers from a split personality.

It’s a remake of a modern horror classic, remade one presumes to utilize a known brand that not only attracts those familiar with it but also those who are not (Who are you by the way?). If this is true then our most dire fears are realised. Yes this remake, reimagining, homage whatever you may call it, exists solely to make money. There in lays the irony. How do you make money on a film that fans hold the very idea of in contempt and new comers are ever harder to impress? Poor Elm St. 2010 was off to a bad start long before it even hit the screens. While the casting of Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy garnered some approval it never seemed enough to give fans a good night’s sleep. Nightmare creator Wes Craven was not only nowhere to be seen in relation to the production, it seemed that he was actually being majorly screwed over in regard to intellectual property. This definitely didn’t sit well with his loyal fans, the same fans this new film would need the support of to be successful. Another flag was raised when Platinum Dunes, the makers of this new Nightmare released their take on Freddy’s horror brethren Jason Voorhees. Friday The 13^th 2009 was beyond terrible and the fate of Freddy in Platinum’s hands looked less than hopeful.

Jump ahead to evasive glimpses of the new Freddy online, so-so trailers, and the film finally hits screens. Despite opening at No.1 in the US and making twice its budget back in one weekend, the horror community, ready for a fight, pretty much unanimously wrote it off. Why? Well, here’s where the film continues it’s somewhat fatal duality. The story is pretty much the same yet vastly different to its forbearer. There’s still a girl called Nancy, she still has nightmares about a burnt man, she still takes a bath, her mother is again played by a bad actress and all her friends keep dying in their sleep. What’s different? Pretty much everything else. It’s no wonder Craven is not given a story credit. Names and motivations have changed. Characters are deleted (Nancy’s father is nowhere to be seen but played a pivotal role in Craven’s original). We are also introduced to the notion of micro-naps but most importantly it is made very clear what kind of monster this Freddy actually is where the original only claimed him as a killer. It seems this shaking up of elements from the original is what has upset fans so much, although, had this new film been a complete ‘faithful’ replica of the original it would have likely been derided for that too. Which brings us back to the question of why. For money remember.

Is this film unnecessary? Yes. Is it bad? No, not in my opinion. Though we pretty much know where the story is headed, I felt there were still surprises to be had. The story structure takes on more of a mystery solving rhythm as Nancy and her friends not only try to figure out what is happening to them but why they are all connected to each other. The acting is all quite good from the young cast though they are little over preened in appearance. The film is also quite threatening, which is a significant achievement considering we have lived with this character and concept for over 25 years. While the evil clowning of Robert Englund’s Freddy is ever so slightly missed, Jackie Earle Haley’s Freddy is much more of a monster, especially as this film at first makes you feel he is the victim and his dream stalking is in some way a justifiable revenge. Maybe the film does suffer a little from over rationalising. In an attempt to make the proceedings more real and less camp, some of the surreal creativity the series was known for has been sapped out. Pretty much every character has the same dream environment, though this is important to the ‘mystery’ of the story. In all this rationalising of the story it isn’t made clear why this Freddy would have his trademark glove. In the original he was a child killer and the glove was a self fashioned weapon of choice, which we see him construct in the opening sequence. Here, there is no real reason why Freddy would need the glove. We are not told he kills children, we never see him make the glove and we don’t seem him use it for any specific reason during the flashbacks of the ‘living’ Freddy Krueger. As this film is left open for a sequel in much the same way as the original was (I quite like how they did this) we may yet be given reason for the glove and some indulging in good old fashioned nightmare fantasy. Perhaps by finding more of a middle ground with the Elm St of the past, the Elm St of the future will be a road more fans care to visit.