Misunderstood Cinema: Scream

WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS

“What’s your favorite scary movie?” These famous lines were spoken at the beginning of the 1996 film ‘Scream’ directed by Wes Craven and written by Kevin Williamson. The film grossed almost half its $14 million budget in its first weekend, and opened on 1,413 screens nationwide. But there is a major problem with this slasher horror flick and it’s not in the content of the film. It’s the way the film is perceived and viewed. This is a prime example of the underrated, underappreciated films of cinema. This film is a classic, but it is brushed to the side and lumped in with other slasher horror films such as Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street. But Scream is so much more; it is a modern classic and should be appreciated as one.

There are four levels to the film Scream. The first of those is the most basic. You are on level one if you turned the film on, watched it, got scared by the stalking scenes and the brutal killings, finished it and thought ‘Wow that was a scary movie.” and then forgot completely about it. This isn’t a wrong way to view the film; in fact viewing the film in this fashion is one of the most popular ways of viewing this film. But if you only view it in this light, you are doing the film and the filmmakers a large disservice.


The second level is the ‘Who Dunnit?’ element. Scream works on this second level brilliantly. It takes the basic horror theme and twists it into a Who Dunnit? The cleverest part of this level though is that every character gets a motive: The kid who loves horror movies too much, the guy who dated the first victim, the boyfriend who’s caught at the scene. And the killers don’t turn out to be the supermarket clerk who got pop thrown at him and goes berserk and we only see him one time. It’s the boyfriend and the best friend of the boyfriend. The killers are at the very core of the group of main characters. And every time you think you figured out who it is, you get a contradiction. Upon a second viewing you (much like I did) will feel like an idiot because it is so blatantly obvious, but it is also very subtle and convincing.

The third and fourth levels are the homages to other horror films. This is the most complex and hardest to grasp level. Writer Kevin Williamson has said his favorite genre is horror and this is clear and true in Scream. Williamson references horror films from Friday the 13th to Prom Night. But the film with the most reference is Halloween. Halloween is largely referenced and paralleled. In one scene at the beginning, a character says “Go down the street to the McKenzie’s house, call the police” which is a direct lift from Halloween. Halloween plays on a TV in the background throughout the films climax and at one point the soundtrack on the TV substitutes the actual soundtrack on the film. Another clever bit is when Randy is alone on the couch watching Halloween. As Michael Myers, the ghost faced killer in Halloween, comes up behind an unsuspecting Jamie Lee Curtis, Randy yells, “It’s behind you Jamie, it’s behind you.” All the while, the ghost faced killer in Scream is standing behind Randy, played by Jamie Kennedy, as we the audience catch ourselves yelling the same thing. Then the guy in the TV van outside watching the hidden camera with a 30 second delay yells ‘It’s behind you kid, it’s behind you.”
The reason Scream works in this fashion is because unlike previous horror films, Scream acknowledges their existence, and what they represent. In one of its most famous scenes, Randy explains the rules of surviving a horror movie. Rule 1: You can’t have sex because you need a virgin hero. Upstairs, Sydney, played by Neve Campbell, is losing her virginity. Rule 2: No drinking or drugs. Everyone at the party is drinking and getting stoned. And Rule 3: never say “I’ll be right back’ and as he says this Stu, played by Mathew Lillard walks backwards out of the room saying I’ll be right back. Cut to the next scene, Gail Weathers played by Courtney Cox hops out of her TV van and says these words as well. And the result is, nothing happens. Stu comes back, Gail comes back, Sydney is alright, and so are the kids at the party. Craven and Williamson manage to point out, and then destroy a genre cliché in one scene.


Scream and its four levels is the perfect example of a piece of misunderstood cinema and an underrated classic. The Webster’s Dictionary defines a classic as “a work of enduring excellence” and underrated as “rated too low”. Upon review, Scream falls under both these definitions. It may not be an Academy Award winning film, or a classic that defines a generation, but at its core, Scream is what it mocks: a horror film and a damn good one at that.

Fight Club: The Last Great Film of the 20th Century

When Fight Club is mentioned the images that come to mind are violence and Brad Pitt's abs. But upon it's release in October 1999, Fight Club was panned. It was too violent, it was too confusing and it could be the end of 20th Century Fox. What wasn't analyzed and what got lost in politics was the films meaning. If you go back in time it's the older politicians lobbying in Washington to get this film pulled from theatres. There weren't any young people because the film was speaking to them. Men who were in their mid twenties in the late nineties were in crisis. Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) says at one point, "We are the middle men of history, God's unwanted children." They had everything they were supposed to have to be happy but weren't and they didn't have anyone to tell them what else they needed or why. At one point the narrator(Edward Norton)says "We are a generation of men raised by women". This is referring to the boys who are now men, growing up without a father figure. They have that piece of their life missing so they feel compelled to have material needs. They need to be clean cut and trim their fingernails and organize their furniture because that's the only way they have ever known.


Fight Club is a metaphor for life. It taps into the psychology of the adult male of the nineties. The narrator represents the average man. In his mid twenties, living alone in a sophisticated apartment complex, and works at a desk everyday. Insert Tyler Durden who represents the average man's fantasy and the fun begins. Tyler Durden wears what he wants, does what he wants and comes off as the coolest thing ever. He is what the average man wants to be. Free willed without a care in the world. Fight Club is where all the average men come to channel their inner angst against all that they are. It's meditation, almost religious. Where Fight Club takes a turn is when it becomes a cult. It shows the average man that sure you can be free willed without a care in the world, but you were taught to be orderly for a reason.

The deep meaning in Fight Club is what should be taken from it. It's so zen in it's approach. The deep meanings were masked by the violence most likely because older people protesting were being told what they didn't want to hear, you didn't raise your kids good and this is the result: a lost generation of boys. This is backed by the quote "We're all going to be thirty year old boys". Men of the late nineties had a lot of questions about their lives and Fight Club did it's best to answer them. Why am I not happy? What do I need to do to be happy? What's my meaning in life? Fight Club shows through it's violence that the world is an ugly, violent place. You have the choice of giving up on it or living in it and staying true to yourself. You can either be a part of the violence of stand out from the crowd. This makes Fight Club the last great film of the 20th Century.

Muscial Analysis: Alice in Chains vs Godsmack

As with all movies, they feature music. Throughout the months music will periodically be discussed on this blog in a special section I like to call Musical Analysis. In part one we will discuss the similarities between Alice in Chains and Godsmack.

Both Alice in Chains and Godsmack have had their music featured in movies. Godsmack is the more popular choice (See the film The Scorpion King)but Alice in Chains hangs around still. They have had their music featured in such films as Singles and The Perfect Storm. The difference cinematically is that when an Alice in Chains song is used in a movie, it is used primarily as background fodder. In Singles they are the band playing in the club. In The Perfect Storm their song "Man in a Box" is playing on the radio same goes for "Rooster" which comes on the radio in Terminator: Salvation. Godsmack on the other hand has their music playing for pure stimulation (again see Scorpion King). But if you were to listen to these bands on the radio they sound very much alike.

Alice in Chains was formed in the early 90's and were one of hundreds of bands to come out Seattle but one of the few to strike some sort of success pre-Nirvana. They're trademark was the howling vocals of front man Layne Staley and guitarist Jerry Cantrell. Their voice harmonized together to create some of the most beautiful sounds of the 90's (Hear I Stay Away) and also some of the most haunting. (Hear Angry Chair ). They were also noted for being a band coming out of Seattle yet not having a muddled sound like so many others. They stick out and when you hear an Alice in Chains song you know your listening to Alice in Chains.

Godsmack came about around 1998 releasing a self titled album. Comparisons between the two bands are immediate since Godsmack references Alice in Chains as a major influence (and seeing as Godsmack was a song title on Alice's 1994 hit album Dirt) and once you hear the second track off their debut album, you can hear it. Godsmack can either appeal to Alice in Chains fans as being a heavier, angrier version of their beloved group or insult them by coming off as a copy cat band (See here Puddle of Mudd and Creed). Either way Godsmack can get away with it but only barely. They do this by (much like Alice in Chains) creating a new sound unique to only them. Godsmack has the sound of almost a middle eastern influence(probably why they were the choice to write songs for The Scorpion King). To hear this in it's most obvious, and probably best form, hear the song Serenity.

Both bands are still around today although Alice in Chains is with out it's voice Layne Staley who died of a drug overdose in 2002. The similarities between the two bands are undeniable. Alice in Chains has acknowledged that Godsmack sounds incredibly like them, but excuse this because Godsmack cites them as their major inspiration and vice versa. It's down to the fans to decide what they prefer. Both have legions of loyal fans who love to get caught up in the copy cat/Homage debate. But for now, just let the music play as both bands sing, "Let 'em fight and we'll sort 'em out later.

Why Quentin Tarantino Will Never Win an Oscar

The Academy Awards are what filmmakers strive for. It's the equivalent to winning the Super Bowl or the World Series. But like other major awards the Oscars are not with out corruption and hypocrisy. Last years snub of The Dark Knight brought the historically controversial award back into the forefront. The evidence is easily attainable. Look back to 2005 when Brokeback Mountain, which did everything a film needs to do to win Best Picture, lost out to the cram it down your throat Crash. But no director has been disrespected like Quentin Tarantino. The closest example before him was Martin Scorsese but the Academy finally buckled and gave him the long over due Best Director and Best Picture Oscar he should have won in 1980 for Raging Bull.


Tarantino blasted onto the awards scene in 1994 with his ultra cool, genre bending mega hit Pulp Fiction. It was a smash hit nabbing nine Oscar nominations including Best Picture and Best Director not to mention three of the four major acting categories. Come Oscar night Tarantino walked away with one award to show for his masterpiece, Best Original Screenplay. His next film Jackie Brown which many regard as his strongest film with his strongest characters garnered only one Oscar nomination: Best Supporting Actor for Robert Forster. Both Kill Bill movies were shut out and Tarantino seemed to have out lived his moment. But like the classic director he his, Tarantino gave us his new masterpiece, Inglourious Basterds. Again, much like Pulp before, Tarantino grabbed eight Oscar nominations including Best Picture, Best Director and his covenant Best Original Screenplay(For which if this of all films doesn't win for originality, I'm giving up on films).

But unfortunately he will never win the big prize. The reason is Tarantino's style is his curse. Every movie he makes has his signature all over it. Mind bending plots, staccato dialogue, and his signature blood and violence. Tarantino's films are simply too hip for the Academy. Although he deserves it more than ever for Inglourious Basterds, come award night Tarantino will walk away with only two major awards to show for it. This isn't a bad thing. In fact its a step in the right direction. Pulp won only one major award, Basterds will give Tarantino his first acting award for Christoph Waltz's performance as a chillingly charming Nazi dubbed the Jew Hunter(Again only something Tarantino can do). Perhaps this will open the door which will one day give Tarantino the big prize, but for now he'll have to settle for being too hip, which isn't a bad thing at all.