Friday the 13th Part 2

IMG_0271

“Friday the 13th Part 2” (1981) has the distinction of being the first slasher sequel. (“Halloween II” would be released later the same year.) As such, you’d think it would be a pioneer of the Sequel Rules, as famously articulated in “Scream 2” (1998), i.e. a higher body count and more elaborate, gory kills. In this respect, “Part 2” is a disappointment. The body count is roughly the same, and it didn’t seem to occur to the filmmakers to get more creative with the ways the killer disposes of the horny teens. That said, “Friday the 13th Part 2” is an improvement on the original.

It should be said that this film is basically a remake of “Friday the 13th.” The setting and story are the same and the characters even look strangely similar to the original cast. But, like any smart sequel, it uses the events of the first film to fortify its own story. In the original, the backstory of Jason and his mother was spilled out suddenly at the end, but here, those details are used throughout the film to humanize the killer, if such a thing can be said about Jason Voorhees.

The major upgrade that was done for the sequel was ditching the mystery angle. The original film used a first-person camera to conceal the identity of the killer until the end, when the killer was revealed to be an elderly woman. The fun of a mystery plot can be totally undone by an unsatisfying conclusion, and while this was a funny twist, and Betsy Palmer’s performance as Mrs. Voorhees was appropriately creepy, she was not at all threatening. The reveal made you reconsider the story and wonder why any of the victims were not able to run away from her or overpower her, forcing you to conclude, “Oh well. It’s just a dumb slasher movie.”

In the sequel, there are a few first-person shots, maybe used as a callback to the original, but it’s made fairly clear that the killer is Jason, the son of Mrs. Voorhees. This allows us to explore the character a little, as when the sheriff discovers his crazy ramshackle shed in the middle of the woods. You can’t help but imagine Jason building it. One character mentions that Jason hunts woodland animals to survive. Another expresses sympathy for Jason and his mother, both trying in their own deranged ways to cope with the loss of the other.

So, little by little, a picture emerges of Jason as a human; a dangerous and demented one, to be sure, but one who needs food and shelter and the love of his mother nonetheless. It may also be significant that at this point in the franchise, Jason has still not donned his signature hockey mask. He’s not yet Jason the Horror Movie Monster. He’s a guy who lives in the woods. All of this gives the sequel a bit more depth – just enough to make this stupid slasher movie feel more substantive and satisfying than the original.

 

Advertisements

Friday the 13th

Friday_the_thirteenth_movie_poster“Friday the 13th” (1980) may be the unlikeliest kickoff to a major franchise in film history. Prior to this viewing, the only Jason movie I’d seen was “Freddy vs. Jason” (2003), and I’m not even sure if that counts. My expectations were thus: a bunch of horny teenagers at a remote lake camp would get killed one by one by someone wearing a hockey mask.

Already a thin premise, but imagine my surprise when the hockey mask didn’t even appear.

I was left wondering why this film resonated with audiences so strongly. The premise wasn’t new. The slasher had been seen before in John Carpenter’s “Halloween” (1978), and much more effectively too, since its killer was creepier and its main character more endearing.

“Friday the 13th” was just one of a number of “Halloween” rip-offs. Its characters are underdeveloped and the time between kills feels like filler. But it stuck with audiences, mainly I think, based on the strength its final moments.

The Reveal of the Killer. 

“Friday the 13th” depicts its killer with point-of-view shots. This type of shot was also used in “Halloween,” but there it was just a hook for the opening scene. Here, it’s used for almost the entire movie to hide the identity of the killer.

Throughout the film, we see other characters interacting with the killer. They smile. They’re warm and friendly. This is a clue. The killer doesn’t look threatening on the surface. And yet, after seeing so many teens stabbed and axed, we still expect some sort of menace. When she’s revealed, the killer is wearing a sensible cable-knit sweater and looks like the picture of an aged public school secretary. One gets the feeling that even if she did have a mind for murder, it would be a simple thing to escape from her by jogging lightly away.

She is, of course, Mrs. Voorhees, Jason’s mother. We learn that Jason drown in the lake years ago due to the negligence of his camp counselors who were busy humping and getting high. The camp had been closed since then, but is about to reopen, and Mrs. Voorhees, determined to cancel those plans, sets about murdering all the camp employees. And this all occurs on Jason’s birthday, Friday the 13th.

I think all of this works. Her non-threatening appearance plays as comedic, but unintentional comedy is always welcome in a B horror movie. Mrs. Voorhees may make you smile more than cringe, but she’s a memorable villain with a compelling motivation.

The Surprise Ending.

The way this film ends is ridiculous. It makes no sense, even within its own world. But it still gets you.

Inspired by the ending of “Carrie” (1976), the filmmakers tacked on this goofy epilogue hoping to leave the audience with one last fright. They succeeded, and as a bonus, a major film franchise was born.