Since I’m trying to write a slasher short story, and doing
whatever the writer equivalent of flailing is in the process, I thought it would be a good
time to watch all the Friday the 13th movies. I enjoy many horror movies, but slashers are
definitely low end by anyone’s standards.
This is because they often lack characters, good dialogue or interesting
mythology. Originally devised to cash in
on the success of John Carpenter’s Halloween, Friday the 13th (named after
Jason Voorhees’ birthday, the day his mother took revenge) has horrors of
Crystal Lake, something much more appealing to me, compared to the cracking one
liners of Nightmare on Elm Street, Child’s Play, etc. and gore porn angle of
more modern horrors like Saw. In fact,
in watching the entire series, it seems only in more recent movies that focus
on the gruesome visualization of people dying in bizzare ways or with quirky
murder weapons. This is more evident if
you compare the 2009 Friday the 13th remake, although the deaths are
more drawn out and gruesome it is still a far cry from the movies that make
suffering and special effects the movie’s entire purpose.
Don’t get me wrong, the Friday the 13ths aren’t
“interesting” by any means. With a few
exceptions the movies follow the formula they helped to pioneer: a sandwich of
careless/clueless people murdered one by one between two measly slices of a
bare bones story, ending with one or two survivors at the end of the movie
where they think they kill the killer for good, often in some epic
fashion. The movie is interspersed with
scares, some real and some false (like a cat flying through the camera shot
like a paratrooper, or a practical joker up to whacky antics) all the while most of the people who end up dying have
sex, do drugs, or commit crimes (something that becomes more pronounced during
the late 80’s early 90’s when the crack epidemic/crime wave was peaking in big
US cities – an interesting piece of cultural history really noticeable in many
movies of that era). An interesting
aspect in reflecting on all the people Jason Voorhees had killed are the many
exceptions of the ‘rule’ that they establish that sinners are being
punished. Couch potato rednecks are
killed in their homes, friendly teens rejected by their peers are killed
alongside the popular kids who teased them, and of course the inept law
enforcement – enough to reject any kind of idea that Jason could represent any
sort of just angel of death. The
innocent die alongside the guilty, and except for Part 8 (in New York where
apparently people wearing hockey masks with exposed spinal cords are mundane
enough to be ignored by passers by), every single person coming across Jason is
killed, unceremoniously, without hesitation, and sometimes with surprisingly
little camera time devoted to their slaying.
Even though it is a slasher series, I was often surprised with how
little blood and guts I had to sit through, since I prefer the classic off
camera horror approach leaving more to the imagination.
I could devote as much time as Star Wars nerds do dwelling
on problems with the movies like continuity, inconsistencies, and things that
don’t “make sense”, but what would be the point? After all, Jason pretty much just acts like
an invincible juju zombie killing everyone in a forgotten quest to avenge his
mother’s death – or perhaps just a never ending attempt to seek motherly
approval by killing those who would never meet her high standards of moral
code. But the glaring problem rearing
its head throughout the series I HAVE to bring up is this: Jason was supposed
to be drown as a child, something we are reminded of in most of the movies, yet
the killer is an adult Jason who lived in a shack of stitched together house
pieces (at least in part 2, and also looked really, really cool). In Part 2 (and also the 2009 remake, which is
a remake of Part 2 not Part 1) they state at the beginning that he survived the
drowning and instead witnessed his mother die, and eventually took revenge on
his mother’s killer by somehow tracking the girl down to her city apartment and
stabbing her in the head with an icepick.
I have no problem with him being able to find people, teleport around
like a wizard, being super strong and invincible, but if he drowned in the lake,
shouldn’t he be a little undead kid? And
if he never drowned, why didn’t he find his mom, yet saw her beheaded? And why would they keep referring to him
having drowned, being the most pronounced in part 8 where the main character of
that movie has nightmares about learning to swim in Crystal Lake and the
drowned boy version of Jason grabbing her leg, haunting her dreams and giving
her visions? They try to address some of
these issues in Jason Goes to Hell (technically Part 9), but that movie doesn’t
fit properly (it was made by New Line
Cinema not Paramount like all the others) and completely loses the feel of the
other movies so I can’t help but instinctively reject it’s explanations.
No one has approached me to write Friday the 13th
fiction yet, but I would say what happened after Jason drowned in the Lake,
Mrs. Voorhees got a replacement child – maybe by kidnapping, adoption, or some
sort of pact with Evil – and raised him as Jason. Heck, he may have even helped her do some of
the killing in the first movie, hiding offstage during her confrontation with
Alice in the last half hour of the movie.
It could explain his supernatural powers and helps everything fit
together since he may never have been a normal boy at all.
Incidentally the entire sequence after Mrs. Voorhees reveals
in the first movie is one of my favorite and unintentionally funny series of
scenes in horror movie history. Mrs.
Voorhees sets the standard for a ruthless killer turning into a hesitating
bumbler and Alice constantly bopping the murderer and running away blubbering
still makes me chuckle and could actually be believable as someone who would be
panicking and fleeing for their life.
Making mistakes like unbarricading the door at the sight of the jeep,
running away from the vehicle because there is a body in the passenger seat,
and running back in to her cabin and turning off all the lights and closing the
curtains – when every other light on camp has been turned on – I got to say is
pretty damn funny but also manages to make good, agonizing suspense for someone
who doesn’t know what is going to happen in a theatre in 1980. The sequences lasts for a half hour, 1/3 of
the entire movie. Also I have no idea
why 20 rifles were in an unlocked storage shed in a camp for kids – maybe rifle
training is standard at kid’s camps in the US?
Overall, some of the movies in the franchise hold up under
the test of time more than others.
Obviously the first one is great for a few different reasons. The mysterious ‘unseen’ killer is really
effective and was groundbreaking for its time.
The orchestral music is also top notch and something I really noticed
compared with bland modern day soundtracks, including the 2009 remake (which is
full of the typical ‘modern’ ambient noise and industrial music similar to
every other modern horror), part 3, part 9 and 10. The high pitched violin accompanying glimpses
of the killer or the unexpected stab add tremendously to the scare factor and
tension, and inevitable doom to chase scenes and other badness. I cannot emphasize enough how much good music
adds to a spooky movie and I hope directors who are serious about making good
movies pick this up.
Something else I want to draw your attention to in scary
movies is the ‘seriousness’ in scenes. I
think that if you want a movie to retain its scariness and rewatchability/long
term quality the serious factor is important.
The characters have to interact with the situation in a realistic way,
and the director also has to portray the scene for what it is, that is if it is
a serious situation like a murder, people involved need to treat it that
way. A murder should be a frightening
experience and that should be conveyed to the audience as well. I already mentioned the scary music is an
excellent way to facilitate this, but the characters, unless they are hardened
by a life of war or crime would probably react quite severely to being stalked
by a murderer in the middle of nowhere.
Some of the movies handled this bang on, while others suffer from a lack
of that serious factor, giving the movie a campy feeling (where characters do
not react in a believable manner to the situation they are in) or removing the
fright from a scene for the audience.
Any scary movie where people aren’t getting scared is a missed
opportunity, n’est pas? It is possible,
however, that screening audiences respond better to these, but I don’t know the
criteria for selecting test audiences…are they completely at random or are they
people that actually want to be at a scary movie? If that is the case, then all screened movies
would not be scary because they would want to appeal to the broadest audience
possible, and the majority of people probably don’t want to be scared I
think. And it’s those little touches
that change a movie from being a romp to beholden of terror.
Overall, while the first movie captured the essence of a
scary movie where everyone is stalked and murdered and hits all cylinders very
well, Part 7 is still my favorite. The
New Blood does all the old things right, with good music, visuals and the
serious factor, but adds something new, a girl with psychic powers. More than just a gimmick, this adds a new
level of the supernatural to movies that lack any mysticism at all save the killer. It is someone who can actually stand
toe-to-toe with Jason and makes for some cool special effect sequences and
makes the showdown sequence at the end a lot more fun to watch. Some of the other episodes of Friday the 13th
are lacking an climactic ending or feel short, while 7 feels satisfying. Parts 3, 6, 8 and 10 suffer from an overabundance
of campiness and are mostly horrible soundtracks, although the ending for 6 was
well done, the kids in the camp cracking wise deflated any suspense and made
them feel like they were a part of the audience and were never in any danger. Part 2 was pretty good and felt like it stuck
to the roots, and 4 and 5 were all right and told the story of Tommy Jarvis
which made part 6 less sufferable as well.
Part 4 has a great, more subtly terrifying ending, having Jason get
hacked to pieces by a prepubescent Cory Feldman and sets up the future movies. Part 5 was kind of confusing but also
refreshingly different storyline, I really need to rewatch it. Part 8 feels like they just go off the deep
end like they are trying to be ridiculous with purpose. Consistently Jason shows a homing instinct to
go back to Crystal Lake, but this time boards a boat headed for New York. The movie turns him in to some sort of strange
anti-hero, killing drug dealers, rapists, etc. and takes on a strange form of
postmodernism, as it feels like Jason knows
the camera is on him, following him around as he goes about his business
stalking victims and even stopping to do
purposeful poses after kills. Part 9
– Jason Goes to Hell - isn’t really a Friday the 13th movie and is
more this parasite horror movie tied to Jason Voorhees name. Part 10 completely isn’t even worth talking
about but is just more of the same from 8…let’s put Jason in space ok whatever.
In retrospect it seems extremely strange how horror movies
had evolved to the point where the killer becomes the main character, but that
seems to just be a byproduct from any protagonists having to die, combined with
wanting to make sequels to reuse the ‘formula’ and brand name to make
money. As a result people often end up
cheering for the killer, and being desensitized to people being killed, because
they have little or no back story, so why would you care about them? Also you can’t cheer for any of the other
characters because you know they are going to die and do little of merit while
they are alive. Do horror movies create
a desensitized populous, or is their popularity a product of it? I’ve already made up my mind, I just wanted
you to think about it for a minute.
Ready for what I think? Senseless
violence, justice, brutal murder, people being jerks go at least as far back as
the bible and probably further. The very
existence of this series of movies has never been about storytelling or brain
washing, just about making money. Corrupting
youth is a distant, unintentional side effect, like smoking cigarettes. It’s only through the sheer volume of movies
that they have managed to tell bits of a story, created a few characters, and
created a bit of lore. And that’s just
the nature of reality. Good things come
about as a side effect that was never intended.
Like, penicillin and shit.
