|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 1, 2017 23:34:17 GMT
I remember posting about this movie a little while back in some detail. My sentiments are basicslly that outside of some strengths, like the opening sequence and some affective effects, it's a pretty ludicrous and and amateurish entry that mostly makes me laugh at it more than anything else. I think the idea of a teen character fearing that he is gay and having-a-secret-monster-inside-of-him angle could have really been an interesting and thoughtful approach, but interesting and thoughtful are not terms I would use to describe the execution of this film.
They didn't have the conviction to actually go with that, so they skirted around it by not making him literally gay within the text of the movie and just made everything around him not so subtly homoerotic. I believe the director denies that he was trying to explore gay themes. How he defends the idea that this kid sneaks put of his house at night and can't help but to secretly wander into an s&m leather club, runs into his sadist gym teacher, follows him back to school, ties him up in this showers, strips him naked, and brutally towel whips his bare ass would be beyond me then. Even setting any sexual connotations completely aside, that sequence is one of the most absolutely ridiculously nonsensical series of events one could possibly come up with. Well put. Ultimately though, the film was just a follow up to a popular original which wasn't without it flaws, but better executed. They wanted to do something to showcase Freddy again and perhaps take a different angle to the nightmare sequences, and rather than do the same thing with Freddy invading the dreams of those he wants to kill, they chose to go with a possession angle. It does work to some extent, but also being a film made for the mainstream crowd, they couldn't exactly design it as a thoughtful psychological arthouse thriller, where some teenage boy is struggling with his sexuality and creates a monster inside of him because he is afraid of who he really is. It was dressed up as an easy going horror\slasher, with absurdly over-the-top horror sequences to mask the gay angle they wanted to allude too. For the director to deny what was going on, does that mean the screenwriter was playing tricks on him and he didn't understand his own film? Perhaps then, Jack Sholder was the wrong choice for director if he was easily fooled. He made a better and nifty film a couple of years later with The Hidden. Heck, John Carpenter— a far superior film-maker—was approached to direct Top Gun-86', picked up on the homoeroticism in it's script and didn't want to do it. Tony Scott made it work and look at the popularity and following that film has now, so Carpenter may be homophobic, but at least he had the insight to see and read between the lines. Otherwise, the director is just going through the mechanical motions of what the script sets out, without having any passion or thoughtful perception of what they are really making. Pretty much like most horror film directors today. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Dec 2, 2017 1:36:18 GMT
Yeah, I guess it was nice to see him all powerful in the real world. In a way, it showed that Freddy is no wimp at all, and can be a pretty dangerous monster in both worlds. It makes him all the more unstoppable because of that. It's absolutely cringeworthy to think that this entire time, Part 2 was all about Jesse fighting his homosexuality. Hence, Freddy is essentially Jesse's gayness.   I didn't mind that gay touch, being gay myself, and it was an interesting subtext and should not really be viewed as subversive. That only endorses homophobia and the scorn and contempt many still feel for it. It wasn't exactly subtle, but confusingly handled, so not exactly obvious to those who might take their sexuality for granted. It deliberately blurred the line, so as not to make people cringe about Jesse's sexuality... "Oh my Gosh, he likes dudes! That is more shocking than the graphic violence and horror portrayed before me".  Yeah I guess that's true. I just think they took that whole homosexuality subtext too far, as somehow when Jesse gets attracted to another male, they DIE!  Like, WHAT?! That alone makes gay people look bad and contagious, which is something that I cannot support at all. Oh well, at least it wasn't blatantly clear about the theme, I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by Reynard on Dec 2, 2017 1:52:58 GMT
For the director to deny what was going on, does that mean the screenwriter was playing tricks on him and he didn't understand his own film? Perhaps then, Jack Sholder was the wrong choice for director if he was easily fooled. He made a better and nifty film a couple of years later with The Hidden. Heck, John Carpenter— a far superior film-maker—was approached to direct Top Gun-86', picked up on the homoeroticism in it's script and didn't want to do it. Tony Scott made it work and look at the popularity and following that film has now, so Carpenter may be homophobic, but at least he had the insight to see and read between the lines. Otherwise, the director is just going through the mechanical motions of what the script sets out, without having any passion or thoughtful perception of what they are really making. Pretty much like most horror film directors today. I think it's possible that Sholder genuinely didn't understand the subtext and just filmed the script as-it-is. None of his other works I've seen have any kind of subtext that I could find, they are all just typical genre stuff. He seems to be director-for-hire rather than an auteur like Carpenter, who obviously knows how to write themes into his own scripts and properly film them, "read" other director's work and so on. Carpenter is at least very smart if not an "intellectual", a genuine artist, even though he does compromise and is not dead serious about his themes. Oh, and I don't think that not wanting to do Top Gun or any other "gay" movie makes anyone homophobic - a word that gets far too easily thrown around these days anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 2, 2017 9:08:10 GMT
For the director to deny what was going on, does that mean the screenwriter was playing tricks on him and he didn't understand his own film? Perhaps then, Jack Sholder was the wrong choice for director if he was easily fooled. He made a better and nifty film a couple of years later with The Hidden. Heck, John Carpenter— a far superior film-maker—was approached to direct Top Gun-86', picked up on the homoeroticism in it's script and didn't want to do it. Tony Scott made it work and look at the popularity and following that film has now, so Carpenter may be homophobic, but at least he had the insight to see and read between the lines. Otherwise, the director is just going through the mechanical motions of what the script sets out, without having any passion or thoughtful perception of what they are really making. Pretty much like most horror film directors today. None of his other works I've seen have any kind of subtext that I could find, they are all just typical genre stuff. He seems to be director-for-hire rather than an auteur like Carpenter, who obviously knows how to write themes into his own scripts and properly film them, "read" other director's work and so on. Carpenter is at least very smart if not an "intellectual", a genuine artist, even though he does compromise and is not dead serious about his themes. Oh, and I don't think that not wanting to do Top Gun or any other "gay" movie makes anyone homophobic - a word that gets far too easily thrown around these days anyway.Carpenter understands the language of cinema, is a master of shot composition and knows how to direct his actors, rather than letting them just run full reign and open interpretation for themselves. Most of Carpenter's films are fairly simple and deep subtexts are not really a big aspect of them, but he does like the theme of evil lurking in the shadows and knows how to reflect the substance of his films into his style. Sholder, like you mentioned, would have pretty much just another hack for hire.
The video I saw of Carpenter commenting on Top Gun and it's homoerotic content, was many years after the film. If he was still making that comment then, then I assumed he did have an issue with it. I suppose it doesn't necessarily means he is homophobic and we only see edited parts of interviews and things can be taken out of context, and he may have also meant that he didn't know what to make of it himself or how to present it. Tony Scott was obviously more brazen about it and wasn't on the radar at the time. I also wonder if Carpenter may have regretted, or felt bitter about not giving it a shot, since it ended up being a massive star vehicle for Cruise and was a mega mega hit.
I guess one has to be gay to perceive veiled\masked homophobia and most people don't like to be labelled something if it pushes a button. Being gay, is also not the same as someone being in touch with their homosexual tendencies. A bisexual guy may not wish to identify as gay and he shouldn't have too. That is an identity for those that are usually 100% in tune and attracted to the same gender. Due to the messy presentation of the gay subtext in Nightmare 2, I would also say that it was too dumb to be even considered homophobic, although it was an interesting attempt at injecting something that would have been considered quite controversial at the time it was made. Audiences were more shockable than they are today, however, when it comes to seeing 2 dudes getting it on, it can still provoke juvenile disgust, contempt and fear in many.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 2, 2017 10:38:20 GMT
I didn't mind that gay touch, being gay myself, and it was an interesting subtext and should not really be viewed as subversive. That only endorses homophobia and the scorn and contempt many still feel for it. It wasn't exactly subtle, but confusingly handled, so not exactly obvious to those who might take their sexuality for granted. It deliberately blurred the line, so as not to make people cringe about Jesse's sexuality... "Oh my Gosh, he likes dudes! That is more shocking than the graphic violence and horror portrayed before me". Yeah I guess that's true. I just think they took that whole homosexuality subtext too far, as somehow when Jesse gets attracted to another male, they DIE! Like, WHAT?! That alone makes gay people look bad and contagious, which is something that I cannot support at all. Oh well, at least it wasn't blatantly clear about the theme, I suppose. I am not so certain if Jessie was attracted to Schneider, only curious due to his own "alluded" to nature and Schneider was an homosexual adult. Freddy sent him out on his mission, to sexually lure him and kill him. Jesse would have been more attracted to Grady, but this wasn't something that was made blatant, only perhaps suggested in a line of dialogue when Jesse goes to Grady's room, after he can't make out with Lisa and then wants Grady to watch him sleep because there is something inside of him. Grady tells him something of the sort..."Yeah! She's female and waiting in the cabana, and you want to sleep with me". Killing Grady then, could be perceived as a punishment of gay rejection. Since the film wanted us to believe it was Freddy possessing Jesse and the one that was doing the killing and not him, it gives Jesse an out...no pun intended. The film was too simpleminded and dumb with the homosexual subtext though, to take it seriously as homophobia.
It was a pretty good sequence though, with Jesse turning into Freddy and Grady freaking out and yelling for his father to help and protect him.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Dec 2, 2017 18:30:04 GMT
Yeah I guess that's true. I just think they took that whole homosexuality subtext too far, as somehow when Jesse gets attracted to another male, they DIE! Like, WHAT?! That alone makes gay people look bad and contagious, which is something that I cannot support at all. Oh well, at least it wasn't blatantly clear about the theme, I suppose. I am not so certain if Jessie was attracted to Schneider, only curious due to his own "alluded" to nature and Schneider was an homosexual adult. Freddy sent him out on his mission, to sexually lure him and kill him. Jesse would have been more attracted to Grady, but this wasn't something that was made blatant, only perhaps suggested in a line of dialogue when Jesse goes to Grady's room, after he can't make out with Lisa and then wants Grady to watch him sleep because there is something inside of him. Grady tells him something of the sort..."Yeah! She's female and waiting in the cabana, and you want to sleep with me". Killing Grady then, could be perceived as a punishment of gay rejection. Since the film wanted us to believe it was Freddy possessing Jesse and the one that was doing the killing and not him, it gives Jesse an out...no pun intended. The film was too simpleminded and dumb with the homosexual subtext though, to take it seriously as homophobia.
It was a pretty good sequence though, with Jesse turning into Freddy and Grady freaking out and yelling for his father to help and protect him.
Yeah that part was pretty cool; lifting him up and stabbing him, claws going through the door, and Jesse whimpering helplessly while looking in the mirror to see that his reflection is of Freddy, realizing what he just done! |
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Dec 4, 2017 7:22:19 GMT
I liked it. Interpreted it as being sort of a coming-out allegory upon seeing it for the second time...way back when. This never bothered me at all or felt too forced for the most part (maybe the infamous dance scene...maybe just a little more subtle on the choreography). For me it did a great job of building on the age-old struggle of finding yourself in your teenage years. The possession aspect was well-handled and fit what (I thought) the story was trying to tell.
Freddy looked great at times. He was horrifying in the pool party. Incidentally, pool parties are nightmare scenarios for teens who are lacking confidence. Plus you get Freddy (fire's his identity) around water. Is Jesse 'fire' or 'water?' This movie grew on me...I think it's really pretty smart at its roots.
Part 2 was going to be hard to make any way you look at it. Freddy didn't have "rules" yet (like are more consistent in the later sequels). So they were flying a little blinder than would appear in hindsight. A lot of fans of the series don't rank this one too high, but I think it's better than it is said to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 4, 2017 10:17:29 GMT
I liked it. Interpreted it as being sort of a coming-out allegory upon seeing it for the second time...way back when. This never bothered me at all or felt too forced for the most part (maybe the infamous dance scene...maybe just a little more subtle on the choreography). For me it did a great job of building on the age-old struggle of finding yourself in your teenage years. The possession aspect was well-handled and fit what (I thought) the story was trying to tell.Freddy looked great at times. He was horrifying in the pool party. Incidentally, pool parties are nightmare scenarios for teens who are lacking confidence. Plus you get Freddy (fire's his identity) around water. Is Jesse 'fire' or 'water?' This movie grew on me ...I think it's really pretty smart at its roots.
Part 2 was going to be hard to make any way you look at it. Freddy didn't have "rules" yet (like are more consistent in the later sequels). So they were flying a little blinder than would appear in hindsight. A lot of fans of the series don't rank this one too high, but I think it's better than it is said to be. While Freddy might look scary in parts, the film just isn't that scary overall, but it is a bit creepy. That of course is highlighted with Coach Schneider's character, but creepy in a different way. It does have oodles of that 80's horror movie atmosphere though and it was even an original attempt at blending horror, slasher and teen angst sexuality\confusion drama into the mix. What does work in it, works quite well. The thing is, it wasn't exactly better than the sum of it's part.
If they had a better actress for a leading lady, a reshot sequence when Lisa takes Jesse to the steelworks for the first time, that doesn't make her look so pathetic at the cute rat in the metal cabinet, a climax that contained a few more nightmarish horror elements—Lisa seeing the dogs with human faces, and the illusionary bite injury on her leg with insets crawling on it weren't enough—and perhaps a bit more of a bold attempt to bring to the fore Jesse's sexuality, it might have made more of an impact on audiences. If Jesse had admitted to Grady that he was gay and Grady gives him an adverse reaction before he turns into Freddy and then kills him, that would have been so much more potent. I can't see someone like Grady being accepting and cool with it, he was too much of a jerk. Or lets be even more brazen, and have Grady come out to Jesse too and they sleep together and then Jesse wakes up and turns into Freddy and kills him. It would have made Freddy even more madder, because he wanted Jesse to be in conflict with himself and not succumb. That is how he feeds of fear and anxiety. That would have been way too shocking for the simpleminded herd at the time, perhaps even today.
One flatmate of mine years ago, commented he didn't like it because it was kind of gay. Well yeah! That was the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Dec 7, 2017 18:15:22 GMT
I liked it. Interpreted it as being sort of a coming-out allegory upon seeing it for the second time...way back when. This never bothered me at all or felt too forced for the most part (maybe the infamous dance scene...maybe just a little more subtle on the choreography). For me it did a great job of building on the age-old struggle of finding yourself in your teenage years. The possession aspect was well-handled and fit what (I thought) the story was trying to tell.Freddy looked great at times. He was horrifying in the pool party. Incidentally, pool parties are nightmare scenarios for teens who are lacking confidence. Plus you get Freddy (fire's his identity) around water. Is Jesse 'fire' or 'water?' This movie grew on me ...I think it's really pretty smart at its roots.
Part 2 was going to be hard to make any way you look at it. Freddy didn't have "rules" yet (like are more consistent in the later sequels). So they were flying a little blinder than would appear in hindsight. A lot of fans of the series don't rank this one too high, but I think it's better than it is said to be. While Freddy might look scary in parts, the film just isn't that scary overall, but it is a bit creepy. That of course is highlighted with Coach Schneider's character, but creepy in a different way. It does have oodles of that 80's horror movie atmosphere though and it was even an original attempt at blending horror, slasher and teen angst sexuality\confusion drama into the mix. What does work in it, works quite well. The thing is, it wasn't exactly better than the sum of it's part.
If they had a better actress for a leading lady, a reshot sequence when Lisa takes Jesse to the steelworks for the first time, that doesn't make her look so pathetic at the cute rat in the metal cabinet, a climax that contained a few more nightmarish horror elements—Lisa seeing the dogs with human faces, and the illusionary bite injury on her leg with insets crawling on it weren't enough—and perhaps a bit more of a bold attempt to bring to the fore Jesse's sexuality, it might have made more of an impact on audiences. If Jesse had admitted to Grady that he was gay and Grady gives him an adverse reaction before he turns into Freddy and then kills him, that would have been so much more potent. I can't see someone like Grady being accepting and cool with it, he was too much of a jerk. Or lets be even more brazen, and have Grady come out to Jesse too and they sleep together and then Jesse wakes up and turns into Freddy and kills him. It would have made Freddy even more madder, because he wanted Jesse to be in conflict with himself and not succumb. That is how he feeds of fear and anxiety. That would have been way too shocking for the simpleminded herd at the time, perhaps even today.
One flatmate of mine years ago, commented he didn't like it because it was kind of gay. Well yeah! That was the point.
The dogs with the human faces! HAHAHA...who approved that shot? Creepy is definitely the word. Honestly, I only found Freddy scary in "New Nightmare." Apart from that, he's always been creepier than he's been scary. I identified with Grady a bit. One of my best friends in high school (big jock, incredible baseball player) started to learn he was gay. I (and the rest of our circle of friends) am hetero. We were also big stoners, and as stoners are wont to do, we discussed stuff. One night, my friend came out to us. We were all cool with it...it was nice to hear him say it actually. Dude was bottled up for a good two years (probably more) and was clearly stressed out about it. We were worried about him (one of my friends thought it was steroids). While I've been hetero my entire life, his struggle became very real to me. He came from a conservative family and was likely to catch a belt if he even whispered about his feelings. This movie holds a special place in my heart because it was gay! Though I'm not gay myself, it is way ahead of its time regarding the internal struggle a burgeoning gay man may deal with. Hell, it was weird dealing with feelings growing up hetero! The stigmas and stereotypes are dealt with very well in this movie (I thought). My bud, btw, is happily married to his husband in Seattle. Two dudes who love each other (with tons of disposable income). Last I heard, they were in vacationing in Stressa, Italy in the hotel Hemingway did a lot of writing. His struggle was real and he made it out on top. "Part 2" helped me understand how difficult his journey may have been. Our circle of friends never razzed or joked about it...we saw how hard it was for him in other parts of life. This movie is definitely a good watch for a hetero dude with a friend who's realizing he's homo. The allegory is great, the horror is on point (sometimes). It was way ahead of its time. A black sheep for the NOES saga, but an underrated film IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by tresix on Dec 7, 2017 22:24:07 GMT
6/10. It does have one of my favorite Freddy lines: Freddy confronts Jesse and says “I can use you. You’ve got the body and I’ve got the brains.” Freddy then peels away the top of his head to show his wriggling brain. I, too, didn’t get the gay subtext until years later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 7, 2017 23:54:30 GMT
While Freddy might look scary in parts, the film just isn't that scary overall, but it is a bit creepy. That of course is highlighted with Coach Schneider's character, but creepy in a different way. It does have oodles of that 80's horror movie atmosphere though and it was even an original attempt at blending horror, slasher and teen angst sexuality\confusion drama into the mix. What does work in it, works quite well. The thing is, it wasn't exactly better than the sum of it's part.
If they had a better actress for a leading lady, a reshot sequence when Lisa takes Jesse to the steelworks for the first time, that doesn't make her look so pathetic at the cute rat in the metal cabinet, a climax that contained a few more nightmarish horror elements—Lisa seeing the dogs with human faces, and the illusionary bite injury on her leg with insets crawling on it weren't enough—and perhaps a bit more of a bold attempt to bring to the fore Jesse's sexuality, it might have made more of an impact on audiences. If Jesse had admitted to Grady that he was gay and Grady gives him an adverse reaction before he turns into Freddy and then kills him, that would have been so much more potent. I can't see someone like Grady being accepting and cool with it, he was too much of a jerk. Or lets be even more brazen, and have Grady come out to Jesse too and they sleep together and then Jesse wakes up and turns into Freddy and kills him. It would have made Freddy even more madder, because he wanted Jesse to be in conflict with himself and not succumb. That is how he feeds of fear and anxiety. That would have been way too shocking for the simpleminded herd at the time, perhaps even today.
One flatmate of mine years ago, commented he didn't like it because it was kind of gay. Well yeah! That was the point.
The dogs with the human faces! HAHAHA...who approved that shot? Creepy is definitely the word. Honestly, I only found Freddy scary in "New Nightmare." Apart from that, he's always been creepier than he's been scary. I identified with Grady a bit. One of my best friends in high school (big jock, incredible baseball player) started to learn he was gay. I (and the rest of our circle of friends) am hetero. We were also big stoners, and as stoners are wont to do, we discussed stuff. One night, my friend came out to us. We were all cool with it...it was nice to hear him say it actually. Dude was bottled up for a good two years (probably more) and was clearly stressed out about it. We were worried about him (one of my friends thought it was steroids). While I've been hetero my entire life, his struggle became very real to me. He came from a conservative family and was likely to catch a belt if he even whispered about his feelings. This movie holds a special place in my heart because it was gay! Though I'm not gay myself, it is way ahead of its time regarding the internal struggle a burgeoning gay man may deal with. Hell, it was weird dealing with feelings growing up hetero! The stigmas and stereotypes are dealt with very well in this movie (I thought). My bud, btw, is happily married to his husband in Seattle. Two dudes who love each other (with tons of disposable income). Last I heard, they were in vacationing in Stressa, Italy in the hotel Hemingway did a lot of writing. His struggle was real and he made it out on top. "Part 2" helped me understand how difficult his journey may have been. Our circle of friends never razzed or joked about it...we saw how hard it was for him in other parts of life. This movie is definitely a good watch for a hetero dude with a friend who's realizing he's homo. The allegory is great, the horror is on point (sometimes). It was way ahead of its time. A black sheep for the NOES saga, but an underrated film IMHO. Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful post kingkoopa. It's nice to know that there are understanding and compassionate hets out there, especially males ones. Much of your acceptance of him, would be largely due to his character and personality as well, and why throw away a decent friendship. Coming out to a bunch of teenage boys, who's own hormones are raging and have their own issues, and who could very well have been conditioned with bigoted attitudes, was courageous of him. He would have even expected some negative reactions. The fact that you were all cool with it, and much of that would have been due to your respect of him, would have given him an increased confidence boost, and helped him move on in his life, especially since he had a conservative family like you have mentioned. I wonder if he had a thing for any of you? You seem very nice, can't you claim to be just a little bi, instead of a boring het.  As for this installment, yes, it was on point for some of the time and that is a valid and decent positive criticism. However, the gay allegory would get lost on many due to it's wishy washy handling in parts. A nice try at best. |
|
Like, WHAT?! That alone makes gay people look bad and contagious, which is something that I cannot support at all. Oh well, at least it wasn't blatantly clear about the theme, I suppose.
