Editorials
Horror Prequels and Origin Stories – Too Much of a Good Thing?
Recently we found out that the long awaited (by some) prequel to Tobe Hooper’s seminal classic, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, is finally being unleashed this coming October. In the film, titled Leatherface (not to be confused with the third film in the franchise of the same title), we are taken on a road trip with three young boys, one of whom is on a dangerous path to becoming the hulking, skin-mask wearing, behemoth. While continuity is certainly not this particular series’ strong suit, there has been several retcons throughout and let’s not forget there has already been one other TCM prequel, The Beginning.
So, with a new take on one of cinema’s most iconic horror villains coming soon, I ask myself, “How much do I really care?”
Several months ago in anticipation for the release of Adam Wingard’s The Blair Witch, screenwriter, Simon Barrett, was making the rounds to promote the film. He stopped by The Canon podcast to vouch for the original film’s inclusion into, well…”The Cannon”. During the conversation, Barrett explains the need he felt to avoid answering all the questions set up by The Blair Witch Project. Those who have seen the sequel know that while some new details are teased out, there is still plenty left up for debate. This is no “Blair Witch: Origins”. Ultimately, Barrett argues against that type of storytelling:
“There’s the Star Wars prequels thing where it’s like, you know, you are explaining something that is basically what everyone sort of assumed happened, but they kind of thought it was going to maybe be cooler. I never want to do that in a horror film, because if you hint at something, what’s in your audience’s imagination is automatically, probably going to be scarier to them than anything you can come up with…Eduardo and Dan [directors of The Blair Witch Project], it’s not like they were pulling a weird kind of – second half of Mulholland Drive where they were just like, ‘We don’t really know what this is.’ They knew what it was…They didn’t over explain it. That’s what I think makes the mythology get under people’s skin.”
It’s a valid point and perhaps, a bit cliche. What you don’t see can sometimes be far more horrifying: the shark in Jaws, the lack of any real bloodshed in the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or the “baby” in Rosemary’s Baby. I’ll never forget the horrific image of that demon spawn I had conjured up in my mind. It lingered in my memory only for me to realize upon revisiting Polanski’s classic film years later that no demonic infant is ever shown. Specifically speaking on prequels, a lot of fans were left cold by young Michael Myers’s troubled home life in the Rob Zombie prequel/remake. News swirling around the almost 13th installment of the Friday the 13th franchise was we were rewinding to show the father of Jason, Elias Voorhees. The general consensus was, “No thanks.” Yet filmmakers continue to go back to this well of origin stories. Perhaps it has something to do with the success of superhero films that weave humble beginnings into billion dollar franchise monsters?
All of this to say, is there a valid reason to explain what once was deemed terrifying “just because”? In doing so, do we dilute the magic of what has come before? One of the most recent examples we have is Alien: Covenant, the first in a proposed trilogy of prequels. I personally found the film thrilling and highly enjoyable, though the more I think about it, the more sleight the overall story seems. Yes, it might be building towards something epic, but the details provided so far amount to nothing more than (MINOR SPOILERS) a fucked up mad scientist riff on Frankenstein. The revelations revealed herein line up quite expectantly with the trail of breadcrumbs from Prometheus.
Sure, the lack of any big surprises in Covenant might have robbed the film of a sense of purpose, but it remains a rousing action/horror hybrid. It was damn entertaining. Is that purpose enough? The film left me with several questions I now hope to have answered in future films. But if this were it, would I be okay with where things left off? Yeah. This isn’t a backstory that I NEED. Furthermore, whether you love or hate Ridley Scott’s obsession with creationism, it doesn’t take away enjoyment of the original film in any way whatsoever. The “Space Jockey” is still an awe-inspiring image in 79’s Alien despite it being nothing more than a spacesuit for an oversized albino creature with a God complex. Ripley still kicks ass, and the xenomorph is still terrifying.
In the case of Leatherface, we know very little at this point. What I can say is that while I might not have been clamoring for ANOTHER Chainsaw prequel, at least this one is taking a rather unexpected approach by setting itself up as a quasi mystery. Which one of the demented youths will claim the title of “Leatherface”? Taking a look at The Beginning, the prequel to the 03′ remake, the plot was precisely the type of unimaginative dreck we might have expected. A deformed baby left to rot in a dumpster is taken in by a group of backwoods cannibals. Natch. I may not have asked for another TCM origin story, but I’ll accept one that flexes its creative muscles. At this point we can simply hope that Leatherface is respectful to the original and manages to offer a few surprises that we, the humble fan, couldn’t have whipped up ourselves during an epic nerd debate.
Now more than ever our culture has become obsessed with revisiting our fondest pop culture memories. By revising our favorite stories with a modern slant we transport ourselves to the “simpler times”. Reboots of everything from Twin Peaks, Puppet Master, and the X-Files have already been rebirthed. While horror already went through a mass of remakes in the mid-aughts, it’s only a matter of time before our genre catches a case of “reboot-itis”. I’m personally more interested in the “alternate timelines” we’ve been teased with the upcoming Halloween or Neill Blomkamp’s proposed Alien 5 than with a string of “before they were legends” genesis tales. On the one hand, it seems disrespectful to just pick and choose what films “matter” and disregard a legion of fan interest that withstood years of diminishing returns, but it’s also that precise vision that excites me.
At the end of the day, I’m not afraid of filmmakers “ruining” my treasured franchises. Someone wants to reboot Hellraiser by detailing the creation of the Lament Configuration (ala Bloodlines)? Go for it! Someone wants to create a courtroom drama centered around Freddy Krueger? Sure. Why not? Want to settle the age old mystery of just what the hell is a Mogwai? The point is, none of this can take away your enjoyment of the classics you love. Retcons and reimaginings throw the concept of “cannon” into upheaval all the time. People have already begun to hypothesize that Ridley Scott might be dumping the idea of an alien Queen from his mythology. But if you sit down to watch Aliens and choose to ignore everything presented in the prequels, you’ve just created your own canon!
There are those who have no interest in these prequels and re-imaginings, and that’s completely understandable. For me, though, I say, “Bring em’ on.” You never know, we could be thoroughly surprised by Leatherface (despite the numerous setbacks with its release). For every Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, we could find ourselves with another Amityville 2: The Possession! Don’t judge me. That’s one wacky, awesome movie.
So of all the prequels and origin focused reboots, what’re some of your favorites?
Horror was permanently changed in 1984 when Wes Craven’s A Nightmare on Elm Street unleashed Freddy Krueger on the world. This brutal boogeyman pushed horror to exciting new places, but so much of the character’s impact is the result of Robert Englund’s quintessential performance.
Englund has a long and storied career as a performer that’s covered far more than horror alone. However, there’s such a sublime, sinister synergy between Englund and this heightened genre that’s made him one of horror’s most revered names.
Englund is set to scare audiences again as a malevolent reimagining of Jiminy Cricket in Pinocchio Unstrung, but he’s also been responsible for many more macabre monsters.
The Cricket (Pinocchio Unstrung)
Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey has somehow spun a morbid experiment in public domain exploitation into its own cinematic universe, the Twisted Childhood Universe. There’s been increasing promise in the TCU’s various films, which has also led to a growing list of capable horror guest stars, such as Roger L. Jackson, Richard Brake, and now Robert Englund. Englund is by far the most impressive name to attach himself to one of these movies, and Pinocchio Unstrung certainly doesn’t squander the opportunity to have him on board as its terrifying take on Jiminy Cricket. Englund’s performance as “The Cricket” in Pinocchio Unstrung becomes a sinister subversion of the classic character who is meant to function as Pinocchio’s conscience and moral compass.
Englund’s Cricket is instead the ultimate instigator who perpetually pushes Pinocchio into greater violence that condemns humanity and its many misgivings, rather than idolizing all the “real boys” in the world. Pinocchio Unstrung is a love letter to practical effects and old-fashioned animatronics and puppetry. This means that Englund just provides the voice for Cricket, but it’s still a deeply sinister performance and one of the most unnerving characters to appear in the Twisted Childhood Universe. Once again, Englund is careful not to just repurpose his Freddy Krueger persona, and he instead develops an original voice that plays into past renditions of the character. There’s a palpable rage and disdain in Englund’s Cricket that turns him into a threatening loose cannon and makes the audience forget that he’s only a few inches tall.
The Phantom of the Opera (The Phantom of the Opera)
The Phantom of the Opera is a foundational horror story that’s still being explored over a century later. 1989’s cinematic adaptation of Gaston Leroux’s 1910 classic doesn’t always get the respect that it deserves, despite it containing one of Englund’s most nuanced horror performances. Directed by Dwight H. Little, who previously helmed the underrated Halloween 4, The Phantom of the Opera operates as a gorier take on Leroux’s source material that feels like a lost Hammer Film picture. The titular Phantom is the perfect role for Englund following A Nightmare on Elm Street, and his participation in the picture was initiated by Englund promising his agent that he’d do another horror project after Elm Street’s success.
Englund was excited to tackle an iconic character who had previously been portrayed by formative horror legends like Herbert Lom, Claude Rains, and Lon Chaney. Englund beautifully fits the mold and is sublime casting for this ‘80s take on the character. Englund taps into a powerful dichotomy between the Phantom’s brutal and tragically sympathetic nature. It’s a role that’s significantly deeper than Freddy Krueger and better explores Englund’s range as an actor, which helps get him away from cheesy one-liners. It also doesn’t hurt that Little concocts a uniquely twisted take on the Phantom’s disfigurement, which was achieved by sewing human skin onto Englund’s face. The modern-day sequences that bookend the film were meant to tie into a planned sequel, The Phantom of the Opera 2: Terror in Manhattan, which unfortunately never came to fruition.
Victor Creel (Stranger Things)
Love it or hate it, Stranger Things assembled some impressive guest stars that took advantage of their respective legacies as ‘80s genre legends, such as Linda Hamilton, Matthew Modine, Cary Elwes, and Robert Englund. Englund’s turn as Victor Creel in the streaming hit’s fourth season is one of the series’ best performances and a role that rises above the mediocrity around it. Victor Creel is an opportunity for Englund to actually subvert expectations and play against type. It’s brilliant casting that initially conditions the audience to be wary of Creel and view him as a frightening threat. This perception is reinforced when Creel is encountered in a psychiatric ward and horrifically blinded.
Creel’s disturbing eye-gouged appearance is revealed to actually be a symptom of his tragic life and the psychological torment he received from Vecna. Creel is hard to look at, but there’s nothing to fear about him. He’s led a sad life that’s filled with inescapable guilt. He’s more like one of Freddy Krueger’s victims than Freddy himself. Englund goes above and beyond as Victor Creel, and the emotional monologues that he delivers are among some of the actor’s best work and proof that Englund’s still got it.
Marquis de Sade (Night Terrors)
Tobe Hooper’s Night Terrors is a particularly forgettable ’90s horror film that faced a litany of production problems and changes that certainly didn’t do it any favors. The story is a mess, even for a Cannon Video production, but it provides the novelty of Englund pulling double duty as the cruel Marquis de Sade and his modern day descendant, Paul Chevalier. Night Terrors banked on the novelty of Hooper directing Englund as one of history’s greatest monsters, and his performance is easily the best thing about this movie.
There’s an unabashed glee to Englund’s work as the Marquis de Sade that’s reminiscent of Freddy Krueger’s twisted jubilation over his creative murders, yet it doesn’t just feel like a carbon copy of Englund’s iconic role. There’s an appreciated degree of restraint going on before the film goes off the rails and incorporates supernatural elements and abstract dream sequences. Chevalier and his modern cult worship the Marquis de Sade as a deity of torture and liberation. The nightmare sequences that involve the Marquis de Sade are the most chilling and make this figure look as frightening on the outside as he is on the inside. There’s enough to latch onto here, even if the film as a whole is a mess, and Englund doesn’t squander the opportunity to play two sides of the same creepy coin.
Scarecrow (Injustice 2)
Robert Englund is no stranger to voiceover work, and he’s voiced his share of macabre and memorable characters over the years. That being said, one of his most inspired roles is the work that he did in NetherRealm’s dark DC Comics-based fighter, Injustice 2, where he plays Jonathan Crane, better known as the Scarecrow. There’s a certain tongue-in-cheek brilliance to having Englund voicing the Batman rogue who is the self-appointed “Master of Fear.” There’s certainly a meta quality to Englund’s casting here, right down to how some of his dialogue explicitly references Freddy Krueger one-liners like “Welcome to your nightmare” and “Now I’m playing with power.”
Englund doesn’t just phone in this performance or replicate his work as Freddy. The actor cultivates a unique voice for Scarecrow that cuts to the core of this character in a menacing manner. Englund’s Scarecrow is raspy, erratic, and honestly one of the better takes on Dr. Crane. It makes one wonder what he’d be able to accomplish if he were playing the part in live-action. He takes a simple role and breathes fresh life into it. Curiously, it’s not his first time playing a Batman villain. He does comparably interesting work as The Riddler in The Batman and the more obscure sorcerer, Felix Faust, in Justice League.
Evil Bloodthirsty Brian (The Hughleys)
There’s a surprising relationship between horror icons and sitcoms, with Robert Englund being no stranger to adding a devious dose of terror to a farcical comedy. Englund shows up as a playful take on Lucifer in Married…with Children, but he also provides a genuinely chilling performance in the first season of The Hughleys. Season one’s “Storm O’ the Century” is centered around the Hughleys and Rogerses getting stranded at a seemingly haunted hotel during an intense blizzard.
“Storm O’ the Century” functions as a proper love letter to horror fans, with genre guest stars that include The Addams Family’s John Astin, The Shining’s Shelley Duvall, and Robert Englund as the comically-named Evil Bloodthirsty Brian. The episode certainly prioritizes its comedy, but it manages to also be legitimately creepy thanks to a locked-in performance by Englund. He’s used sparingly, but always to punctuate a particular scene and function as a jump scare. Evil Bloodthirsty Brian sports a ghastly scar and has a look that’s just frightening enough to be included on a ’90s sitcom. Anyone who is curious about Englund’s performance can check it out for free on Tubi.
You must be logged in to post a comment.