"All of us have our individual curses, something that we are uncomfortable with and something that we have to deal with, like me making horror films, perhaps." (Quote by Wes Craven, director of the 'Scream' series)
If there was one facet of the horror genre, which was bemoaned by many critics and fans in the early nineties it was the tiresome bombardment of 'slasher' films from the previous decade. Ever since Carpenter's suburban nightmare Halloween, studio producers were foaming at the mouth, ready to cash in on this frighteningly exciting new sub-genre. Inevitably, sequels and pale imitations followed with horror aficionados being bludgeoned to death over the passing years with franchises hitting double figures. Friday the 13th alone now has eleven sequels and The Nightmare on Elm Street saga has generated a nightmarish eight. The trend even makes the recent Saw series seem like a miniscule blood splatter on horror's twisted canvas.
Subsequently, cinema-goers were able to spot glaring cliches and caricatures after numerous Freddie Kruger or Jason Voorhees iterations..... Groups of pretentious teenagers would firstly go on a holiday or live in a neighbourhood, which coincidentally harboured a serial killer who had an ardent fetish for murdering affected youths. This ragtag bunch would also contain every single polarising stereotype present within the high school education system: The "jock", the "bimbo", the "black dude", the "geek", the "average joe" and the "introverted yet unbelievably resolute and strong" heroine. Said group of realistic interpretations of the average American teenager would be hunted down one by one and brutally murdered in all manner of grisly fashions. In attempting to escape from their impending doom, said teenagers would take every illogical step necessary to ensure they would meet thy maker. Some interesting examples include going up an ominous staircase, getting lost in the woods, forgetting to charge their phone battery, having no change for a payphone or staying in their homes alone (safe in the knowledge that no one could ever break through the leaded windows or smash through the door with a very large murder weapon, e.g. a machete or axe etc....). Although, one fortunate soul was left by the end, only to get murdered in the inevitable sequel.
Subsequently, cinema-goers were able to spot glaring cliches and caricatures after numerous Freddie Kruger or Jason Voorhees iterations..... Groups of pretentious teenagers would firstly go on a holiday or live in a neighbourhood, which coincidentally harboured a serial killer who had an ardent fetish for murdering affected youths. This ragtag bunch would also contain every single polarising stereotype present within the high school education system: The "jock", the "bimbo", the "black dude", the "geek", the "average joe" and the "introverted yet unbelievably resolute and strong" heroine. Said group of realistic interpretations of the average American teenager would be hunted down one by one and brutally murdered in all manner of grisly fashions. In attempting to escape from their impending doom, said teenagers would take every illogical step necessary to ensure they would meet thy maker. Some interesting examples include going up an ominous staircase, getting lost in the woods, forgetting to charge their phone battery, having no change for a payphone or staying in their homes alone (safe in the knowledge that no one could ever break through the leaded windows or smash through the door with a very large murder weapon, e.g. a machete or axe etc....). Although, one fortunate soul was left by the end, only to get murdered in the inevitable sequel.
Ironically, it would take a man who had started this low-quality trend to reinvigorate the 'slasher' genre and give it a distinctive class not seen since Hitchcock's Psycho. Wes Craven's self-labelled meta-horror Scream opened in 1996, with both audiences and critics applauding Craven's twisted satirical take on an art form which had become stale, flabby and overwrought. The "Master of Horror" managed to tackle the cliches which slashers had become soaked in with humour and panache, whilst also providing audiences with incredible scares and a bucketload of gore. Not only did Craven tackle the aforementioned horror staples, he also managed to inject this new breed of slasher with something else: Unpredictability. In the same vein as Psycho before it, the closing act and reveal of the "ghostface" killer shocked audiences into paralysis, not only due to the person(s) behind the murders but also due to their deeply sadistic and disturbing motivations.
Scream followed the lives of a group of friends from Woodsboro High who are targeted by a relentless killer, with a penchant for horror movies. Through his malicious games the teenagers are lead into a number of old Hollywood adages, seemingly unaware that Ghostface is creating his very own "slasher" movie. It is testament to Craven and Williamson (who wrote the screenplay for Scream) that they had catapulted another icon into the forefront of horror cinema: Ghostface. A killer who spouted now famous lines such as "what's your favourite scary movie?" and "....I want to know what your insides look like." Craven was certainly influenced by some of his previous works, such as The Last House on the Left, in creating this Halloween-costume killer's defining characteristic. He was a normal, albeit mentally ill, person like you and me. With this knowledge, audiences realised that the killer was one of the victim's number. It was truly ground-breaking at the time. It's just a shame this film reignited the same period, which Craven sought to end: Endless imitations and sequels. By the time Scream 3 rolled around in the year 2000, it was evident that the franchise was quickly becoming it's own worst enemy.
So with the passing of another decade in the filming of the macabre, where is the industry now? Well, since the release of Scream 3 there have been a staggering seven Saw films, with each sequel managing to reach a new, inconceivable low. There have been two Paranormal Activity's, two Hostel films and two reincarnations of Leatherface from the The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (which, by the way, has completely destroyed the credibility of the original). Along with this myriad of crap, there have also been remakes of The Hills Have Eyes, Friday the 13th and The Last House on the Left. This has been the decade of "torture porn" and a black mark within the book of all things horror. These films are lacking in all forms of intelligence, with only the writer's thirst for senseless violence being satisfied. So, it seems fitting Craven and Williamson have decided to create a sequel to a beloved franchise, which seeks to criticise the evolution of horror over the past ten years.
So with the passing of another decade in the filming of the macabre, where is the industry now? Well, since the release of Scream 3 there have been a staggering seven Saw films, with each sequel managing to reach a new, inconceivable low. There have been two Paranormal Activity's, two Hostel films and two reincarnations of Leatherface from the The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (which, by the way, has completely destroyed the credibility of the original). Along with this myriad of crap, there have also been remakes of The Hills Have Eyes, Friday the 13th and The Last House on the Left. This has been the decade of "torture porn" and a black mark within the book of all things horror. These films are lacking in all forms of intelligence, with only the writer's thirst for senseless violence being satisfied. So, it seems fitting Craven and Williamson have decided to create a sequel to a beloved franchise, which seeks to criticise the evolution of horror over the past ten years.
I'm assuming this scene will not be ending with Courtney Cox and Ghostface rolling around in the hay.
Scream 4 sees the return of the principle characters from the original trilogy: Sydney (Neve Campbell), Gale (Courtney Cox) and Dewey (David Arquette). The story takes place on the fifteenth anniversary of the Woodsboro murders, with Sydney returning to the town to promote her self-help book "Out of the Darkness." Gale and Dewey are happily married; with the former struggling with writer's block and the latter now miraculously assigned to the role of Sheriff. Along with the aging Scream protagonists are a fresh batch of teenagers waiting to be sliced-n-diced, including Sydney's cousin (Emma Roberts) and "that cheerleader from Heroes" (Hayden Panettiere). Somewhat inevitably, two teenage girls are murdered in a typically barbaric fashion on the eve of the Woodsboro anniversary and so begins another tirade of film trivia laden phone calls and grotesque stabbings.
Although, Craven carries the plot along at a frenetic pace, the story arc for the helpless and hapless residents of Woodsboro is full of plot holes...... Very large and gaping plot holes. Firstly, why in God's name would Sydney think it wise to revisit her hometown on the anniversary of these savage murders? Why would a school still be open, given that the majority of its demographic have been slain at the hands of a mad man? Why would Dewey be head of a police force, which is probably more inept than the first recruits of Police Academy?
You can forgive Craven after one sequel for letting his characters "get on with their lives" but it is inexcusable to say these people wouldn't have learnt their lesson a decade after the first slaughter!.....Herein lies Scream 4's first problem: It has become a parody unto itself! Some would argue so much so that it feels like an annual pantomime. Williamson seems to have crafted a world, which is happy to make fun of itself rather than the world of horror and reboots in particular. I had faith in Craven to create a satire of the last ten years of horror. Instead, Williamson sums up the past decade with one line: "Saw 5 was shit." I've never actually witnessed such lazy and defeatist dialogue in a long time. Rather than satirise torture-porn or lampoon remakes, we're treated to a simple re-tread of a once revered franchise.
However, Craven attempts to make a comment on the social upheaval of the past decade, demonstrating how the cult of celebrity and social networking sites such as Facebook have revolutionised and warped our sense of community. For the most part he succeeds but the technogeek sub-plot reeks of an ill-inspired afterthought and the youtube generation are treated to a weak plot thread revolving around the killer "filming his murders"...... None of which he actually posts on the internet!
Although, the majority of Scream 4's script is awful, parts of the film do pack a humorous punch, with the police officers debating who will die first a particular highlight. The film's opening is also incredible, managing to poke fun at the horror sequel culture, whilst also providing some genuine scares. However, these moments are few and far between, with the final act coming across as a Tom Stoppard farce.
This foray into inadvertent comedy is only compounded by some genuinely "cringe worthy" performances. Emma Roberts does her best to play the most mundane character ever to be portrayed in recent cinema. The only thing Hayden Panettiere does differently to her cheerleader incarnation from Heroes is to cut her hair and scream loudly. Rory Culkin's film buff lacks the charisma of the much loved Randy from the nineties trilogy and I simply don't remember the other faceless characters. However, Campbell, Cox and Arquette somehow manage to steer this creaking ship regardless of the terrible acting heaped upon it. Cox and Arquette in particular have some devilishly funny dialogue between them; the latter providing some razor sharp comedic flourishes.
Despite all of Scream 4's flaws I still managed to enjoy it. As a simple, no-brainer slasher film Craven and Williamson have undoubtedly succeeded. At face value it's a generic thrill ride but oh how it could have been so much more (pardon the cliche). I fell in love with this franchise because it was never afraid to comment on the state of horror and always provided subtle nods to long-forgotten chillers. However, as I said earlier Scream has most definitely become it's own worst enemy by evolving into the sort of film Craven sought to ridicule. So if Craven receives a phone call from Ghostface late one moonless night and is quizzed on his comprehension of modern horror he'd certainly be the first one to be "gutted like a fish."
Although, Craven carries the plot along at a frenetic pace, the story arc for the helpless and hapless residents of Woodsboro is full of plot holes...... Very large and gaping plot holes. Firstly, why in God's name would Sydney think it wise to revisit her hometown on the anniversary of these savage murders? Why would a school still be open, given that the majority of its demographic have been slain at the hands of a mad man? Why would Dewey be head of a police force, which is probably more inept than the first recruits of Police Academy?
You can forgive Craven after one sequel for letting his characters "get on with their lives" but it is inexcusable to say these people wouldn't have learnt their lesson a decade after the first slaughter!.....Herein lies Scream 4's first problem: It has become a parody unto itself! Some would argue so much so that it feels like an annual pantomime. Williamson seems to have crafted a world, which is happy to make fun of itself rather than the world of horror and reboots in particular. I had faith in Craven to create a satire of the last ten years of horror. Instead, Williamson sums up the past decade with one line: "Saw 5 was shit." I've never actually witnessed such lazy and defeatist dialogue in a long time. Rather than satirise torture-porn or lampoon remakes, we're treated to a simple re-tread of a once revered franchise.
Erik Knudsen (left) fashioning the "latest" designer webcam gear........
Although, the majority of Scream 4's script is awful, parts of the film do pack a humorous punch, with the police officers debating who will die first a particular highlight. The film's opening is also incredible, managing to poke fun at the horror sequel culture, whilst also providing some genuine scares. However, these moments are few and far between, with the final act coming across as a Tom Stoppard farce.
This foray into inadvertent comedy is only compounded by some genuinely "cringe worthy" performances. Emma Roberts does her best to play the most mundane character ever to be portrayed in recent cinema. The only thing Hayden Panettiere does differently to her cheerleader incarnation from Heroes is to cut her hair and scream loudly. Rory Culkin's film buff lacks the charisma of the much loved Randy from the nineties trilogy and I simply don't remember the other faceless characters. However, Campbell, Cox and Arquette somehow manage to steer this creaking ship regardless of the terrible acting heaped upon it. Cox and Arquette in particular have some devilishly funny dialogue between them; the latter providing some razor sharp comedic flourishes.
Despite all of Scream 4's flaws I still managed to enjoy it. As a simple, no-brainer slasher film Craven and Williamson have undoubtedly succeeded. At face value it's a generic thrill ride but oh how it could have been so much more (pardon the cliche). I fell in love with this franchise because it was never afraid to comment on the state of horror and always provided subtle nods to long-forgotten chillers. However, as I said earlier Scream has most definitely become it's own worst enemy by evolving into the sort of film Craven sought to ridicule. So if Craven receives a phone call from Ghostface late one moonless night and is quizzed on his comprehension of modern horror he'd certainly be the first one to be "gutted like a fish."
No comments:
Post a Comment