DR. GIGGLES
A review in the public domain
by The Phantom
(sbb@panix.com)
Those of us who came of age during the horror-saturated late seventies and early eighties will likely appreciate DR. GIGGLES more than the average horror phan; although many younger phans may well have seen such genre-killing classics as FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 2 and HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME, they likely haven't seen any of the original television and print advertising. With the television ads for the former enticing us back to Camp Crystal Lake with a promised body count well into the twenties (keeping Jason very busy at nearly one killing every four minutes), and the print ads for HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME featuring a handy reference list of the inventive ways in which nearly a dozen naughty teens will be dispatched during the course of the film, it's no wonder that the modern horror film nearly died out by the end of the eighties. (Actually, the Phantom has always thought that it wasn't the saturation of the market with cheaply made, disappointing HALLOWEEN clones; the rising costs of distribution; the monopolization -- or outright ownership -- of national theater chains by the major studios; or even the advent of direct-to-video, the greatest equalizer of them all. No, it was just that Hollywood ran out of holidays and collectively couldn't come up with a new peg on which to hang their horror hats.)
In fact, DR. GIGGLES has in it a little something for just about everyone, from phans of the aforementioned "classics" to those who prefer their horror to be leavened by wit and humor slightly more subtle than Freddy's. There are bits and pieces of DEAD RINGERS and JACOB'S LADDER here, as well as a very generous dose of FRIDAY THE 13TH. In this way, DR. GIGGLES is really a throwback to those glorious days of yesteryear (yesteryear being about a decade ago in this case) when maniacs roamed America's small towns and camp sites. Though it features up-to-date production values, good direction and editing, and a solid performance by Larry Drake as a doctor who makes most unwelcome house calls, DR. GIGGLES is little more than a rehashed version of HALLOWEEN, less spooky and less serious, and of course without the ability to startle an audience with the feeling that even their own well-lit homes might not be safe from the boogeyman (those fears having been conquered around the time Freddy got his own television show and horror came out of the genre closet and into the mainstream for the first time since the fifties).
But how refreshing to watch a horror film that has no other agenda -- one that doesn't toss a half dozen half-baked ideas into the mix in the hope that phans might be distracted from its poorly conceived screenplay, portentous art direction, or cheesy computer graphics. After all, horror should be horror first and foremost; lectures on the evils of the atomic bomb or the effect of civilization on giant iguanas who were minding their own business until *we* came along are best left for the film's closing scenes, allowing the audience to eat its cake and have it, too. We are gratefully spared such distractions in DR. GIGGLES, which is easily the most straight-ahead horror offering in months; it is, in fact, so single-minded in its purpose that the Phantom was nearly overcome by a wave of fond nostalgia for the days when he could pick and choose from dozens of new theatrical horror releases, all of which had the same plot (maniac kills campers/hikers/babysitters, then is killed by Jamie Lee Curtis or suitable stand-in) and all of which were, for the most part, greatly entertaining, filled as they were with a becalming and reassuring simple-mindedness that said to the audience: I'm going to let you watch while three witless teenaged campers are killed every ten minutes and the heck with rational explanation, character development or plot exposition. Horror films, like action films, work best when they rid themselves of distractions and get down to business as quickly as possible; and after watching the opening scene in DR. GIGGLES, the Phantom knew he was in for a virtual non-stop retrograde treat. By the time the closing credits rolled, the Phantom was pleased to find that the good doctor did not disappoint.
Much of the success of DR. GIGGLES is due to the performance of the actor portraying this slightly unstable medical practitioner; Larry Drake, a man who here seems to be trying to keep his excellent portrayal of Benny on the hit television show LA Law at more than arm's length, brings real acting skills to the roll, and so makes the disturbed doctor a little more three-dimensional than phans might initially expect. Oh sure, there are the usual Freddy one-liners, but there's also something more, something darker here that we haven't seen in horror films in a while. That dark side comes and goes -- and by the end of the film, it is, alas, pretty much gone -- but it's there all the same, and it goes a long way toward differentiating DR. GIGGLES from any of the last few Freddy, Michael, or Jason sequels. Every so often we see real malice surface in this film, knocking the manhole cover right off the homogenized horror that we've come to expect and crawling out into the screenplay as it gives us a wink and a flash of its razor-sharp teeth. For all its special-effects- bloated, inept gore, HELLRAISER III never gave us a glimpse of this particular beast -- that feeling that bad things may happen and even worse, we might not be able to predict just what -- but once in a while we do get that feeling from DR. GIGGLES. Don't let the revised previews fool you, phans: those of you who saw the original previews -- the ones that featured little more than a heart monitor, some scary-looking surgical instruments, and Larry Drake's voice -- know what lies buried beneath the mainstream gloss and Freddy-inspired wisecracks. That preview never once failed to cause nervous laughter and audible sighs of relief when it ended; and while it played on screen, rapt attention was the rule, even in the most unruly of audiences. (By way of contrast, the previews for Coppola's upcoming DRACULA seem not to make much of an impression on people; though it may mean nothing, it's possible that DRACULA might well be the very good, very mainstream, and very unscary film the Phantom fears it will be.)
The story itself is as simple as it is familiar: take some teenagers, a spooky old house, a Smallville, U.S.A. setting; throw in a carnival (with requisite House of Mirrors), some inept cops and a shameful, long-buried town secret; sprinkle with spring-loaded cats to keep the audience on its collective toes, and never keep the good doctor off screen for more than a few minutes. The result won't win any academy awards, though it's more than serviceable enough for a little under two hours of scary fun. Added to the mix -- and perhaps the film's most important element of horror -- is the medical twist on an old familiar story. Even before Dr. Giggles gives us a glimpse of his DEAD RINGERS-inspired surgical instruments, the film itself is given a big boost by playing on our very real (though usually quite deeply buried) fear of doctors and hospitals -- people and places inextricably linked to feelings of powerlessness and primal fears of pain and death. MARATHON MAN featured one of the most exquisite scenes of horror in a mainstream film, as Laurence Olivier tortured Dustin Hoffman with a dentist's drill; the scene was, for many people, nearly unwatchable. Yet these same people might not be the least bit squeamish watching Jason dispatch an unwary teen with an axe; so why should the famous "Is it safe?" scene cause so many white knuckles? The answer is that while few of us can imagine being an empty-headed teen camper exploring a dark cabin and getting slaughtered by a man in a hockey mask, we can all too well put ourselves in Dustin Hoffman's place -- we've all been in that chair, in just that position, and with just such an instrument in our mouths. While the comic-book gore of the FRIDAY THE 13TH series helps us stay a safe distance from death, that scene in MARATHON MAN invited us to sit right down with it and stay a while.
Although DR. GIGGLES never once gets quite that intense, the film works as well as it does because the doctor represents a very real link between our safe, rational world and a world where we are very much not in control. It's possible that the filmmakers at one point wanted to take DR. GIGGLES further in that direction but were redirected by focus groups and the studio executives who are guided by them -- such dark, disturbing films tend not to do very well at the box office, no matter how well made and effective they are. Witness David Cronenberg's excellent film DEAD RINGERS, which in a just world would have garnered Jeremy Irons an Oscar, but in actuality gave everyone who saw it the creeps and won only grudging praise from the mainstream press. (It, and much of Cronenberg's other work, remain among the best horror films ever made.)
But even in its watered-down form, that little glimpse of razor-sharp teeth keeps DR. GIGGLES both interesting and intense for much of its running length; when either lags, we're saved by Larry Drake's performance, and by his ability to retain a certain measure of dignity no matter how silly the proceedings get. And for you ELM STREET phans, that giggle and some of the oldest jokes in the world -- jokes that would make Groucho proud -- don't hurt in the least.
It's neither serious, historically accurate, nor sociologically correct, but DR. GIGGLES does what few horror films recently have been able to do: it tells a simple story; it tells it well and clearly; and it ends with at least a modicum of integrity. And in these days of overblown or half-baked horror, that counts for a lot. Bring on the roving bands of Smallville maniacs -- never has early eighties horror looked so good.
: The Phantom : sbb@panix.com : cmcl2!panix!sbb
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews