Was Siskel Right? Friday the 13th (1980)

Today, we are changing it up. We are taking a look at a Gene Siskel review and asking the question: Was Siskel Right?

I am going to do something a bit different. I was looking up film reviews from Roger Ebert's cohort, Gene Siskel, and I started reading some of his reviews for the FRIDAY THE 13TH films and I knew they would make for a good article like I do with Roger Ebert reviews. So, lets go through his FRIDAY THE 13TH review.

It has been suggested to me that a great way to keep people from seeing a truly awful movie is to tell them the ending. I like that idea a lot, and I know it is a powerful (and controversial) weapon. So you're going to have to trust me to use it wisely.. and sparingly.

He starts out the review letting us know he hates the film. I like when critics do this because you know they are going to find some wild ways to convey these emotions. His way of doing this is to spoil the entire film. Yes, Gene Siskel is so mad at the very existence of this film that he has decided to spoil the film for anyone unlucky enough to read his review before seeing the film. This is low for a critic to do. I mean, he barely gives any kind of spoiler way except a brief mention of it in the paragraph right before spoiling the film. Anyone who is reading the review might let their eyes wander without knowing what is coming and have the film ruined for them.

He then spends the next two paragraphs spoiling the film, which I will not do for those who haven't seen the film. Despite the fact that the film is 46 years old, at the time of this writing, I am a decent person when it comes to this.

NOW, THERE - I hoped I've ruined "Friday the 13th," which is the latest film by one of the most despicable creatures ever to infest the movie busi-ness, Sean S. Cunningham. You may have heard of one of his other films, "The Last House on the Left," a film in which a teen-age girl is forced at gunpoint to urinate on herself and then is shot in the head. 

Gene Siskel prides himself in spoiling the film. I find this repulsive. I don't care if you hate a film or not. There is zero reason for giving away a film's twists. Michael Medved, a film critic who used to matter before he went all religious, spoiled the twist in MILLION DOLLAR BABY. He didn't agree with the way the film turns halfway through and he was so offended by this that he felt it was his God given duty to ruin the film for all of his listeners. I was so happy I had seen the film before listening to his bullshit show because I would have been pissed. The direction the film goes in the second half is something you would never seen coming and having some God fearing hack ruin it because he didn't agree with the way the film deals with some very heavy themes. 

Siskel then goes into talking shit about Sean S. Cunningham. Normally, I would say his take on Cunningham was a bit extreme. That was untill you find out that Cunningham really is a piece of shit. Remember the FRIDAY THE 13TH lawsuit from a few years ago? For those who don't, I will give you a quick rundown:

Victor Miller, the writer of the original FRIDAY THE 13TH, sent out notice that he was claiming the copyright back to his original script which can be done after 37 years. Clive Barker did this with the original HELLRAISER (I actually did a Was Ebert Right? on HELLRAISER) and Wes Craven's estate did this with the original A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. Sean S. Cunningham didn't like this because he wanted to control everything FRIDAY THE 13TH. So, he fought back, saying that Miller was hired to write the film and it wasn't independent. This case dragged on for years and was settled a few years ago. In the meantime, we got no new FRIDAY THE 13TH films or anything. The video game was even canceled because of the lawsuit.

So, yeah. Cunningham didn't care about anything but the control of the franchise. He could have come to an agreement with Miller but he was greedy. Now, he has taken the franchise to levels no one wants including a new mask design he should be ashamed of. Siskel calling him out is justified.

His reasoning for calling out Cunningham is not reasonable. He calls him out because of the violence in the film. He describes most of the attacks in the film and has a lot of disdain for them. Siskel has always had a problem with onscreen violence especially that of the graphic kind. He gave the David Fincher film SE7EN a lower star rating because of the graphic violence, none of which we never see. We only see the aftermath and that was the point. 

In more than one scene, Cunningham rips off sequences from the hit shocker "Halloween," which was much less bloody, much less explicit about its attacks, and much better directed by John Carpenter.

I find this very funny because Cunningham admits he ripped off HALLOWEEN. In fact, he made the film specifically for that reason. That is why the films are so similar. Pointing this out as a negative is pointless. Although I highly doubt, to the point of being 100 percent certain, that he knew this. 

THE POINT is this: There is nothing to "Friday the 13th" other than its sickening attack scenes; remove them and you're left with an empty movie.

Saying FRIDAY THE 13TH is nothing more than it's sickening attack scenes is a pretty shallow way of looking at the film. The film isn't high art but it has likeable characters and a lot of suspense. We don't find out who the killer is until the last 15 minutes of the film and it is a bit of a shock, but only because we have no idea who this person is before the reveal. 

Paramount is a division of Gulf & Western Indus-tries. If you want to complain about the film, you can write Charles G. Bluhdorn, the chairman of the board of Gulf & Western, at 1 Gulf & Western Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10023. (Betsy Palmer lives in the little town of Rowayton, Conn. I'm sure a letter sent to General Delivery there will get to her.)

This is the most despicable thing Siskel has ever done. There is no reason to give out an actor's address, even if it isn't the full address,  based on the fact that you didn't like the film. Telling your audience to send her hate mail because of your hatred of a film is disgusting. Fuck Siskel for doing that.

"Friday the 13th" has been given an R rating by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). If any film should be X-rated on the basis of violence, this is it. But Paramount pays part of the salary of the MPAA people who determine the ratings, and this is clearly a case where a big studio gets a less-restrictive rating than is proper.

He ends his review by talking about how the film was released with an R-rating and not an X-rating. The thing is: it was originally rated X. The filmmakers had to cut the violence down to get the R rating. This, of course, doesn't matter because the film could have been rated X and he still would have claimed the MPAA went to soft on the film.

So, Was Siskel Right?

No, but I can see why he hates the film.

The 70s had films that were more viceral than they were graphic. Sure, THE EXORCIST was extreme for the time, and there were horror films that contained some graphic violence, but the more graphic horror films didn't start happening until the 80s. There are really no reports of films from the 70s being cut to obtain a lower rating. There were films like SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER that released two different cuts, one with an R-rating and another with a lighter PG-rating, but those instances were very and far between. It was during the slasher boom of the earlier 80s where the MPAA started butchering films they felt weren't suitable for adults. There were many films during this time like MY BLOODY VALENTINE and most of the FRIDAY  THE 13TH films that had minutes cut from the film because they contained violence the MPAA felt went too far. I have always found this weird becaue they gave JOHN CARPENTER'S THE THING a R-rating without any cuts and that is one of the most graphically violent films of the entire decade. I guess it was because most of the violence has to do with an alien but that shouldn't matter. There were still gallons for blood than in any 80s slasher film.

Many of the critics during time had a hard time with the graphicness of the violence that was flooding horror films. I mentioned Siskel hated graphic violence especially if it was found in a horror film, but not all the time. He gave HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER a glowing review but walked out of 1980s MANIAC. Both films contain violence so graphic the MPAA gave them X ratings. Both films surrendered the ratings and released Unrated but Siskel felt differently about the films. I know that Ebert also had a problem with graphic violence but that was more on a case by case basis and not a blanket view like Siskel. 

I don't think that Siskel liked the fact that this graphic violence was being used as entertainment. While he did like HENRY, I wouldn't call it entertaining. The film is very realistic and depressing. The actions of the characters are not to be cheered. They are revolting and ugly. MANIAC, on the other hand, is entertaining. I wouldn't say it is entertaining in the way that the FRIDAY THE 13TH films are, but it is entertaining nonetheless. While the film does feature graphic violence, it is more unbelievable than the violence found in HENRY. Watching Michael Rooker cut off a corpses head in a dingy bathtub is stomach turning and something that will haunt you for days after watching the film. Watching Joe Spinell blow someone's head off with a shotgun is less believeable because the head explodes like the heads in SCANNERS (they were both achieved in the same way). I think the entertainment factor is one of the things Siskel took into mind when judging the violence in a film.

I love FRIDAY THE 13TH. I find the characters to be likeable and fun and the graphic violence is great. Of course, I am thirty years younger than Siskel, but that shouldn't matter. You either like the violence or you don't. The suspense is also well handled although the reveal of the killer is a bit of a letdown because the film just springs this person on to the audience without much build up. There are mentions about a character but we are never lead to believe this person would be the killer because the film doesn't do a good job in leading the way for us to connect the dots. Once we find out who the killer is and why they are doing the killing, we start to see why. It still isn't the best reveal in the world but it does lead the way for the rest of the series. I do like that the filmmakers of the sequels went with a killer that is the same in every film because we don't need to have a reveal at the end of every film like the SCREAM films do.

NOTE: I am going to be as vague as possible in order to avoid spoiling anything for those who haven't seen the film yet.

I will give Siskel one thing. There is the death of a character in the film that is really sad. We really like this character. They are really upbeat, happy, and looking forward to spending the summer at Camp Crystal Lake. We spend a fair amount of time with this person before they are offed. When their death comes, it is done in such a mannor, and the actor is so good in this moment, that we are left shocked and saddened. There are very few deaths in any slasher film that hits as hard as this particular death. Now that I think about, I don't think there is another death in the entire FRIDAY THE 13TH franchise that hits as hard as this death scene. 

I can wholeheartedly recommend FRIDAY THE 13TH. It's a fun slasher film that gives us some memorable characters and some gruesome kills while not overstaying it's welcome. If you haven't seen, then go watch it. If you have seen it, go and watch it again and relive this first visit to Crystal Lake.