Racketboy Month of Horror 10: The Rebootening

[prfsnl_gmr]

That’s how I’ve always viewed the original film. He was a victim of mob justice, and whether he actually deserved his fate is, at least somewhat, questionable. (He’s not doing a lot to help his case by coming back from the dead as a purely evil entity that murders people in their sleep,however.)

[noiseredux]

My question is...do we ever actually get proof he was a child killing pedophile (outside of the remake, which does delve into this)?

that's a good question that I want to dwell on a bit.

Off my head, doesn't Freddy's Dead reveal a whole bunch of newspaper clippings of missing/murdered children? Though, like you're saying, I'm not certain it 'proves' it was him. Although, that same movie does show flashbacks that involve his sort of torture chamber in his basement when his daughter finds it as a kid.

[Ack]

Yeah, but by movie 6, Michael was a druid, Jason was a zombie, and the Leprechaun had been to the ghetto twice.

[noiseredux]

Yeah, but by movie 6, Michael was a druid, Jason was a zombie, and the Leprechaun had been to the ghetto twice.

oh obviously. There's always going to be a sort of myth-building/changing that occurs from director to director and all that. So I guess, yeah, if you're asking about JUST the original movie, then I'd agree - we don't REALLY know. I mean, outside of the script, I think Craven always contended that Freddy was indeed a child killer. But just what's in that movie, I don't know that we can really 'prove' that.

Also, fun fact - that druid stuff w/ Michael technically was around in the novelization of the first Halloween. Haha.

And as far as Jason The Zombie, what are we supposed to gather about the Friday The 13th Part II? I mean, I guess I always assumed he was reanimated by that point, just with no real explanation. Are you of the mindset that he didn't really drown? I've seen all those movies a million times, but I don't really remember there being a clear explanation one way or the other. (And again, retro-con stuff... if we believe Jason Goes To Hell then his mom raised him via the Necronomicon, and thus she would have had to have done so prior to being beheaded in the first movie).

[Ack]

Haha, it was more that the sixth movie is the one where we officially see Jason resurrected at the start by lightning. Was he a zombie before that? Maybe. But this is where the series cast off all doubt.

[Michi]

I've seen all of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies, including the 2010 remake....My question is...do we ever actually get proof he was a child killing pedophile (outside of the remake, which does delve into this)?

Visual proof? No, not in the first film. The first film relies completely on the written script to bring up those points. And even then, he's only mentioned as a 'child killer'. That he was also a pedophile was merely heavily implied, up until the remake.

Of the original series, it's not until Freddy's Dead that we really see the newspaper articles and his various instruments of torture that he keeps in the basement.

Though I think prfsnl_gmr is right. Whether or not we actually see what he supposedly did to the children or not, him coming back from the dead to torture and murder the children of the people who burned him to death doesn't do him any favors.

And as far as Jason The Zombie, what are we supposed to gather about the Friday The 13th Part II? I mean, I guess I always assumed he was reanimated by that point, just with no real explanation. Are you of the mindset that he didn't really drown? I've seen all those movies a million times, but I don't really remember there being a clear explanation one way or the other. (And again, retro-con stuff... if we believe Jason Goes To Hell then his mom raised him via the Necronomicon, and thus she would have had to have done so prior to being beheaded in the first movie).

Since Jason supposedly drowned at a summer camp for children and we don't see him again until he is an adult, the only way to make (the most) sense of all the films is to assume that Jason did drown, but that mom brought him back shortly thereafter. That way he would have had enough time to age by the time the second movie came out.

Otherwise you just have to assume that his mom was an absolute nutter and Jason didn't actually die.

[noiseredux]

Otherwise you just have to assume that him mom was an absolute nutter and Jason didn't actually die.

I've never even considered this possibility. it's funny, some movies I've seen so many times that I just throw logic out the window, and don't really think about the details. I just kind of go with it.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Since Jason supposedly drowned at a summer camp for children and we don't see him again until he is an adult, the only way to make (the most) sense of all the films is to assume that Jason did drown, but that mom brought him back shortly thereafter. That way he would have had enough time to age by the time the second movie came out.

Otherwise you just have to assume that his mom was an absolute nutter and Jason didn't actually die.

First, I think it’s safe to assume that Jason’s Mom was an absolute nutter. (The whole killing a bunch of camp counselors thing is probably the biggest clue. ). But...the fact that she is killing them to avenge the death of her son who: (1) didn’t drown; and (2) she clearly raised in the woods for years, makes her even nuttier.

Jason’s Mom: I will kill those counselors to avenge your death, my son.

Jason: <a bunch of grunts signifying: Mom. I’m alive, and I’m right here. I didn’t drown. I’m fine. Very strong, in fact. You’ve been feeding me and raising me in the woods for years. Can I go swimming again? I used to really enjoy doing that despite my hideous deformities?>

Jason’s Mom: Did you know a little boy drowned?! They should have been paying attention!

Jason: Sigh...<Goes to laundromat to wash his jumpsuit, stops by the General store on the way home to buy some shoes>

I love the continuity in the first two Friday the 13th films!

[Nemoide]

I always interpreted Freddy as an actual child-murderer (and implied pedophile). The fact that the parents had a good reason to burn him alive doesn't justify that they burned someone alive. Like the witch in Black Sunday vowing vengeance shortly before being killed: it's essentially trying to stop evil with evil, which only comes back in the form of more evil.
It's sort of fairy-tale logic, which fits a dream-slasher.

BTW, collectors of spooky records might appreciate that Freddy's Greatest Hits by the Elm Street Group was reissued on vinyl not too long ago and is easy to find online. The album is exactly what you'd think it is (kind of cheesy pop songs with Freddy shouting "raah, I'll see you in your dreams! HAHAHA" over it. But it's GREAT and I LOVE IT.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Tonight, my wife and I watched Mad Love (1935). It stars Peter Lorre, in his American film debut, as Dr. Gogol, a brilliant surgeon who becomes obsessed with an actress. When the actress’s pianist husband is injured in a train accident, the actress begs Dr. Gogol to help him, which he does by transplanting the pianist’s hands with those of a recently executed murderer. Soon, however, the hands take on he film a life of their own...or do they?! This is a pretty old horror film, and it’s pretty predictable. Moreover, it’s not that frightening. That said, it was directed by German cinematographer Karl Freund, who also directed The Mummy, and it looks spectacular. Famed film critic Pauline Kael remarked that Orson Welles’ Citizem Kane borrowed a lot of its visual language from Mad Love (an observation that could really only be made by someone who has seen a lot of, and thinks really hard about, movies), and I tend to agree with her. The expressionist sets also give the film a lot of personality, and Peter Lorre, as usual, steals all of his scenes. Accordingly, while Mad Love may not be the best or scariest horror film, it is thoroughly enjoyable, slightly creepy, and a pretty great experience for film snobs (like me).

prfsnl_gmr’s Halloween Movies 2019 (The Ill-Conceived Reboot)
1. Witchboard -
2. Mad Love -