Jeff Burr doesn't get enough credit. As the director of Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III, The Stepfather 2, Puppet Master 4 & 5, Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings, The Offspring, and Night of the Scarecrow, Burr has carved a niche as a solid genre filmmaker. None of his work was ever going to approach the masterful levels of Carpenter or Cronenberg, but he displays an enthusiasm and professionalism that is lacking in many horror films, especially the direct-to-Redbox fodder we get today. He's a workman filmmaker, treating each "job" as though it were the most important film in the world. Burr doesn't get points for simply trying to pump life into projects that are solely profit motivated; he earns those points and kudos for creating exemplary pulp. He's a B-movie director who knows the value of a dollar and doesn't want to waste anyone's time or money.
I vaguely remember reading a Fangoria from 1995 where Burr was interviewed about Night of the Scarecrow. He made mention of the fact the picture was designed to fill in the gap left by Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees. Both villains had been benched, and the producers of Scarecrow were hoping their antagonist would catch on with the public. It was a bleak time for slashers between 1990 to 1995. Before Scream came along and gave the genre another boost, horror fans were stuck with the dreadful likes of Leprechaun and Dr. Giggles, snarky films that made little effort to hide their disdain for the audience. The public had turned their backs on horror after the slasher boom of the late eighties burned everyone out.
It wasn't to be, though. Horror wasn't in vogue in the early 90s, and Scarecrow went straight to video, never proving popular enough to become the next big franchise. I hadn't seen it since 1996. The film disappeared into a vortex and was only recently released on Blu-ray, meaning this was probably the first time many people had heard of it. It's not a lost classic by any stretch. It dutifully fits into the slasher mold almost to T. It's the same outline as hundreds of other movies, but what makes it fun is how Burr and his cast liven up the story. There's a fun spirit here, a willingness to not only embrace the routine plot, but to also add a layer of Ray Bradbury Midwestern spookiness to the whole thing. The Midwest has a certain dread and loneliness that arrives every fall. The cold dries out the trees and ground. Houses on the outskirts of town feel a little more disconsolate. Each sundown comes earlier and earlier, enwrapping everyone in gloom sooner than they would like.
It's in this environment that Scarecrow takes place. Four brothers (Bruce Glover, Gary Lockwood, Dirk Blocker, and Stephen Root) maintain Hanford, a small town their ancestors settled. Each of them is a pillar of the community. William (Lockwood) is the blowhard mayor; Frank (Root) is the Sherriff; Thaddeus (Glover) is the weirdo reverend; and George (Blocker) runs a farming empire that's kept the town stable for decades. With their lineage comes a terrible secret. Many years prior, their great-great grandfather made a deal with a warlock to save the townspeople from famine and pestilence. The warlock agreed, with the caveat that he be allowed to do whatever he so desired. This meant orgies and the erasure of God from most of the citizen's lives. Fed up, a posse led by the ancestor Goodman crucified the warlock in the middle of a cornfield and buried his bones beneath stone lid. When a couple of drunks (one of whom is played by Deadwood and Winter's Bone star John Hawkes) drive a grader through the field and crack the lid, the warlock spirit escapes and possesses the body of a nearby scarecrow. At the same time this is happening, the mayor's estranged daughter (Elizabeth Barondes) rolls into town and suddenly finds herself having to deal with the fucked up family legacy.
It all reads as fairly run of the mill. Burr elevates by turning it into an orange hued tale perfect for Halloween. Root, Glover, Lockwood, and (to a lesser extent) Blocker all provide rich, lively characters, creating more of a ensemble cast than most horror pictures have. Each of them chew the scenery just enough to sell their worry and doubt about the family curse. The performances make up Barondes, who's rather stiff and plain. It's not entirely her fault. Heroes were typically boring in genre fare around this time. She does her best, though, to keep up with her odd family, in particular Glover's (maybe) pedophilic holy man. Burr and his cinematographer, Thomas Callaway, capture a windblown Midwestern look that makes everything a bit creepier. That this was filmed is Southern California makes Burr and Callaway's work all the more impressive.
The Scarecrow himself is actually a pretty neat figure. He's not over developed or glammed up; this isn't an effects director's wet dream. While I wouldn't consider him terrifying, his dirty burlap, one eye, and raspy voice all work together to make a rather repulsive being. He sows no mercy when it comes to the killings either. Since this is a slasher, each murder has to follow the Freddy Kruger formula and be as over the top as possible. For 1995, the effects still hold up and are rather brutal, most notably a death involving a girl "inseminated" by the Scarecrow's' finger. Branches burst out of her flesh and she is dragged deep into the dirt. They aren't the cute deaths of the Leprechaun series, and the Scarecrow keeps his puns to a minimum.
Don't go into this expecting brilliance. It's a simple slasher movie, after all. However, in a time where pig slop like Hatchet seems to be challenging the audience to a big dick contest ("How much can you take?!?!? Blehhhh!"), there's something comfortable and likable about a humble horror film that doesn't preen and posture. It has nothing to prove. Burr doesn't need to pull his pecker out. That's called 'confidence' and it goes a long way in making an enjoyable movie.