Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Parker
Posey, Matt Keeslar, Liev Schreiber and Jenny McCarthy
Here's a question cinephiles can discuss for the
new millennium...the fate of the postmodern horror film. Sure,
it's a relatively recent phenomenon -- slightly hip, self-referential,
vaguely comedic, and not very scary, this brand of horror only
moved from B-movie obscurity to megaplex prominence a few years
ago with SCREAM, an enormously successful film that began Kevin
Williamson's career (and revived Wes Craven's). The cheaply-produced
teen slasher flick showed sparks of wit, but its box office was
purely a result of its Gen-X demographics, TV-friendly cast, and
easy to follow premise. It spawned dozens of imitators, including
hits (I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER, URBAN LEGEND) and misses
(THE FACULTY), not to mention two sequels. The latest of these
sequels is imaginatively titled SCREAM 3, and its sure
box office and artistic vapidity raise many questions about the
future of the horror genre and the dumbing of movies in general.
Is SCREAM 3 good? It hardly matters, but any
intelligent viewer can only feel that it's not. On almost every
level it fails. The plot is a pale, pathetic imitation of the
first SCREAM, minus the ingenuity and energy. In this latest version,
our put-upon heroine, Sidney (Neve Campbell), has gone into hiding,
immobilized by her fear of the knife-wielding killer that has
stalked her for...well, the last two movies. Meanwhile (see how
well these pieces fit together?), Sunrise Studios is making "Stab
3", a movie based on the murders. Newswoman Gale Weathers
(Courtney Cox) runs into her old policeman paramour (David Arquette)
on the set of the movie. He, of course, is dating the woman who
is playing Gale in the film, a riotously egomaniacal actress (played
to perfection by Parker Posey).
The killer ends up finding Sidney's hideout, and then
chasing her around the movie set, and then chasing her around
a big movie producer's house. There's some incoherent nonsense
about Sidney's mother which passes for a storyline, but it's basically
an attempt to tie together the bloody death scenes.
And the bloody death scenes, for the most part, are
bloody. And funny. Occasionally, very funny. (It must be admitted,
there's a certain guilty pleasure at seeing Jenny McCarthy get
it...finally, she's the b-movie shriek queen she was always meant
to be.) For the most part, however, the scenes are just bloody.
Without exception, they lack unity, honesty, and horror.
Never in SCREAM 3 will one be afraid of anything. It might
be gruesome, it might be worth a chuckle or two, but it will never
be scary.
Therein lies the rub, as Hamlet might paraphrase. SCREAM3 is not especially well-written or imaginative, but those
things have been forgiven before; after all, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM
STREET and HALLOWEEN are hardly great literature, and even the
best of the genre, like THE OMEN, CARRIE, or THE EXORCIST, depend
more on emotion than on the script. Unlike those films, however,
SCREAM 3 never engages. It's meant to be a sideshow, a
disaffected romp that sacrifices any emotional connection with
the audience for the sake of comfort and complacency. In SCREAM
3, one knows exactly what's going to happen before it does.
Fear isn't the goal, it's familiarity. There's a certain comfort
in knowing Neve Campbell can't possibly die (and a certain comfort
in knowing that the 'new' people in the film will). It's horror
made for people who don't like to be scared...Fear Without Sincerity.
This weakness, however, is the major reason for the
franchise's success. A film like THE OMEN couldn't make it in
the teen marketplace currently dominating Hollywood's consciousness.
It's too severe, too far-reaching...too possible. Better to stick
with the fantasia that is SCREAM 3, especially if you want
a PG-13 rating. Unfortunately, cinema is all the sadder for it.
I suggest that serious horror fans -- indeed, all serious filmgoers
-- stay home and rent POLTERGEIST again. And again.
