by Levi Jacobson
In the midst the hype of Scream 1, writer Kevin Williamson cranked out the script to a sequel that opens with the premiere of a movie based on Sydney’s torment and the Woodsboro massacre. Scream 2 builds upon and expands the execution of meta-commentary that defines the first film. The last line in Scream 1 shows Sydney’s strength and implies that she can control the perception her story, but in Scream 2, Gale Weathers and Hollywood have portrayed Sydney–both in a best-selling tell-all and in a campy clichéd slasher film–as a fragile girl, a damsel in distress who needs to be saved.
The Cold Open
At first glance, it looks like a normal cold open, but the first scene of Scream 2 expands on the intertextuality of the first film. Scream 2 opens at a movie theater premiere of the fictional movie STAB. Attempting to put language to this scene is exhausting because the layers of intertextuality are so deep. On the surface, it seems like it’s pretty simple: a young couple is standing in line for a premiere of a movie called STAB that is based on the events portrayed in Scream 1. But before you can say “meta-texuality,” the scene complicates everything as the couple argues playfully about how cliche horror movies tend to be:
Phil Stevens: We got these tickets for free.
Maureen Evans: It’s some dumb-ass white movie about some dumb-ass white girls getting their white asses cut the fuck up, okay?
Scream 2 immediately ceases simply to make fun of the genre and its campiness; it is now calling into question its own creation, construction, and cliched forms. By making fun of a movie based on the “real events” of the first film, the creators poke fun at themselves and slap the hand that feeds them by calling out the noticeable flaws of the first film. The characters discuss how the genre plays out the same way every time, but then the scene expands into a big spectacle and chain of events that shatter the expectations of the characters in the scene and the broader audience.
Once the couple enters the theatre, the young man excuses himself to go the bathroom, where he is stabbed in ear. Then the killer takes his clothes and sits next to Maureen, blending in with the audience, which is full of people wearing Ghostface masks and robes. Maureen assumes Phil is just playing a prank, until she sees blood on his jacket. It is when she realizes that she is sitting next to the killer that an incredibly meta-horror sequence unfolds. The killer chases Maureen in the same way the killer on the screen chases Casey Becker, culminating with one murder laid-over another in an incredibly meta shot that mimics and mirrors a shot from Scream 1.
As you can see, the layered commentary of the first scene lays the foundations for and raises our expectations for the rest of the film. The motto of the second movie is “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” and Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson continued to reuse and recycle the most powerful elements of the first film: the cold open that kills off known celebrities, the two killers working in tandem, and the double-cross. And by opening with an interesting and thought-provoking way to link the second film with its predecessor, this scene shows the audience that the sequel is going be both nothing and exactly like the first film.
“Sequels Suck”
Scream 2 knows that as a sequel it is bound to be inferior to the original film and plays into this expectation. Its commitment to self-reflexivity and self-critique is sustained throughout the film and especially highlighted in an early classroom scene. This scene dramatizes a film class in which a group of students (including Randy, Cece, Mickey and a bunch of randoms and extras) discuss the nature of sequels. The students discuss the murders that took place at the premiere of Stab. This evolves into a discussion of violence, social responsibility, the relationship between life and art, and a real-life sequel.
Teacher: Some people say what happened in that theater is a direct result of the movie itself.
Cece: that is so Moral Majority you can’t blame violence on entertainment.
Guy: Hello? The murderer was wearing a Ghost Mask. It’s exactly like the movie and directly responsible.
Cece: Movies are not responsible for our actions
Mickey (the killer): This is a classic case of life imitating art imitating life
Girl: … I had biology with that girl. this is reality
Mickey (the killer): … the killer obviously patterned himself after two serial killers who have been immortalized on film.
Teacher: Are you suggesting that someone is trying to make a real-life sequel?
Randy: … Who would want to do that.? Sequels suck! ….The whole horror genre was destroyed by sequels.
This dialogue is important because it captures the debate as to whether or not media violence is responsible for our actions. The dialogue suggests that only crazy people–like Mickey–are inspired to violent acts by violent depictions in media. Mickey’s motivation is to go to trial and expose the cause and effect relationship between movies and violence. The film does an excellent job of investigating and problematizing this relationship without coming to clear resolution. It’s fascinating to see this debate play out, especially since the killer himself is explaining his motives, which are so clearly horrific. Mickey demonstrates his mental instability through his veiled justification of his actions. And it is interesting to see the other characters react to his justifications when they don’t even recognize that they are talking to a killer.
This scene blows my mind. After watching this movie once and revisiting this scene, the viewer realizes that the whole totality of the film is revealed in this one scene. Within the first twenty minutes, the writing basically reveals one of the murderers and his motivation. It is an incredible feat of meta-commentary. Moreover, the scene plays with the idea that sequels do suck, and Scream 2 is clearly inferior to the first film. But the writer’s commitment to meta-commentary (explored deeply in the play-within-play structure) and the deconstruction of the horror genre elevates a mediocre sequel to a great genre piece/critique.
Scream 2 isn’t as good as the first, but it does a lot of things well, particularly the way it questions the relationship between media and violence.
© Levi Jacobson with editorial support by Christine Gardiner
Levi Jacobson Reviews 