Wooley and Dog Star Man Debate: Friday the 13th Part II

Tools    





@Wooley and I have decided to discuss the merits of Friday the 13th Part II, perhaps as a stand alone, but perhaps to in relation to it's series and genre. But to be clear from outset:


I am a fan.

All said, exactly in which way are we supposed to talk of it's merits? Should we maybe define some terms first?

Are we arguing on merits of:
  • Film in General?
  • Film in Genre?
  • Film in Series?
    or
  • Something in-between?

I will state, (and reserve my reasons until clarified), that:
  • As Film in General, it does not hold up.
  • As a work within genre, it fulfills its merits, but it is not a masterpiece.
  • As in series it is perhaps the pinnacle.
    and,
  • As something in-between we may agree to disagree depending on where we stand.

And outside of this, anyone, more than Wooley and I, are welcome to this discussion and debate. Cheers!
__________________
Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of 'Green'?

-Stan Brakhage



1) I think as a film, in general, it holds up.



2) I don't think it's a masterpiece. That's a weird word to bring into a genre like this. Sure, Halloween is a masterpiece, but that was before the idea of slasher got in the hands of those who would almost immediately commodify and turn it into the kind of cinema that was ranked on its very clear functions. How many dead. How good were those deaths. Getting good at that isn't something I would ever want to bestow masterpiece status on. F13Pt2 is probably the apex of how well such cheap intentions can be executed though. It may even be the high water mark, for its very specific kind of 80's slasher. If I were to ever even consider calling something a masterpiece, with similar aims, it would only be those films that bring the dispensing of teenagers/women into a completely alien, or fractured, or desolate, or even amateurish vision. Sleepaway Camp may be that movie. Or Maniac.



3) It is arguably the best in the series. I prefer the first, but the second is probably better in a lot of other ways. And I think 6 is definitely the most interesting of the whole lot, but I've only ever appreciated that one from a distance. The camp element really put me off when I saw it as a teenager, even though in retrospect, I like it the most when I think back on it. But I haven't seen it since I was 13



The reason I don't think it holds up as a film is for the general principals and theories of montage. When you engage in a work I think there are two things one must look for, whatever it maybe.

First discover the "is" of what that something "is," meaning: "What 'is' this attempting to be?" And in this aspect in fulfillment of genre criteria, (the slasher), it does indeed fit and fulfill, but Halloween to me is the high water mark and masterpiece in this regard, not these films.

But for the reasons of the second, that being of montage. This alone begs the question of: "Is the whole larger than the sum of it's parts? Does the work become something beyond just a collection of 'parts' or 'elements'?" And to this question I say no, not by a long stretch and that to me is why it does not work as a film other than being a "decent" work. Not terrible, not great. Decent. (And I will go into this as we further discuss, but for now this is my answer).

As a work of the series, I find that is the pinnacle because it, (as you stated of the genre @crumbsroom), it behooves the genre very well. That of:

How many dead and how good were those deaths.
These are my reasoning thus far, but I'll continue on as we go on.



The trick is not minding
I like to binge the first 3 Friday films.
Of the 3, only the first is really any “good”. 2 definitely amped up the body count, the way each death occurred, and the nudity. From that, other slashers, especially the series, only served to escalate the body count, ape each death with a more unique or gruesome death, and the amount of nudity.



it does indeed fit and fulfill, but Halloween to me is the high water mark and masterpiece in this regard, not these films.

I hope you weren't thinking I put this above Halloween. Even though Halloween is by all definitions a slasher, I remove it from that consideration when we are talking about success in this kinda crummy genre. As for F13 Pt2, it succeeds those very particular needs pretty spectacularly, and as a result, it may be the best of these films. At least on the level of delivering its basic common denominator with some kind of professionalism. But it's not remotely as good as Halloween. And it's not remotely as interesting as some of the odd ducks that popped up in the genre over the years, but are probably bad examples of the genre, because they don't fulfill the basic requirements a slasher fan might be looking for (which, by any measure, is good)



1) I think as a film, in general, it holds up.



2) I don't think it's a masterpiece. That's a weird word to bring into a genre like this. Sure, Halloween is a masterpiece, but that was before the idea of slasher got in the hands of those who would almost immediately commodify and turn it into the kind of cinema that was ranked on its very clear functions. How many dead. How good were those deaths. Getting good at that isn't something I would ever want to bestow masterpiece status on. F13Pt2 is probably the apex of how well such cheap intentions can be executed though. It may even be the high water mark, for its very specific kind of 80's slasher. If I were to ever even consider calling something a masterpiece, with similar aims, it would only be those films that bring the dispensing of teenagers/women into a completely alien, or fractured, or desolate, or even amateurish vision. Sleepaway Camp may be that movie. Or Maniac.



3) It is arguably the best in the series. I prefer the first, but the second is probably better in a lot of other ways. And I think 6 is definitely the most interesting of the whole lot, but I've only ever appreciated that one from a distance. The camp element really put me off when I saw it as a teenager, even though in retrospect, I like it the most when I think back on it. But I haven't seen it since I was 13
I think this pretty much sums up my feelings on all three questions. I've been watching and rewatching these films (this franchise and 80s slashers in general) since I was a kid/teen, so they're pretty much ingrained in my mind. But I've been revisiting the franchise during the last few years and it's surprising how well this one holds up, at least within the goals of this specific type of film, but especially when compared to the others in the franchise.

I mean, I have fun with them, as far as dumb films go, but "objectively", they're pretty lazy and bad. The story makes no sense, the lore has more holes than Jason's mask, the acting is mediocre for the most part, even the marketing is lazy (just check out the cheap mask on the cover of Part 5). To me, the only one that gets close enough as far as a quantifiable rating is Part 6, but that one had an entirely different goal and approach in mind.

What the franchise actually did well for some reason was to capitalize on a catchy gimmick (serial killer in the woods) and make the slasher sub-genre feel more mainstream than many other cheap, B-slashers that were coming out around the same time. I'm not saying the franchise is responsible for that, but at least they've made the most of out it as far as branding and recognition (everybody knows who Jason is), which allowed them to keep churning sequels and sequels with little effort involved.

But back to the second one, I think it's the only one that manages to stick closer to the franchise's "purest" intentions. Even if it was made as a way to capitalize on the success of the first one, you get the feeling that there was a certain amount of effort in building something and making it genuinely scary. At least more than I get from the next ones, which felt more lazy in how they went about it, to the point that Part 6 was even making fun of itself.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



I hope you weren't thinking I put this above Halloween. Even though Halloween is by all definitions a slasher, I remove it from that consideration when we are talking about success in this kinda crummy genre.
And this is where we differ, I don't remove it. To me Halloween set the standard, and even though those films that came after aimed very low, it still doesn't means the standard wasn't set... and this is perhaps why and where both Wooley and you may have disagreement with me. I think slasher films can and have the potential to be good films other than "body-count schlock." I view the film and genre as a "film in general piece" and not of a "film as genre piece," (although admittedly viewing these works as a genre piece/movement makes it much more enjoyable experience, much like blaxploitation pieces).



It is not my favourite in the series, but I can see why it's considered to be by many. The first four films have a clear arc in the level of increasing polish while being mean and brutal enough to have some teeth as actual horror movies. The subsequent movies (at least the ones I've seen) lose the latter quality. (Parts VI to VIII are fun, at least in parts, with VI likely being the closest the series got to mainstream notions of a "good movie". Unfortunately the tone that VI strikes brings it into competition with stuff like Return of the Living Dead and Fright Night, two movies it is easily outclassed by.)



The original feels rough and unformed, providing the barest minimum of elements to meet its genre. (It's also my favourite. That roughness gives it an atmospheric menace that the other movies can't equal, and the loose construction indirectly leads to greater suspense and makes the extreme gore have a greater impact.) IV is a well oiled kill-delivery machine. III has its detractors, but I do like its camp elements and the relatively nice cinematography.



Part II is tighter than the original in its overall pacing and delivery of its set pieces, but not so squeaky clean that its environment has lost all presence. It's also well acted by the standards of the genre. The characters aren't developed deeply at all, but they're played with enough naturalism (another quality the series shed as it went on) that I was able to empathize with them as relatively "real" people.


It's not one of my favourite slashers and I'd rank it below a few others in the series. But I do think it's a perfectly respectable effort on its own terms.



Victim of The Night
Holy ****, I didn't really see this coming.
It's almost One in the morning here so I'll have to pick this up in the morning, but OK.




As a stand alone slasher movie I think part 2 does an OK job but it seems out of place in the franchise. I much prefer part 3 which was again directed by Steve Miner. Part 2 has the sack head killing Jason which is a complete clone of the killer from “The Town That Dreaded Sundown.”

Part 2 kills the protagonist of the original in the first 15 minutes and shifts in new characters and ideas so we don’t just get a rehash of the first film. The kills are still inventive with the wheelchair victim being one of the most dramatic of the series.

The original will be forever remembered for Mrs Voorhees and the third for the iconic mask. Part 2 somehow just doesn’t bridge the gap very well and almost seems unimportant.

Although I think part 2 is watch worthy, it’s for me bottom of the list in the first 4 entries. Part 6 is great, giving us the zombie Jason and makes fun of the series cliches. After Jason Takes Manhattan part 8, it’s all downhill with a change of studio and ideas going off kilter.



Victim of The Night

As a stand alone slasher movie I think part 2 does an OK job but it seems out of place in the franchise. I much prefer part 3 which was again directed by Steve Miner. Part 2 has the sack head killing Jason which is a complete clone of the killer from “The Town That Dreaded Sundown.”

Part 2 kills the protagonist of the original in the first 15 minutes and shifts in new characters and ideas so we don’t just get a rehash of the first film. The kills are still inventive with the wheelchair victim being one of the most dramatic of the series.

The original will be forever remembered for Mrs Voorhees and the third for the iconic mask. Part 2 somehow just doesn’t bridge the gap very well and almost seems unimportant.

Although I think part 2 is watch worthy, it’s for me bottom of the list in the first 4 entries. Part 6 is great, giving us the zombie Jason and makes fun of the series cliches. After Jason Takes Manhattan part 8, it’s all downhill with a change of studio and ideas going off kilter.
Well, part of what I think makes 2 better than the others is what you say in the first paragraph, it works as a standalone and isn't beholden to the franchise.
I also think Part 3 is a major step-down in quality and grit from its predecessor.
Potato-sack Jason will always be my Jason because he's the OG.
To me, 1 was its own movie and really 2 was its own because you don't need to have seen 1 to ultimately understand (though it doesn't hurt). From 3 on the whole franchise leans too far into silliness and camp and audience service.
For me, 2 is easily the best of the franchise, and it's by a country mile, with the original being a distant second, but still part of the same series, and then 3 and on is almost like a whole new, sillier, campier series based on the second film.



Well, part of what I think makes 2 better than the others is what you say in the first paragraph, it works as a standalone and isn't beholden to the franchise.

*SPOILERS* (although I guess I don't need to flag this in a thread about the movie)



I actually feel like Part 2 is what locks the franchise into its basic template. The opening scene picks up with the heroine from the original and sets you up to think that it'll be about continuing her story and to an extent exploring her trauma, but minutes later slams the reset button, killing her off and moving to a new batch of teens. Can't blame them as it's a sturdy enough formula (which the movie executes well), but I would have liked to see the opening minutes evolve a different way.


(I mean, I guess Part V tries to expand on that idea, but it's also terrible so no dice.)



Oh, and Potato Sack Jason is definitely scarier than Hockey Mask Jason. The former looks like a legit murderous weirdo, the latter is a guy wearing a costume (albeit an iconic one). I revisited Part III (or should I say, 3D) last year and the origin of the mask is pretty lame as well. Unexplained potato sack all the way.



Well, part of what I think makes 2 better than the others is what you say in the first paragraph, it works as a standalone and isn't beholden to the franchise.
I also think Part 3 is a major step-down in quality and grit from its predecessor.
Potato-sack Jason will always be my Jason because he's the OG.
To me, 1 was its own movie and really 2 was its own because you don't need to have seen 1 to ultimately understand (though it doesn't hurt). From 3 on the whole franchise leans too far into silliness and camp and audience service.
For me, 2 is easily the best of the franchise, and it's by a country mile, with the original being a distant second, but still part of the same series, and then 3 and on is almost like a whole new, sillier, campier series based on the second film.
Yes part 3 is by far campier with pretty bad acting and it takes things into a more comic strip world. I do think the plot brings with it some likeable characters. Even the biker gang are inoffensive and pretty amusing. For me this is certainly so bad it’s good territory and for these reasons I have to rate it more watchable. Part 1 and 2 are more serious and do seem in a different universe to the other sequels.



I feel like Part III works as a stand alone entry also, I find the dynamic with the final girl more interesting. I would have preferred they would have not introduced the mask until a later entry (maybe part V) as I felt Jason (or the beast) works best in the shadows (or imagination).



The problem Friday the 13th Part III has, I think more than any other work within the series, is the problem of "identity."

It takes on a 3-dimensional "role" but only seems to "capture" on such a role whenever the whim seems to take it. A pole being directed at the audience, a snake jumping out/boo scare, an occasional murder, (but not all), and perhaps when a person wants to juggle apples... but outside of these happenstances, it doesn't really "commit" to what it (apparently) wants to "commit" to. So it's half-in, half-out.

Most people can ascertain "when" the 3-dimensional aspects are taken on, but when they are taken on, and when a viewer watches the movie as a non-3-dimensional document, it becomes very clear in my mind that this film did not capitalize on what it could have capitalized on, and secondly when these moments are utilized, they seem very random and very out of place. As a 2-dimensional document, I ask, "What is so important about filming apples being juggled at this moment?"

And perhaps stated again,
  • As a Film in General Document. I find it fails, perhaps more, (but too perhaps not the most), than others of its series.
  • As a Film as Genre Document. It is unique albeit historical, but not stellar, (because of again, in my eyes it doesn't fulfill its merits within Film in General Document.

    and lastly,

  • As a Film as Series Document. It is again unique, but to me it falls short, and only serves as the introductory to the "hockey mask" trope. (Which again, considering how far that mask is actually "taken" within the series, the "lore" of it is rather a let down.)



Part 3 is easily on my bottom tier, along with Part 8. I've never understood why so many people have it as favorite, but to each his/her own.