A Nightmare on Elm Street
1984
Wes Craven
Zoom: October 21, 2025, 9 PM to 10 PM
Participants: Allison, Brianna, Frank, Joe, Kait, Pam, Sam, Sean E., Stef, Sunny
I think this was an interesting one because everyone definitely had some negative things to say about the film, and we talked about those flaws a lot, but then there was also this uniting takeaway that it was a really fun movie, despite those flaws. I dunno, maybe you are reading this now and have seen the movie but weren't at the Zoom and disagree. Pop into the comments and let us know! (Especially because there's a meta theory that the act of talking about a piece of art makes that art inherently more enjoyable, so it would be interesting to test that theory with someone who wasn't on the Zoom.)
It really comes down to purpose, I think. Both the intended purpose of the film by the filmmaker, and the interpreted purpose of the film by its audience. In this case, maybe the filmmakers wanted it to be a manifesto for the power of youth and the futility of parental attempts at protection... but the audience is just enjoying it because the scares are really fun and creative. I like that a film can fail in one regard but succeed in another regard. I like that we can pull what we want from a film, and I especially like when what we pull from it is joyful and satisfactory (as opposed to being pessimistic about it and focusing on the flaws).
Here are some specifics we talked about in our Zoom:
- How does this compare to some other Halloween movies? The main focus was Halloween, but I've never seen that one, so I can say specifically for that one. But does this earn its place in the pantheon of horror classics, I think is the main question here.
- A through line of the conversation was: is this all a dream? And how does it affect our understanding of the film if we think that it was all a dream?
- Agreed all around that the scares were effective. We talked about the excessive amount of blood for Captain Jack's death, for example. Was it silly? Perhaps. But it was certainly memorable, and thus, successful.
- A flaw, if you want to call it that, is that the plot of child molester / adults killing him / coming back from the dead in dreams / seems to be omniscient or a demon now or something / etc. is not really discussed by the characters? Why? What, because it was a dream?
- TROPE: the main character saying "no one believes me!" How far can a movie push this trope? Did Nightmare cross a line of believability when she brought the hat back and still no one believed her?
- What was the deal with the theme of "you need to turn away to defeat him"? I took issue with it, mostly because it seemed antithetical to the "we need to be brave and face the villain" that I'm accustomed to, but Kait brought up a good point that maybe it was more along the lines of: we need to acknowledge that this is real and not let it overtake us or cause undue anxiety, like grab a hold of something real to steady yourself and face the anxiety in that way. Something like that.
- Was the film scary? Does it (and other horror films) get less scary as we get older?
- What does the English scene have to do with it? Is Freddy "a canker of human nature," as per Hamlet? Is this movie like Degrassi in this way?
- Does the fact that the last scene was tacked on at the studio's insistence undercut its effectiveness?
- Is this a metaphor for the satanic panic of the '80s?
There was a lot more, I just took shitty notes. What am I forgetting?
Besides this point, of course: DOES THE DAD REMIND YOU OF ZAC EFRON?
Oh, and also, as per requested, Dwyer's three-star Letterboxd review of the film:
"I liked it but was expecting more. But after thinking about it, what more could I expect? I don't know, just didn't blow me away. This is fine. But enough to know I'll stay away from the sequels. Freddy Got Fingers... see what I did there?"
I couldn't find his Snapchat or whatever. I'll have to ask him about it. That's probably why he dropped out of Film Club, he didn't want people talking about his Freddy sex videos. There's already enough hubbub about the infamous Joker impression.
As for grades, drop 'em in the chat if you want. Mine is 3.5 pukes out of 5. That feels like a good grade for a "movie that I thought was great and had a really fun time watching and an even better time thinking about and discussing with friends, and also SO MUCH that pissed me off and so many flaws, but fuck all that, it's Halloween, let's go with the good spooks" kind of movie.
Plenty more to talk about if anyone wants to hang out in the chat. Thanks everybody!
(NEXT TIME: Is Misery a Halloween movie too? Kind of? Let's find out.)
5 comments:
Sorry to miss the Zoom. I don't like scary movies in general, I don't like being scared for no reason, especially these days, when the scary moments are all too real sometimes. But I really liked this movie from a storytelling perspective. It's an interesting idea, that someone could get killed in their dreams. I wish I had thought of it. I thought the amount of gore was interesting and actually made the movie less scary (and therefore more tolerable) for me because it was so absurd. As I was watching it I didn't notice all that many flaws, just was into the story and what would happen, even though the fact they don't believe her after a while gets a bit ridiculous.
At first I didn't like the acting, but the very '80sness of it grew on me.
The ending was annoying and the movie definitely should have ended with her winning, or at least not in the way that it did.
If I hadn't known Johnny Depp was in this movie I don't think I would have recognized him. I never knew Freddy Krueger (whose name I most recently know from the I Think You Should Leave Driver's Ed sketch) was from this movie.
I feel like Nancy should have been more freaked out about the prospect of her own death.
The music was very enjoyable too and added to the whole thing.
The "do you like scary movies typically?" question is probably something I should've asked at the beginning of the Zoom, just as a way to gauge how everyone was approaching this movie, so that's a good call.
Something we also didn't press upon, perhaps due to the fluctuating nature of who attends Zooms and who doesn't (someone did mention it though, I think Sam or Allison?), was the fact that this was the second Zoom movie about dreams, after Waking Life. I know they aren't the same movie, like at all, but I am curious as to what you, Zach, think of the comparison, after liking this one and hating that one.
Also forgot to mention in this blog post Sean G.'s emailed thoughts about one of this movie's sequels, Wes Craven's New Nightmare. As described by Frank during the Zoom, it apparently involves the actors from this film playing themselves, making a new Freddy movie, and the fictional Freddy becomes real and starts haunting the actors. Man, I love that kind of shit. Very The Human Centipede 2-esque.
I liked this one because I got into the story. It carried me along. I didn't like Waking Life because I felt bored, like I wanted it to end from pretty much the first five minutes. I love dreams and thinking about dreams in movies - Inception being probably the best example for me, also Eternal Sunshine (in a sense). But I need a story to grab me. If I want a lecture, I'll go to a lecture, but I don't want a lecture in the movies, which is what Waking Life felt like. But most dream movies I think I'd be into.
I think I personally enjoyed Waking Life just a little bit more, but I cannot disagree at all with the fact that Nightmare was the only one of the two that had a story. Even if that story had flaws, it was definitely there. I can see that. Maybe I would say Nightmare was more enjoyable, and Waking Life was more fulfilling, for me.
Post a Comment