SCREAM Explained: One of the Most Influential Horror Films

Those three decades have passed incredibly quickly, especially for someone who saw the film back then or shortly thereafter. Let’s establish something from the start – in the eyes of the undersigned, and probably everyone who grew up in the nineties of the last century and did not avoid watching horror movies, Scream was an event and remains one of the most influential horror films to this day, also influencing the way we think about the genre. It is not insignificant who directed it, in what period it was made, and what came after, and I am not only talking about the three sequels and the recently created requels, but mainly about the plethora of various sorts of slashers trying to latch onto the success of Craven’s work. However, I prefer to focus on the film itself, which today can rightly be called a classic, although until recently I referred to it as one of the best contemporary horrors. After the last viewing, it will be increasingly difficult for me to justify its contemporaneity.

The plot focuses on Sidney Prescott (fantastic, very natural Neve Campbell), a high school student in the small town of Woodsboro, who is terrorized by a masked psychopath, a murderer of several other teenagers. The girl’s boyfriend (Skeet Ulrich) quickly becomes the main suspect, then her father, but Kevin Williamson’s script does not exclude other candidates, among whom are the main character’s friends who enjoy watching horror movies (Matthew Lillard, Jamie Kennedy), a journalist at a major station trying to promote her new book (Courtney Cox), and even the school principal (Henry Winkler). Soon a curfew is introduced, and the youth organize a big party at one of their homes – the perfect opportunity for the maniac to attack. Especially since it is exactly one year since the brutal murder of Sidney’s mother.

At first glance, Scream is a very standard youth slasher, which in itself was unusual in 1996, as this type of horror had virtually not existed for a good decade. The transition from the seventies to the eighties brought a real boom, especially in American horror films (increasingly absent over time), in which a mysterious murderer creatively killed whole herds of teenagers, only to be defeated in the end by the so-called final girl, a decent girl who stayed away from alcohol, drugs, and sex. All the Halloweens, Friday the 13ths, A Nightmare on Elm Streets, and many other, lesser-known slashers used this formula until it was completely exhausted. After all, how many times can you watch exactly the same thing? The only variables were the death scenes and the appearance of the murderer, and since his motivation hardly mattered, one could expect a quick and definitive end to this type of story.

However, Scream, created in completely different times for the cinema of horror, on the one hand shamelessly exploits the clichéd nature of the plot, while on the other hand, it is aware of this, which it also imparts to its characters. The fanatic is someone who knows the entire catalog of horror tricks, and the potential victims are also fans of on-screen slaughter – the situation gives them the opportunity to see if they will make exactly the same mistakes as the characters in their favorite films. And since Scream can be considered a very dark comedy, it turns out that – consciously or unconsciously – Craven’s characters behave identically to the established patterns in cinema. Sidney doesn’t watch horrors because she considers them stupid and offensive to the viewer’s intelligence. That’s why she is the main character and that’s precisely why she can afford to break the rules – it’s not about abstinence, not smoking weed, and the need to remain a virgin, but about a bit of common sense and keeping a cool head.

Williamson’s text does not scold the youth for their love of such cinema, but for their inability to draw conclusions. The fact that these films are mindless does not mean that their viewers have to be. The script’s irony deserved a director who would understand the hidden sense of humor in it, while being able to create a constant atmosphere of threat, not afraid to treat the characters cruelly and bloodily. Wes Craven was not only the best choice, but from a historical perspective perhaps the only right one. It’s not just that in the nineties, horror was primarily associated with gothic costume spectacles by renowned directors who were not identified with the genre (Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula, Neil Jordan’s Interview with the Vampire, Kenneth Branagh’s Frankenstein); Craven himself seemed to be a different creator than in the past. He began to have fun, seasoning horror with a good dose of laughter, sometimes with better results (The People Under the Stairs), sometimes worse (Vampire in Brooklyn). With New Nightmare, however, he proved that in horror, practically everything had already been said and shown, so just as well Freddy Krueger could leave the cinema screen and scare in reality. This meta-thinking found its development in Scream, and then in subsequent parts, also directed by Craven.

From a craftsmanship perspective, however, it is hard not to call Scream one of the best films by this creator. And the first scene confirms this – a mysterious stranger calls teenage Casey Becker, initially flirting with her and asking about her favorite horror, but later threatening her. The terrorized girl, alone at home, aware that the attacker is close, quickly becomes the victim of the murderer, which seems to be a textbook (and boring) example of a slasher prologue. However, three things turn these first thirteen minutes into one of the best openings in horror cinema, constituting a short film about killing in itself. Firstly, Casey is played by Drew Barrymore, at that time the most famous actress in the entire cast of Scream, whose face and name appeared also on the poster. The marketing deception paid off, as the audience was genuinely surprised when – before the first quarter of an hour had passed – sweet Drew left the stage. Secondly, all the elements that contributed to the success of the film appear right at the beginning. The killer’s voice (in each part it belongs to Roger Jackson), his already famous mask and costume, both the perpetrator and the victim’s knowledge of horror films, and the resulting tension and humor. It’s hard not to laugh when quotes themselves become the content of the plot. Thirdly, and most importantly, the brutality in Scream shocks.

Fun is fun, but death in Craven’s work has always been a subject of sharp disputes, mainly due to its violence, graphic nature, and uncompromising nature, regardless of whether it was shown realistically, as in The Last House on the Left, or exaggerated and grotesque, as in A Nightmare on Elm Street. I vividly remember the moment when I first saw Casey’s death and, frankly, it scared me the most in the entire film. It had nothing to do with the surprise that the character played by Barrymore dies in the first scene; rather, it resembled a very sharp and unpleasant exit from the safety zone created by the earlier dialogue full of allusions and playfulness. If anyone thought until that moment that Scream was a parody of the genre, a game with a knowledgeable viewer or a charming return to the past, they had to quickly change their stance – Craven with one accurate stab set the whole film, confirming that he understands Williamson’s script perfectly, but also not allowing the story to be treated only as a reason for a joke. Today, after all sorts of Saws, Hostels, and French extremes, the murder may not be as impressive, but that doesn’t mean it has stopped producing the intended effect.

Viewed almost thirty years after its premiere, Craven’s masterpiece has not aged, although at the same time one can notice, not without nostalgia, a stylistic attachment to the period in which it was created. The pastel colors of the characters’ clothes, movies watched from video cassettes, a soundtrack filled with hits of the time (Alice Cooper, Nick Cave, Republica, Moby) transport the viewer to the past, fortunately not as striking as in the case of horror films from the eighties, definitely too conspicuous. However, Scream can hardly be called a contemporary film anymore, which Craven was well aware of when filming the fourth part in 2011. The influence of the Internet, instant media, and the pursuit of fame in the spotlight became the basis for returning to the theme, abandoned after what seemed to be the final, though disappointing Scream 3 (2000).

After more than a decade, dusting off the slasher cycle made more sense than one might suspect, and the last film of the director who died in 2015 wisely drew from the treasury of tested tricks in a new, computerized world. However, it was not an event on the scale of the original, rather a treat for loyal fans and a farewell gift from Craven. Meanwhile, the first part still makes a lasting impression, proving that some films are great not only due to flawless direction, original story, and memorable scenes, but also because they were made exactly when they should have been.