Editorials
[Horror Queers] The Delicious Camp of ‘Fright Night Part 2’ and its Genderqueer Henchvamp
Each month in Horror Queers, Joe and Trace tackle a horror film with LGBTQ+ themes, a high camp quotient or both. For lifelong queer horror fans like us, there’s as much value in serious discussions about representation as there is in reading a ridiculously silly/fun horror film with a YAS KWEEN mentality. Just know that at no point will we be getting Babashook.
In case you missed our announcement last month, be sure to check out and subscribe to our podcast. We’ll still be writing one article a month, but there will be 4-5 podcast episodes each month where we discuss one horror film per episode. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Stitcher, TuneIn, RSS.
***SPOILERS for Fright Night Part 2 to follow.***
Synopsis for Fright Night Part 2: Three years after the vampire Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) was destroyed in Fright Night, his sister Regine (Julie Carmen) – in the guise of a mysterious performer – seeks revenge on Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) and Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowell), the heroic duo who carried out the staking.
Queer Aspect: Regine has a rollerblading New Wave genderqueer henchvamp named Belle (Russell Clark).
Related Article: The Curious Case of Fright Night Part 2
Trace
Honestly Joe, I can’t believe we didn’t have Fright Night Part 2 on our list of films (big thanks to Gaylords of Darkness podcast co-host Anthony Hudson for suggesting it), but I sure am glad we decided to cover it! This was especially exciting for me, because Tom Holland’s original Fright Night is one of my absolute favorite movies. AMC used to play it all the time when I was growing up and my sister and I would watch it every single time we came across it (we were both in love with Stephen Geoffrey’s Evil Ed). It’s just that good.
I never got around to seeing Fright Night Part 2 however, because it is extremely difficult to find! The Artisan Entertainment DVD from 2003 is now out of print, and it was pulled from Amazon’s streaming services despite being added to it last year. Luckily, three different accounts have uploaded the film in its entirety to YouTube. Phew! I guess that’s not entirely legal, but whoever owns the rights must not care because they’ve been uploaded for years.
Comparing Fright Night Part 2 to Fright Night is a fool’s errand. The original can’t really be matched in terms of quality. It’s iconic. It’s perfect. There was never any way a sequel would live up to it. And yet I couldn’t help but be won over by Part 2’s charms.
It does have its issues, mind you. The chemistry between Charley and Peter is sorely lacking in this film, mostly because they hardly share any screen time together. In fact, Charley isn’t really all that involved this go-around. His role is extremely passive since he is Regine’s target rather than her hunter. Alex (Traci Lind) is a rather bland replacement for Amy (Amanda Bearse had just started an 11-season run on the hit Fox sitcom Married…. with Children when Fright Night Part 2 was in production). And, despite all of Julie Carmen’s best efforts, Regine just isn’t as effective a villain as Chris Sarandon’s Jerry Dandridge (though her verbal take-down of Peter Vincent shortly after he realizes she’s a vampire is glorious).
So how does the queer representation in Fright Night Part 2 compare to the representation in Fright Night? Unfortunately not as well, which isn’t necessarily surprising considering Fright Night was filled to the brim with queerness. The majority of the original film’s cast is comprised of queer actors (Stephen Geoffreys, Roddy McDowall and Amanda Bearse), though none of them were out at the time (also not surprising, considering it was 1985, aka the height of the AIDS epidemic). Jerry Dandridge, despite his love for Amy, is most definitely a queer villain. I mean, his whole cover is being an aristocratic antiques dealer with a live-in interior decorator (Jonathan Stark). In the words of Brittany Murphy’s character from Drop Dead Gorgeous: gaaaaaaaaaaay. And then we have Evil Ed, played to over-the-top perfection by Geoffreys (who famously moved on to gay porn films shortly after appearing in Fright Night). A number of things can be said about Ed’s queerness, but let’s just say he dresses in drag in one of the film’s more memorable scenes.
The queer themes present in the original (vampirism as a metaphor for queerness) are eschewed in Part 2 for a more surface-level approach. This doesn’t ruin the film by any means. It just makes it less interesting to analyze. So what queerness does Fright Night Part 2 give us? A genderqueer rollerblading vampire henchperson named Belle (RIP Russell Clark) who also happens to be a person of color. Say what you will about Fright Night Part 2, but that is some progressive shit right there. Does the fact that he’s rollerblading for the majority of the film have any significance? Probably not, but it’s hilarious.
Russell Clark as Belle
Unfortunately, Part 2 doesn’t offer much else in the way of queerness. I suppose Regine could also be viewed as queer (vampires have an inherent queerness and sexual fluidity to them), but with the exception of her awesome hairstyle in the climax, the film doesn’t give her any explicitly queer moments to work with, so I’ll leave that to you, Joe, in case you got a queer reading from Carmen’s performance.
Joe, what did you think of Fright Night Part 2? Was Alex as good of a girlfriend as Amy? Did Belle fill the queer standards (quota?) set by the first movie? And what was up with the way Alex was reading Bram Stoker’s Dracula? It was so weird!
Joe
Sadly you are correct, Trace; Fright Night Part 2 simply doesn’t compare to the original. As I mentioned in the first episode of our podcast (“Speed Dating”), the original is pretty much the definition of a perfect queer horror film to me, so I had to temper my expectations for this sequel because…what could possibly live up to that ideal text?
A quick context note before we dive into the film proper. Because it’s Black History Month (in addition to Women In Horror Month), I really wanted us to cover a film with a prominent black queer presence and I was genuinely shocked at how challenging this proved to be.
Black horror films? Easy to find.
Queer horror films? Easy to find.
Combine the two and suddenly it’s like we were looking for a goddamn four-leaf clover.
Sure there are a few supporting characters here and there, but apparently asking for a horror film featuring a lead black character with a strong queer presence or (even better) a queer black lead was asking for the moon! (Sidebar: A ton of folks recommended Good Manners, a Brazilian lesbian werewolf film, to us, but it is literally impossible to find in Canada outside of a $25 bare bones DVD. Licensing folks – it sucks).
Okay, back to Fright Night Part 2!
The sequel is definitely a lot of fun, though I’d probably throw it into the “camp” category before I’d really call it queer. It’s mostly filled with bizarre and hilarious elements that have lots of appeal for Horror Queers fans, but outside of Belle, who is genderqueer but also surprisingly asexual, there isn’t a ton overtly queer elements on display here.
One queer element to include is the presence of Merritt Butrick as Charley’s new bestie, Richie. According to IMDb, at the time of filming Butrick had just been diagnosed with AIDS (he was rumoured to be gay or bisexual) and despite his failing health, he really wanted to shoot the film, but because the disease was still such a mystery he felt compelled to tell everyone in order to protect their safety. Apparently, the crew was so fearful/diligent that they created special fake vampire teeth for him that didn’t cut his gums. This is what life was like back in the 80s at the height of the AIDS crisis, when information about the disease was uncertain and getting infected was tantamount to a death sentence. (It doesn’t come across on screen, but it’s a fascinating factoid to consider, especially in a vampire film filled with practical effects).
I do feel like the main reason to watch this film is that there’s a ton of batshit crazy on display. The sense of humour is much stronger in the sequel, particularly in sequences like the dormitory attack sequence (which is preceded by Regine laying on Charley’s car roof decked out in purple leather before introducing Belle on wheels and Jon Gries’ Louie’s nails get clipped in a windowsill). Hell, there’s even a montage where the henchmen pass the time bowling!
Narratively, you’re right that there are some weird logic gaps and whole sections of the cast seem to be continually separated or excluded for stretches at a time. My main complaint is how poorly the sequel treats its new villain. Chris Sarandon gets A TON of screen time in the original, whereas Regine feels like she’s barely in this. I was (lamentably) bemused that she isn’t even named until well into the film and the screenplay seems entirely unclear what her plan is for roughly 60% of the film. Still, her “performance piece” dance with Belle and the moment when she takes over Peter Vincent’s Fright Night show are beguiling, thanks to Carmen’s screen presence and her faaaaaabulous late-80s wardrobe, which look like a collection of expensive silk nightgowns.
Julie Carmen as Regine
As for Alex? UGH. What I would have given for Regine to make a move on Alex, rather than focus exclusively on Charley… Alex feels like a lukewarm revamp (heh) of Fright Night’s Amy, who convincingly managed to tread the line between innocent and sexualized woman. Traci Lind never manages to endear herself, and the result is that Alex frequently comes across as a bit of an uppity bitch; granted the script does her no favours with some pretty ridiculous dialogue (my favourite is when she yells at Charley that she came to College to “become a clinical psychologist!” Ok gurl, settle down).
So yeah, despite rocking a quintessential 80s boy name, Alex is definitely not my favourite horror movie girlfriend by a long shot, even if she can speed read Dracula like a woman possessed!
Back to you, Trace: what’s your favourite campy element(s) in Fright Night 2? Any wild speculations about why Charley and Peter Vincent are kept apart for so much of the film? And how enjoyable are those amazing practical effects?!
Trace
I hope you planned that “batshit” pun because there are a lot of bat shots in this movie!
I’m so glad you mentioned that bowling scene. The whole time I was thinking to myself “It’s a real missed opportunity that they’re not bowling with severed heads” and then BAM! A severed head is ejected from the bowling ball return machine (is there a more concise name for that? Google was no help). That scene serves no purpose to the narrative but it sure is fun to watch!
Brian Thompson as Bozworth
Fright Night Part 2 definitely uses its henchpeople well (compared to the original’s deathly dull Billy), but it comes at the cost of screen time for Regine. I would have loved to have seen more of her so I’m glad that you brought up her underwritten role. This is mostly due to the fact that, as you said, Regine doesn’t really interact with the protagonists all that much (hell, she barely even speaks to her henchpeople!).
It’s odd because it feels like everyone is kept apart for much of Part 2’s runtime. Charley is all too often on his own, save for the handful of one-on-one scenes he shares with Alex, Peter and Regine. This trend of keeping protagonists apart is a common trope in many franchise sequels (see: I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, The Empire Strikes Back or Scream 3). Why, after setting up a relationship (be it romantic or platonic) between characters, would you deliberately deprive your audience the opportunity to see it continue in the follow-up? It’s one of my biggest pet peeves and it most definitely applies here. If only we had received Fright Night Part 3, which no doubt would have given us all of the Charley/Peter scenes that Part 2 is sorely lacking!
Speaking of Part 3, there is a bit of insane backstory behind it. Part 2 may have had trouble getting made (it was delayed by 3 years and the script had to be re-written when both Tom Holland and Chris Sarandon were busy making Child’s Play), but at least it was made. As we all know, Part 3 had no such luck.
Before Fright Night Part 2 was even released, McDowall set up a meeting with Tom Holland and then-chairman of Carolco Pictures Jose Menendez to discuss a third film. Unfortunately, Menendez and his wife were murdered by their sons before the meeting could take place, thereby derailing any hope for a third entry in the franchise (it even ruined Part 2’s US theatrical release, reducing its widest release to 148 screens). These events aren’t exactly pertinent to our analysis of the film since they don’t really affect the final product of Part 2 (creatively speaking), but I thought it was worth mentioning.
On to a lighter topic: Fright Night Part 2 has plenty of campy elements, my favorite of which might be that awful face-morphing effect imposed on Regine during her big dance number. It’s laughably bad, but honestly, the henchpeople are the stars of the show here. Whether or not that is a good thing is up to you. Belle is a mostly silent, but ridiculously silly creation. Louie gets most of the verbal (and slapstick) jokes in the film. Finally, you’ve got Bozworth playing the Renfield-type role with his constant bug ingestion (fun fact: Bozworth is played by Brian Thompson, who would go on to play the villainous Shao-Kahn in 1997’s atrocious Mortal Kombat: Annihilation). Their scenes together are when the film is at its most campy, and it’s all the better for it.
On another note, however, why does Regine need so many helpers? Jerry only had one, and Billy didn’t really do anything for him other than keep his gay lover cover story. With Regine, it seems like her posse does everything for her, and to be honest, she doesn’t exactly have the strongest hold over them. C’mon movie. Let the woman do something! Louie’s brief relationship with Alex is a bit rapey, too (“You look great scared.”? Yeesh), but that’s 1989 for ya!
Jon Gries as Louie
Where Part 2 really succeeds is in its practical effects. The creature design on Louie’s lupine form is exquisite, and all of the henchpeople’s death scenes are ooey-gooey fun. This should come as no surprise, considering that the original is a hallmark of ‘80s effects, but it’s still nice to see that, despite a significantly lower budget, an appropriate amount of time and care still went into those effects (except Regine’s aforementioned face-morph). Richie’s holy water meltdown is awesome and Bozworth’s bug-splosion is particularly inspired, even if it does feel like a riff on the mask kill in Halloween III: Season of the Witch.
Joe, what are your final thoughts on Fright Night Part 2? Does Alex have any redeeming qualities? What is one thing you would change about it to make it better? What would you have liked to have seen in Fright Night Part 3? And what are your thoughts on the remake with Colin Firth (spoiler: I think it’s pretty good)? I haven’t seen the remake of the sequel though…..
Joe
Oh lord, Alex…
Honestly, I think one of the main reasons I was so annoyed with her is simply because this film doesn’t need a female lead. In my dream version of Fright Night Part 2, Alex doesn’t exist because it allows so much more screen time for Charley (+ his mullet), Peter Vincent and Regine. Imagine if we didn’t have an unnecessary romance weighing the proceedings down?
With that said, however, if I’m answering your question honestly, I did like that Alex can (mostly) handle herself. She saves Charley’s butt in the library showdown with Louie and she also manages to stake Charley’s predatory therapist using a giant effing train track (this whole section, including the Peter Vincent rescue from the asylum, is kind of cuckoo-bananas because it feels imported from another, very different draft of the film).
Ping-ponging back to a change I would make: I’m picking up your thread about Louie’s werewolf status and Bozworth’s Renfield because I kept waiting for confirmation that the Fright Night universe was expanding to include a “Monster Squad” cacophony of villains. While I, too, don’t understand why Regine needed so many damn henchpeople, I was enamoured by the idea that Peter Vincent’s vast knowledge of the supernatural might come into play in other ways (if only so that we don’t end up repeating the climax of the first film with the light and mirrors…which is exactly what winds up happens). If I could turn back time, I would make this into more of an explicit monster mash and expand the sandbox by leaning into the conventions of other creatures films.
If we’re delving even deeper into speculative fiction territory: in my ideal third entry of the franchise, I would want to change up the formula a little more to explore the world of the vampires. As much as I like the familial connection between Jerry and Regine, it would hardly make sense to have a third family member show up looking for revenge. Instead I propose a third entry that unpacks their mythos – where they come from, if there’s a social contract they must abide by, if they have a leader, etc.
Perhaps it’s just because of the recent news that a remake of Roald Dahl/Nicolas Roeg’s The Witches is about to go into production, but wouldn’t it be fascinating to have Peter Vincent, widower Charley (yes, Alex is DEAD) and his young daughter lured out to a remote location under false pretenses by a convention of vampires determined to get rid of the prolific vampire hunters? How would Peter Vincent, Charley and his daughter survive the onslaught of an entire group of vamps (and their werewolf henchpeople)? Hollywood, hire Trace and I to figure it out!
The remake obviously doesn’t go in that direction, opting instead for a basic reboot of the premise, minus every last vestige of queerness (minus David Tennant’s yummy leather pants). The cast, including Anton Yelchin (RIP), Toni Collette, hot daddy vamp Colin Farrell, and aforementioned Tennant as Criss Angel Mindfreak, is obviously stacked and the film has some decent action, but I do miss the queer (sub)text. Most problematically, this is another one of those misguided attempts to modernize a horror film by replacing quality practical effects with absolutely shoddy CGI. There’s simply no excuse for effects this bad in 2011!
You didn’t mention it, but we talked offline about the atrocious looking 2013 sequel of the remake (trailer), which features Dexter and Spartacus’ Jaime Murray(!) I didn’t even know it existed until you mentioned Fright Night 2 was available on YouTube and I saw the trailer! FN2 2013…doesn’t look good, though perhaps it would have been an even campier watch? If anyone has checked it out, be sure to let us know in the comments!
Next time on Horror Queers: March is a sleepy month, so let’s get a little psychosexual with a dip into the balletic fever dream that is Darren Aronofsky’s Black Swan.
Fright Night is available to stream FOR FREE on YouTube.
And don’t forget to catch up on our previous Horror Queers articles here or check out our podcast page here.
Twice a month Joe Lipsett will dissect a new Amityville Horror film to explore how the “franchise” has evolved in increasingly ludicrous directions. This is “The Amityville IP.”
A bizarre recurring issue with the Amityville “franchise” is that the films tend to be needlessly complicated. Back in the day, the first sequels moved away from the original film’s religious-themed haunted house storyline in favor of streamlined, easily digestible concepts such as “haunted lamp” or “haunted mirror.”
As the budgets plummeted and indie filmmakers capitalized on the brand’s notoriety, it seems the wrong lessons were learned. Runtimes have ballooned past the 90-minute mark and the narratives are often saggy and unfocused.
Both issues are clearly on display in Amityville Karen (2022), a film that starts off rough, but promising, and ends with a confused whimper.
The promise is embodied by the tinge of self-awareness in Julie Anne Prescott (The Amityville Harvest)’s screenplay, namely the nods to John Waters’ classic 1994 satire, Serial Mom. In that film, Beverly Sutphin (an iconic Kathleen Turner) is a bored, white suburban woman who punished individuals who didn’t adhere to her rigid definition of social norms. What is “Karen” but a contemporary equivalent?
In director/actor Shawn C. Phillips’ film, Karen (Lauren Francesca) is perpetually outraged. In her introductory scenes, she makes derogatory comments about immigrants, calls a female neighbor a whore, and nearly runs over a family blocking her driveway. She’s a broad, albeit familiar persona; in many ways, she’s less of a character than a caricature (the living embodiment of the name/meme).
These early scenes also establish a fairly straightforward plot. Karen is a code enforcement officer with plans to shut down a local winery she has deemed disgusting. They’re preparing for a big wine tasting event, which Karen plans to ruin, but when she steals a bottle of cursed Amityville wine, it activates her murderous rage and goes on a killing spree.
Simple enough, right?
Unfortunately, Amityville Karen spins out of control almost immediately. At nearly every opportunity, Prescott’s screenplay eschews narrative cohesion and simplicity in favour of overly complicated developments and extraneous characters.
Take, for example, the wine tasting event. The film spends an entire day at the winery: first during the day as a band plays, then at a beer tasting (???) that night. Neither of these events are the much touted wine-tasting, however; that is actually a private party happening later at server Troy (James Duval)’s house.
Weirdly though, following Troy’s death, the party’s location is inexplicably moved to Karen’s house for the climax of the film, but the whole event plays like an afterthought and features a litany of characters we have never met before.
This is a recurring issue throughout Amityville Karen, which frequently introduces random characters for a scene or two. Karen is typically absent from these scenes, which makes them feel superfluous and unimportant. When the actress is on screen, the film has an anchor and a narrative drive. The scenes without her, on the other hand, feel bloated and directionless (blame editor Will Collazo Jr., who allows these moments to play out interminably).
Compounding the issue is that the majority of the actors are non-professionals and these scenes play like poorly performed improv. The result is long, dull stretches that features bad actors talking over each other, repeating the same dialogue, and generally doing nothing to advance the narrative or develop the characters.
While Karen is one-note and histrionic throughout the film, at least there’s a game willingness to Francesca’s performance. It feels appropriately campy, though as the film progresses, it becomes less and less clear if Amityville Karen is actually in on the joke.
Like Amityville Cop before it, there are legit moments of self-awareness (the Serial Mom references), but it’s never certain how much of this is intentional. Take, for example, Karen’s glaringly obvious wig: it unconvincingly fails to conceal Francesca’s dark hair in the back, but is that on purpose or is it a technical error?
Ultimately there’s very little to recommend about Amityville Karen. Despite the game performance by its lead and the gentle homages to Serial Mom’s prank call and white shoes after Labor Day jokes, the never-ending improv scenes by non-professional actors, the bloated screenplay, and the jittery direction by Phillips doom the production.
Clocking in at an insufferable 100 minutes, Amityville Karen ranks among the worst of the “franchise,” coming in just above Phillips’ other entry, Amityville Hex.
The Amityville IP Awards go to…
- Favorite Subplot: In the afternoon event, there’s a self-proclaimed “hot boy summer” band consisting of burly, bare-chested men who play instruments that don’t make sound (for real, there’s no audio of their music). There’s also a scheming manager who is skimming money off the top, but that’s not as funny.
- Least Favorite Subplot: For reasons that don’t make any sense, the winery is also hosting a beer tasting which means there are multiple scenes of bartender Alex (Phillips) hoping to bring in women, mistakenly conflating a pint of beer with a “flight,” and goading never before seen characters to chug. One of them describes the beer as such: “It looks like a vampire menstruating in a cup” (it’s a gold-colored IPA for the record, so…no).
- Amityville Connection: The rationale for Karen’s killing spree is attributed to Amityville wine, whose crop was planted on cursed land. This is explained by vino groupie Annie (Jennifer Nangle) to band groupie Bianca (Lilith Stabs). It’s a lot of nonsense, but it is kind of fun when Annie claims to “taste the damnation in every sip.”
- Neverending Story: The film ends with an exhaustive FIVE MINUTE montage of Phillips’ friends posing as reporters in front of terrible green screen discussing the “killer Karen” story. My kingdom for Amityville’s regular reporter Peter Sommers (John R. Walker) to return!
- Best Line 1: Winery owner Dallas (Derek K. Long), describing Karen: “She’s like a walking constipation with a hemorrhoid”
- Best Line 2: Karen, when a half-naked, bleeding woman emerges from her closet: “Is this a dream? This dream is offensive! Stop being naked!”
- Best Line 3: Troy, upset that Karen may cancel the wine tasting at his house: “I sanded that deck for days. You don’t just sand a deck for days and then let someone shit on it!”
- Worst Death: Karen kills a Pool Boy (Dustin Clingan) after pushing his head under water for literally 1 second, then screeches “This is for putting leaves on my plants!”
- Least Clear Death(s): The bodies of a phone salesman and a barista are seen in Karen’s closet and bathroom, though how she killed them are completely unclear
- Best Death: Troy is stabbed in the back of the neck with a bottle opener, which Karen proceeds to crank
- Wannabe Lynch: After drinking the wine, Karen is confronted in her home by Barnaby (Carl Solomon) who makes her sign a crude, hand drawn blood contract and informs her that her belly is “pregnant from the juices of his grapes.” Phillips films Barnaby like a cross between the unhoused man in Mulholland Drive and the Mystery Man in Lost Highway. It’s interesting, even if the character makes absolutely no sense.
- Single Image Summary: At one point, a random man emerges from the shower in a towel and excitedly poops himself. This sequence perfectly encapsulates the experience of watching Amityville Karen.
- Pray for Joe: Many of these folks will be back in Amityville Shark House and Amityville Webcam, so we’re not out of the woods yet…
Next time: let’s hope Christmas comes early with 2022’s Amityville Christmas Vacation. It was the winner of Fangoria’s Best Amityville award, after all!
4 New Horror Movies Releasing This Week Including ‘Late Night with the Devil’ at Home
Looking for New Episodes of “Chucky” on Peacock? Here’s What Changed
‘Ready or Not’: Radio Silence Filmmakers Tease the “Absolute Banger” of a Sequel That’s Taking Shape
‘Terrifier 3’: Filming Has Wrapped on Damien Leone’s Christmas Slasher Sequel!
‘Halloween: Illustrated’ Review: Original Novelization of John Carpenter’s Classic Gets an Upgrade
You must be logged in to post a comment.