Editorials
[Remake Fever] Where Did the ‘Black Christmas’ Remake Go Wrong?
The horror genre is nothing if not cyclical. Horror films are frequently picked apart and reassembled again in new packaging for new audiences. Sometimes this results in modern classics. Other times it results in a blasphemous product that defaces the legacy of the original. Remake Fever is a series that compares and contrasts an original horror film and its remake to investigate how the new film is reimagined, as well as what works and what doesn’t.
In 1974, Canadian Bob Clark made a slasher film about a sorority house under siege by a madman who makes threatening phone calls and stages secret murders. Black Christmas starred Olivia Hussey, Andrea Martin and Margot Kidder. The film originated many of the tropes that would go on to become defining conventions of the slasher subgenre, though a delayed release in the United States meant that John Carpenter’s Halloween received much of the credit. Over time, the original Black Christmas has been embraced by the horror community as a beloved slasher film and it is without question the best holiday horror film (come at me in the comments).
In 2006, writer/director Glen Morgan (of The X-Files fame) mounted a remake of Black Christmas. He directed from his own script, fleshing out the backstory of central villain Billy (played by an uncredited Albert J. Dunk in 74), modernizing the technology for the prank calls and upping the gore. Despite these efforts – and in spite of some missing scenes – the film was a critical and commercial flop, grossing only $16M in the US.
So how do the two films differ and what went wrong with the remake? Let’s dig in!
**Spoilers for both Black Christmas films follow, as well as The People Under The Stairs, Scream 4, The Pact, Housebound, and The Boy.**
Like many of the remakes of the 2000s, Morgan’s Black Christmas channels its predecessor in both narrative and character. Morgan’s most significant change involves spending considerably more time on the backstory/psychology of Billy, but the remake also replaces a lot of the drawn-out nuance and atmosphere of Clark’s original in favour of increasingly gory violence. This was the style at the time, though enthusiasts of the original text did not take kindly to these alterations.
In the original Black Christmas, the emphasis is firmly on Final Girl Jess and her sorority sisters, Phyl (Martin), Barb (Kidder) and a few others. The gothic house that they share is mostly empty for the holidays (a plot point that conveniently helps to delay the discovery of the murders since it is assumed that the other girls have simply gone home). The remaining women are a motley crew: Jess is presented as the responsible good girl and Phyl is mousey and unassuming. Kidder’s Barb is a foul-mouthed alcoholic mean girl while the house mother, Mrs. Mac (Marian Waldman), is secretly squirreling away booze in every nook and cranny of the house.
Clark’s original is a deliberately paced whodunnit. In addition to the murders themselves, Black Christmas ‘74 dedicates a substantial amount of screen time to competing subplots, including the police’s attempt to trace the location of the prank calls, the (red herring) search for a missing local child and Jess’ struggles with her boyfriend (Keir Dullea)’s 70s-era toxic masculinity regarding a secret pregnancy.
That final element is one of the reasons that the film remains so highly regarded: not only is abortion a weighty topic for a slasher film to address, the subplot fleshes out Jess in significant, meaningful ways. Clark makes a real effort to ensure potential sorority caricatures become three-dimensional characters by providing them with interesting backstories and defined attributes. The result means that the sorority sisters are the film’s focus, not its mysterious killer.
The balance of power shifts in Morgan’s 2006 update, which dedicates significantly more time to Billy Lenz’s backstory. In the remake Billy (Robert Mann) is born with a liver-disease that leaves him looking jaundiced, which results in an abusive relationship with his unloving mother (Karin Konoval). A series of flashbacks include adultery, incestual rape, sibling defacement, murder and cannibalism; in this way Morgan’s film not-so-subtly places the blame for Billy and his sister Agnes (Dean Friss)’ homicidal behaviour on their mother. This is in stark contrast to Billy in the original film: not only is the original killer’s backstory never revealed, his motivation is barely speculated upon and never clarified.
There are instances of voyeurism in both films. Unbeknownst to the sorority girls, the house has been infiltrated by Billy – and Agnes in the remake – and they are constantly being watched. Both films feature repeated close-ups of eyes watching the sorority girls, though this is significantly more sexualized in the remake, including a scene when Lauren (Crystal Lowe) is spied upon while she drunkenly showers.
Morgan cast a range of up-and-comers to medium-profile actresses – several of whom he had worked with on The X-Files and the Final Destination films (Konoval, as well as Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Kristen Cloke). Meanwhile, Lacey Chabert had Mean Girls and Michelle Trachtenberg had Buffy under their respective belts, while Katie Cassidy was on the cusp of breaking out on The CW.
Despite the talented cast, however, none of the characters make much of an impression. The lack of screen time to beef up the sorority sisters, in particular, is problematic because it renders the girls indistinguishable from one another. Aside from Lauren (the remake’s stand-in for Barb), few of the girls have a unique personality (Cassidy is…nice? Winstead is…vaguely religious? And Chabert and Trachtenberg don’t even have that). Also, due to the compressed timeline of the remake – the events of the film take place over several hours as opposed to days in the original – no one has a character arc. One other (small) nitpick: despite being familiar with all of the actresses, their hair and costumes are styled so similarly that it is surprisingly easy to confuse or blend them together.
The emphasis on Billy, the lack of characterization for the sorority sisters and Morgan’s fixation on eye trauma (so.many.plucked.eyeballs!) are routinely cited as drawbacks in critiques of the remake. There is, however, a small camp of fans who praise the film for its amped-up bitchy dialogue, faster pace and ridiculous deaths (including one by icicle, one by figure skate and even an impaling via Christmas tree). In this regard, Black Christmas ’06 would pair nicely on a double bill with Sorority Row (itself a remake of The House On Sorority Row).
Intriguingly, both versions of Black Christmas can lay claim to a host of imitators. While the original Clark film is a known inspiration for Carpenter’s Halloween and other slashers of the eighties, the remake’s “killer in the walls” plot point precedes the twist endings of 2012’s The Pact, 2014’s Housebound and 2016’s The Boy (the exception is Wes Craven’s underrated 1991 film, The People Under The Stairs, though that film doesn’t use the trope as a twist).
The other imitated aspect of the ’06 remake is its protracted hospital ending. Following a bloody battle that claims nearly even character, Cassidy’s Kelli is attacked by Agnes in her hospital room and must defend herself using a defibrillator. This scene looks eerily similar to the (also protracted) ending of 2011’s Scream 4 when Sidney is attacked…in the hospital…by the killer (her niece Jill)…who is eventually killed using a defibrillator.
Comparing the original Black Christmas with its 2000s era remake is an unenviable task. The original has taken on near-mythic status as a classic of the genre (particularly evident at this time of year). Even on its own, Glen Morgan’s slasher remake isn’t a particularly great film, though it has a fun camp appeal and some really enjoyable kills. Billy’s backstory is arguably the least successful aspect of the film: it feels rote and unnecessary, disrupts the flow of events and lends the modern-day attacks on the sorority house a pervy, misogynistic vibe.
Thankfully Black Christmas ’06 is a quick 84 (or 94 unrated) minute watch which means you can easily give it a look while you wrap holiday gifts! Just be sure to leave a little something for Billy under the tree.
Want more Black Christmas ‘06 content?
In this day and age, the word “troll” is often used to describe various online nuisances. Yet as abundant and irksome as the modern troll can be, they aren’t usually as fearsome as their mythological counterparts. I’m not talking about the small and gentler versions that have become more common to see in media. No, there are much bigger and scarier trolls out there—and André Øvredal’s movie Troll Hunter is one of the best places to find them.
It doesn’t take long for Troll Hunter (or Trolljegeren) to dump the Blair Witch Project-esque setup and aim for something a lot fresher. The trajectory of the story is augmented by Otto Jespersen’s character Hans, the titular Troll Hunter. The second he comes barreling out of the deep, dark woods and shouts “troll” at the camera, this movie takes a turn into what feels like uncharted territory. Not only subject-wise, but also conceptually.
For fantastical and made-up subject matter in cinema, found footage is a fast way to add a guise of believability. After all, what we accept to be the most crucial aspect of documentaries—the truth—rubs off on pseudo-documentaries, despite our understanding of the pretense involved. That is what Øvredal delivered with Troll Hunter: a movie so convincing that some viewers wondered if trolls really do exist. So, had this been straightforwardly made, it likely wouldn’t have been as effective. Conventional narratives would be more inclined to treat something like trolls as flat out unreal, and never try to convince the audience to think otherwise.
Hans petrifies the three-headed Tusseladd troll.
The viewers, like the characters trailing Hans, are quickly thrown into the deeper end of that extraordinary story. They have to process all this new information while staying on the go. So, although there is no significant amount of meandering, narratively or physically, there is still a good amount of atmosphere, not to mention tension building. It’s never anything frightful, but then again, Troll Hunter isn’t your standard offering of horror; it’s more on the low end of the dark fantasy spectrum. We aren’t ever spirited away to a faraway world—we stay in rather familiar surroundings, as well as dip into those less so. The outcome is a movie where you’re constantly more in awe than in terror.
As fantasy fiction might do, Troll Hunter prefers not to deal with incredulity. There is no time to waste on doubt, as interviewer Thomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud), soundperson Johanna (Johanna Mørck), and cameraman Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen) all follow Hans around, recording whatever this character is willing to reveal about his bizarre job. Of course, the Troll Hunter himself is not an open book; in that respect, the diegetic documentary fails to fully capture and unpack the more interesting of its two subjects. Yes, all those giant, monstrous trolls are indeed incredible, but understandably, your mind wanders to their pursuer. What kind of person signs up for this gig and then chooses to stick with it for so long?
Reviews have called out Troll Hunter for its lack of character development. In regard to Thomas and his fellow documentarians, that criticism is valid, but bear in mind, they aren’t the focus of the story, either. Meanwhile, Hans is a well-crafted character. At least better than first realized. Before he was introduced, Hans had already grown tired of the troll grind. Fed up with that low compensation for his services, resentful of the bureaucracy, and wanting to expose his employer on a large scale, Hans’ discontent is glaring.
Then there are those finer details about the Troll Hunter, such as that indifference to both the natural splendor of his everyday surroundings and the affections of an obviously smitten colleague, that also suggest some level of despondency. So it is fair to say this movie doesn’t feature any sizable growth for its characters; however, the namesake isn’t underwritten. No doubt, putting a real-life character like Otto Jespersen in that role is partly why Hans is so fascinating—maybe even relatable.
Otto Jespersen as Hans the Troll Hunter.
There is always a small risk whenever using the term “mockumentary” to describe a found-footage movie, as the word could imply humor where there is none. In the case of Troll Hunter, the term’s usage is appropriate. Some folks have claimed the English-dubbed version has the more comedic tone, however, the Norwegian cut isn’t exactly humorless. Apart from the trolls’ absurd appearances, this is a movie where the characters nearly choke on the monsters’ farts, and Christians are like walking targets. Hans’ complete apathy towards everything is another cause of laughter. Overall, the comedy is intentionally dry and inconsistent. Unfunny, though? Absolutely not.
In a movie where endemic creatures are maltreated, as well as disavowed from living freely and peacefully, it’s hard not to notice the ecological message buried beneath the story. In addition to that is the unmistakable political satire. There is this whole business about intrusive and unsightly power lines—like trolls, they’re big blemishes on the land—that leads to what is perhaps the movie’s funniest moment. The scene in question is that one where certain electric lines, the ones secretly being used to keep the trolls at bay, go in a loop and don’t actually send power to any residents. Yet the monitors of said lines don’t find this at all weird. So it stands to reason that Øvredal was having a go at those who accept the government’s doings without question.
Looking past the fact that trolls aren’t actually real, this movie is an enlightening source of information. And not just for international audiences; Norwegians, too, get schooled about their homeland’s own mythology. It’s also evident from everything on screen that Øvredal and his crew were enthusiastic about the topic. The creature designs are the most indicative of that zeal; those imaginative yet myth-accurate manifestations are equally amusing and grotesque. One second you’re laughing at their phallic noses, the next you’re white-knuckling during a hairy sequence. Most surprisingly is how well the trolls’ visual effects hold up after fifteen years. It’s not all spotless, but on the whole, they remain impressive.
Vouching for a mockumentary about trolls isn’t easy, but those who do come around and give it a shot will more than likely be grateful for the recommendation. For Troll Hunter is a real find in that vast and varied genre we call “found footage“.
A bridge troll reaches up for food and finds Hans decked out in armor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.