Nia DaCosta’s bold reboot of Candy man took some liberties with the source material. Some of these freedoms were less popular with the cinema population. Vulture critic Angelica Jade Bastien named the film “Soulless” and “didactic”. My regular co-host, Jonah Ray, thought the film needed more horror. But the audience agreed how Candy man got people into theaters in uncertain times.
So where is the breakup? to be allowed to Candy man both too obvious and not obvious enough? What does a film based on previous work with complicated ideas about race say about blackness in 2021?
This week’s episode of Galaxy brains identifies me and innkeeper Maggie Mae fish in conversation with an author, academic and horror expert Tananarive Due Above Candy man, its legacy and the state of the black horror subgenre.
As usual, this conversation has been edited and condensed to be less weird.
Dave: I want to go back to what you mentioned earlier, namely that the Candy man Character, Daniel Robitaille, is personable in many ways, especially to black audiences who ponder the persecution we are suffering, the fantasies of power that you so rarely saw in 1992. For a black audience, power fantasies like James Bond and Superman and Batman were white characters who did the things that made the white audience excited and enthusiastic, and which they could live by vicariously through these strong characters. Candyman is a bad guy. I mean, Candyman kills people. But at the same time there is this feeling and it really expresses itself in the third act of this new film, the righteousness of the character. Do you think it is acceptable to read this movie as a power fantasy, or are we going a little bit over the border of morality by cheering it on?
Tananarive: To be honest, I see it as a course correction. This film is a course correction of the original because there are so many scenes that black audiences haven’t asked for. They did not require that he have a background as a lynch victim. But of course if you do, you’ll build empathy with black audiences. Now that some black viewers got lost in the first Candyman is that he attacked people in Cabrini Green. Is it fair to feel like you love Candyman? I think some viewers have certainly spoken out in favor of Candyman in the original. He’s our monster. But he killed some people who really didn’t hurt him and didn’t deserve it.
Nia DqCosta’s new movie is basically a bright candyman, isn’t it? You take Candyman in a kind of amoral way, like he’ll just kill indiscriminately if you summon him. You literally take it upon yourself if you want to summon it. But in this version, Candyman doesn’t just represent the original artist who is lynched in the original. He also represents other victims of police brutality or lynching or assault throughout history. It is very similar to the “say their names” mentality that you want to honor and remember those who have suffered. And he has become a kind of general figure who has symbolized this suffering for generations. Tony Todd is very short on this one, but what a thief at the end of the film with just one line: “Tell everyone,” which gives me goosebumps every time I see it. Candyman was turned into a weapon as an avenging angel, I believe, and not just because he’s black, but because he has a point of view and a goal that I believe is more clearly defined than it was in the original .
Dave: I want to ask you about other classic horror monsters, especially the 80s slasher monsters. I’m so intrigued by the fact that characters like Jason and Freddy are becoming fodder for toys and lunch boxes and, you know, cartoons and video games and all that stuff that seems to miss the point of the slasher movie that makes you dread must be the monster. The monster becomes a funny cartoon character who simply murders at random. Candyman is so much more to me. And I think for you too. Candyman’s not just a monster. Candyman is an angel of revenge, or Candyman is the spirit of the neighborhood, or Candyman is representative of the trauma of blacks across generations. But why did the audience, especially the white audience, take these villains and turn them into heroes or at least merchandising opportunities while Candyman is that character with this tragic backstory and you are rooting for him and that has not been translated in the same way? the pop culture mania that followed Freddy Krueger?
Tananarive: You know, that’s a very good question. This can have many reasons. Some of this might just come from the very idea that Freddy Krueger became more of a joke over the course of these sequels. I mean, it’s hard to believe it was as creepy as the original when you get to some of these sequels. And I don’t think Candyman was ever tempered in the same way by its sequels. I don’t think the sequels are that good.
Dave: Yeah, we’re not talking about Farewell to the meat in this family. No sir.
Tananarive: But he wasn’t a funny monster in the same way. And, honestly, it could also be because he was black and you know that getting a black face on a lunch box gets a little harder, even if it’s a monster from a popular movie. But that’s just a guess at this point. I think the black audience was so scared. I can’t imagine walking around with a lunch box. It’s not appealing.
Dave: This could change soon. I think after this movie, people might start putting Candyman on things.
