Scream 4 (10/4/2011)

Rated R for strong bloody violence, language and some teen drinking.

Starring Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, Emma Roberts, Rory Culkin, Hayden Panettiere, Nico Tortorella

Directed by Wes Craven (My Soul to Take, Scream, A Nightmare On Elm Street)

“Do you like scary movies?”

JONATHAN’S WORD: Yeah… but not lame sequels.

TODD’S WORD: Ummm… I actually don’t even like scary movies.

JONATHAN’S WORD: Really?

TODD’S WORD: Typically, I think they are pretty ridiculous.

JONATHAN’S WORD: Well, even as a fan of a good scary film, I found Scream 4 to be very disappointing. But sadly, it will most likely still be a draw for young people in the theatres. Why? For the same reason that Jersey Shore is the number one show on cable right now. Audiences are growing stupider, and like rats pushing a button for more pellets, they’re getting fed what they ask for.

TODD’S WORD: And this movie is all about MORE. More killing, more blood, more stars… but we’ll talk about that later.

JONATHAN’S WORD: This film was disappointing for me on several levels. Primarily, as a script, it just wasn’t that fresh or innovative. Yes, sadly, the movie represented the mindset of today’s kids pretty accurately (we talk about this in detail in our Youth Culture Window article about Scream 4). But the storyline itself just wasn’t that inventive. The chief quality the Scream movies ever offered was the uniqueness of the characters talking about horror films within a horror film. This was really creative in the first Scream in 1996. It even had some creative moments in its sequel Scream 2, with humorous dialogue about whether sequels are ever any good—dialogue that film geeks like myself thoroughly enjoyed. But by Scream 3, it got old. Fast forward a decade. Scream 4 just felt like, “Been there, done that.”

TODD’S WORD: I totally agree! I did have to laugh at the fact that they made fun of this “rehash” concept several times throughout the film—sequels killing themselves because they just reuse the same stuff. Ironically, Scream 4 fell into suit with the rest.

JONATHAN’S WORD: Yes, there were some amusing conversations, like when two cops talked about which cops always die in films, and trying to avoid being one of those cops. But two minutes of creative dialogue doesn’t save a film.

TODD’S WORD: I agree.

On one hand, I enjoyed I the social commentary: how “connected” we are and how fast information travels today. In your Youth Culture Window article about the film this week you and David did a great job talking about how cell phones and social media played a key role in the film. I liked the scene where a girl calls Ghost Face the “Facebook Killer” to which the other one responds, “Yeah I guess it would make more sense if he was the Twitter Killer.” I like how they referenced films like Shawn of the Dead and Saw… and then ripped on them! I also thought some of the cameos were pretty cool. But those things didn’t save it for me either. I, like you, was disappointed.

JONATHAN’S WORD: The biggest disappointment was simply how irresponsible it was. It’s films like this that really desensitize young people today.

I’m not trying to be a whiner or a complainer. I actually really like a good scary movie. When I was a kid I used to love it when my dad told scary stories around the campfire. I can still remember when I first saw Jaws. Now my family enjoys watching scary films like M. Night Shamalyan’s Signs (Scary, clean and conversation-provoking. Whodathunkit!) I, like much of America, like being on the edge of my theatre seat and then launching my popcorn when the cat jumps out of the cabinet and scares the audience to death!

But scary doesn’t necessitate gore or gratuitous eye-candy. Maybe I’m even being inconsistent here. I admit that I like Hitchcock’s film Psycho. And guess what, Psycho was a little edgy, and a little brutal. I definitely wouldn’t show it to kids. But let’s be clear. Psycho is Sesame Street compared to Scream 4. Scream 4 leapt across the line from scary to gratuitous.

TODD’S WORD: Expand on “gratuitous.”

JONATHAN’S WORD: Gladly.

It was gratuitous in its portrayal of women. The film only casted beautiful women, simply because people like looking at beautiful women. That’s called eye-candy, and it’s simply gratuitous and unnecessary. In a world where young girls are struggling with self esteem, cutting, starving themselves and even resorting to suicide… I don’t like films that show an unrealistic standard of what women should look like. There wasn’t a single ugly girl in this film. No, let me go further. There wasn’t even one girl that wasn’t almost perfect in every way. No wonder girls feel like they can’t measure up. The standard isn’t even real!

It was gratuitously violent. Again, I’m probably being inconsistent here. I don’t have a problem with Braveheart or Last of the Mohicans…. or dare I say the biblical stories in I and II Samuel, and I and II Kings. But something about watching a killer walk up to someone, stare them in the face and plunge a knife into them… or in one case, disembowel a girl. That’s not just violent, that’s heinous… evil… hard to really find a word to use. All killing is awful. But showing cold-blooded recreational murder for pure entertainment’s sake makes me feel like we’re seated in the audience of a Roman coliseum.

Allow me one more gratuitous—Scream 4 was unnecessarily gratuitous in its display of teenage partying. Yes, it’s sad how many kids drink today. Over a third of seniors in high school binge drink. But in this film, almost 100% of the teenagers drank, and parents were never in the picture (sadly, this is often true). So even though the film makers might claim that they are just “keeping it real” as to what truly goes on in teen circles today… as a guy who hangs with teens, parents three teens, and studies youth culture for a living, I think the film makers not only misrepresented the majority, they also made it look cool.

TODD’S WORD: I really can’t argue with you but at the risk of sounding like a heathen, should we expect anything better from an R-rated Hollywood horror film?

JONATHAN’S WORD: It really depends what you mean by horror film. If you mean the traditional Saw, Friday the 13th, Prom Night… then no, we shouldn’t expect anything better. Hollywood is pumping out mindless fodder like this and teenagers are gobbling it up. It’s films like those that give “horror” a bad name.

I’ve only seen a handful of truly good scary films in the last decade.

TODD’S WORD: Like what?

JONATHAN’S WORD: Well, I’d have to give The Ring some credit. This film was terrifying, and clean. I already mentioned M. Night’s Signs. I’d have to also include his Sixth Sense in the mix. And… not to be obsessed with M. Night, but I’d also have to include the 2010 film, Devil, which was based on an M. Night story. That film was one of the best thrillers I’ve seen in the last decade. It was intense, it had amazing character development, and it was not only clean, it was an amazing discussion provoker with fantastic moral and spiritual content.

Hmmmmm. What else. Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later would also be on my list of good ones. So would Scott Derrickson’s The Exorcism of Emily Rose. I had a fascinating conversation with Scott about that film and horror films in general when that film was released. Scott, a Christian director, had some acute observations about Christians and horror films.

TODD’S WORD: I remember that.

JONATHAN’S WORD: Unfortunately, Scream 4 won’t make my list of good ones.

Aside from its blatant gratuitous insertions, the film also had some subtleties that bugged me.

At one point in the film Sidney’s agent referred to her as being uptight. She made a comment that what she really needed was to just “get laid” or “sh**faced.” Media’s answer to all our problems—just have sex or get drunk and all your problems will be solved.

Another subtlety is the language. In a world where the f-word is growing rampant, this film truly depicted that. Joe Peshi covered his ears a few times during this film.

TODD’S WORD: I’m not a fan of horror movies and doubt I ever will be. I thought the original Scream film was scary and pretty entertaining, but like every other horror franchise, they killed it with the sequals… and it was a gruesome death. I really can’t think of a good reason to see it. My word is Skip It.

JONATHAN’S WORD: Sorry, even my affinity for scary films won’t save Scream 4. My vote is to Skip It as well.

SHOULD KIDS SEE IT: They’re going to want to see it. The cast is full of big names, the previews are convincing, and everyone’s talking about it. But the answer should be a big NO. I was shocked by the parents in the theatre who brought their preteens to see this one. Parents need to use better judgment.

Conversation Starter
Three Simple Questions (with Answers You May Be Looking for):

Q: What’s the message/theme of this movie?

A: Scream 4’s premise of “new decade, new rules” might just be more accurate and foretelling about pop culture than you realize. Today’s blockbusters have to go to a new distance, more extreme in every way. Today’s kids want more… and our culture is willing to provide it.

Q: How do you suppose we—as serious Christ-followers—should react to this movie?

A: Well let’s look again at Jonathan and David’s Youth Culture Window article for that answer. They use the example of drinking alcohol: at first 3 beers is all it takes to get a buzz, but then 5 are needed to do the trick. The same is true with drugs. The daredevil in search of the next thrill has to continually ramp up his next stunt to get a rush. The Apostle Paul actually talked about this tendency 2,000 years ago. In Ephesians 4:17-24, he writes:

So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

That, however, is not the way of life you learned when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

A: The world will always be willing to kick things up to ensure its grasp on our kids’ lives. This isn’t the time to fall into complacency. In fact, there will never be a time that permits our complacency ever again. We must be committed to guiding our kids by truth… or risk watching their lives turn into real life horror.