A Nightmare on Elm Street

When it comes to horror icons, arguably the three most popular in the slasher genre are Michael Myers from Halloween, Jason Voorhees from Friday the 13^th and Freddy Krueger from A Nightmare on Elm Street. Though there have been several horror movie mascots dating back since its creation, these three have been pretty prevalent in the modern era for their original films as well as the various sequels and remakes made around the characters. While Myers represents the realistic fear of a stalker, and while Jason represents a campfire story figure, Freddy seems to operate like a fabled myth or a cautionary supernatural threat that relates to everyday occurrences. While Jason and Myers have had more movies in their franchises, Freddy has managed to stay popular despite how long he’s been away from the public eye, and a lot of that success has come from the small low budget slasher film released in 1984. Teenager Tina (played by Amanda Wyss) is plagued by nightmares of a disfigured man with a blade-fixed glove chasing her throughout a boiler room and is ultimately killed within this dream while her boyfriend Rod (played by Jsu Garcia) is blamed for the murder. After this tragic event, Tina’s best friend, Nancy (played by Heather Langenkamp) remembers that she too experienced a similar dream of this disfigured man, and it appears that both Rod and Nancy’s boyfriend, Glen (played by Johnny Depp) dreamed the same dream. After experiencing a similar attack in her sleep, Nancy begins to believe that this man is responsible for Tina’s death and that he somehow can kill people in their dreams. Nancy also discovers from her mother, Marge (played by Ronee Blakley) that this person could be Freddy Krueger (played famously by Robert Englund), a child murderer who was released from prison on a technicality and the parent’s retaliated by burning him to death. Fearing that this is his revenge from beyond the grave, Nancy must try and lure Krueger out of the dream world, so that her police officer father, Don (played by John Saxon) can arrest him before she is also killed. Directed by Wes Craven during his early career, A Nightmare on Elm Street is still considered one of the greatest horror films ever made, being met with critical acclaim, and grossing $57 million against its measly $1.1 million budget.

The production and creation of this movie is fascinating, as its struggle to be created ultimately helped out more than it looked like it would from the outset. Originally inspired from several instances in Wes Craven’s childhood (mainly from newspaper articles detailing several Hmong refugees, who fled to the US to escape the genocide in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, dying in their sleeps due to refusing to rest due to nightmares), the movie was pitched and turned down by several big studios (even Disney and Paramount) and was eventually picked up by then newcomer New Line Pictures, making this the first film they ever produced rather than just distributed. Against all odds and after a grueling period of trying to find more investors from several different places, the movie’s release brought in enough money to be a commercial success for Craven and New Line Pictures, with the studio’s growth being attributed to this movie (the studio is often referred to as‘’The House that Freddy Built’’). That low budget can definitely be felt when watching the movie due to the limited sets, reused audio lines, less inventive cinematography, and its smaller more indie based feel, but this thankfully doesn’t hurt the movie, but rather helps give it its own identity. The concept of a man with a razor glove coming to kill you in your dreams is a great concept for a slasher film; adopting a bogeyman or Bloody Mary-esque atmosphere to make it a unique property, while still containing familiar slasher film tropes from the 1970s and 80s to make it recognizable. For something that could very easily follow the standard slasher movie trope (which to some extent, the film still does), its nice to see the movie try and be a touch more creative and even campy in its presentation, which has helped it, as well as the franchise as a whole, be longer lasting and not fade into obscurity. The film is pretty short (only clocking in at 93 minutes), so it doesn’t drag its feet on a formula that people have already grown familiar with, but the elements it adds bring a new flair to the genre and allows it to be enjoyable as well as creepy at the same time. Wes Craven had already done traditional scary films in the past and his future work in the Scream franchise proved he likes changing up pre-created formulas, so his directing style matched perfectly for this type of movie.

The cast of characters feel like the typical slasher movie pre-teens that are just waiting to be butchered, and for what the movie does different, its sad to say it doesn’t go that far to make these names that much more interesting. There are a few aspects that are improved upon, but most of the kids are just bland faces whose only memorable portions are going to be how they die, the support and adult characters come across as pretty unlikeable in the film and look pretty dumb for not suspecting something more (especially given the proof shown), and even the villain slightly stumbles. Freddy Krueger nowadays is an iconic character, and he has a lot of great qualities that make him stand out as an all-time classic horror character. His look is distinct and effective, yet simple in layout, the make-up on him looks pretty great for the time, the way his body can morph and even be mutilated in parts while also carrying a unique but still grounded in reality weapon lets him carry the qualities of both a supernatural and a slasher threat, and Robert Englund does bring this genuine unsettling nature to the character while also being a fun spooky threat. However, his motivation feels a little underdeveloped, his backstory (while good in theory) doesn’t go far enough to make him feel as scary as he could be, and his minimal screen-time and mostly repeated interactions with characters, leaves him feeling more like a figure or a creature than an actual character. Later down the line, Freddy would develop into a more fleshed out role and showcase more of a personality which balanced out more goofiness with his killings, but this is still a decent starting point for the character. Nancy as the lead is also a little messy; as a character, she feels pretty different and stands out from other female heroines in horror films at the time (at least in a slasher film), she’s not presented as traditionally beautiful, she’s got spunk, attitude and a foul mouth, as well as a few good lines, she actually out-manoeuvres the main threat through planning rather than luck, and she does work as an engaging lead throughout the movie who isn’t just a bland role who doesn’t die. Sadly, Heather Langenkamp’s acting is a little hoaky and not that strong for a character that could be better with a correct portrayal, but this was her first film role, so she gets some slack and she does pull off the moments of peril quite effectively, so half of the performance is at least strong. Some of the supporting actors like John Saxon and Ronee Blakley are okay, but the roles aren’t fleshed out enough to really stand out.

For a movie with such a small budget, its impressive that it doesn’t suffer as many errors that other lower budget films suffer from, and that the effects for the film are surprisingly strong and even hold up to this day. In an era where films like this didn’t have the advent of technology to create otherworldly kills and scares, it genuinely feels hard to determine how they did some of these kills and effects as they look pretty cool and bring a level of impressive quality to a movie that could’ve suffered without these extras’ additions. The locations are reused several times (not even changing when they go to sleep), but they work with that as well and make these locations and sets decorated by Anne H. Ahrens pretty memorable despite their basic look; the boiler room setting is a nice creepy place and one where you would expect someone of Freddy’s ilk to hide and live in, and Nancy’s home is shown off enough so that we know the layout when she plans her trap at the end.  Outside of an awkward effect involving Freddy and the mother in the final shot (honestly a lot of that ending is a little odd), it’s a pretty great looking film still to this day. The musical score composed by Charles Bernstein, carries with it an 80s sensibility with the synth sounds, and it has a faster pace and loud pitch that makes it strange in a horror film sense, but it also has a harsh nature to it that makes it threatening and it is a pretty memorable sound along with the softer and more hollow-sounding piano notes.

From a current viewpoint, A Nightmare on Elm Street has held up quite strongly, but also has aspects that upon looking back, could’ve been made better to make it more well-rounded. For the time, the things it does different do leave an impression and make it so that it stands above some of the other horror films of the era that have been forgotten, but it does still feature aspects that hold it back from being truly scary , much like the first films of Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees (or at least the idea of him), all are flawed in their own way, but each carry their own great qualities and Nightmare has a lot of great qualities. It’s a good premise and is well executed, the cast isn’t the most interesting or well-acted, but have their moments to shine and be enjoyably awkward, it’s a great looking film with great effects even to this day, and it’s a timeless horror film that while definitely having an 80s touch, can still be viewed and appreciated at any time. Even though Freddy is one of the few horror icons to not have a resurgence in the modern era (YET), this film showed that he still had enough strength to stay in people’s dreams long after he left the screen.