On Scream

Featuring Neve Campbell (The Craft), and Skeet Ulrich (The Craft), Scream is the first in a slasher film series about the character of Sidney Prescott, a high school student in the fictional town of Woodsboro, California, who becomes the target of a mysterious killer known as Ghostface. The film is based partly on the real life case of the Gainesville Ripper,  was inspired by Williamson’s passion for horror films (especially Halloween),and is directed by Wes Craven. It was originally titled Scary Movie.

I think Skeet Ulrich looked much better in The Craft as Chris Hooker (the rapist) than here as Billy Loomis (the murderer). The film can be similar in vein to the upswing of horror teen flicks of the time, like I Know What You Did Last Summer, Final Destination, and The Faculty.

According to Roger Ebert:

Wes Craven’s “Scream” violates one of the oldest rules in movie history: It’s about characters who go to the movies. They’ve even heard of movie stars. They refer by name to Tom Cruise, Richard Gere, Jamie Lee Curtis. They analyze motivations (“Did Norman Bates have a motive? Did Hannibal Lecter have a reason for wanting to eat people?”) True, they went to the movies in “The Last Picture Show” and the heroes of “Clerks” worked in a video store. Even Bonnie and Clyde went to the movies. But those movies were about the *act* of going to the movies. “Scream” is about *knowledge* of the movies: The characters in “Scream” are in a horror film, and because they’ve seen so many horror films, they know what to do, and what not to do. “Don’t say ‘I’ll be right back,’ “one kid advises a friend, “because whenever anybody says that, he’s *never* right back.” In a way, this movie was inevitable. A lot of modern film criticism involves “deconstruction” of movie plots. “Deconstruction” is an academic word. It means saying what everybody knows about the movies in words nobody can understand. “Scream” is self-deconstructing; it’s like one of those cans that heats its own soup.

Instead of leaving it to the audience to anticipate the horror clichés, the characters talk about them openly. “Horror movies are always about some big-breasted blond who runs upstairs so the slasher can corner her,” says a character in “Scream.” “I hate it when characters are that stupid.” The movie begins, of course, with a young woman (Drew Barrymore) at home alone. She gets a threatening phone call from an evil Jack Nicholson sound-alike. She is standing in front of patio doors with the dark night outside. She goes into a kitchen where there are lots of big knives around. You know the drill.

Later, we meet another young woman (Neve Campbell). Her father has left for the weekend. Her mother was murdered…why, exactly a year ago tomorrow! Her boyfriend climbs in through the window. At high school, rumors of cult killings circulate. The killer wears a spooky Halloween costume named “Father Death.” There are more phone calls, more attacks. The suspects include the boyfriend, the father, and a lot of other people. A nice touch: The high school principle is The Fonz.

All of that is the plot. “Scream” is not about the plot. It is about itself. In other words, it is about characters who *know* they are in a plot. These characters read Fangoria magazine. They even use movie-style dialogue: “I was attacked and nearly filleted last night.” The heroine has been rejecting her boyfriend’s advances, and just as well: As another character points out, virgins are never victims in horror films. Only bad boys and girls get slashed to pieces. Realizing they’re in the midst of a slasher plot, the characters talk about who could play them: “I see myself as sort of a young Meg Ryan. But with my luck, I’ll get Tori Spelling.” The movie itself, for all of its ironic in-jokes, also functions as a horror film–a bloody and gruesome one, that uses as many clichés as it mocks.

One old standby is the scene where someone unexpectedly enters the frame, frightening the heroine, while a sinister musical chord pounds on the soundtrack. I love these scenes, because (a) the chord carries a message of danger, but (b) of course the unexpected new person is always a harmless friend, and (c) although we can’t see the newcomer because the framing is so tight, in the real world the frightened person would of course be able to see the newcomer all the time.

The movie is also knowledgeable about the way TV reporters are portrayed in horror films. The reporter this time, played by Courteney Cox of “Friends,” asks wonderful questions, such as “How does it feel to almost be the victim of a slasher?” Savvy as she is, she nevertheless suggests to a local deputy that they shouldn’t drive to an isolated rural setting when it’s a nice night to walk down a deserted country road in the dark while a slasher is loose.

What did I think about this movie? As a film critic, I liked it. I liked the in-jokes and the self-aware characters. At the same time, I was aware of the incredible level of gore in this film. It is *really* violent.

Is the violence defused by the ironic way the film uses it and comments on it? For me, it was. For some viewers, it will not be, and they will be horrified.

Which category do you fall in? Here’s an easy test: When I mentioned Fangoria, did you know what I was talking about?

3 thoughts on “On Scream

  1. Pingback: On Scream 2 | The Progressive Democrat

  2. Pingback: On Scream 3 | The Progressive Democrat

  3. Pingback: On Urban Legend | The Progressive Democrat

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s