|
 In 1974, Bob Clark's seminal Black Christmas appeared out of the blue and scared the hell out of audiences and still today the film is as effective and still even more effective. The lack of resolution and the nameless, faceless killer stalking the girls Phi Kappa Sig induced chills and thrills amongst audiences. The effective score by Carl Zitterer and stunning cinematography almost toys with you obscuring the killer's features. Now 23 years later, audiences (studios) are desperate to spend (earn) hard earned cash and see a film that was better then and even worse now. The discovery of a remake of Black Christmas I am sure incited more than a few angry responses, after all look at the Halloween remake, but it certainly couldn't have been an uproar. The idea is now back story, back story, back story because not only are we to learn about the killer and see his face we have to learn about his mother, and his sister-child, his abusive childhood so on so forth. The need to know it what will kill us not the simple fact that it is out there, after all you wouldn't lock your doors on the friendly miscreant just because he used to live in your sorority house, would ya? The idea that we live in this culture that needs to test the gag reflexes and patience of audiences. Characterization, bah, get 'em in there and get 'em killed that's all any horror fan needs. At least those of us born before 1990.
Of course, tradition always follows suit. Halloween was and still is a horrifying excursion into the basest and bare bones of all our fears. The fact that the bogeyman is real and he knows where you live and he knows you are alone! Halloween was envisioned as a sequel of sorts to Black Christmas as Billy would have stalked the girls on the most notorious night of all. But Bob Clark feigned interest, talked to John Carpenter and history was born. I'm not going to go into a diatribe about the unknown visage of Michael Myers, that's a story told too many times before. But, alas, they have a "re-imagining" of Halloween coming. Pay attention class, a re-imagining, because calling it a remake is just faux pas nowadays. Will it be as terrifying as before? Who knows? Who gives a care? I've the got the original and I'll watch it over the other just for pure and simple nostalgia.
Speaking of nostalgia, the first horror film I ever saw was Friday the 13th. Back then that film was scary to say the least. You felt every nerve fry throughout your body as you watched the film, I know I did. Sure you'll hear the stories about how Friday the 13th was a low rent rip-off of Halloween but it stands alone as a scary film. The film was gory but the special effects were dynamite, courtesy of Tom Savini, I just don't see how they'll be able to top those death scenes. They had impact and that scene at the end, people are gonna see it coming, in 1980 that scared the hell out of people. I told Ari Lehman that myself.
Not all remakes are bad and we must keep that in mind, some of them are made with the best of intentions, but if it isn't broke then don't fix it. If a remake comes along, the only way you can fashion a truly competent remake is by sticking with the original format but elaborating on it enough but not as radically as some are doing nowadays. Jaundice, Billy, come on now. With films like Prom Night, Motel Hell, and countless others being made it will never stop. I even noticed a film called Wilderness just recently that was very similar to The Final Terror but I don't know I can't say for myself. Just think for those of us who hold the classics near and dear to our heart...as least will get a better DVD out of it.
|
