Wes Craven Selection

'Twas a dark and stormy night.The wind is causing spectral trees to tap against the window. The moon is full, but its pale luminescence is shielded from the eye by wispy, aimless clouds. Far off, the sound of long fingernails can be heard scraping down a metal surface. The phone is ringing downstairs, and the likelihood is that on the other end is a madman who wants to kill us all. The room is occupied by four teenagers, one of whom is almost certainly a knife wielding, mask wearing maniac. This, I imagine, is what it is like inside Wes Craven's head.

Wes Craven's creations pay homage to the slasher movie director.

Which is why he seemed the perfect choice to watch in the early hours of the morning at a party in the murder capital of England (Leek). But, there is a danger that watching three films in a row by the same director will be a little formulaic.

The films in question are Nightmare on Elm Street and the first two instalments of the Scream quadrilogy. And they have a lot in common. Both films revolve around an easily identifiable (some may say gimmicky) fiend who for some reason wants to slice open innocent teenagers. Secondly, both villains have a camp run. Freddie Kruger skips along while Ghostface flails his fetching black cape around. Thirdly, there is always a strong resourceful heroine who tries their best to outwit the killer. Nancy comes up with some bizarre scheme to kill Freddie Kruger (again) in Nightmare on Em Street while Sidney battles through a life of sinister boyfriends, persistent reporters and murderous lunatics with stoic courage. So yes, they are formulaic (although Scream has a lot of fun pointing out that all horror films are formulaic).

Although Nightmare on Elm Street has boring acting and little plot, there are still many good things about it. It's fantastically surreal, stairs turn in to sludge, hands emerge out of bathtubs and a woman is dragged through a window. The dreamlike nature of the nightmares is captured wonderfully. Plus, the central concept of a child murderer come back from the dead after being burnt alive is a good one, although it would be nice if Freddy got a bit more to say. It's brought down by bland leads (including Johnny Depp surprisingly) and the fact that its not really that scary (which is probably why there's a 2010 remake).

Scream  is, in my opinion, much better. While NOES is simply trying to be a horror movie, Scream  is trying to parody all horror movies, and introducing some humour into the mix was a good move. Craven even makes fun of his previous film, Ghostface and his soon-to-be victim discuss NOES on the phone (while taking a snipe at the sequels which he didn't direct) and for some unidentifiable reason the cleaner seems to be dressed up as Freddy.

The villain now is simply a man (or is it men?) in a scary suit. But the catch is that it could be anyone of your friends who is out for your blood. The film makes a great deal of suggesting that it's Sidney's creepy boyfriend (Skeet Ulrich excels at creepiness), but is this just a red herring? The characters are much better developed than in NOES. Neve Campbell reminds me a little of Jeniffer Lawrence in Winter's Bone, giving off the sense of being battered by bereavement yet soldiering on. Her misfortune is on the same level as Ripley's from the Alien  quadrilogy, the nasty men in masks just will not leave her alone. Courtney Cox plays Gale Weathers, an initially repulsive character who constantly winds poor Sidney up. But just as Sidney has her defects (unlike Nancy from NOES, who doesn't have enough personality to have defects), Gale actually has numerous virtues.

The second instalment isn't quite as thrilling. While the first film seemed to have a love of the horror genre (although it does question the morality of it all- "movies don't create psychos, they make psychos more creative"), you get the distinct feeling that the second film is in love with the first one. We're constantly shown footage from a fictional film based on the events of the first film called Stab. This adds nothing to the plot.

Plus, while Scream 2 is right in its assertion that the body count is bigger and the murders are indeed more elaborate, it all seems a little samey. While it goes on to develop the characters from the first film nicely (David Arquette is immortal though, that man has sustained more than his fair share of knife wounds), the set-up could do with a little tweaking. Personally, I would have preferred it if they just stopped after the first one, just like they should have stopped at the second one with the Alien films (that particuar franchise has the unique situation of the third film trying to be a remake of the first one, and the the fourth film effectively being a remake of the second). There's only so many ways you can be attacked by an alien or knife wielding lunatic. Why can't franchises simply go out on a high rather than allowing their central concepts to become tired and repetitive?

So, my opinion on Wes Craven? He's a man who has identified a niche in the film industry and is determined to exploit it for all its worth. But the same could be said of Christopher Nolan (complex thrillers light on character development) and Richard Kelly (twisted films that have an awful lot of meaning to them that does't always come across too well). Just because Mr. Craven has unfortunately become stuck in a niche, it doesn't mean he can't direct breathlessly entertaining horror/comedies.

But how does Craven perform in the ratings?
A Nightmare on Elm Street: 5/10
Scream: 7/10
Scream 2: 4/10