In Retrospect: Scream

I saw Scream in the theaters, and it's almost shocking to consider that that was 21 years ago. Twenty-one years!?! Holy cow! This is one of my favorite movies. I enjoy it, but more than that, I also admire and respect it. Personal tastes vary, of course, but whenever someone describes this movie as "stupid" (related side-note: The IMDb's decision to permanently remove the comments sections for movies was a true gift to humanity. I mean that whole-heartedly.), I look at this person with a mix of distaste and pity and think, "you're allowed to not like it, but if you think it's stupid, you don't understand this movie even at its most basic level."

Scream is many things -- I'll get to how many levels it operates on in a moment -- but let's clear up a common misunderstanding, Scream is definitely, demonstrably, not a movie about "characters who know that they're in a horror movie," despite many people (even Roger Ebert!) incorrectly describing it as such. No, Wes Craven's previous film -- Wes Craven's New Nightmare -- explicitly touched on that idea, but the concept of characters outright knowing that they're in a horror film wouldn't really be explored in mainstream cinema until 2015's The Final Girls.

No, the characters of Scream don't know or even suspect that they're in a horror movie. Director Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson try to steep their story in realistic settings, and one character even lectures another that "this is the real world!" rather than some "Wes Carpenter movie." But, and here's what people are really trying to say when they claim that the characters know that they're in a horror movie, many of the characters of Scream are familiar with the standard elements of slasher films, so when they find themselves stalked by a serial killer, this knowledge adds a layer of irony to the story.

I mentioned that Scream works on multiple levels, and I think it's true. I'd argue that it's precisely the intricate comingling of those varying elements that makes Scream such an effective film. But okay, okay, people are always saying, "it works on so many levels!" but, frankly, would usually be confounded if asked to mention more than one. So you'd be right to think, "okay, Movie Man, what are the alleged multiple levels you keep talking about?"

Scream is, most obviously, a horror movie, of course, but it's also a mystery and a suspense film, and while those three genres may often overlap, it's rare to find a movie that devotes its time to all three elements simultaneously, and with such equal effectiveness. The distinction between horror and suspense is not a small one. Hitchcock, for example, was known as the Master of Suspense, but he rarely delved into outright horror. Suspense is all about building anticipation. Horror can just as easily build on gore or shock. It's not the same thing at all -- but when they're both done at the same time, and both done right, the elements of horror and suspense enhance each other.

Example: There is a moment when the main character, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is approached by two friends, Randy and Stu (Jamie Kennedy and Matthew Lillard). Both are seriously injured, both are begging for help, and both are accusing the other of being the killer. Sidney has no way of knowing which of them is telling the truth. Does she choose one at random, with a terrifying 50% chance of locking herself in with the killer? Or does she protect herself by locking them both out, and thus dooming the innocent friend to die?

Scream's status as a mystery film is almost always overlooked, but I've never understood why. After all, the characters spend a great deal of time trying to figure out who the killer is. Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, and Michael Myers are the three movie serial killers that every fan knows, and I won't get into how much Scream does or doesn't owe to their influence, but it should be observed that a key difference is that Freddy, Jason, and Michael don't carry much mystery; everyone knows who's under the burned scar tissue and the hockey and Halloween masks. No one says, "who is that guy under the Freddy mask?" It's Freddy. But who is "Ghostface," the masked killer in Scream? The answer is eventually revealed, and yes, it's a bit of a cheat, to be honest. But along the way, trying to solve the mystery is half the fun.

In addition to horror, mystery, and suspense, Scream also works as satire -- but here I must make a distinction between satire and outright parody. Scream has a sense of humor, yes, but the laughs never come at the expense of the other filmic elements of the story or its presentation. The mystery always remains front and center, and the horror and suspense are never diminished for the sake of a cheap laugh. But as mentioned, the characters -- especially film buff Randy -- are familiar with the conventions of horror films. They discuss these conventions, sometimes dismissively -- and then find themselves in those exact same situations. Their survival often depends on remembering the very "Rules" of horror films that they've earlier discussed, but it's understandably hard to think in terms of cinematic analysis when you've got a knife-wielding maniac running after you.

The brilliance of this concept can't be overstated, but it can be succinctly summarized: Director Craven and writer Williamson get to have their cake and eat it too, pointing out how similar so many movies are, but then still able to present those very same elements that were earlier mocked, and still do so with effectiveness and style. It's self-referential, but not to the point of either intellectual exercise or self-mockery: It still works, even after explicitly explaining exactly why it shouldn't.

Example: A few of the characters discuss how often the characters in slasher films seem to be clueless to what should be obvious danger. Later on, Randy watches a prime example of this on television, specifically the scene in Halloween where Jamie Lee Curtis is sneaking around the house as the killer lurks behind her for an extended period of time and she just - doesn't - notice him!!

"Behind you, Jamie!" Jamie Kennedy shouts out to the TV Jamie Lee Curtis. "Jamie, behind you! Look behind you!"

And the Scream audience could very well be shouting the same thing at their screens, for just as Randy is vainly hoping that Curtis's character will notice the killer lurking behind her -- we see that the "real world" killer is also sneaking up on Randy as he's watching the TV.

This review is filled with such admiration, I hate to inject a note of negativity, but I have to address the Wayans brothers' spoof of Scream, the dreadful Scary Movie. Look, you may or may not like Scary Movie, but regardless of your personal taste, Scary Movie is an objectively bad movie in a number of ways. First, its mission of mirroring the look and general idea of Scream but with wall-to-wall broad comedy makes it difficult -- not impossible, but more difficult than it should be -- to watch the original movie effectively. Too many people dismiss or miss the artistry of Scream because they are distracted by memories of the dumb jokes in Scary Movie. As odd and unfair as it may seem, watching Scary Movie can actually ruin the experience of the earlier, superior film. I think that, cinematically, this is a tragedy. Spaceballs can make fun of Star Wars all it wants, because you can re-watch them both forever and still enjoy their respective strengths. But horror and suspense depend on anticipation. Anticipation is suspense's life blood. You simply can't appreciate Scream for what it is if you're distracting yourself with the idea of the killer engaging in slapstick or toilet humor.

Second, it's always seemed to me that the Wayans, in even making a parody of Scream, missed the entire point of the first film. Scream is already a satire engaging in self-referentialism. Why make a satire of a satire that already has, and is in fact defined by, its own self-awareness -- but this time with dumb jokes? This is how I see the relationship between Scream, Scary Movie, and their audiences: Scream is the straight-A student who gets up in front of class and proves surprisingly adept at making the other students laugh during his presentation. And just as importantly, he actually made his classmates think critically about the subject matter! Then Scary Movie gets up, and because he was too lazy to come up with anything original, he devotes his entire presentation to making fun of the previous kid. The second kid's presentation is filled with fake farting noises and unskilled "duh-duh-doyyy!" mockery of the first kid.

Now, depending on what strikes your funny bone, you may laugh along with Scary Movie, or you may (rightfully) dismiss him as just cruel, stupid, and unoriginal. But here's the sad thing, either way, it's going to be hard to remember what made the first kid's presentation so great. He's been overshadowed by Scary Movie's buffoonery. That, in a nut-shell, is Scream and Scary Movie for ya.

So yeah, avoid Scary Movie like the plague if you haven't already seen it. It may or may not make you laugh, but I'd argue that the artistic cost is too severe. But watch Scream. Either seek it out for the first time, or re-visit it if you've seen it already. It's not just a pretty good movie. It's a great one.