A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

What constitutes a bad dream?

And I'm not asking in literal terms here, merely in filmic ones. Everyone's idea of a bad dream varies; what is scary to you may not be scary to another (getting caught in public with no pants is far different than being chased by creatures you cannot see). But putting these ideas to film to symbolize the tortured mind of a dreamer is touchy If it doesn't make the viewer scream out, then it'll most likely make them laugh.

So was the problem faced by Wes Craven when it came to A Nightmare On Elm Street; in a movie with "nightmare" in the title, he'd have to make sure this was stuff that would indeed give you bad dreams after seeing it. He succeeded, but the main reason is not in the storytelling nor in the artistry of directing itself (more on that later).

The plot, as anyone who grew up in the '80s can no doubt recite to you, is basic enough: the teenagers on Elm Street have been having horrible nightmares lately, all of them centering around steamy basements, dark alleyways, impenetrable shadows and a cackling boogeyman with razors for fingers. After the death of some of her friends, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) discovers the truth behind the horror of the child-killing beast known as Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) and why the parents of Elm Street, her father (John Saxon) included, have kept it a secret all these years.

By that synopsis, you wouldn't expect anything spectacular...especially if you were familiar with the likes of Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers. After all, we're talking about a simple, jump-from-your-seat shocker without any of the psychological twists of a Silence of the Lambs or the understated shocks of a Psycho. This is more along the slash-and-chop mad killer vein from the Friday the 13th and Halloween vein, though not holiday-specific. By taking facets of Samoan folklore where children died in their sleep of heart failure after horrific dreams, and Craven's own experiences in his youth with bullies and scary hoboes, the characters and symbolism took shape, creating the movie as it is known today.

The special effects are well-done, to say the least. Over 500 gallons of stage blood were used throughout the film, Freddy's charred skin and exposed musculature is quite effective and there are imaginative deaths (in one, Freddy makes it seem as if a troubled youth has hung himself). The makeup department and special effects team are the real stars here.

And far be it from me to ignore what was put in acting-wise. Langenkamp is effective as the troubled Nancy, who grows increasingly more frustrated as the deaths mount up and no one believes her when she blames a spectral killer. Saxon does the dogged cop role once again with a dash of over-protective father thrown in for good measure; Saxon has yet to play any role unconvincingly and goes great here as well. And Johnny Depp's early role as Glen showed promise and flash even then as a teen who admits "Morality sucks".

But what review of Nightmare would be complete without bestowing the proper credit onto Robert Englund? An honest-to-goodness actor (whose biggest role prior to this was as one of the "good-guy" invaders from the TV miniseries "V") whose prominence today as "this generation's Vincent Price" is due in large part to this movie. Seen as a vile, repulsive creature with no redeemable qualities, Krueger's role can only be essayed as high camp. And as it would have been for Price in films like The Abominable Dr. Phibes and Theater of Blood, Englund pours on the gusto and gives it all he's got. For all intents and purposes, Freddy Krueger IS the boogeyman.

But as I said earlier, Nightmare was never meant to be a really effective horror film. What it does create, however, is the unsettling sense of how bad dreams feel to us (or at least to MOST of us). Disorienting surroundings, sudden peals of mad laughter, being chased by something that seems to surround you, the fear of almost certain death - these are all touched on in nearly every moment of the movie. Note that I said TOUCHED ON, not examined. They unsettle, they frighten, then move in for the kill. Not a moment herein challenges, only shocks.

That's the way it's supposed to be, though, you see. Nightmare was not supposed to be a thoughtful undertaking into the psyche of a young teen's mind and what he or she feels AND fears. That would be an entire universe removed from what we see here. Think about it; in all the horror movies you've seen made in recent years based on the mad-killer-after-teens plotline, how many can you think of that actually made you THINK about what you're being afraid of onscreen? Or at least made you wonder about what the person ONSCREEN is thinking?

Well, at least we know what Freddy Krueger is thinking. This is certainly one of those movies where the bad guy gets all the good scenes. Or at least the most memorable ones. How can you root for the good guys or hope that they survive the horrors brought forth when the horrors themselves are embodied so entertainingly?

Am I being too critical? After all, for a movie that made many times over its budget and served New Line Cinemas long and well as a multi-million dollar franchise, no one would think of straying away from a tried-and-true formula. That just wouldn't be Hollywood. And indeed, it appears that Nightmare came into a life of its own with a multitude of sequels, spinoffs (TV's "Freddy's Nightmares"), Halloween costumes, Freddy dolls and fans galore the world over. So in a manner of speaking, Freddy Krueger did just as well as Jason and Michael, if not in the same psychological ballpark as Hannibal Lecter or Norman Bates.

It would take years before Craven (who went on to parody such films with the Scream series) would come back to direct YET ANOTHER sequel to his original creation. But at least in Wes Craven's New Nightmare he (and most of the original cast) hits the nail on the head while examining the joys, pitfalls and true horrors of being part of such a franchise opportunity as Freddy Krueger.

Which is, in the end, all that A Nightmare on Elm Street ends up being.