Close Search Close

 

  • Comics
  • Theatre
  • Site News

Streaming Shuffle

Fear

How many movies can I compare this to? Let's find out.

If you’ve ever wondered whether Fatal Attraction, Straw Dogs, and The Purge should all be one messed-up teen thriller … well, the answer is probably no. But if you went a step further and wondered what the resulting movie could possibly look like, the answer to that is James Foley’s Fear.

This is a wild, sleazy, jumbled ride, but it starts with the trashy simplicity of a Lifetime movie: Call it Nightmare Boyfriend. Girl–Nicole (Reese Witherspoon)–meets boy–David (Mark Wahlberg). Boy seems like a real gentleman at heart, but one who’s just rough enough around the edges to be appealing. He fulfills her implicit fantasies, first reverently validating her inexperience–why, yes, Virginia, you are better than the other girls–and then relieving her of it on a rollercoaster as “Wild Horses” earworms its way into my head for what may be the rest of the year. He’s safe but sexy.

But this isn’t a romance, and if it has a conservative streak, it’s not exactly the one it appears to have at first glance. It’s also not a simple bad boyfriend/stalker thriller, either. It’s taking a much weirder angle: Maybe the real safe but sexy option is her dad?

Because David is a psychopath, one who is embodying his own limited, toxic understanding of this love story with everything in him, and when Nicole comes, in fits and starts, to grasp that–that his jealous rages are terrifying, not protective, and that his disdain for all the “trashy” girls who aren’t her doesn’t preclude lustful violence toward them–she tries to break away. She can’t do it on her own, though, and this is where the simple schlock (and female-driven narrative) of the Lifetime setup sputters out. Ultimately, this isn’t about David and Nicole, it’s about David and Nicole’s dad, Steve, a seething, pointedly sexual William Petersen. In the second half of the film, Nicole’s role shrinks, and she becomes less a character and more a piece of contested territory between one man who wants to violently protect her and one man who claims to want that but is less sincere about it. In case you think I’m exaggerating the quasi-sexual weirdness at play here, it’s a key plot point that Steve finds that David has stolen Nicole’s “Daddy’s Girl” jewelry and painstakingly altered it to read “David’s Girl.” You son of a bitch! She was supposed to be his!

Nicole isn’t the only piece of contested territory here, either. Explicitly or implicitly, Steve and David butt heads over every woman here. David taunts Steve with the idea that Steve’s wife (Amy Brenneman, Nicole’s stepmother) has the hots for him; Steve can’t resist ogling his daughter’s flirtatious friend Margo (Alyssa Milano), while David outright rapes her–and uses the rape as a chance to rub another man’s face in his supposed sexual superiority, roughing Margo up until she “admits” she wants him more.

The latter incident moves the film away from being gleefully trashy fun–it’s a shade too nasty for that, like a cut-rate Cape Fear on top of everything else–but the handling of it also perversely elevates things. This kind of movie doesn’t usually care about a Margo. In fact, the movie Nicole thought she was in didn’t care about Margo, who was there only to be the “bad girl” friend to her victorious “good girl,” who would get indiscriminate sex but not lovingly soundtracked deflowering and true love. Fear does care about her, though, at least a little: She becomes not a contrast and not a cautionary tale but a kind of Cassandra, an embodiment of a truth Nicole spends some time willfully overlooking. Not only does the film understand that David rapes her (a hurdle a lot of movies wouldn’t get over, frankly), it understands that she wouldn’t tell anyone at first, because she knows she wouldn’t be believed, and it bothers to portray, painfully, that indeed Nicole, despite witnessing everything, doesn’t believe her, not initially. Despite this, incredibly, Margo stays loyal, and if that’s an acceptable move for a “damaged” supporting character–let them martyr themselves for the “purer” hero and heroine–it’s also a moving one. Even in 1996, I’m guessing most people came away feeling like she has the most pathos of anyone involved.

All of this contributes to Fear‘s jumbled quality. At no point does this stay the movie it seems like it’s trying to be. It’s weirder than that, but also more reactionary than that, but also more ambitiously human than that, but also a German shepherd’s severed head gets chucked through a doggy door.

In a way–and I mean this entirely as a compliment–the film this really reminds me of most is the much more inept and much more problematic Sleepaway Camp, which is also a mess with a dazzling amount of commitment to its own particular vision, and which also seesaws wildly between imagining and inhabiting a marginalized point of view and sloppily replicating the worst takes on it, and which also does this all without shame. But the comparison also showcases why Fear baffles me. Sleepaway Camp was an artistic dead end, a first film made by a guy who never made anything not related to it (I maintain that it was a promising debut despite its multitude of technical and artistic flaws: it could have led somewhere, it just didn’t), and Fear was made by the guy who’d already directed After Dark, My Sweet and Glengarry Glen Ross. Did he devolve? Did he time travel? This should be either a messy first feature or a journeyman’s auteur breakout, where a fledgling personal vision suddenly overwhelmed him. I can’t even pivot to crediting writer Christopher Crowe for it all, because he’d also already written The Last of the Mohicans! He … you know, what, no, this is Crowe’s movie, because he directed the ’80s Alfred Hitchcock Presents version of “The Creeper.” I’ll just assume this was bubbling away on the back-burner since then. Sometimes you just have to find an explanation you can live with.

Fear is streaming on Amazon Prime.