S. T. Karnick’s essay on the 1980 original version of Friday the 13th and the slasher genre in general is now up on National Review Online.
Click on the link in the sentence above to read the article, and feel free to leave comments here.
Are slasher films more than just exploitation? Which ones do you think have real value? Comment here.
Unfortunately, there was no Kevin Bacon cameo, though that’s understandible as a cameo for Mr. Bacon would’ve been difficult as his character perished in the original. (But he’s not cameo averse – he showed up in Novocaine in an uncredited rule, for example, presumably to keep his six degrees engine going.)
But if you’ve missed any of the Friday the 13th’s after the original, don’t feel bad. Put it this way, if you can accept the idea that a poor psychic girl can (in a moment of vulnerable anxiety) psychically reach out across Crystal Lake to try and ressurrect her dead father (that she inadvertently drowned when she was a little girl) only to have her powers actually miss and land on . . . you guessed it, Jason Voorhees, then maybe you should check them out. (That’s the plot device from Part 7.)
Ten is set is space.
But the movies are kind of interesting as cultural artifacts.
Good piece, as usual, Sam. You have a knack of digging way deeper into what appears to be a frivolous thing and exposing the larger, more important themes (as you did with the Rambo “reboot”).
I’m curious about something that I figure R.J. can answer: Did Kevin Bacon make a cameo in the new Friday the 13th? That would make the reboot quite cool. I had no idea he was in the original until I saw the photo Sam chose for this post.
Of course, I’ve seen none of the Friday the 13th movies, and have seen virtually no “slasher” films ever — with the notable exception of the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I had to see that. A guy my wife knew in high school outside of Philly — Andrew Bryniarski — played Leatherface. He was quite good, considering the limitations of the role.
Excellent observations, R. J. You’re so right about the way some movies can have a good point to make even when the aesthetics are less than admirable and beauty is nowhere to be found. And there can be an odd kind of beauty in that, though limited.
As you note, much modern horror has gone way over the edge into torture porn, but one suspects the wheel will turn again some day. I imagine what will have to happen before that can occur is that we’ll have to develop better sensibilities as a people. That may take some time….
P.S.–My wife and I spent Friday the 13th watching Friday the 13th 3D with the glasses. How lucky am I to be married to such a cool chick?
Your point about making the audience complicit in the inhumanity of the killer’s conduct is very astute. It reminds me of Hostel. That movie is structured to do basically the same thing. The first half of the movie focuses on debauchery and de-humanizing sex. It’s the kind of titilation we expect in horror movies, and it’s shot in a way comforts us in the familiarity of the exploitation. Then, about half way through, it turns that objectification on the heroes of the movie. Demonstrating the slippery slope from meaningless sex to fetishism to extreme degredation and finally torture and death.
The movie has its flaws, but in the end, it’s holding up a mirror to the audience (just as you posit Friday the 13th did) to show them that THIS is where the road they are on leads. This is what objectification does. And it makes the audience ask themselves, would YOU like to be dehumanized?
Those that aren’t too busy shouting, “DUDE! CHAINSAW!” anway.
Sadly, just like Friday the 13th, it has given rise to numerous lesser imitations (not to imply that it’s great, just noting its relative superiority) that become more and more exploitative the farther they get from the original. While it’s responsible for the “torture porn” genre, it is a cut above, so to speak.