83: SCREAM (1996)

DIRECTOR: WES CRAVEN

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

(TW: Mentions of Rape and discussions revolving around Sexual Assault)

Now that I am pretty knowledgeable on horror I think I’m ready to watch a film franchise that laughs at the genre it’s in, of course, I’m talking about Scream. Horror, like all genres, can be easily defined by its tropes, and I wanna take a second to recognize that I don’t think tropes are bad. Some of the most classic movies can be seen as an easy-to-predict story with characters shown a dime a dozen. But without those tropes existing as they are, we wouldn’t have people make nuanced characters with these cliches as the root. The expectation needs to be there to subvert it. The best example of this in Scream is their subversion of The Final Girl and how they use previously made ideals as the basis for Sidney Prescott’s story arc.

Now, we have spoken before about the idea of The Final Girl, and how a lot of slasher/horror movies base themselves on the idea that the least debaucherous person ends up being the survivor. The main example of this is the example they use in Scream; Laurie Strode in Halloween (1978). Like we said before, Laurie’s the ultimate Final Girl not just because she doesn’t have sex, but she’s also the most responsible in the cast. Being a Final Girl isn’t just about being pure, it’s about maturity. A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) is about facing reality and adapting to it. Nancy, the Final Girl in that movie, also doesn’t have sex, but her purity comes in the form of her response to Freddy Krueger. If there’s a guy killing people in your dreams, the simple response to avoiding death is “How about we just not sleep forever?” To bring up a final comparison, let’s show an easy diversion from the norm, The Exorcist (1973). Chris MacNeil may not be a Final Girl in the same sense as Laurie or Nancy, but that movie still revolves around sin and debauchery and Chris’ story arc revolves around not letting her previous actions take over her life. I don’t necessarily like what they mean by sinful in this case, if lacking a nuclear family and meeting other people during/after a divorce is sinful, then both of my parents are going to Hell. But the idea of having our main character live in sin and then come out of the movie feeling wildly different is a subversion of the Final Girl idea. So what does Scream do? They make Sidney’s story arc about her sexuality.

The Ghostface Killings aren’t Sidney’s first involvement with murder. Her mother was killed by, who we thought was, a man named Cotton Leary. She was killed because she was having an affair with him, presumably amongst other people she slept with. In the year since, Sidney’s mom has been labeled all these things like whore and skank and, naturally, it would come to affect her daughter. Sidney Prescott and Billy Loomis are both in a relationship and she has mixed feelings about having sex. It’s a surprisingly nuanced take on sex that has people involved not letting one viewpoint take over the other. Sidney feels like if she does it, she’s going to be treated the same as her mother, everyone will judge her because she’s doing something her mother did to multiple people. So when Sidney and Billy do have sex it signifies that she has overcome the anxieties that hurt her. Anxieties that Billy created because, SURPRISE, Billy was one of the murderers! Not just for the recent killings, but for Sidney’s mom as well which means that he framed Cotton Leary. The reason for that is for payback from the trauma Sidney’s mom gave to Billy after she had sex with Billy’s dad; this leads to a kick-ass theory that I have.

Get C.E.L Media Journal’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Remember me for faster sign in

So, with all the commentary the film has about the horror genre, the movie makes it clear that, in these movies, if you have sex you die. So when you combine that ideal with the trauma that Billy has, he views sex as demoralizing. You’re probably asking “Well if that’s the case, then why does he want to have sex?” Because he wants to be the demoraLIZER. He said it himself, he’s psychotic. He wants to unveil the madness on his fucking terms, he wants to spread his malfeasances onto other people, and get rid of it in the same breath; as penance for what the world did to him. There’s just one problem; he’s good at getting what he wants. And in doing so, in setting up this whole relationship story arc with Sidney, he inadvertently made her more confident in herself. It’s almost as if the “sin” that’s showcased in most of the movies referenced, can actually become a net positive for someone in real life. Sex can be amazing…so I’ve heard. I think this is 100% intentional, and even if it wasn’t I’m glad that this movie gave me reasons to believe in that theory.

To speak about my other positives of the movie, I like whatever filter they put on the whole movie, it looks like it was made for a VHS. I think it adds to the modernization effort the movie was trying to make. Despite the tape recorder and big-ass 90s phone, I think it would make sense in the present day to use the older technology ‘cause it would be harder to track. If you took the video store out of it, I can see this being a movie released in the early 2000s. I honestly think the grey scaling in the film helps give the more comedic tone they want. It makes it distinct from something like Halloween (1978) which uses natural lighting and not any color or visual cues except for Michael Meyers. A bunch of the characters have a distinct look to them. Sidney’s got bangs, Tate has a crop top, Billy has Hansen’s hair, and Stu has the facial expressions of a chimpanzee.

Speaking of Stu this is gonna tie into the critiques I have in the movie. Matthew Lillard is hilarious in this, I love his character work, and I like how he Jim Carrey-ified his face to pull off this wild child persona. But Stu has very little thematic relevance. On the topic of sex, Sidney’s mother was, as stated by the media, raped and killed by Cotton Weary, their words not mine. However, as the movie goes on, as a way of criticizing the media for how they overdramatize reality, we learn that Sidney’s mother was having affairs with a bunch of different people. Do I think the rape comment was a bit much? Yes, I think it’s a fair critique, but at the end of the day, they put that little note in there to say that reality can get warped by perception. Cut to Stu giving his reason for being involved in Billy’s plot; “peer pressure.” Hmmm. A non-consensual act is used as a front to twist the reality of the situation. Doesn’t that sound familiar? All of that has great thematic relevance…I wish this was touched on more. Granted, this might be a theory as well, I don’t know if this was intentional. But if it was…Man, Stu had some wasted potential. Stu deserved more than just the background, but my god did he live in it.

Fortunately, Stu isn’t my largest problem in this movie. That goes to the dialogue. The way it uses its referential humor is not as snappy as it should be and it can take place from the idea it’s trying to parody. I think good referential humor comes from the idea that everyone watching is on the same wavelength as you and a lot of the dialogue is literally them saying that they are LIKE Norman Bates in Psycho (1960) or “Remember that scene in Jaws (1975)?” I can understand it being a character moment like when, in Captain America: Civil War (2016), Spider-Man says to Iron Man “Hey, remember that really old movie Empire Strikes Back?” Like, that showcases Peter’s tenderfootedness in the superhero world. But each of our main cast is dropping reference after reference in the same manner as the person next to them and at some point, it kind of loses its purpose. Say what you will about Marvel movies, but at least 90% of the quips don’t have to be explained. When Iron Man says “Get lost Squidward!” you get the point.

So, while I do believe the movie has some problems, its focus on parody works when the movie does stuff. It’s visual subversions and humor is what gives Scream its satirical edge. Knowing about scary movies is fine, but when it blocks character moments, that’s when it can hurt the movie. Scream does both, and in the end, my thoughts are a tad mixed. On one hand, it showcases an intriguing exploration of the psychological complexities surrounding themes of sexuality and how generalizing it can be dangerous. Yet, on the other hand, the writing occasionally falters, leaving certain scenes feeling underdeveloped. there are moments when this focus on horror movie references can overshadow character development and crucial emotional moments. When the film’s self-awareness becomes too dominant, it risks alienating audiences from the characters’ personal journeys and connections, which can detract from its impact. Overall, while the movie has a commendable approach to blending horror with self-aware humor, the execution isn’t always as sharp as it could be. It’s a decently balanced horror film that’s become a staple in the years since its release.

Also the actor that played Billy GAVE himself the name Skeet Ulrich? I hope his full name is Ahskeetskeetmotherfucker Ahskeetskeetgoddamn Ulrich.

7/10

-Charlie :)