By Aaron Darc
YES, I’D LIKE TO SCREAM…
SCREAM 4 (otherwise known as SCRE4M) Rated MA15+ ****SPOILER FREE!****
Okay, I can maybe – just maybe – be accused of being a bit of an elitist snob, when it comes to film. I don’t spend much time in multiplexes, let’s put it that way. I’m really excited about Lars Von Trier’s new film. I have every David Lynch dvd you can buy. I thought the original Funny Games was better than the remake. I thought Rabbit Hole should have won every Oscar for everything. I’m like that. Feel free to sigh “wanker” under your breath, if you must. But, unlike many of my pretentious film wanker friends, I do have an inkling, somewhere inside, for the occasional venture into those hideous cinema centers for something – gulp – mainstream. But it’s a certain kind of rubbish that gets me there. It can be rubbish, as long as it’s clever rubbish. Then, it actually does become a kind of art. I think Basic Instinct is art. I adore Tim Burton – most of the time (let’s all forget Alice, shall we?). I think Romi & Michelle’s High School Reunion is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen. And I will tell crowds of intellectual wankers that the Scream movies – every one of them – are god damned cool. “It’s actually really clever. And fun. But clever. And scary!” I don’t have too many big words to use – though I’ll happily put it in a postmodern context, if that is required – but I love them. And so, this week, while an invite to the Scream 4 preview screening wouldn’t have excited too many of the city’s “serious reviewers”, I, for one, was pretty psyched.
Now, only a couple of hours fresh from the experience, one of the first people in the world to finally witness it, I’m… well… feeling guilty about the morning I completely wasted by revelling in the excitement, watching youtube trailers, reading Wes Craven’s exclusive blogs on MTV. He told me – he told all of us – that he had come back for a reason. Even Campbell this week went out into pressland to shoot down the very concept of sequels – a strange thing to say, on one hand (in retrospect, it’s too unfathomably hypocritical for me to ever respect her – ever – again), but naturally all designed to assure us then that she had indeed come back to this particular sequel because it was just so freakin’ good. How was this most iconic of horror franchises going to resurrect itself, over a decade later, in a different world?
I ask this, because I’m quite sure it was the governing question that drove the board meetings that ultimately are responsible for Scream 4. I’m not sure if there aren’t a bunch of copywriters and market analysts somewhere who should maybe have been credited for… you know… basically constructing a hunk of crap with the sole function of making mula. It’s that stale. It’s that fake. It’s that deathly unfunny, deathly unclever, and, most of all, deathly unfrightening. And, despite what Wes spent all week assuring us on MTV, it’s not only lacking in originality, but entirely built on mirrors – formulas – ideas – of every other Scream. It’s the same film, with the volume turned down. Oh, except for spoon-feeding tacked-on monologues where we have the film’s hollow “messages” shoved down our throats with slightly more velocity than the actual stabbing. Something about how young people today use iPhones, and film themselves at parties, and have blogs, and, like, are destroying themselves to be, like, famous and shit. Or something. Well, that’s what it says – almost literally – in one of the more painfully scripted moments placed so wrongly in the film’s climax. But, truth be told, it’s all pretty painful.
Is Wes just too old? I couldn’t help but ponder this, after seeing Scream 4. And if so, what happened to him? Is his creativity gone? Or has this guy just got to a point where he’ll sell out to whatever suit came up with the idea of repackaging Scream as a blockbuster cross-demographic sensation (pulling in older audiences on nostalgia, and getting a new audience who haven’t experienced its originality) because he needs to buy a bigger house or whatever? Wes Craven is a talented man. He’s really smart. He’s actually incredibly creative. I respect him. But does this guy actually believe the rubbish he’s saying in interviews about this film? Because if he does, then… well… oh dear. His twilight ‘aint quite at the caliber of his midday sun, if you know what I mean.
It is Wes who has announced his film to be a cutting commentary on the tech generation. I actually agree with him, in the vague, overall sentiment echoed in the film – that this contemporary mindset is breeding a generation of inept monsters. But it is so completely shallow in how it is presented and explored in the film, it simply feels like an old timer, beholding a new world he doesn’t quite grasp, and barking, “Goodness, these kids today! They’re all connected to the interwhatever, and looking at their phones all day, and downloading those app things, and filming everything they do! What’s the world coming to?!” And yeah, okay, sure. What is the world coming to? But this film doesn’t in any way ask that question beyond that image of the barking old man turning his nose up, as any generation does, at the one below him – this film doesn’t actually “get it”. It sees it. Yes, the kids are walking around glued to their screens. But it doesn’t get it. So, really, it has nothing to say. And yet, the film spends so much effort trying to say it. You almost wanna shout “Oh, stop thinking you’re clever, and at least scare us with knives for a couple of hours!” And that’s not something I say lightly.
As for the “plot”… well… let’s not call it a plot. I don’t think Scream 4 has a plot. It has a bunch of old movies – mostly, its own – stuck together and kind of “rebranded”. And because the plotline sees a new killer copying the original murders (just as Sydney arrives back in Woodsboro – on the anniversary of the original murders – for her book signing tour!), this means… you guessed it… the film literally uses the same concepts as the murders of the first film. The film even has the audacity to point this out, itself – thinking it’s being clever to do so, no less – but all the Cleverness™ in the world can’t mask for how lazy this is. Or how unthrilling it is, to go see a supposedly new innovation, and be hit with such a level of rehash. By the end, the film’s cleverness finally admits the truth – a bigger revelation than the absurd twist ending (don’t spend too much time trying to figure it out, okay? It really doesn’t even matter, and makes almost no sense) – that, when it’s all said and done, Scream 4 isn’t a “sequel”… it’s a kind of remake. It’s a remake having sex with a sequel. Does that, at least, qualify as New™?! I guess so. If only the one original thing the film can be credited for didn’t seem to simply be a way to be lazy. This film feels like it took five minutes to make. It probably met a week long deadline to write. I imagine around 80% of it was phoned in. Or maybe it was done via email. You know how it is these days, it’s all on the computer, it’s like nobody even interacts anymore. Wes will happily tell you that, after all.
Somewhat ironically, the very generation it’s supposedly criticising don’t mind if a film doesn’t have a plot – in fact, they increasingly prefer films not to. They don’t relate to their world through narrative (like those old timers did). They pay for a two hour hit of visceral, ultimately nihilistic, stimulation. But this is going to be the final nail on Scream 4′s coffin. This, truth be told, is the reason for the secrecy behind it, and the restraint placed against preview audiences. The thing is, marketing groups can paste these sorts of films together, thinking they’re on a winning formula. But, once the thing has actually been made, they’re not dumb. They see it, and they know what is going to happen. And they know what will happen to this. That’s why they went so hellbent on the hype. That hype will pull in mammoth opening crowds, because nothing has been allowed to spoil the anticipation – it’s been left up to their marketing department (all anyone knows of this is commercial – we’ve only been informed by ads). But the reality, after that first week or so, will set in. It may find a cult audience within its own fanboy scene, where the level of sycophantic consumption (though, ironically, they all talk about Scream, without even a hint of irony, as a brilliant swipe at “consumerism”) is high enough to completely blind them to the film’s actual quality. But I suspect it won’t get much broader than that, past the first week of eager crowds. Granted, a film today only has to pull off those big openings to economically warrant a sequel (even Tron – which I really didn’t mind, but seemed to be in a minority group in that reaction – is getting another one); but this is not the mammoth hit many were thinking this might be, and certainly not in the long run.
This is mostly because, for all its appealing to its original fans, it still needs the new generation to succeed. And that new generation won’t take to Scream 4. They’ll find it dull, even kinda silly. They’ll think there’s “too much talking” (I already heard one of the younger audience members tonight conclude just this, as the credits rolled). They’ve clearly put more blood in this one – to try to appease those blood-hungry youngsters who have been desensitised to the horribly graphic torture scenes of the past decade – but the blood won’t cut it. And stabbing?! Meh. That’s boring. Someone gets stabbed, some blood squirts out – sometimes, quite a lot – but that’s it. They fall down, they stop moving. Over. These kids are used to the most horrific scenes, where victims are not stabbed a couple of times in ten seconds, but forced to endure endless moments of spectacular agonies, and all before their young eyes. I don’t in any way agree with torture porn and its influence on this genre, but the facts are the facts. This film does not work as a horror movie to the torture porn generation – and no amount of catty, “clever” post-modern references are going to change that. To these kids, Scream 4 is for pussies. As it is, there’s only really one killing sequence every 25 minutes or so – the first hour goes by with very little actually happening. It opens with the expected, and then? It turns into a bizarre – unfunny – comedy-come-parody (wrongly thinking it’s being satire). And the kids aren’t down with that. They don’t get anything its referencing, anyway. We saw this happen with Tron (which aimed to hit a similar cross-demo, and failed completely).
In short, they won’t in any way understand its generational cynicism (in fact, many will be perplexed by its paper-thin under-depiction of their technological lives), very few will get the film’s cultural references to itself, and hardly any of them will be very scared. They want the volume at 11. They want it hard and fast. This doesn’t give them that. They will walk out, then, having been given nothing. They’ll jump on twitter, on facebook, they’ll text their friends. They’ll tell them what a bore Scream 4 is. It will be murdered by the very thing it says is murdering a society. That’s a fascinating kind of phenomenon, in a way – but not in the “clever” way it intended.
That leaves the older audiences – the ones who, like me, were there for the original. Okay, so they have the characters they love, and, yes, they get lots of screentime to spend with those characters. But that screentime is empty, often embarrassing. The cast seem to be ashamed to be there. You can’t particularly blame them. And so, the nostalgia is all very well – again, it will pull big opening crowds off this – but the fact is that they won’t get what they’re paying for, either. Unlike the youngsters, they’ll at least be susceptible to the scares – silent house walks near open windows, men in capes, knives, these things can scare the crap out of them – but it pales in comparison to those unbearably tense moments in the original films. As it is, they speed by at lightning pace; while the final death count is quite high, not only are there not many actual scare sequences (around these killings), they’re mostly over in about two minutes (the count is partly so high because, this time, the killer rips through some murders in flashes – groups – without those thrillingly suspenseful – and often quite long – lead-up scenes). The violin sets in, there’s a quick walk in the shadows, then bam! Everything you think is going to happen does; then, it’s over, and back to… well…. empty, embarrassing dialogue and hollow statements about kids on iPhones.
So conscious of itself is Scream 4, in its intention to be a horror movie that lives partly away from the horror, it seems to rush the horror there is, just to fit in more “plot”. Except, it isn’t a very good plot, nothing much happens, and the comedy borders on tv slapstick sitcom. I laughed once – once – at the very end, in a line every bit as stand-out as it was intended. Yet, its punchline, “don’t fuck with the original”, was, once you gave it any thought, yet another brutal irony for this film. Sure. Don’t fuck with an original. But surely, the solution to that is to leave the original alone and not repeat it, half assed, either? If only the film had’ve listened to its own self-important wisdom.
Promises, promises. Scream 4 gave them to so many. But it has short changed us all. Let’s hope that boardroom doesn’t green-light a phone conference to pitch another. But with that opener weekend I’ll be stunned if it doesn’t pull off (you can hear those cash registers, already), I’m guessing this won’t be the last we see of Ghostface. That’s not that exciting, now. Let us never forget his wonderful origins. But let us accept that it is, I’m sorry to say, over. As elitist as this sounds – so be it (and if you know what I mean, you’ll know exactly what I mean) – but this is a lowest common denominator film. C’mon, you know what I’m saying. And there’s plenty of those around, after all. There are plenty who flock to them. But Scream?! Scream somehow crossed over – it was never high art, but it was better than that. Was.
It is with a sorry heart that I inform you that the battle between oldschool slasher horror and contemporary torture porn has been waged. Gen Y won. And that, at least, is frightening.
*listen to Aaron’s live radio chat from Celluloid Dreams (2SERFM) below….
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Darc on 12th April 2011 at 2:26 am, and is filed under Entertainment. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 1 year ago
Thankgod a Scream review from someone with a brain
I also thought the first films were lots of fun and was looking forward to this one. I guess they’re all just making money these days really.
about 1 year ago
I think, at the end of the day, that is exactly it, actually. This is now just a money-making exercise – which most contemporary horror is, the genre does kind of lend itself to demographic analysis, to some extent, which means it can end up so incredibly contrived – and is also why it partly changes with the times so much. But more and more, that element is given increasing control in driving the actual production and creative development, and it’s resulting in really boring horror films.
about 1 year ago
I agree with you on some of your points but not on all. I personally think the film is going to be good. I think it is pretty obvious from the clips that the killer is in some ways copying the way it killed people in the first film (there are only so many ways to stab someone) because it says that in the two minute trailer. Did you watch the trailer? you said you did so I don’t understand why you are so surprised by that and spend so much of your article upset by it. I understand you don’t want to spoil anything but it would be nice if you could talk about something, anything other than the technology and mimic of Scream, which we already know about from the trailer. P.S. I am not trying to be mean but Rabbit Hole was not that great, it was good but not great. Nicole Kidman’s face is so plastic it was hard to see the performance. Saying you like independant movies is not saying you have a high quality taste in films (both Inception and The Social Network were oscar nominated and loved by critics from all backgrounds and they were released by major studios to make loads of money). Saying you like independant movies is just saying you like stuff that no one else has never heard of because of the fact that no else has ever heard of it.
about 1 year ago
I don’t in any way make a statement in that article about “independent movies” as such… mainstream versus independent is not really a matching dichotomy – as you rightly point out. I actually agree with you! In fact, the initial point I make is that just because a movie is mainstream, or popular with a mass audience, doesn’t mean it’s bad. None of it has anything to do with liking movies because not many people have heard of them, that is a ridiculous – and obvious – reducing of culture on a basis that is quite ignorant. Are you suggesting any of the examples I mentioned – Von Trier, Lynch, Hanake, even Rabbit Hole – are “obscure” films? It says so much about the mainstream demo that they don’t even realise the size of the world they never engage. “That no one else has heard of”…. you know, like you ARE “the people”… only you… like if it isn’t on your radar it doesn’t exist, like there are no other world’s out there. It exists only to me, apparently! Do you know how big these film-makers and their films are? You’d be surprised. They don’t rake in mass audiences on the same level, but, I assure you, millions upon millions have heard of them! They have their own awards, their own festivals, their own subcultures… their own worlds. Just because it isn’t yours, doesn’t mean it is not valid or, heaven forbid, exist.
And I simply make it clear where my subjective viewpoint comes from, from movies that exist in a more higbrow, or arthouse, or critical, or even academic, or whatever you wanna call it, realm. BUT I don’t only like those movies – you’re going to see this get slaughtered by a lot of pompous critics that would never have loved a Scream film anyway, and I’m not one of them. It is important for a reviewer, I feel, to make it clear where they come from, so that people have a greater understanding of their opinion. I love entertainment for being entertainment sometimes, so I’m just saying that my opinion isn’t the typical dismissive arthouse or serious critic’s swipe at a film like this. Those people can often only engage a film expecting it to stimulate them in that way. I love being stimulated in that way. But I can happily sit down and enjoy being scared for two hours by a film like Scream (or the first ones, I should say). Because to those critics, Scream fans, like yourself, will say “But it’s not supposed to be (insert label here)”…. and to that, I just want to make it quite clear… yes. Hello, I know it’s not a David Lynch film, you know?! I’m not expecting it to be. But not only did this franchise always have SOME genuine substance – even in just a creative sort of way – it, particularly in this film, dedicates screen time to that, and happily revels in its image as the smart and cool slasher film, every chance it can get. And this time, it’s wrong. I didn’t expect a Lynch fim, but I expected a film that was mindless on one level, but that also came with a bit of cultural spunk, just a bit of brain. That might not have even bothered me, if it was just really scary! But it wasn’t. It was neither. And this is why my review is as it is, that’s what essentially goes wrong in it for me.
So, while I do make analytic predictions and assessments of other demographics than my own, I don’t suggest that the people who won’t like it in this group will have the same experience of it as me. They’ll not like it for totally different reasons. But certainly, if you’re someone that does tend to gravitate towards less mainstream cinema, but loved the Scream movies, you’ll probably click more, if not with my exact opinions, than with the reference points I guess I make them from.
BUT I still loved the Scream movies as straight out scary movies, and I think a lot of people, from all walks of life, just won’t find this anywhere near as scary as it should have been. I think, on the whole, the more typical mainstream audiences will say “This is not scary” and the more cerebral will say “This is dumb”. I actually have a foot on both sides of the camp in the way I engaged and reacted to the film.
about 1 year ago
Mmm, don’t know. To me, Scream series has never been a horror series. It’s more of whodunit and suspense. None of the previous films made me be horrified not even scared but for a couple of minutes each, so I wasn’t expecting this one to be different.
And for the killings…well, it’s just the same as the previous ones. In scream 2 there is more chit-chatting than killing moments, but I don’t think Scream is famous for its killing scences (except for that of Drew) but more for a question the audience repeats every here and there: “I think the killer is (insert name).” And that’s Scream for you and what it has been for all these years. Did you expect to be scared? I wasn’t on the previous ones but for some “boos” so I don’t see the point in complaining about that when not even the originals followed that path :/
about 1 year ago
Robert, I think you have a very different enjoyment of them than most audiences – while they are mysteries, they are, nonetheless, horror films! people go to be scared, and that’s what thrilled people for the first three films, above pretty much all else (even above its cleverness). That doesn’t make it less valid that you enjoy the mystery part, though. Although having said that, you did say “suspense”, and that’s exactly what I liked about it, too – the horror was suspenseful, it borrowed heavy (or wherever the chicken and egg come) from the thriller genre in that way. This takes that out of it – ironically, this is a more basic, stripped back horror, in that way. It’s “wam bam” stuff, more than pace-building suspense. It explodes into an outburst of violence, it recedes into comedy, it explodes into more violence, recedes into comedy… there’s not the suspense dynamic at play as much. I suppose, at least, that’s one slight deviation, but I thought a weakening one.
Ironically, in some ways, even though I think you’ve enjoyed that whodunnit element more than others in the past (who have probably enjoyed it, but in a horror chills and spills context), it’s kind of a good point to make for this one, an interesting angle, because this one has made quite a fuss about the “twist ending” – more so than the others, even though they all have them. For me, that ending was ridiculous. But more so, the film doesn’t act like a mystery, around it. It’s a horror. A mystery carefully weaves in specific clues and subtext around the eventual reveal. This has none. It’s like they got to the end, after nothing more than suspicious looks on everyone’s faces (and making sure everyone is, at one time or another, placed somewhere near a murder) and went, “Okay, we’ve set it up so that it could be basically any of them… who are we gonna leave it with and say actually did this?” There’s no pretext to solving the mystery. If you spend the film wondering who did it, that’s all you can do… wonder…. because it isn’t actually “in” the film anywhere. You’ll know what I mean, once you’ve seen it. It’s all just so lazy. And really, a mystery should do this – you should be able to work it out, not just take a lucky guess. I don’t know where you’re posting from, but do you have a show called “Deal Or No Deal” there? This is the cinema narrative version of that gameshow, as far as the mystery goes. You know the answer is in one of those cases, but the only thing to guide you working it out is really that there are gradually less cases. That’s about it.
To be honest, this is one element that didn’t really bother me, though! Because Screams are always horrors to me, I think that is one convention of the genre it always adhered to – in horror films, the “solution” is never really the point, it’s not off the back of a mystery narrative, so it tends to be… you know… a bit naff. You take it for what it is – corny. And this is pretty corny! But whatever, I wasn’t expecting it not to be, I suppose, so that was one thing that didn’t rile me up much.
about 1 year ago
But, oh, come on… not even the first one was frightening. And the horror element goes down the hill once the killers remove their masks. I said it earlier, its you are looking for horror,Scream (1, 2 or 3) just delivers you some random boo. Of course there are scary parts (above all in the second installment -the editing room and the car part-) but scary overall? I don’t think so. In fact, I think “I still know what you did last summer” is more scary in spite of its stupidity. And don’t get me wrong, I do like Scream, but I’ve always found it lacking in the horror department, nontheless enjoyable, even the third one. If they work as mysteries…well, let’s take a look, shall we? I think all these films are just mysteries with some random killings, the principal’s murder in Scream 1 is unnecessary for the central mystery, but he randomly dies. It delivers us a false lead towards the killer. The final twist was pretty obvious to me, I knew who the culprit was. But seriously, the motive? It’s preposterous. “Your mother broke my family so I’ve killed all of your friends in revenge, even some people you don’t even care about, just in case”…wait, what? Scream 2 becomes even more random. A woman you were supossed to know but in surgery…that’s OK for Syd but not for the viewers, who hadn’t seen that woman previously though the motive seems more acceptable to me than the first one. In this one, there is no ultimate clue to suspect on the killers. Scream 3 was like…”all right, it was impossible to guess who the killer was, now fight for your lives!”. Its entertaining though. I expect that kind of resolution for Scream 4 so I’m not worried. As for the pace, Scream 1 and 2 (the widely thought as “good ones”) were slow, the second one above all. There’s one killing every 15-20 minutes and the rest is chatting and joking (the part of “Syd, I love you” musical version was like, WTF!! That’s so ridiculous!!). Out of the 3, the second one is the most slow and the one having the most boring moments. Nevertheless, it is my favourite and yes, they all are just movie versions of “Deal or not Deal”, but as long as the identity of the killers remain unclear these films work as mysteries no matter the final (and stupid) motives they have to stalk on Syd.
Of course Scream 4 won’t be the most scary film out there (there are too many “The Human Centipede’s” to shake and blow your mind) and the audiunce will remark it merciless. Slashers have become mindless and gory and I’m glad Scream 4 doesn’t reach those moments of extreme gore yet is not as bland as in the 90′s. Stupid? Any horror film is (but The Descent). I’m not troubled, I know I’m going to find an enjoyable film although it marks rock bottom for critics. Maybe my opinion is not valid since I even loved Scream 3, but there it goes…
about 1 year ago
I loved Scream 3 the most, actually! To me, it was camp as all hell, and really clever (this one doesn’t do the postmodern, self-referencing thing anywhere near as well – despite the large amount of time this one spends on doing it), and really FUNNY! Plus, Parker Posey is one of my favourite actresses. I noticed alot of the fanboys are conveniently saying “This is like Scream One and Two” because there’s that idea that the Third was bad, and I think the “This is like Scream One and Two” is really something generated by the publicity itself and then happily repeated at large by the fans (most of who haven’t seen it anyway)… it’s just marketing. They want the message out there, “Don’t worry, this isn’t Scream 3″. Don’t listen to them! This is really a pastiche of ALL of them… including Three! There are definitely traces of Three in this, but it’s just not clever or funny to me, that’s all. But, like Scream 3, this one spends an awful lot of time trying to be funny. The comedy and the post-modern thing is definitely what partly defined the third one, and it’s all through this.
And yes, I agree with you totally about how it’s great that Scream doesn’t have the gore of saw, etc. I’m mortified by that modern genre. But what makes the Screams so suspenseful is that there is – amongst those plot and comedy scenes – that suspense. There was killing every 20 mins or so in Scream 2, but when somebody was killed, it was much more suspenseful and drawn out. And maybe the setups were more suspenseful, I just found some of the scenes in this to not make me anxious at all. And I’m actually kinda easy to scare!
about 1 year ago
The reviews are now starting to be published too… as I thought, it’s being panned. The horror blog boys are giving it the thumbs up (no surprises there) but I think you’ll see the negativity grow as the proper press reviews roll out…
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/scream-4/
about 1 year ago
Hi Aaron, You wrote a blog in September 2008 called And the Winner Is.. re Australian Idol 2008. It was a great insightful piece about music and Gen Y. I can’t find it in your archives and would really like to get a hold of it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
about 1 year ago
I think this was inevitable.
The problem is inherent in the nature of it’s target audience. The scream films were never really true horror, they were not aimed at a traditional hardcore audience. I tend to associate real horror with small independent movies, not many achieve wide appeal, especially those pushing the envelope. Scream was a hollywood style glossy pastiche of 80′s slashers; but tagged with ‘wes craven’ it got acceptance from hardcore horror crowds as well as being a multiplex mainstream movie. Nice move.
That crossover means you have to satisfy a diluted demographic – the guy taking his girl on a date and the guy wearing the slipknot t-shirt at the front. It can’t be Saw if you want a $100 million return. It can be scary like a rollercoaster, but you can’t leave the cinema traumatised.
Scream was always walking a fine line trying to please both audiences. It’s a victim of it’s own success as the unexpected box office return meant it was locked into it’s own formula, ironically. Where it first succeeded with it’s clever post-modern script, it became a one-trick pony. It could only be great once, and then the sequels become ever more familiar. You’re basically saying to the audience ‘here’s a film which knows what the rules are, is telling you what they are, and is going to thrill you whilst sending up those conventions’. How many times can you do that before the film sending up the cliches becomes the new cliche. Worse, it repeats itself and becomes a victim to the same tired sequels it originally smirked knowingly at.
This film needed an entire reboot in it’s ideology to be successful. But it’s a new decade, same rules.
Still, I was at least hoping for a well made sequel. One which kept the thrills going and made us care for the characters we’ve known since the first film, while providing a good scary send-up here and there. It sounds like it’s failed even on that front.
about 1 year ago
Yes, Zippo, I agree, good points. It has become the cliche now, as you put it, and that turns the post-modernism often into sheer hypocrisy in this fourth one. It strangely starts attacking itself – it’s almost worth seeing just to witness that, it’s kinda mesmorising once you think about it. And I don’t think it attacks itself in a clever way, I think it got trapped by its own cleverness, partly because, as you said, it was now a Winning Formula™.
And Jenny, I didn’t republish all the articles when I moved to this (new) blog system, but I do have a lot of them stored, so I’ll check for you!
about 1 year ago
yeh, I have to see it. Partially to be a completist and partially because I grew up on Wes Craven.
Of course I’m hoping you’re wrong, but deep down I know you’re not.
about 1 year ago
Yeah, I grew up with Wes. Nightmare On Elm St was a big part of my childhood, and though I missed Scream when it first came out, I later discovered it and was a huge fan – I’ve even championed them before on the radio show. We did a Wes Craven retrospective when they remade Nightmare last year, and I really came out of researching him and learning about him, really respecting the guy. Partly why I was so excited to see this!
And I’ll probably even go see the next one… but I won’t go in with the same mindset I unfortunately went into this one!
about 1 year ago
Very interesting review. For what it’s worth I thought Rabbit Hole was seriously overlooked by the bigger and safer films of the year. A very to-the-point film that didn’t delve into melodrama yet wasn’t afraid to be dramatic.
Back to Scream 4 though. I haven’t seen the film, so obviously your opinion has more to back it up.
First of all, “rotten tomatoes” means nothing. While it’s useful for collecting reviews into one place, it, nonetheless, labels films as “bad” and “good”. It’s stupid to present movies as objective (i recall rotten tomatoes naming a movie “rotten” because “the characters were too unlikable”)…Anywho, I think what happened in your case was that you got vastly overcharged with promotions and interviews, without leaving much time for you to ground yourself from the “uber hype commercial world” to the actual world…I also think that slasher movies have been so over-done that it’s hard not to cringe at stuff that, while clichéd, are still an essential part to the genre. There’s always going to be a hot “cheerleader” type character just waiting to die (Tatum, Cici, Sarah)….
Furthermore, I’m not sure I understand the fact that you felt it needed more scares, yet you have Scream 3 as your favourite one.
If you look at things objectively (forget the promos) here is why Scream 4 is a tough script to handle:
-You need to be commercial but not to the point where it loses it’s spark
-you need to take your characters seriously yet add comedic elements in order for the “social commentary” element to work
-you need to be youthful yet still mature
-you need smart characters yet still allow some convenient moments that help the plot unfold
-your are a reboot of a slasher so that’s not a good start to begin with
….If you think of the above (and many more similar factors) you can see that it’s a frickin impossible task to maintain a perfect balance…do you think you’d prefer it with a second viewing?
anyway, like I already said, you’ve seen it and I haven’t which gives you an edge, but reading your review I couldn’t help but ask “is the movie that clumsy or is he just nitpicking?”
about 1 year ago
Well, you’re absolutely right that this film had a difficult task at hand, a delicate balance of elements to pull off…. but… you know… these are clever, creative people and that’s supposedly why they’re rich and famous! Because they can pull this sort of stuff off. So either pull it off, or, if the balance is too much to get around, don’t make it! That’s what annoys me and means I actually feel more “aggressive” towards a film like this than many other films I don’t like but don’t direct quite the same level of vitriol towards… this is a forced attempt because they’re making money. They didn’t stray from the formula because, to be honest, the decision was clearly not to – in case it jeopardised the money they knew it would make anyway. So it’s beyond safe – even though the people behind it have decided to just hit us with ad copy (which is all it is) about how groundbreaking it is. That the slogan is “New decade. New rules.” is beyond hypocritical. It’s a lie. It’s the same rules, and quite consciously. And I think audiences have a right to feel duped by that.
As for my own engagement of that balance in the Scream concept, yes, I liked Scream 3 the most, but why I didn’t like those same elements in this one is because this time they don’t work…. sooooooo, if those elements after fall flat, at least give me the scares! I still like the first two Screams. And for what it’s worth I was much more on the edge of my seat in Scream 3, even though that’s considered the least horror one, than this one anyway.
And totally agree with you on Rabbit Hole – see, that was a film that actually could have been lazy – considering the subject matter – and yet they were dramatic in a way that had such substance. Instead of making us sad because sweet little boy dies, etc, they managed to pull off the actual emotions around it. And for that, I say hats off. To me, the films worth giving thumbs up to are just those kinds of films – films that are ambitious, films that try something unique and pull them off. Rabbit Hole tried something unique and pulled it off. Scream can’t even pull off being a rehash!
about 1 year ago
The point I was raising with the “balance” argument though, is not that it is a tough balance to handle for creative minds, but that it is a tough balance to make everyone happy (someone wants more referencing of the original, someone else is tired of referencing a 15 year old movie- someone wants more gore, someone else finds extreme gore appalling etc….)
But like I said I haven’t seen it so…. I’ll make sure I post again here once I see it because for once I can actually discuss a movie rather than have “it’s good- no it’s bad” conversations.
about 1 year ago
Thanks Aaron.
about 1 year ago
But on that level, Josh, it’s an interesting formula that really pervades most media and marketing. I work in advertising and marketing, and one decision we always have to make is “Do we go for a cross-section of demographics with one ‘all-encompassing’ message, or do we go for a stronger message targeting fewer?” I see brands make the mistake all the time… because they want the most cash… to try to please too many people. But different people, obviously, want different things, so alot of the time, it’s not possible.
There are two ways to try to do it… one is to create one message that somehow pleases all, and the other – and this is what Scream 4 did – is to kind of splinter it into different things that please different people. The danger, then, is that it will weaken each part, so will anyone like any of it? Will the people wanting horror, be turned off by the amount of comedy? Will the people who like comedy be turned off by the amount of blood? And so forth. Will the post-modernism be too clever for lower end audiences, but will higher end audiences find the other slapstick comedy too lowbrow? In the end, it can bomb to everyone, when it could have been better if they went “Right, let’s do this one like this, and really drive it home”. But these movies are soooo driven by marketing departments – by business – and these people are not creatives, they ruin these films interfering.
about 1 year ago
Jenny, i’ve found an article in the archives and uploaded it, hopefully its the one you were after:
http://www.aarondarc.com.au/poppsychology/2008/02/and-the-winner-is-a-matter-of-perspective/
about 1 year ago
Ok Aaron so I watched it, and to be honest I’m not entirely sure what to make of it.
It’s like post-modernism just inverted itself. Scream 4 breaks down/sends up the movie ‘Scream’, which itself was a breakdown of horror movie cliches. While you may say this is an attack, it can also be seen as the nature of the franchise. It wouldn’t be Scream if it didn’t; and it would be aloof to say Scream 1 escapes the deconstruction that the franchise is built on.
It makes sense to use scream 1 too as this was the film that brought in a wave of new cliches of self-aware fodder. In the same way Scream 1 broke down Halloween for setting a trend, Scream 4 references Scream 1 in the same way.
Simultaneously it has a go at Hollywood’s penchant to remake every movie that made more than $1 at the box office. This is a ‘remake sequel’ where the film tries to reboot itself.
I like that, it’s clever, a sequel that laments the trend for remakes; but the result of all that post modern inversion is to make a movie that basically is a copy of the first movie. So that’s kinda lame too.
You see the dilemma I’m sure.
So to me it comes down to ‘did I have fun’. for the most part, probably yes, and for all it’s flaws, of which there were many, it seems that this tearing apart of it’s own foundation was the logical progression of the franchise. It shows the film-makers can poke fun at themselves and comment on how the post-modern slasher film has become the new cliche, and so it too needs to be pointed out in the same way Scream did with ‘Halloween’.
I guess the killer is that they didn’t really, truly, break it down in any deep way, but make a more surface comment on the state of affairs.
It wasn’t as good as the original – but again, isn’t that the point? If Scre4m had been better than Scream then they would have not made their point effectively. What a catch 22.
My head hurts….
about 1 year ago
Thank you to Jess Goss for finding the Autralian Idol article. Much appreciated.
about 1 year ago
Finally saw it! I think you are being slightly unfair with this. When the movie ended I was slightly underwhelmed, but the more I think about it, the more I liked it. (few spoilers below)
Sure there are moments that needed improvement:
-too many secondary characters distracted me from the core group of teens and their chemistry (instead of spending precious minutes on two cops talking about Bruce Willis, why not have more insight on the main group of teens)
- sometimes it struggled with being dead serious like the first 2 (the “fuck Bruce Willis” line was cringing)
(the above are, in my opinion, the main flaws)
Plus:
-some deaths didn’t take their time
- also, a bit more polished acting was needed at certain parts, and…
-the opening kill (the real one) needed a better, less commercially attractive girl to play her…
Despite the above, Scream 4 has something that only Scream had so far…It made a statement (not a genius intellectual statement, but still one that is accurate and not discussed enough).
Scream 1 made a statement about desensitized youth, and how violence is suddenly exciting rather than disturbing (similar to Funny Games but in a mainstream fashion)…
In Scream 4 we see that, but there are also a few more themes that I noticed:
Firstly, Bell’s and Paquin’s opening clearly poked fun at the pretentiousness of our generation. People nitpicking and talking about “cinematography” when they barely know what it means. (not talking about you, but about the people who think they’re movie buffs by quoting Empire or something.)
Secondly, the (main) killer’s motive (apart from the fact that she killed her mother which is a bit far-fetched even for Scream) was clearly a comment on sensationalist media which people hardly address with all the liberal movements going on right now (not saying that I’m conservative but I think some people abuse their liberal status). The “you just need to have lived shit, to succeed” is something very relevant to our “American Idol” and “Bieber” generation (kinda like Chicago)
Maybe I’m over-analyzing this to death but for some reason it fits.
about 1 year ago
I agree with most fans of this deteriorating franchise that the first one was legendary and the first sequel was pretty damn good (for a sequel) The third disappointed me, I loved how the studio set creeped out Sidney and I feel they should have filmed the last scene in the set of Stu’s house from the original Scream, it would have been far far far more effective and tense than Milton’s house and fans would have loved to have seen that house again which brought us so many shocks, laughs and screams.
Anyway Scream 4, I think that the shock of the female killer is brilliant however the other killer was disappointing just like ‘Roman’ in Scream 3. The opening scene of Scream 4 I think is very clever, just like Scream 2. Of course nothing beats that ultimate opening of Scream which really set some standards for the rest of all the films! Although Scream 4 is good it brings nothing new to the ongoing ‘franchise’ just like Scream 3. I really feel that either Kevin Williamson or Wes Craven or both have lost that creativity and excitement they really put into the first one – and maybe the second – now they’ve just become greedy and aren’t putting their heart and soul into it. I think it would be marvellous if they made Scream 5/6/7 – at least one more so they can REALLY and I mean REALLY summarise and conclude what redefined the Horror Genre in 1996 – and they perhaps included some of these ideas..
- Instead of another copycat killer/maniac/relative of Sidney’s they somehow bring back the first two killers (Billy and Stu, maybe it’s just me because I f***ing LOVE Skeet Ulrich, total hottie and Billy is such a brilliant character, and Stu is just hilarious and yet psychotic) whether it’s just Sid’s imagination or they are somehow revived if Kevin Williamson and Wes Craven can regain that quality they had when they made Scream.
-Instead of bringing random characters in and killing them off without character development they do what happened in the first: use only a small, relevant, group of teens (ofc including the immortal Sid, Dewey and Gale) and develop the characters.
-OMG I know prequels are usually shite but wouldn’t it be so interesting to see a prequel of Scream – to see a little more of Casey Becker, to see Sid before her mother’s death and to be able to see her mother Maureen, to see Billy and Stu before they went crazaay. I suppose it would be a big risk and of course the actors aren’t the spring chickens they were in the 90′s (despite Neve Campbell and the recently plastic Courtney Cox) but still I think that would be far more interesting than the repetitive sequels that are being released, if a 5th one is done and it is practically the same as 3 + 4 I will write to Williamson begging him to stop. Although it is a joy watching Campbell, Cox and Arquette being stalked again and again by Ghostface (at least they haven’t killed the triumphant trio) Wes + Kevin DESPERATELY need to find something new to bring to Scream before it becomes one big failure which horrificly embarrasses the brilliance of the original.