A Bard on Elm Street
Friday, March 7th by scott malia
A review of a current production of Titus Andronicus compares the play to slasher films, but differentiates it by noting the lack of complexity and sophistication in the latter. Titus Andronicus frequently inspires gore-laden productions, so this assessment is not totally surprising, however, what about reverse argument? What, if anything, is Shakespearean about slasher films? Are they in any way comparable?
Revenge plays a key role in both the tragedies of Shakespeare and slasher movies. Hamlet must avenge his father’s murder, while Coriolanus seeks revenge against the society that he believes rejected him. In horror filmdom, Freddy Krueger goes after the children of Elm Street as payback for their parents murdering him. Jason, who became the face of 1980’s horror, actually became the killer from the second Friday the 13th film onward. One of his primary motivations is revenge for his mother (who is the killer in the first film).
Like Shakespeare’s plays, the horror films eventually learned to expand their market by mixing genres. Shakespeare’s late-career works are alternately described as romances and tragicomedies in an attempt to categorize their melding of different genres. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master plays with some potent executions added to the mix (a far cry from the more serious, shadowy figure depicted in the first installment).
Most importantly, both Shakespeare’s plays and horror movies ask us to identify with characters who aren’t particularly likeable or honorable. Macbeth and Lady M. are terrible people, but the play hinges on our investment in their undoing. Horror films, particularly in their heyday two decades ago, asked us not only to like but to root for demented, undead sociopaths. Ultimately, both allow audiences to take a trip to the dark side.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Funny, I just asked this exact question of Macbeth this morning (http://blog.shakespearegeek.com/2008/03/macbeth-is-he-not-good-guy.html) likening him to the bad guy in the final scene of the movie who, no matter how much he gets butchered and burned, keeps rising up to take another swing at the hero.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
One difference in most modern slasher films is that there seems to be blood for the sake of blood. The story and characters don’t matter as much as the blood does to the makers of the movie. The good movies put the story first, but this isn’t often the case.
In Titus Andronicus, Macbeth, Coriolanus, and other tragedies the blood is there becasue of the events in the story. It is not a goal in the show. In Shakespeare’s day they might not have even shown blood. They didn’t have sets, so why blood? The focus is on the language, the characters, the story. Gore shouldn’t be there just because it will get a reaction from the audience.