Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)

Director: Wes Craven

Screenplay: Wes Craven

Cast: Heather Langenkamp as Heather Langenkamp/Nancy Thompson; Robert Englund as Robert Englund/Freddy Krueger; Miko Hughes as Dylan Porter; John Saxon as John Saxon/Lt. Donald Thompson; Tracy Middendorf as Julie; David Newsom as Chase Porter; Fran Bennett as Dr. Christine Heffner; Wes Craven as Wes Craven; Robert Shaye as Robert Shaye

A Night of a Thousand Horror (Movies) #135

After the disaster of Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991), Wes Craven was asked back by New Line Cinema. Craven, stuck in the position to resurrect Freddy Krueger after a sequel that was titled Freddy's Dead, and after the sequels before which were more comedy with frights, found a novel idea. One I'd argue, as it predates his 1996 meta-slasher Scream, is the far superior attempt to dissect his own work as a horror director, in the guise of the first scary Elm Street film in a long time. Where he plays himself in a cameo going mad trying to write an Elm Street sequel, locked up in a Los Angeles home like a HP Lovecraft character. Where then-CEO of New Line Cinema Robert Shaye plays himself trying to convince Heather Langenkamp, playing herself as the actress behind Nancy Thompson from the first 1984 film, to return to the series. Before this comes off as "cute", or a proto-Charlie Kaufman script, Wes Craven takes this and various cameos (John Saxon as himself, Robert Englund as himself etc.) and makes a horror film that's both creepy and with food for thought.

For me Scream was cute, to the point it's acclaim as a cerebral horror film is a detriment on all its viewings, more rewarding if you accepted its self-referential nature still meant it went through with all the clichés of slasher films no one called it out on¹. (That and my weird, temperamental relationship with slashers, which at this point a cinematic-psychoanalysis would be the only person able to figure out).  New Nightmare is a new Nightmare on Elm Street which just happens to be a meta-commentary, deciding that instead of just playing out Freddy Krueger terrorising teenagers again he should be a fictional character in this "world" on screen who is now terrorising his creators, imagining the relationship being one's work and its psychological effect in this extreme form.  It never elaborates on its main point and becomes tedious about it - that Krueger is an ancient evil that took form in a fictional horror film character - but plays with it. That as the sequels became watered down and less scary in this world, the ancient evil became stronger, and could finally escape when the franchise ended. That of its innate idea that evil can be tamed, or that the worst in life can be channelled into cathartic horror tales, which Craven thankfully doesn't spend the entire film discussing.

From https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2014-10/15/14/
nhanced/webdr07/longform-original-28047-1413398286-4.jpg?
downsize=715:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto

Instead he shows it, using a real human fear where Heather's young son Dylan (Miko Hughes) is suffering from bizarre fits and behaviour which could be early signs of mental illness or Kruger escaping the film world into reality. It piles in real topics (an actual incident where Langenkamp was stalked translated to her fictionalised self, death of a loved one) to build up a tone of psychological horror until Krueger, meaner and no longer joking around, shows up fully. The resulting film is the most elaborate of the entire series, an American horror film from the nineties in all its bombast. Less surrealism but more fantastical dream sequences. The most lavish production wise - where J. Peter Robinson's orchestra score evokes Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) than the first Nightmare on Elm Street, and an ending, evoking fairy tales explicitly, takes place in an elaborate fantasy nightmare dungeon. It's far from the first Nightmare but it feels like a final continuation. Something which feels, despite being utterly different in tone, like an actual tribute to the series. Unlike Freddy's Dead, there's a sense of meaningful spectacle here where cameos take on more meaning, John Saxon as himself and Nancy's father taking on more meaning when Saxon gets to have a larger role as a father figure, discussing the escalating personal issues Langenkamp as if she was Nancy grown up. Where the film does predate Charlie Kaufman legitimately when they're reading the script of the movie they're actually in, as far as you could go with Elm Street as you've practically broken the world for good.

From http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZCOCiRh4Sn0/VkRvNYnugvI/
AAAAAAAAA2I/alOTWrUlWrY/s1600/new-nightmare-nancy.jpg

An actual closure for the series is the result, one of those rare cases where a franchise could end on a high note. Yes, there's Freddy vs. Jason (2003) but I view that as a spin-off, while I've always viewed remakes as their own franchise whether they get off the ground or not².Texas Chainsaw Massacre, while I like The New Beginning (1994) as a bizarre film, didn't end in a way most would like, the remake films their own organisms. Few, if any, argue Halloween ended its franchise well with Halloween Resurrection (2002) before the remake films came. With Nightmare on Elm Street however you can thankfully argue New Nightmare is not only a good end but one of the best films in the whole franchise. After this you do get the aforementioned Freddy vs. Jason and the 2010 remake, a cynical production I can thankfully ignore as its not part of the original franchise but a failed attempt at a new one. The original franchise as it stands was a mess, but more because of Parts 4  to 6  than a fatal flaw within itself. Where the emphasis on comedy and Freddy Krueger as a popular character, a family friendly brand even if he was a child murderer, was the issue when the series reached its peak in popularity but this aspect to its popularity was also its crippling weakness. It seems unfair to suggest when, as the franchise became popular for many who might've not watched a lot of horror, it dropped in quality but you should always blame the producers for watering down their product, emphasising the wrong details to the ones that made the series interesting. Or, as was infamously the case with The Dream Master (1988), having less than a year to create a sequel which would severely compromise any production.

From http://images4.static-bluray.com/reviews/7551_4.jpg

Production wise, even with Freddy's Dead, none of these films in spite of this later pressure and the low budgets ever dropped in quality. All the films stood out in terms of the quality of their productions, even to the point of all the films having their own personalities. Part 1 with its dark, independent horror tone. Part 2 with its weird, colourful sweatiness. Part 3 more popcorn friend and fantastical but still gristly. Part 4, the most eighties of the lot, and Part 5's sudden shift to gothic. Part 6, weird and quirky rainbow colours, and New Nightmare a sombre high budgeted nineties horror. It was always the scripts which were the issue. The emphasis on comedy and Krueger as a comedy figure even when it was tonally inappropriate. The convoluted ways to resurrect or kill off the villain when, as the merchandising sold and box office was high, New Line has the sense to capitalise on their success but with a rush to get the next film out. Deciding in one film to resurrect him by way of flaming dog urine or Krueger wearing a Nintendo Power Glove.

From https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/e/ec/
Freddy_kruegerNew_nightmare.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20151022072123

The franchise at least has four great entries. Four out of seven films, even if you wished more of them were better, isn't bad either especially when compared to other franchises where even their bad entries have no virtues. The first naturally, with New Nightmare the perfect bookend few other franchises rarely had. Dream Warriors, which I once didn't like, has grown on me to the point I see all the virtues people fell in love with from the film, many likely growing up as I did with it being the first they saw or the more cherished of all the sequels, even if there are issues in tone that have to be taken into consideration. And I'd strongly argue, as people have within the current decade or so, that Freddy's Revenge (1985), the first ever sequel, has so much to appreciate in its own virtues, blatant subtexts and weirdness. And if anything, al the films have memorable moments, nuggets of gold in between faecal matter which are testaments to practical and prosthetic  effects being an art form, artists and designers who contributed as much to these films especially when the innate virtue of the entire Elm Street was that, as it was about dreams, the people behind these effects or the production design could step out of bland shocks and be imaginative. Anything from the effects in Part 2 to Screaming Mad George's cockroach sequence from Part 4 are scenes which will make every film in the series worth seeing, even entertaining in spite of later creative mistakes. Scenes you could point out to friends as proof of how inventive and well made horror films are.

From http://www.standbyformindcontrol.com/wp-content/
uploads/2015/09/wes-cravens-new-nightmare-movie-image-35.jpg

====

1) Reviewed HERE. The review has the added bonus of a screening where the accidental saturation in red in the projection wasn't a detraction but gave the revisit its own personality.

2) God knows where the planned 2017-8 Halloween sequel is placed in this rule of mine as it means, if it's a continuation of the 1978 film, it jumps over Rob Zombie's two remake films.