I'm not quite sure why so many people seem to like the 1985 film Fight Night; I have seen more than one "top vampire films ever!" lists which rank it fairly high. But all I could think while I watched it was: "dull, dull, dull, dull, dull."
The main reason I dislike Fright Night is that it's derivative. The main "newness" it seems to sell is the mashing of details from recognizable genres together without changing them much. It essentially has many of the tropes on a bland 1980's comedy, many of a 1980's B-Horror movie, and all the cliches and details of a classic 1950s-1970's Hammer vampire film. Because of the blending, some people may have found it clever and unique. "It pokes loving fun at those old Hammer films," someone might say. "That's so original."
Except it's not. Roman Polanski made a satiric comedy ages before called The Fearless Vampire Killers (or Pardon Me, But Your Teeth Are in My Neck). It's not a great film, but it does have a notable Polanski style and it satirizes the Hammer-vampire formula well before this film does, and often better. And it's at least sometimes funny. Fright Night really isn't. Nor is Fright Night scary. Nor is it laughably gory or well written or sexy. It just sort of... is.
The story centers around a teenage boy named Charley who is annoyed that his girlfriend won't put out; he does not realize, of course, that this is an 80's horror film of sorts, so NOT having sex is the only thing which will guarantee his survival when the monster/villain shows up.
Remember that, throughout the late '70s and '80s, which characters have sex in any type of horror film is the easiest way to predict death. The movies were all morality plays and the fixation on teenage sexuality in these movies has been the subject of many academic and media studies articles. As Caroline Madden wrote in her article "The Evolution of Women in Horror Films," Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Friday the 13th (just to name a few) all "have the film convention of [teens] having sex and then being killed."
While Fright Night is more of a teen-semi-horror-comedy than straight slasher-style horror, it also seems to have a fixation on teen sexuality and abstinence. Even though there is a desire for Charley to have sex, the act is never consummated in the movie, first because of his girlfriend's refusal and then, when she decides she is ready, because he witnesses a horrific murder through his bedroom window. This leads him to believe (rightfully so, it turns out) that his neighbor is a vampire who is murdering young women. This seemingly "crazy" idea causes his girlfriend to be wary of him and concerned, tabling any worry about their sex life until the film ends.
Naturally, the vampiric neighbor decides to prey on said virginal girlfriend, as vampires do. The scene where the vampire finally bites her is played out very sexually (again, as vampire bites often are) and it becomes clear that we are, at least on some level, supposed to view her as not being virginal anymore. This is, at least metaphorically, her first sexual experience; she has been penetrated, though notably without consent. When she, Hammer-style, is turned into a vampire after being being bitten, she attacks Charley. When he keeps her away with a cross, she cries and says, "It's not my fault, Charley!" And she's right; it wasn't. It was essentially rape. This could have been an interesting moment in the film, but the line immediately turns out to be a trap and she attacks him again immediately after he lets his guard down. Instead of an interesting commentary on teen sexuality, the whole movie just rehashes and reinforces the same patterns from better films from the era and seems to imply (at least in subtext) that the girl is somehow "ruined" and evil now because of her lack of virginal status.
Okay, so it's unmemorable when it comes to depicting the era or saying anything new about teens and sexuality... but what does it add to the vampire mythos?
Basically nothing.
These vampires are classic Hammer vampires. They can't go out during the day, must sleep in an actual coffin, hate crosses, hate garlic and holy water, etc etc etc. The actor Chris Sarandon is.... fine as the Dracula-like vampire protagonist. He's just kind of bland. He seems like he's slightly out of the era, he collects antiques, he is somewhat suave. Basically every vampire ever. Yawn.
The one "wow! That's new!" detail is one that I actually think ends up unfortunate rather than neat: the vampires have a "true form" which is hideously ugly.
It's not the idea of ugly vampires that I have a problem with; it's the result. It looks like the losing entry in a Sci-Fi Channel monster-make-up reality show. They look worse than the historically-made-fun-of Buffy television series vampire make-up. If the story was great, I'd give this a pass, but the "meh" factor of everything is fairly compounding.
The main uniqueness of this film comes from the plot-line where the teens seek the help of a television star known for playing Van Helsing-like roles in campy B-horror movies. The movies he stars in are clearly supposed to be Hammer-style Dracula films, and thus it seems somewhat natural that, after the actor realizes that the neighbor has no reflection and thus must be a vampire, the movie falls into the same Hammer-film formula. Sure, having an actor from fictional versions of those films help participate in the vampire killing is meta, but even the actor is so dull that I couldn't be that amused; the story was just so predictable. I would be intrigued to see what the ever-talented David Tennant did with the role in the recent remake of this film, but the somewhat-lovable Roddy Mcdowell just makes the role into vanilla ice-cream: fine but without flair. The role and idea has a lot of comedic promise, but the original doesn't really take advantage of that.
Basically, this was a comedy that didn't cause me to laugh, a teen horror movie that didn't frighten me, and a vampire movie that just used the same old vampire mythos and (ultimately) plot.
I think the reason, perhaps, that so many people love this movie is nostalgia. Not for the '80s as a whole, the way that The Lost Boys might give you (in fact, Fright Night feels dated without any fond details from the era. The main character's girlfriend wears overalls in one scene. That's basically it for 80's nostalgia material in this film, folks...) but for this particular movie. Many people may have seen this as a child or young teen and found it fun. I just found that, watching it for the first time as an adult, I couldn't find the same joy.
Rating: 1.5 out of 5 bites
~ LK
Except it's not. Roman Polanski made a satiric comedy ages before called The Fearless Vampire Killers (or Pardon Me, But Your Teeth Are in My Neck). It's not a great film, but it does have a notable Polanski style and it satirizes the Hammer-vampire formula well before this film does, and often better. And it's at least sometimes funny. Fright Night really isn't. Nor is Fright Night scary. Nor is it laughably gory or well written or sexy. It just sort of... is.
The story centers around a teenage boy named Charley who is annoyed that his girlfriend won't put out; he does not realize, of course, that this is an 80's horror film of sorts, so NOT having sex is the only thing which will guarantee his survival when the monster/villain shows up.
Remember that, throughout the late '70s and '80s, which characters have sex in any type of horror film is the easiest way to predict death. The movies were all morality plays and the fixation on teenage sexuality in these movies has been the subject of many academic and media studies articles. As Caroline Madden wrote in her article "The Evolution of Women in Horror Films," Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Friday the 13th (just to name a few) all "have the film convention of [teens] having sex and then being killed."
While Fright Night is more of a teen-semi-horror-comedy than straight slasher-style horror, it also seems to have a fixation on teen sexuality and abstinence. Even though there is a desire for Charley to have sex, the act is never consummated in the movie, first because of his girlfriend's refusal and then, when she decides she is ready, because he witnesses a horrific murder through his bedroom window. This leads him to believe (rightfully so, it turns out) that his neighbor is a vampire who is murdering young women. This seemingly "crazy" idea causes his girlfriend to be wary of him and concerned, tabling any worry about their sex life until the film ends.
Naturally, the vampiric neighbor decides to prey on said virginal girlfriend, as vampires do. The scene where the vampire finally bites her is played out very sexually (again, as vampire bites often are) and it becomes clear that we are, at least on some level, supposed to view her as not being virginal anymore. This is, at least metaphorically, her first sexual experience; she has been penetrated, though notably without consent. When she, Hammer-style, is turned into a vampire after being being bitten, she attacks Charley. When he keeps her away with a cross, she cries and says, "It's not my fault, Charley!" And she's right; it wasn't. It was essentially rape. This could have been an interesting moment in the film, but the line immediately turns out to be a trap and she attacks him again immediately after he lets his guard down. Instead of an interesting commentary on teen sexuality, the whole movie just rehashes and reinforces the same patterns from better films from the era and seems to imply (at least in subtext) that the girl is somehow "ruined" and evil now because of her lack of virginal status.
Okay, so it's unmemorable when it comes to depicting the era or saying anything new about teens and sexuality... but what does it add to the vampire mythos?
Basically nothing.
These vampires are classic Hammer vampires. They can't go out during the day, must sleep in an actual coffin, hate crosses, hate garlic and holy water, etc etc etc. The actor Chris Sarandon is.... fine as the Dracula-like vampire protagonist. He's just kind of bland. He seems like he's slightly out of the era, he collects antiques, he is somewhat suave. Basically every vampire ever. Yawn.
The one "wow! That's new!" detail is one that I actually think ends up unfortunate rather than neat: the vampires have a "true form" which is hideously ugly.
It's not the idea of ugly vampires that I have a problem with; it's the result. It looks like the losing entry in a Sci-Fi Channel monster-make-up reality show. They look worse than the historically-made-fun-of Buffy television series vampire make-up. If the story was great, I'd give this a pass, but the "meh" factor of everything is fairly compounding.
The main uniqueness of this film comes from the plot-line where the teens seek the help of a television star known for playing Van Helsing-like roles in campy B-horror movies. The movies he stars in are clearly supposed to be Hammer-style Dracula films, and thus it seems somewhat natural that, after the actor realizes that the neighbor has no reflection and thus must be a vampire, the movie falls into the same Hammer-film formula. Sure, having an actor from fictional versions of those films help participate in the vampire killing is meta, but even the actor is so dull that I couldn't be that amused; the story was just so predictable. I would be intrigued to see what the ever-talented David Tennant did with the role in the recent remake of this film, but the somewhat-lovable Roddy Mcdowell just makes the role into vanilla ice-cream: fine but without flair. The role and idea has a lot of comedic promise, but the original doesn't really take advantage of that.
Basically, this was a comedy that didn't cause me to laugh, a teen horror movie that didn't frighten me, and a vampire movie that just used the same old vampire mythos and (ultimately) plot.
I think the reason, perhaps, that so many people love this movie is nostalgia. Not for the '80s as a whole, the way that The Lost Boys might give you (in fact, Fright Night feels dated without any fond details from the era. The main character's girlfriend wears overalls in one scene. That's basically it for 80's nostalgia material in this film, folks...) but for this particular movie. Many people may have seen this as a child or young teen and found it fun. I just found that, watching it for the first time as an adult, I couldn't find the same joy.
Rating: 1.5 out of 5 bites
~ LK
No comments:
Post a Comment