Nightmare on Elm Street: The Relation of Theater and The Nightmare

It is my opinion, that A Nightmare on Elm Street can be seen as a film that targets the audience of the horror-going kind in a new light and comments on the comfort level of watching a film and having a nightmare. I feel that generally the role of a regular dream within film comments on the symptoms of a specific character or characters within their given situation, whereas the entire horror genre deals with nightmares that go beyond the film world and into the hearts of the audience whether they’ve had nightmares involving similar content or will now have nightmares involving similar content. The different way in which A Nightmare on Elm Street participates in the horror genre is the presence of terror within an inescapable world, which is normally understood to be safe. Since the idea of film and dream has some very close relations, I find that this film can be analyzed as an attempt to mess with the subconscious regarding safety. I will also discuss Freddie Kruger’s character and how he is a monster who represents a little more than your average horror movie killer.

The first thing I wanted to talk about was the normal movie-going experience versus the horror experience. When people go to films like comedies or dramas the emotions that come from watching the films may or may not impact you on a personal level depending on the content. What I feel that is very different in the horror genre is that all horror films can have a personal affect on its viewer. The most common example of this I would say is the idea of imaging you were in the shoes of the victim and how scared you would be. The horror genre comments on all kinds of fears people have and dream about whether it involves being chased, coming across a mad man or monster, being alone, or plainly being killed. A Nightmare on Elm Street embodies all of these traits. For example, the scene in which Freddie is chasing our protagonist with his arms outstretched. I believe this relationship between the viewer and the substance entices people to see horror films. They can watch a horror film and be scared out of their mind imagining how it would be being in the victim’s shoes, but when the film is over they can simply walk out of the theater unharmed and laughing. I believe the root of this occurrence comes from the idea of “It’s only a movie”. This, of course, relates very closely to the idea of “It’s only a dream”, which is something we may find a mother telling a child who just had a horrible nightmare in order to see the nightmare in a safer way. Therefore, in both incidents people can find themselves in a world of terror and fear but deep down it is understood that they will be alright.

What A Nightmare on Elm Street does, which is an alteration from most other horror films, is that it flips the comfort aspect on its head. In the film we are introduced to a rural, “normal” looking neighborhood that is about to clash with a monster. This aspect does follow one of the reoccurring trends Robin Wood talks about. What it is different is how this monster limits the possibility of safety. In such films as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Friday the 13th the potential victims find themselves in a world where escape is definitely possible. Generally if they can outrun or simply drive away, they could conceivably be safe. As we know, this rarely works out for anyone but the protagonist but it beside the point. In those films the audience can recognize that “safety”, although unlikely, is obtainable. This same possibility of safety connects with us in the real world. Even if we were to come across a madman who wants to harm us, as long as we could get out of his reach we might make it to safety. In A Nightmare on Elm Street, however, the one place that coincides with understood security is where we find our killer. The monster, in this instance, has ultimate