[Series Minded is an irregular feature here at T&KSD, wherein we tackle the entire run of a film, TV, or videogame series in one fell swoop]
Scream, 1996, d. Wes Craven
Scream 2, 1997, d. Wes Craven
Scream 3, 2000, d. Wes Craven
Scream 4, 2011, d. Wes Craven
Scream, 2022, d. Matt Bettinelli-Olpin / Tyler Gillett
[Hey, FYI, I haven't watched Scream VI (2023, d. Matt Bettinelli-Olpin / Tyler Gillett) yet., also I'm going to spoil all these films, so if you care...you've been warned.]
When Scream debuted in 1996, it was one of the first real "meta" works in the mainstream. It was so innovative largely because of Kevin Williamson's script which had teenage fans of horror movies knowing all the tropes, which allowed the film the delight of playing into tropes and subverting them, but also, sigh, explaining them.
Five sequels later, Scream is a total ouroboros, choking down its own tail. The franchise has developed its own tropes, which it fully acknowledges, and its own internal meta-narrative of a Scream-like franchise within the world (the "Stab" series) modeled after the "real events" in Woodsboro. Having basically binged the series in the span of two weeks, the tropes of the series wear me down. There are definite elements I like to the series, but the samey-ness of the series gets tedious when watching back-to-back-to-back(-to-back-to-back-to-back).
WHODUNNIT
The first Scream is, without a doubt, a masterpiece. Of all the films in the series, I am most familiar with the original and how it plays out. With that knowledge of what happens, to whom, and how, you can see how the film is built up so cleverly around it. Every film in the series has a "whodunnit" element, for better or worse, but Craven's use of visual cues timed with the dialogue throughout Scream actually tells the audience exactly whodunnit. It's not just the masterful use of camerawork, but also editing, sound design and musical cues that tell on Billy Loomis and Stu Macher at almost every turn. I enjoyed watching Scream again (for the first time in probably 20 years) for many reasons, but it was astonishing to see just how precisely the film was put together to lead into the reveal of the kilers.
With Billy and Stu, there's definitely an element of psychopathy (Billy has personal reasons for tormenting Sydney, Stu is just a maniac) but at the same time, there's a level of misogyny to the killings, starting with the off screen murder and assault on Sydney's mom. It's not just that Ghostface refers to women as "bitch", but the tone in which he says it that seems to mean something...maybe Billy's resentment over his mother leaving. But also, Billy seems to be sexually frustrated to an uncomfortable degree in his relationship with Sydney, that may be coming out in Ghostface. It's all terribly uncomfortable.
The "whodunnit" of the sequels are diminishing returns. In the second, with its metanarrative on "sequels", find it psycho kill is Timothy Olyphant's film school student, who basically wants to live a horror movie. He's paired with the mastermind, Billy Loomis' estranged mother. The latter half is actually a pretty good reveal, as Laurie Metcalf is milling about as a reporter bothering Gail Weathers is a great fake-out, but Olyphant's turn is ridiculous. I can buy Mrs. Loomis' motivation (particularly if she's as unhinged as her son) but Olyphant doesn't really make sense in the narrative, except needing there to be a second Ghostface in order for the timelines to work out. The third film takes on "final chapters" in trilogies, but provides a reveal that's absurd, tying into heretofore unacknowledged history in the series, and revealing a secret, resentful sibling to Sydney. The third is the only single-killer Ghostface though. I should acknowledge that Williamson wrote the sequel but not Scream 3.
WIlliamson returned for scripting the fourth film, and returns the story to Woodsboro, poking at the idea of "reboots", but doesn't learn from the third's folly, and once again, it ties all too tightly to Sydney in a familial way, with her cousin (Emma Roberts) being the mastermind of the killings, primarily out of jealousy, but with a partner in crime, the film nerd (Rory Culkin), who was trying to make his own snuff film version of "Stab". The fifth film, toying with "requel"/legasequel conceits, finds its culprits being a couple of insane horror film nerds who think the "Stab" franchise has gone stale and are trying to reboot it by giving it good "real world" representation. The two characters doing this could have been anyone in the film, it matters so very little who they actually are.
We see a lot of consistency in the killers: psychopaths and/or film nerds who may or may not be connected to Sydney. Guessing who the murderer is, beyond the first film, is a futile pursuit. Maybe it's just that I'm not as familiar with the sequels as I am the original, but they don't seem to be as interested in having this be a solveable mystery, so much as just toying with the audience. The fifth Scream in particular really wants you to believe it could be anyone, including the main protagonist (Melissa Barrera), the illegitimate daughter of Billy Loomis, who seems to have mental health issues, seeing visions of Billy in mirrors and talking to him (though she's never actually met him...I thought it would make more sense if she saw Luke Wilson who played Billy in "Stab" in Scream 2). The guessing game, especially in a binge, is tiresome, particularly when you know it's probably going to be two culprits, not just one.
I honestly hate the reveals in each of these movies, even the first. The reveals, which involve a monologue for motivation, are pretty much ludicrous, each and every one of them, except maybe Billy's mom. But the level of psychopathic killings, the extremes to which these people go to are just beyond reason, it's because they enjoy it. But those levels of bat-shit-craziness don't present themselves until the reveal, which is just another part of my problem with these films.
The "whodunnits" of these films are kind of a side-point, so the scripts are more written around the kills than the mystery. Nobody every figures out who the killers are (except Sydney cottons onto Billy before he gets fake stabbed by Stu-as-Ghostface), they always reveal themselves, and it's so unsatisfying.
GHOSTFACE
What makes Ghostface unique in the horror pantheon is he's not a character, nor even a mantle to be passed along, but instead, very simply a costume, and a voice. He's something *anyone* can put on to become a homicidal killer. Part of the benefit of the "Stab" franchise and its popularity within the world is it presents a sort-of logical reason why people would keep dressing up and acting exactly like Ghostface in their quest to murder people. It provides anonymity, but there's also clearly a fetishistic cosplay aspect to it as well by the time Scream 2 gets going.
Even though technically nine different people, Ghostface is portrayed pretty consistently. Billy and Stu obviously concocted the character, but "Stab", within the world, defines him. Yet, to me, this starts twisting the reality of the movie. In continuing Ghostface's phone call scare tactics, it needs to invent unreal technology of voice modifiers, and it implies that the murderers are very practised in their ability to keep up these drawn out "What's your favourite scary movie" phone calls.
I like that Ghostface never speaks in person, only over the phone, which leads to quite physical performance of the in-costume character. I also like that Ghostface is consistently the clumsiest fucking killer ever, and that nearly every victim puts up a pretty damn good fight. It makes the murder scenes much more enjoyable when it provides a sense that the victim may actually get the jump on Ghostface.
But again, this breaks the reality of the movie for me, because the many lumps Ghostface is taking do not appear on the people when we see them. In the moment, sure, whomever is Ghostface is running on adrenaline and isn't feeling the pain, but after the fact, they should be bruised and hobbled by their misadventures. That of course would give away the reveal, but it breaks the reality. There's even a comment in the fifth movie after the opening attack scene, one teen mentions to the other that he's sporting bruises and they'd heard that the victim had fought back pretty hard. The bruises were explained away as football practice bruises rather easily, but that's really the only time that idea of Ghostface being banged up is brought up.
OPENING KILLS
The opening sequences, a hallmark of the franchise, features Ghostface playing a game with his first victim each film. The original's is probably the most famous of the series, featuring Drew Barrymore as a lonely teen at home alone getting harassed on the phone by a psychopath, and it still delivers a visceral punch that none of the sequels, in their many attempts to emulate it, can manage. By the fourth movie, it becomes a Russian nesting doll of a joke, as the "Stab" franchise-within-the-franchise, introduced in the opening of the second, became the driving force of Scream in the third instalment.
The second movie is differently effective. It finds Omar Epps and Jada Pinkett having a disagreement over the movie selection for their date, as they wind up at their local premiere of "Stab". There is a rehashing of the first Scream opening, but with Heather Graham as Drew Barrymore in the "Stab" version on the big screen. This exceptionally clever sequence finds the whole meta use of "Stab" peaking very early in the series. The theatre handing out promotional "Ghostface" masks and gowns creates for great fakeouts fast and early when the killings do start, but ultimately the opening feels sorely detached from the rest of the movie (I presume that was Olyphant's character getting his feet wet...with murder).
The Hollywood-set third movie returns to the phone-call set-up of the first, but instead finds Liev Schreiber's Cotton Weary (previously wrongfully accused by Sydney as the murderer of her mother, having been redeemed in the sequel saving Sydney, sort of, now the host of a big-mouth national talk show) receiving the phone call while driving, with Ghostface threatening him with the murder of his girlfriend. Ghostface threatening a loved one is definitely part of the character and solidified here as part of the opening.
The aforementioned fourth entry is a series of fake-out "Stab" killings before the "real" ones happen. It's kind of an exhausting start to the movie. The fifth Scream starts with a "reboot" of the original's opening sequence, but bringing in the fact that people don't really have land lines or answer phones into the mix. This opening sequence is, more than any prior, integral to the film, because Ortega's Tara Carpenter survives the attack, and this wraps in her friend group as well as draws out her estranged sister Sam. Tara is the first survivor of a Ghostface attack from the opening sequence.
SYDNEY
Sydney is the lead protagonist of the first Scream. She's already traumatized from the brutal assault and murder of her mother, which she has, in her anger and grief, pointed the finger at the wrong man. She's got a shitty boyfriend in Billy Loomis, who is pressuring her to move on, mainly so that she will have sex with him, but, in hindsight, seems to be him gaslighting and psychologically torturing her. She is tormented by Ghostface over the phone, her best friend is murdered, and she witnesses many other deaths. It's a rough time.
Already having too much attention because of her mother's death and the press coverage, plus her wrongful accusing of Cotton, along with Gail's book about the events of the first movie, and the "Stab" movie being made from it, you would figure Sydney would shy away from the spotlight...but for some dumb reason she wants to be an actor... and so the second film finds her at arts school Windsor College where she's majoring in drama, and starring (!) in a stage play. It all seems like entirely the wrong direction for that character, and the whole movie feels off as a result.
Sidney's sort of a back-bench player for much of the third movie, and again in the fifth. In Scream 3 she's basically in hiding from the world, but working a crisis hotline and really helping other survivors. Much more plausible than acting. Her being pulled into the action is precipitated by Ghostface finding her on the crisis line, which seems unlikely, but I digress. Her place in the fourth has her returning to Woodsboro to promote her book, which, again, is putting Sydney in the spotlight, which seems as unlikely as her taking her back to Woodsboro on the anniversary of the first Ghostface killings where the town's been "vandalized" with Ghostface decorations. You would think the traumas of Woodsboro would want to be erased, but there seems to be a morbid revelry for the events that happened there that's not really acknowledged.
Sydney has a life and a family in the fifth movie, and is not in most of the film until she turns up for the third act ready to help kill Ghostface, who she's faced 4 different times...but each being a different person, so really she has no idea what she's stepping into and whatever. It doesn't really make sense.
Due to a breakdown in compensation negotiation, Neve Campbell does not return for Scream VI, and from my perspective, that's a good thing. The second film botched her story, the third film didn't really need her, and she added very little to the fifth film. I have nothing against Campbell, and I like how she's evolved Sydney in her performance, but I don't think Scream has needed her since the second entry.
GAIL and DEWEY
In 1996, the cast of Friends were inescapable. I was still a viewer of the show then, still in its third season, but I was already resenting their ubiquity. I certainly recall resenting Cox being in this horror movie (but at the same time having conflicting feelings, because I was already a Cox admirer from Misfits of Science, Family Ties, and Masters of the Universe, and I also wanted her to succeed). I recall Gail being my least favourite part of the movie from my original watching. That tune has changed, quite dramatically.
As I watch these films with my middle-aged, slightly astigmatic, Cougartown-loving eyes, I find Cox an absolutely welcome presence. Sure, she doesn't quite fit in the first film because she's not a "teenager" in the cast, and you're not supposed to love her since her tabloid reporter role makes her antagonistic towards Sydney. But through the eyes of David Arquette's Deputy Dewey, whose bashful, nebbish, schoolboy crush on Gail Weathers lets us see her as a person, not the reporter. The film, the series, through Dewey, presents Gail exceptionally fairly, appropriately calling her out on her bullshit, but also allowing us to see her persistence, tenacity, skill and heart.
The sparks from Dewey and Gail in the first film may seem improbable, but Cox and Arquette sell them, likely since their pairing spawned a real-life romance (they married in 1999 and amicably separated in 2010). The Gail/Dewey pairing was a far rockier one than their real life one, and to me, more than anything else in the franchise, they are the lifeblood. What I enjoyed most with each entry was returning to see where they were at in their lives... and in every sequel, it's not a good place.
Scream 4 finds Gail and Dewey quietly unhappily married together in Woodsboro. Gail has quit reporting to write novels, while Dewey is now the Sheriff, with a younger, pretty bloned deputy who is real sweet on him. Gail's writing has stalled, she's frustrated, and feels hemmed in by Woodsboro. She's no longer "Gail Weathers" from the TV, but the Sheriff's wife. So when Sydney comes to town with a bestselling book, and then the murders begin again, it brings up a lot of feelings for her. For Dewey, it's work, not just dealing with the murders, but the entire town, and trying to keep the peace, while also preventing more death. But for Gail, the key drive is a desire to solve the murders, she's lived this story one too many times. She is the one who figures some of it out, but not soon, and not completely enough.
In Scream 5, Gail and Dewey are not together once again. Gail has her own morning show now, while Dewey has forcibly resigned as Sheriff and lives a sad life in a trailer park, where the highlight of his day is watching Gail's show. Gail, obviously miserable in Woodsboro, took a plum gig in New York, and Dewey just couldn't hack it there and ran back home. When the Ghostface murders start back up again, Dewey hesitantly helps the new kids out, and Gail is back on the scene, 90% for Dewey, 10% as a reporter. Their reunion is sweet, tender, and familiar, but so full of baggage, both real world and in-world. It's absolutely wonderful. But this relationship, if it's felt doomed from the start, that's because it is. Dewey makes a stupid decision to go back and shoot an unconscious Ghostface in the head, only to be distracted by his cell ringing (a call from Gail) enough to give Ghostface the edge up. When Ghostface kills Dewey, he speaks (a rare moment), "It's an honor". It is Dewey's death that draws Sydney back to Woodsboro, but it's not my favourite outcome.
I wonder if I would prefer the Scream series more if had centralized on Gail and Dewey, their reunions and separations each episode coming together to be the duo that takes on any Ghostface reemergence, leaving Sydney out of the equation almost altogether. I mean, Scream is primarily a teens-getting-murdered genre, so I can see why having two middle-aged actors as the central figures might not be what they're looking for, but I think about the Conjuring as a template, of Gail and Dewey using their expertise to help in a situation and I really like that idea a lot more than how most of these play out.
META
The Scream trilogy was the awakening for young viewers to the joys of nerding out about movies, and being referential, and self-aware. It was happening at the same time as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the two can be seen as sort of cousins in style.
This was all largely before the internet invaded pop culture, and the internet pop culture invaded mainstream media. You have to do more than just namecheck movies or provide trite one-line analysis of these films. By Scream 4 in 2011, dozens of very successful pop culture websites had come and gone that had dissected practically every genre film available in written online essays and reviews. In the next decade before the fifth Scream, there popped up hundreds of youtubers and podcasters who deep dive not just into film and franchise lore, but into film theory and deconstructionism. Scream five ("ScreVm?") making references to "elevated horror' and namechecking The Babadook, It Follows, or The VVitch doesn't really hold much sway to my Letterboxd-tracking eyes. "Your cuts aren't deep enough," (ScreVm does pull out a decent Rian Johnson/The Last Jedi reference but it's in the context of a character explaining "requels" and "legasequels".
Beyond the first film, the series ability to play with tropes weakens when you are expecting them to play with the tropes, and especially when they're calling out the fact that they're playing with tropes. Instead of enhancing the meta-enjoyment of the film, I find it destroys the immersion, and reminds you that you're watching a movie. Every time the film thinks it has something clever to say about scary movies, it is very much announcing "WE HAVE SOMETHING CLEVER TO SAY ABOUT SCARY MOVIES! AREN'T WE SO CLEVER?!?" To a younger audience (my 13-year-old has been watching these), maybe. But to me, not so much.
I much prefer when they play with the tropes of Sequels, Treequels, Reboots, Legasequels without the announcement that they're doing so.
FINIS
This is already a 3500 word essay on only 5 of the 6 currently available films of the Scream series. I haven't even touched on the absolute glut of young 20-something stars (many stars-on-the-rise at the time of their Scream entry) this series has stabbed to death. What I can say in closing is I found the series to be about half fun, half exhausting. Finally free of having to shoehorn Sydney in, I am quite curious how Scream IV plays out. I didn't love Sam Carpenter in ScreVm, much preferring Jenna Ortega's Tara (a far more compelling performer), so it's a mixed bag if they're our leads returning. But many more teens survived ScreVm than in any of the prior films so it really does seem to be a bit of franchise building with their young cast. Scream in New York presents certain opportunities that the contained realms of Woodsboro, a college campus, or a Hollywood studio lot do not.
FAVOURITE THINGS
Scream - it really is Craven's directing. It's just so interesting to see how he's using the language of cienma.
Scream 2 - "Stab", especially paying off the Tori Spelling playing Sydney joke from Scream
Scream 3 - Parker Posey, without a doubt, adds a vitality without which the whole film would have sunk.
Scream 4 - Hayden Panettiere...she's fiercely rocking a short-short haircut and a leather jacket style and an attitude to match that made me want her to take over as lead of the franchise. Just owned every scene.
ScreVm - Jenna Ortega is the next great scream queen, so handing over the franchise to her, at least for a trilogy, may not be a bad idea. She's amazing at playing vulnerable.
No comments:
Post a Comment