Cinema Blind Spots: Scream (1996)

We all have films we really, really want to see, but many of them never make it from our Blu-ray shelves to the television, and simply remain on a list for years. As an aspiring film historian, I have read so much about, and seen so many signature scenes from, several important films that, honestly, I sometimes forget to actually watch them from beginning to end. And in other cases, there are pop-culture hits that I have yet to make a priority. So I have decided to use this column as motivation to check off many of the titles I’ve wanted to see for so long. These are my Cinema Blind Spots.

Last Friday, “Insidious: Chapter 3” hit the theaters nationwide, and it directed my focus toward horror franchises. It seems like any semi-successful horror film automatically spawns a series of (often mediocre to terrible) sequels. Whether it’s “Final Destination” (2000), “Saw” (2004) or “Paranormal Activity” (2007), and even earlier staples, such as “Halloween” (1978), “Friday the 13th” (1980), and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” (1984), horror seems to thrive on creating a villain that can carry an anthology. As the 1990s attempted to carry over the success of the ‘80s by releasing sequel after sequel, Wes Craven created the ultra-meta evolution of the slasher, “Scream” (1996).

“Scream” justifies itself as a blind spot. It was instrumental in changing horror in the mid-to-late ‘90s, confronted the clichés of the genre in clever and unique ways, and was EXTREMELY POPULAR with the public upon its release! Unfortunately, its ground-breaking reputation did not reflect the feelings of the critics. Only earning a 78% on Rotten Tomatoes, and several 3-out-of-4 ratings, it was a film to be acknowledged but overlooked over time.

When was the last time you heard someone talk about the first “Scream”? The only reference I remember hearing in the last year was about annoying youngsters wearing Ghostface costumes on Holloween. Although “Scream” is a part of the pop-culture consciousness, it has been left behind more than we may want to admit.

Now, in order to give you an idea of where I was prior to seeing the film, I knew nothing about the plot of “Scream." I didn’t know who was behind the mask, or who lived and who died. I didn’t know if there was a real story, or any details that constructed it. So needless to say, I was surprisingly green going into it; a fact I cannot explain given the films popularity. However, this lack of expectations allowed me to experience the film in an interesting way.

IMDB describes the film as “a group of teens are pitted against a masked murderer that tests their knowledge of horror movies." We follow Sydney (Neve Campbell) as she attempts to survive the days leading up to the anniversary of her mother’s murder. The killer is always one step ahead as he taunts her every step of the way. Those around her begin to fall under his knife, and it is up to Sydney and a few unexpected "heros" to put an end to it all.

During the 90s, there were far too many horror movies that focused on body count over talent. Get a few good lookin’ kids on screen and make’em shriek! However, “Scream” delivers a pretty good cast, rising above the low standard that had become the norm for slasher flicks of that time. Are they amazing!? I wouldn’t go that far. But are they distractingly awful? Fortunately, that is not the case.

Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, Skeet Ulrich, David Arquette, Matthew Lillard, and the whole gang provide a fitting and consistent tone, good or bad. In my opinion, the best performances come from Drew Barrymore and the “Phone Voice” (perfectly delivered by Roger Jackson) in the opening sequence; by far, the best scene in the movie, and one of the all-time greatest openings to a horror film ever! The tension, music, sound, cinematography, writing, and direction are masterfully executed here. It is the moment that should keep this film in horror dialogues to this day, far above the typical post-millennial studio fodder that is produced by the dozens. Check it out!

With “New Nightmare” (1994), Craven journeyed deep into meta territory, and its back with a vengeance in “Scream.” Kevin Williamson’s script is full of commentary, and its characters truly know horror movies. They know the virgin lives and they know if you have sex, you die. They know if you say “I’ll be right back,” you’ll likely find yourself on the pointy end of the killer’s knife. It may not be the first meta-movie in horror, but it’s certainly the beginning of the modern trend.

Craven and Williamson are constantly confronting the genre’s tropes, sometimes incorporating them, sometimes evading them. This brings a certain level of unpredictability. For example, we see a generic sex scene about to unfold, and it's juxtaposed with several other teens talking about cliche sex scenes in horror movies. I welcomed the constant commentary. It was humorous without being too much, although it certainly toed the line at times. But more importantly, it utilized the tropes while often twisting them in order to stand out from the other films being released.

There is a scene where Randy (Jamie Kennedy) is watching “Halloween” on TV. As he’s yelling at Jamie Lee Curtis – “Come on, Jamie, he’s right behind you!” – our mysterious killer is creeping up on him. Randy is not only reacting to the screen, but he’s commentating his own impending doom. I actually loved this scene, even though it’s tongue-in-cheek to a painfully obvious degree. But I didn’t expect what follows, which made the scene (and the film by proxy) feel fresh to my horror-fatigued eyes.

Also, we have the killer, Ghostface. He’s a sloppy, mysterious, psychopathic killer. More notably he's human, rather than supernatural and “unkillable.” I love the idea of a villain who trips over furniture and struggles to kill his victims. With Ghostface’s voice, suit, and M.O., he’s really one of the great slasher villains, in my opinion. This sloppiness adds to the overall tension of the film, which I attribute to Craven's mastery of the art.

With next year marking its 20th anniversary, “Scream” holds up extremely well! Evoking Craven’s tour de force abilities from the ‘80s and polishing them to a sparkle, we are able to see a timeless film full of practical effects and proficient technical skill. All of its happenings seem tangible and believable within the film’s reality, and although the characters will always be stuck in the ‘90s, it holds up today as a time capsule for white, suburban horror. "Scream" is a genre film, and within it's category it succeeds!

Personally, I loved “Scream.” It’s not in my favorites of all time, or a film I would refer to when discussing what horror should be. I do, however, highly recommend it for its contributions to the medium and excellence in execution. Under the surface it was a film doing so much more than other releases, but now it marks a turning point in the genre, paving the way for such meta-horror films as “Cabin in the Woods” (2011) and “Tucker and Dale vs Evil” (2010). But in my opinion, "Scream" surpasses these successors, and I hope this October, as people prepare for their horror movie extravaganzas, "Scream" will be on the bill.

Next week in celebration of Bob Hope’s birthday, I will talk about “Godzilla” (1954). Feel free to get caught up and let us know your thoughts on “Scream,” “Godzilla,” or movies you would like to see me check off the list in the comments below.