31 Days of Halloween (Day 22) - Maniac (2012)

The original Maniac is a low budget classic of the slasher genre. Made in 1980, the film is grim and gritty; so much so that you might want to take a shower after watching it. Staring Joe Spinell as Frank Zito - the titular maniac - a middle aged, hairy, greasy serial killer, who scalps women and attaches their hair to manikins in order to create surrogate mothers. If you haven't seen it, do so. It creates an image of New York City as part hunting ground/part open sewer, a city on the verge of imploding, with nightmare characters like Spinell being the only logical inhabitants.

When I read (in Rue Morgue, a fine horror publication also available on the iPad, which is how I read it) about a remake with Eljah Wood as Frank, I had some doubts. Although Elijah can play a good killer (he was one of the best things about Sin City, as the silent, almost superhuman Kevin) I wondered if he could fill Spinell's blood-covered shoes. It turns out he isn’t the problem, although he is lacking Spinell’s brutishness, something that worked in Spinell’s favor since you readily believe he could overpower his victims. Rather, the problems stem from how the story is told visually and from the point-of-view that the audience has.

The film (which has same basic story as the original - bad mom, kill women, scalps on manikins - the only real change being that Frank runs a manikin restoration business) is told subjectively, through Frank's eyes. Well, mostly through his eyes; there a few moments when the movie breaks this point-of-view, not all of which make sense. The strength of this narrative choice is that we get to see how bizarre his world is, with regular hallucinations and vision distorting migraines. It is certainly an interesting narrative choice. However, the subjective view doesn't add anything to the film, coming across as a gimmick. Since we don't have other points-of-view, we are being forced to adopt the role of the killer, perhaps even to understand and sympathize with him. The problem is that Frank's story isn't that interesting or original. He saw his mother turning tricks and now brutally murders women in order to create surrogate moms whom he can control. All of which is fine, as motivation for a killer; but it is nothing to sympathize with. Since we only see his victims through his eyes, we have less sympathy for them than we otherwise would. Subjective film making is a long tradition in slasher films. It was used to good effect in the original Halloween, for example; however, has always been used sparingly and for good reason. The killer is the threat, not the person the audience should be sympathetic too or identity with. There are exceptions to this general rule. In Psycho Norman Bates does have sympathetic qualities, particularly since when he kills, he is no longer Norman, he is "Mother." However, even if you can sympathize with aspects of the killer, you still identify with the victims.

Frank and his bride-to-bleed (with apologies to Forry Ackerman).

The other problem - and this may seem an unfair criticism, since it is a direct comparison with the original - is that the modern setting is not visually interesting. While the film is certainly polished looking, it lacks the "urban nightmare" quality of the original. Director Franck Khalfoun and cinematographer Maxime Alexandre know how to get a good shot. However, post-millennial Los Angeles is not as visually unique or tonally rich as NYC at the height of its late-20th century urban decay. It is the look of the original, the way in which the the dark, garbage strewn streets of New York become a character in their own right, that help set it apart from many of its contemporaries. In the original, the city reflects the killer; in the remake, the cityscape is generic.

There are some nice touches in the remake. The gore effects are plentiful and graphic, although nothing approaches Tom Savini's work, particularly the shotgun decapitation effect he created. However, it is refreshing to see that this is not a PG-13 movie. Blood and boobs are plentiful. There is also a funny shout out to Silence of the Lambs, with the song "Goodbye Horses" by Q Lazzarus, which was used during Buffalo Bill's "mangina dance," features in one of Frank's kills. And, I also find it amusing that Frank is constantly having to battle flies in his apartment, due to all the bloody scalps.

There are some scenes that play much worse, however. The low point is probably the "subway kill." In the original, a nurse returning home from work is stalked by Zito. She flees into a subway restroom, thinks she has avoided him, but winds up being run through by a knife. It is a truly frightening sequence. In the remake, Frank follows a dancer through a mostly depopulated Los Angeles subway system, chases her outside through completely deserted streets and traps her in a fenced-in parking lot. He then kills her in a brutal stabbing sequence. The problem: the victim clearly has a cell phone. She is seen fiddling with it in the subway. Why doesn't she just call the police? As the sequence of scenes plays out, she has at least one opportunity to do so. While this is a problem many modern horror films have to deal with there is no attempt to offer an explanation, even a bad one. It is a moment that took me completely out of the movie. Suspension of disbelief is something horror films usually demand; and, as a lover of the genre, I have no problem doing that. However, a filmmaker has to offer some rationale for a conceit like this, so as a viewer I can say "okay, that might be far fetched, but I can buy it for the purpose of watching and enjoying the film."

Like many remakes, Maniac 2012 leaves one asking "why?" Not all remakes are bad: in the horror and sci-fi genres, Carpenter's The Thing and Snyder's Dawn of the Dead are examples of worthwhile remakes, offering something new to the story told in the original. Unfortunately, Maniac doesn't have much to offer, once you get past the subjective point-of-view. And that, as I explained, doesn't work for me. I would still recommend checking it out; it is competently made, so you might enjoy it, particularly if you have not seen the original. For those who are fans of the original...I think you'll agree, there is no substitute for Joe Spinell.