Thursday, November 7, 2013

Venus in Furs: Jess Franco and Sexuality in Cinema



            Sexuality has been a part of art since its beginning. In fact, in many ways sex is synonymous with art itself. From the very earliest writings of King Solomon to the celebration of the human figure by Renaissance painters such as Leonardo Da Vinci and Jacques Louis-David, eroticism has permeated creativity. And, from the banned writings of the Marquis de Sade to the very latest polarizing film Blue is the Warmest Color (La vie de Adéle) [2013], it has engendered controversy.
            De Sade isn’t the only artist to have been imprisoned for ‘obscenity’. Author Oscar Wilde, comedian Lenny Bruce, and filmmaker Ruggero Deodato are just a few other examples. Much more common is censorship, whether in the form of imposed ratings, limited release, forced cuts, or even the wholesale banning of works á la the UK’s Video Recordings Act of 1984 – a bill that labeled many films as video nasties.
            Sometimes it is the depiction of graphic violence that incurs censorship, but by and large it is the free and frank portrayal of human sexuality that brings the hammer down. Sex is undeniably the most profitable and yet also the most controversial subject in art, media, and education. We live in a peculiar, prudish age where graphic violence and the taking of life is considered appropriate for general audiences aged 13 and above, while the very nature of humanity that is responsible for the creation of life is labeled inappropriate and NC-17: No One Under 17 Admitted. Why is the ugly okay and the beautiful obscene?
           
Obviously this is a far-reaching topic that has been the focal point of endless discourse, argued and pontificated over and over again by doctors, professors, authors, filmmakers, musicians, ministers, politicians, teenagers, and generally everyone. There is not much new to be said, really. But this author and film fan would like to relay his own newfound outlook to all of you, my dear audience, if only to make it clear in my own mind and to achieve some degree of satisfaction in the act of sharing it with someone, anyone at all.
I wish to examine sexuality in cinema by taking a look at a director whose body of work has encompassed nearly every perspective possible on the subject: Jess Franco.

Jesús Franco Manera, publically known as Jess Franco, was born in Madríd, Spain on May 12, 1930. He died this year on April 2, 2013. In his eighty-two years, he directed nearly two hundred films. Most of these, if not all, deal with the themes of sexuality as it relates to every sort of area in life. Franco marries sex with violence, horror, obsession, politics, history, romance, crime, spirituality, and a variety of different cultures – from contemporary Europe, to Istanbul (a seeming favorite of his), to South America, to the islands of the Caribbean.
His films run the gamut of sexual expression. At times sensual (Venus in Furs [1969]) and surreal (Vampyros Lesbos [1971]), and at others violent (99 Women [1969]) and deviant (Eugenie de Sade [1974]).
Many critics have labeled Franco a hack, describing his pictures as sleazy, trashy exploitation. Yet many also praise the way he managed to frequently turn low grade grindhouse fair into psycho-surreal arthouse erotica.

With such an extensive catalogue of films to his credit, Jess Franco must at least be considered the master of prolific output. During a career that spanned half a century, he would routinely complete three to four films per year, at times six to seven during his high period of the late-1960’s to early-1970’s.
Naturally, such a vast filmography yields movies of widely varying quality. One has to wonder, when viewing such treasures as Eugenie… Philosophy in the Boudoir (1969), what could Franco have produced given ample time and budget to really focus on a picture? Even so, each film, good or bad, deals with the enigma of sexuality. Perhaps wrapped up in the inexplicable draw of these forbidden cinematic fruits is an insight to the need for sensuality in film, and even in art itself?

When one hears about Jess Franco, inevitably two films always get mentioned: Venus in Furs and Vampyros Lesbos. Each stars a muse of the director’s. In Venus in Furs, she is the seductive Maria Rohm; and in Vampyros Lesbos, the charismatic and gorgeous Soledad Miranda. Both turn in gripping and intensely vulnerable performances for their respective films. But their acting talent is clearly not the focus. Instead, it is their presence.
It is no secret that Franco is a dominantly visual storyteller. Everything the audience needs to know is held in the way he shoots these beautiful ladies. The camera follows their movements; almost as graceful as the actresses themselves. The close zooms on their faces and slow pans across their elegantly clothed figures are almost impossibly erotic, more so even than the abundant nudity so often on display elsewhere in the films.

While it may seem obvious, so many directors tend to forget that cinema is a visual medium. They tell their stories with dialogue and exposition, paying little attention to shot composition and color placement. Not so with Jess Franco. He fills his frames corner-to-corner with lush images and eye-popping colors. Every tiny bit appears deliberately designed to stimulate, titillate, and enthrall.
Such visual audacity is the key to his successfulness with surreal eroticism. Another is the comparative restraint he demonstrates in his best pictures. Not showing too much is the name of the game in truly effective erotica, and it is when he is teasing us with fleeting glimpses and drenching set pieces with moody atmosphere that Franco is at his brilliant best.
This is made even more apparent when such restraint is absent, as in his harsher films like Women Behind Bars (1975) and Sadomania (1981), where the content includes sadism, extreme deviancy, and nearly hardcore moments. Even these pictures, though distasteful to some, have their place as Franco explores every vestige and nature of sexuality.

In Vampyros Lesbos, as well as other movies like Count Dracula (1970) and Succubus (1967), he constructs our view of eroticism through the lens of horror. This may be a particularly apt setting because it speaks directly to that singular symptom of Western society: the fear of sex.
It is an undeniable truth that we suffer from a sort of cultural brand of erotophobia. The evidence for this is everywhere! Schools use the threat of venereal disease to encourage abstinence, while churches unabashedly employ the fear of God and damnation to hell in order to frighten youth into submission. The State sends a contradicting (but no less destructive) message by funding abortion clinics while forcing employers to provide health care that covers contraception. Sexuality in our society is muddled and confusing at best, dangerous and evil at worst.
These attitudes, and others, are reflected, satirized, and exploited unashamedly in Franco’s films. Men are often devious fiends with the goal of plundering a young starlet’s virtue, where a woman may be a seductress, laying traps for the protagonist with all of her wiles and sensual cunning.
Yet, while in life the pitfalls of sex are pressed on us in fear, in these pictures the darker side of mischief is incredibly alluring. The danger is erotic. Quite often, the downfall of Franco’s characters is not due to their sexuality, or even to their all-consuming obsessions, but to the inability of society to be reconciled with their existence.

Can we reconcile our own sexuality with the freedom and beauty of the world we live in? Or will society – with its religion, politics, repression, and fear – forever keep us from embracing the joy of this God-given gift?
What would such freedom look like? Certainly not the freedom of the Summer of Love that produced hippie culture and little else. And hopefully not the shameless objectification resultant of Victorian England, nor the repression of puritanical thought.
Hopefully, it will be a frank and honest freedom. And a respectful and responsible one as well. It may seem far off, but thankfully until that day comes, we have Mr. Jess Franco to explore it for us!

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

One Good Scare: John Carpenter's Halloween



            Halloween. It’s the scariest night of the year. The night when the veil between the worlds of the living and the dead is at its thinnest. It is the night he came home: the boogeyman.

            Halloween (1978) is often called one of the scariest movies ever made. It is credited with begetting an entire subgenre of horror, the slasher film. Its subversive blend of suburban setting, relatable high school kids, and a mythical prior evil is so effective, that it has been done, redone, and done again.
            The film is also renowned for launching the career of Jamie Lee Curtis and making stage veteran Donald Pleasance a household name. It has spawned nine subsequent movies (seven sequels and remake with its sequel). And everyone, whether they have seen the film or not, will recognize the signature white facemask worn by the killer Michael Myers.
            Still, it is a bold statement to call this low-budget masterpiece the greatest horror film of all time. Is it the simplicity of the story? The exactingly deliberate pace of the scares? The chilly minimalism of the score? What makes Halloween such an effective and frightening work of cinema?

            In Spring of 1978, director John Carpenter began principle photography on a film he had co-written with business partner and producer Debra Hill. The shoot was scheduled to last three weeks and boasted a meager budget of just over $300,000. $20,000 of it was spent simply to get known British actor Donald Pleasance for five days. Also on board was the 19-year old daughter of actress Janet Leigh (famous for her role as Marion Crane in Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho [1960]), Jamie Lee Curtis. It was her first feature film, and her first starring role. Previously, she had only worked on television, appearing in single episodes of both Quincy M. E. (1977) and Columbo (1977) and as a recurring character on the short-lived cult favorite Operation Petticoat (1977). Halloween, however, would make her a star.

            When John Carpenter came up with the concept of a masked killer, stalking teens in Anytown, USA, it was originally titled The Babysitter Murders. But when he pitched the concept to Irwin Yablans of Compass International Pictures, the one change made was a renaming: Halloween. This ambiguous, yet instantly recognizable moniker may be the first and foremost attribute that moved the film from just another grindhouse circuit shocker to a cultural phenomenon.
            October 31st is a day with innumerable associations. It is a day for ghosts, a night for ghouls. America celebrates the macabre by dressing up in costumes that range from the innocent, to the ghastly, to the racy, to the sinister. Pumpkins are carved into toothy grins, backlit by the warm, gothic glow of flickering candles. Cool winds blow across suburban streets, carrying with them the brown, yellow, orange, and red of dried and crunchy fallen leaves. Television stations run endless marathons of black and white fright flicks. And best of all, friends and neighbors throw parties filled with all manner of activities, from bobbing for apples to haunted houses; while children travel up and down the sidewalks from house to house with the singular goal of a bag so full of candy that it will last until Santa fills their stocking at Christmas.
            When anyone sees the name Halloween, it inevitably conjures up all of the fears, joys, and experiences of that one uniquely spirited night of the year. And honestly, when else could the boogeyman be real?

            If the mythology of the film’s setting perpetuates the intrigue, it still only provides that first impetus to view it. It does not stand on legend alone. For it to be something truly special, it must pull off the most elusive of magic tricks – it must actually be scary.
            A movie that is legitimately frightening does not cease to be so after being viewed once. Very few works in the history of cinema have managed such a feat. Even critically and culturally praised pictures such as Alien (1979) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) have not managed to prolong their effectiveness in this way, even as they stand the test of time as masterful and inspired entertainment. But Halloween, on the other hand, does. Viewed any number of times, it remains just a scary, just as unsettling, just as thrilling as it was thirty-five years ago.
            Perhaps one important reason for this is the distinct lack of certain benchmarks of horror films that are found in nearly every example of the time period: Graphic violence, gratuitous sexuality, explicitly adult language and material. In spite of being held as the progenitor the slasher craze of the early 1980’s (most of which feature an endless parade of blood, gore, sex, and drugs), Halloween shows remarkable restraint. The violence is virtually bloodless, and doesn’t even truly begin until more than halfway through the runtime. The body count is similarly conservative; from beginning to end there are only five souls who meet an unfortunate end. Quite a contrast to the immediate sequel Halloween II (1981) which features a procession of ten victims, all of whom expire in comparatively graphic ways.
            Also, while characters converse about sex the way teenagers often do, there is only one brief moment of the act itself. So brief and unfocused on, in fact, that in light of any dozen of similar scary movies, John Carpenter’s film is tame and practically PG by comparison.
            Additionally, Halloween also bears very few marks of contemporary 70’s pop culture, and therefore finds itself considerably less dated than it’s garishly 80’s counterparts. Case and point: another Jamie Lee Curtis slasher Prom Night (1980), which features enough synth and neon to light up Times Square.
           
            Now to the film itself. Effective horror pictures do not rely solely on the promise of bloodletting and fake-outs to deliver to the audience the adrenaline and goose bumps they’ve come to see. The pay-off is only as great as the build-up and Halloween seems to understand that in a way few films can. For the first fifty minutes of its runtime, the plot stays subdued and ominous. Beyond the ingenious first-person prologue, the action is reined in like a jockey restraining his horse at the starting line.
            Often, the camera is positioned in such a way to stage the audience as voyeurs. Key images are in the background, or seen from a distance. Unlike many horror films where the camera is used to place the audience in the center of the action, cinematographer Dean Cundey uses space to affect the viewer’s perspective, so that at any one instant we are sharing moments with Curtis’ Laurie Strode, Pleasance’s Dr. Loomis, or with the killer Myers.
            This tactic plays beautifully and allows for all manner of subtleties in each frame. At any given second Michael may be glimpsed peaking around a tree, or through a window. Carpenter often pairs these far and away shots with the unsettling sound of the antagonist’s heavy breathing. Yet when the moment affords an opportunity to kill, and we as the audience expect it, it does not arrive. The best friend, Annie Brackett, gets unstuck safely from the laundry room, Michael disappears from behind the hedgerow, Laurie safely delivers the key to the Myers house. The message becomes startlingly clear: these kids do not accidentally stumble into bad luck, Michael Myers is a meticulous planner and chooses very deliberately when he will make his move. And in the audience, we know we are being hunted.

            The last major component, and perhaps the most crucial one, is Carpenter’s minimal and haunting score. Composed of electric piano and few organ lines, a soundtrack has never been so brilliantly spine-tingling. Halloween owes much to Psycho already: the girl-next-door lead, the butcher knife as weapon of choice, the faceless serial killer. But more than anything, the jarring and sparse theme music is at heart the keyboard counterpart to Bernard Hermann’s orchestral stings.
            Alternating dissonance nestled snugly in a minor tonality clue us in that the killer is there, watching, waiting. But more effective than the music itself is its strict placement designed to elevate the senses and make the nerves twitch with unease and trepidation. It is this fine-tuned precision that carries the suspense through the bare first half of the film, and builds the anxiety and anticipation of the audience.
            Even more telling is the fact that, upon viewing an early screening without music during post-production, a 20th Century Fox executive reportedly said the film “wasn’t scary”, yet immediately changed her mind upon viewing with the score added.

            When Halloween was released on October 25th, 1978, it garnered no immediate praise. Then, as word of mouth spread about the independent film that was “The scariest movie ever made”, it expanded to theatres across the nation. By the end of its theatrical run, the movie that had a production budget of $300,000 had earned $70,000,000. The evil in your backyard has since become a pop culture phenomenon and does not seem to intend on going away any time soon.

            So this October, turn down the lights, make sure the doors are locked, and curl up on the couch with this boogeyman. Because, after all, it’s Halloween! Everyone is entitled to one good scare!

Friday, August 30, 2013

Mommy Issues: Friday the 13th Part 2



            What makes a sequel?

            Marvelous question, don’t you think? Our culture is saturated with them. They aren’t a new thing, especially in the horror genre – The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) anyone? Have they always been born out the need to make money? Was a sequel ever warranted in its own right? Even The Empire Strikes Back (1980) wasn’t planned way back when George Lucas was creating what he thought would be his one and only chance at a trip to a galaxy far, far away.
            Yet there are many sequels that are just as iconic – even more so at times – than their namesakes. Care if I name a few examples? The Godfather, Part II (1974), Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), Aliens (1986), and even The Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1990). So we can definitely say that sequels have been a part of our cinematic world for just about as long as film itself has been around.
            Still, no one would argue that the sequel is an art form, even in light of the blockbuster giants I have just listed. By and large we can all agree that part 2s, and 3s, and 4s, and so on do not typically achieve the thrills, spills, and chills of that first big surprise. Even so, I’m sure everyone has their favorite sequels too.
            There is, to me, one particular film that stands out in its ‘sequelness’ because it is more responsible for the creation and endurance of its franchise than the act it follows: Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981).

            This particular Part 2 does not stick out because it is especially great, or even better than the first. It simply embodies all that a sequel is supposed to be.
            It builds upon the first film whilst remaining true to the original formula. It increases the body count (especially crucial for a slasher sequel!). And probably most important of all, it consistently strives to ‘top’ its predecessor in every way: More blood, more jumps, faster pacing, higher budget… All around its aim is on more and bigger payoffs.
            Of course, that doesn’t make it a better film that the first Friday the 13th (1980) by any stretch of the imagination. The first film is better constructed, acted, directed. It is more suspenseful and definitely more creative. And in that light, Friday the 13th Part 2 really is a bonafide sequel in every sense. It doesn’t try to be better than its progenitor, it just tries to out-do it.

            On Friday, May 9, 1980, Paramount Pictures unleashed Friday the 13th on an unsuspecting public. Made on a shoe-string budget of $600,000, it was a smash hit in a way no one could have expected; grossing nearly $6,000,000 it’s opening weekend and almost $40,000,000 during its entire theatrical run! To put that in perspective, the only film to beat Friday the 13th in summer ticket sales for 1980 was The Empire Strikes Back!
            What did that mean? A sequel of course! Production of Friday the 13th Part 2 was underway by October that year, mere months after the first movie ended its tenure in the box office.

            When asked to return to direct the sequel, Sean Cunningham declined because he didn’t want to make the same movie over and over. The directing job fell then to the previous film’s producer Steve Miner. Along with screenwriter Ron Kurz (taking over from writer Victor Miller), Miner would decide to make the villain of Part 2 the boy Jason Voorhees, whose supposed drowning in Crystal Lake was the impetus for his mother to murder eight good-looking teens in the first installment.
            Unfortunately, bringing Jason Voorhees back was the primary reason effects guru Tom Savini declined to reprise his talents for the picture. He opted instead to work on another slasher, The Burning (1981). However, Savini was a student of Dick Smith (famous for the make-up effects on The Exorcist (1973) among others) and referred Steve Miner and Co. to fellow pupil Carl Fullerton, who agreed to do the work.

            The set-up was essentially a carbon copy of the first script: A bunch of clueless teens go to work at a summer camp at Crystal Lake (across the lake from the original camp this time, which is off-limits and condemned). Unbeknownst to them, Jason Voorhees survived his drowning 20-odd years earlier, and he is ready to continue his mother’s gruesome legacy!

            In the same way that its predecessor laid the future groundwork for stereotypes in the horror genre, Friday the 13th Part 2 is responsible for many of the tropes now found in horror sequels. Chief among these is the device of killing off the last movie’s heroine before the opening credits. This proves fairly effective because it resets the clock, so to speak. Once again, no one is safe because the previous survivor’s luck just ran out!
            In addition, the cast of Part 2 is bigger, offering our killer more victims and therefore more kills to creatively stage and execute on screen. The picture also added a love interest for the heroine Ginny (played by the goddess Amy Steel) that acts as a counterweight to the audience’s expectations that only the final girl will make it out alive.
            More characters, more blood, one turn deserves another. Ergo the other attribute we get more of is T & A. Not much more, mind you, but Friday the 13th only featured one very brief shot of the ta-tas and Miner and Co. decided there was ample room for improvement. And though there is still only one moment of nudity (and a pretty funny one at that), the sequel is drenched with sexual tension. Just check out the moment when Jason shish-ka-bobs two kids with a spear while they’re in the sack! Can it really get more Freudian than that? Hey, it was marketed to teenagers!

            But in spite of all these characteristics, the thing that makes this sequel work is Jason. When one thinks of Jason Voorhees, typically the first thing that comes to mind is a 6’ 4” titan in a hockey mask with a machete. That is not the Jason of Friday the 13th Part 2. Here, Momma’s little boy is hunched over, feral, and wears a burlap sack over his head. The fabled hockey mask would not appear until Part 3 (in 3-D no less), and is about the only thing that installment really has to offer.
            Strikingly, the wildness and griminess of Part 2’s Jason is often scarier and more effective than the lumbering hulk that pervades the rest of the series. The decrepit shack he’s built. The shrine to his mother’s decapitated head, ringed with burning candles and flanked by her sweater and machete… The film definitely takes great steps to blend the slasher formula with traditional gothic horror, something subsequent episodes would eschew entirely. The burden of success certainly rests on the shoulders of Jason Voorhees.

            Sean Cunningham originally wanted to continue the series as a name brand. The idea was that every year a new Friday the 13th movie would be released that deals with some other sort of frightmare. One can see how well that worked out when Universal Studios attempted something similar with Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982). Paramount wisely opted to instead create a slasher franchise that has proliferated endlessly for the past thirty years.
            They must have gotten something right, because when Friday the 13th Part 2 hit theatres on May 1, 1981 (less than a year after the first!) it grossed $6.5 million its opening weekend! If that doesn’t mean a threequel, then what does?
 If something has remained even more consistent in these films – beyond the formula of randy teenagers, bad luck, and an undying supervillain – then it must be the wink-wink attitude of fun. We always want to revisit these movies because we just know that we will get a kick out of that rollercoaster!
So turn out the lights, grab your popcorn, and hold on tight!
We’re going back to Camp Crystal Lake!

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Long Night at Camp Blood: Friday the 13th



            What is horror?
            Is it atmosphere? The macabre? Death? Some combination of all of the above? Or perhaps it is something darker, sinister, a Freudian synthesis of our fears seated deeply in the recesses of our consciousness.
            How do we outlet this need? How do we manage this emotion we call fear without letting it control us? What is it about the horror film that attracts us, so that even as we are repelled by it, we are inexplicably drawn to the darkness?

            Many would say that the horror film is a way to process fear as an emotion; to experience the thrilling rush of the fight-or-flight response without placing ourselves in true immediate danger.  Contrary to the stereotype, horror as a genre is strikingly diverse. From the paranormal to the everyday, scary movies cover a wide variety of topics, settings, cultures, and worldviews. Moreover, it very well may be the oldest of genres, dating all the way back to the bare beginnings of cinema with films such as L’Inferno (1911) and even farther back, Le Manoir du Diable (1896).
            The result of such a storied and wide-ranging history is that the annals of horror generally have something for everyone. We all have a favorite, whether it be sci-fi like Alien (1979), paranormal á la The Exorcist (1973), or on lighter side with It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown! (1966).
            Like everyone, I also have my personal favorites and they range across the board. But at the top of the list is a little low-budget gem from 1980 that spawned eleven sequels and a genre icon: Friday the 13th (1980).

            The slasher subgenre of horror is generally accepted to have begun with John Carpenter’s Halloween (1978). Some place the genesis as far back as Psycho (1960) and include several subsequent films such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and The Town That Dreaded Sundown (1976). But regardless of the origin, it can’t be denied that the slasher’s heyday came in early 1980’s, roughly from about 1980-1984.
            During that time literally hundreds of films were made, all practically using the same blueprint: Get a group of attractive teens/20-somethings, put them in an isolated situation, and pick them off one by one using a killer with a unique modus operandi. Typically, the outline functioned as a sort of morality tale: Don’t have sex, don’t do drugs, and definitely don’t go out alone. Marry that with a unique mythology surrounding the killer and there you have it! A slasher film.

            While Halloween is generally held as the best of the lot, Friday the 13th is arguably the farthest reaching, longest lasting, and most influential. Directed by Sean S. Cunningham and released in May of 1980, the film followed all the basic guidelines that Halloween had set down but for two.
First off, John Carpenter’s film found evil stalking babysitters in suburbia, the idea being that the danger was in our own backyards. Friday the 13th instead places the action at a summer camp – Camp Crystal Lake! – far out in the woods where no help can be reached.
            Secondly, where Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasence gave grabbing performances with an emphasis on character development for Halloween, here Cunningham’s focus was on, as he put it, “good-looking kids you might see in a Pepsi commercial.”
            Both of these departures from the early formula became staples in the genre. Isolation is arguably much more frightening than familiar surroundings if only because there is no possibility of escape. And, as politically incorrect as it may sound, attractive people are simply fun to watch. It makes sense that audiences would more willingly trade their hard-earned bucks for a chance to see cute and determined Adrienne King as opposed to the pudgy and world-weary Donald Pleasence.

            In practice, Friday the 13th claims one more notable, and this time perhaps most important, difference from Halloween that may be the number one reason for its success. It is gory. More specifically, it features absolutely astounding practical make-up effects from SFX master Tom Savini (famous for his work on Dawn of the Dead (1978) and Maniac (1980) among others).  Where Halloween achieved its shivers from suspense and build-up, Friday the 13th goes for the jugular, making it a more visceral and primal experience.
            The grue isn’t tasteless either. Where many famous gross-out pictures rely on the messiness to carry the excitement, here the blood-letting is simply a dot on the ‘i’. Rather than being the focus, the gore is a nuanced touch designed to be the push that sends your nerves over the edge! The violence isn’t lingered on, and aside from two or three moments, we see only the aftermath. The result is strikingly effective, keeping every moment of violence fresh and shocking, rather than numbing the audience and thereby stalling the picture.

            There is also something to be said about the look of the film. Though it may only be an unintentional byproduct of time and place, as well as budget, the grainy ‘80s film stock and stripped down aesthetic give the film a gritty and realistic tone that many modern films simply cannot replicate. The natural lighting of the cabins and woods are also a factor, contributing a murky darkness in the nighttime terror that comprises the second half of the film.
            In conjunction, no analysis of Friday the 13th would be complete without a mention of Harry Manfredini’s score. The stripped down minor-second stings played on violin and cello are obviously inspired by Bernard Herrmann’s score for Psycho. But the score’s kicker comes from Manfredini’s notice of Betsy Palmer saying “Kill her mommy! Kill her!” He spoke the primary syllables ‘Ki’ and ‘Ma’ into a microphone, and then looped the recording and ran it through an echoplex. The result is the highly chilling “Ki-ki-ki-ki… Ma-ma-ma-ma..” now so iconic in pop culture.
            All of these factors combine to make Friday the 13th a memorable and terrifying thrill ride. But none of it would be half so effective without one specific performance: Betsy Palmer as the psychotic killer Pamela Voorhees.

            Though she has insisted time and again that she thought the script, “A piece of [bleep]” and only agreed to do it because she needed another car, the casting of Betsy Palmer is a stroke of genius. She was fairly well-known by that time thanks to her roles in several television shows such as Murder, She Wrote, Studio One in Hollywood, and The United States Steel Hour. But she had not acted for several years.
            She has also been on record saying that she thought her reveal at the end was a cheat; her character never being introduced beforehand and the killer only in point-of-view sequences during the majority of the film. But she’s wrong. It plays off beautifully! The refusal of the film to give a reason for the mayhem until the very end simplifies and streamlines the events. This is not a Hitchcockian exercise in red herrings and Macguffins. To add that dimension would mire the script in unnecessary details.
            Ergo the reveal of Mrs. Voorhees at the finale introduces an opportunity for Palmer to give the craziest and most memorable turn of her career. Her monologue about her son Jason (THE Jason who would return in the sequels as the hockey-masked titan of terror!) is the highlight of the film. Doubtless she thought that the little-picture-that-could would never be seen by such a wide audience, else she most likely would have never let loose with such a deranged and undignified performance.
           
            Without spoiling the deliciously inspired (and endlessly imitated) final scare, Friday the 13th ends on a razor’s edge. It manages to conclude in an incredibly satisfying way, yet leave room for a sequel and subsequently a franchise that has stubbornly refused to die over the past thirty years. It is also surprisingly accessible. The gore is wince-inducing but not extremely off-putting. The suspense is spine-tingling but not overly unbearable. And most of all, it is undeniably fun – that most important of aspects at the core of cinema.

            The attractiveness of the flick is perhaps best described by the omen delivered by another memorable character: Crazy Ralph.
            “You’re going to Camp Blood ain’tcha?” he says to a hapless teen early on, “You’ll never come back again! It’s got a death curse!”
            And like the unfortunate teenagers who ignore his warning, we cannot help being sucked in. We just have to see more of Friday the 13th!