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.