Connect with us

Editorials

How ‘Scream’ Boldly Gives a Middle Finger to Toxic Fandom [Spoilers]

Published

on

I walked out of Scream with a smile on my face. And no, it’s not because I get my jollies from watching teenagers and otherwise competent adults get sliced and diced by a maniac in a mask. Scream successfully reinvents the franchise and is the most audacious entry in the series to date. Rather than just critique the genre and the world in which we inhabit as per usual, Scream aims squarely at toxic fandom, franchises, itself, and our overall obsession with nostalgia.

As the British say, that’s the rub. The fifth film in this franchise is fully aware of the baked-in irony. By balancing those contradictions, Radio Silence, Kevin Williamson, and the über talented cast and crew did the equivalent of jumping off the high dive into a kiddie pool. More importantly, they weren’t afraid to, pardon the pun, keep the satire sharp by telling fans to look themselves in the mirror and ask some serious questions.

Heads up: Potential spoilers for this year’s brand new Scream movie are below this line. If you’re sensitive about even the smallest plot reveal, turn away now.


You can’t have Halloween without Jamie Lee. At least, that’s what a character in Scream tells a bemused Sidney Prescott and us. The OG Scream parodied teen slashers. Yet here we are two decades later, and the franchise still can’t resist the urge to focus on characters who are eons removed from pencils, books, and Principal Henry Winkler’s dirty looks.

At least that’s how it seems.

Legacy sequels, if done well, use characters we love as Trojan Horses for new characters. In some cases, even with that purpose in mind, the movies and franchises can’t help but stay attached to the hip of the original stars. 2018’s Halloween is about generational trauma at its core. In theory, Laurie Strode’s daughter and granddaughter are just as important to that story as Laurie. In theory. Yet no matter how hard the movie tries, it, along with Halloween Kills, can’t function without Laurie at its center. Terminator: Dark Fate features an older Sarah Connor saving and training a new generation of heroes to fight the future. Which sounds great until one realizes Sarah has the most significant character arc in the flick, often to the detriment of the people we’re supposed to want to see more of in future installments. Hollywood, while wanting to ensure we come back for the next ride on their franchise merry-go-round, mostly sticks to the past.

Scream bucks that tradition and the trend because it’s not about Sidney. Sure, she needs to be there in a meta sense, but the film acknowledges she’s merely fulfilling a studio quota. By making fun of the convention, which is both a fan demand and a business necessity, Scream executes the idea behind it better than most movies. Sid, Gale, and Dewey are on the story’s periphery. At the same time, we get to know these interesting new characters going through the Woodsboro tradition of running for their lives and answering horror movie trivia. While Scream 4 gave us several new people to love, especially Kirby, that movie doesn’t work without Sid, Dewey, and Gale. Despite a bevy of new kids on the Woodsboro block, Wes Craven’s last film devotes most of its runtime to its tried-and-true Scooby-Doo Gang. Its sequel understands the series must firmly establish a new core cast to rally around, or cash registers won’t make that “ching ching” sound for Scream 6 and beyond. Scream pokes fun at the superstitious nature of the movie business while keeping in mind the franchise itself is a business. Like any institution dependent on consumers, there are demands to meet. Or else. And with genre fans, what follows “or else” can be more than a bit scary.

Fans can be, well, a lot. You know this. You exist in 2022, and you’re on the internet, where toxic fandom runs rampant. Scream knows this, too, since Ghostface’s motivation is to save the Stab franchise. Fans weren’t happy with Stab’s eighth installment for reasons too good to divulge in this corner of the world. Ghostface believes the only way to set things right is to recreate the true-life story on which the first Stab is based. According to Mr. or Mrs. Ghostface, this will bring purity back to the series while inspiring a creatively bankrupt Hollywood to do something new by copying the past. As I said, the irony is so delicious you might come back for a second plate. But that’s also the point. Scream weaponizes the scummy and villainous corners of the web by giving them a knife and Roger Jackson’s dulcet tones. What it doesn’t do is lend credence to their belief that fan service is the one thing to rule us all.

One might argue—and I am—that Scream mourns the fact modern moviemaking is too tethered to the past. We can go back and forth all day on whether studios or fans deserve most of the credit for that development, but Scream lays the blame at our feet. We’re the ones who drink from the keg of nostalgia every chance we get. We’re the ones who jump for joy when we recognize an Easter egg rather than caring if it has any bearing on the overall narrative. We’re the ones who launch our social media battle stations with cries of “not my [fill in the blank]” when someone does something new with a storied property. And, most hilariously, we’re the ones who don’t believe fandom can ever be toxic since it comes from a place of love. That last one is a doozy considering that the same line of thinking is the cornerstone of unhealthy relationships around the globe.

But let’s get back to why we’re here.

Scream doesn’t say all fans are awful, nor does it believe we can’t love this franchise or any other. Instead, it takes umbrage with the unhealthy relationship some have with the things of which they’re passionate. Loving a movie enough where you can repeat it line for line is fantastic. Citing that love as a reason to ostracize new fans or disrespect casts and filmmakers is considerably less fantastic. Scream doesn’t mind fans clutching their pearls when their favorite franchise goes in a direction they don’t like. It just prefers if said pearls aren’t thrown at anyone as a result. Radio Silence’s movie makes a daring move telling fans, some of which are its own, that they need to check themselves while never being preachy. A more daring move is showing how ridiculous some fan impulses are. But it’s not Scream if it’s not making fun of something, right?

Scream, like The Matrix Resurrections and the beloved Gremlins 2: The New Batch, deconstructs the franchise in hopes of examining aspects its fans love. Specifically, everything fans and business types who sit around huge desks require. Mindy Meeks-Martin’s monologue about “requels” reads like a list of demands from a hostage negotiation: Legacy characters present and accounted for, familiar but different enough plot beats, interesting new characters with vague or direct connections to the past, recognizable locales, and most importantly, nostalgic warmth. Mindy’s info dump highlights how challenging it is for older franchises to move forward. If it’s not the corporate overlords who hurt you, it’s the fans. Or sometimes both. That might be scarier than anything in this or any other horror movie. The latest flick in the 25-year-old franchise is for the fans while also a middle finger to the “for the fans” mentality inherent to toxic fandom.

Scream knows the calls are coming from inside the house and decides to have a little fun at the caller’s expense. Even if the person on the other end has no idea the joke is on them.

Editorials

‘Amityville Karen’ Is a Weak Update on ‘Serial Mom’ [Amityville IP]

Published

on

Amityville Karen horror

Twice a month Joe Lipsett will dissect a new Amityville Horror film to explore how the “franchise” has evolved in increasingly ludicrous directions. This is “The Amityville IP.”

A bizarre recurring issue with the Amityville “franchise” is that the films tend to be needlessly complicated. Back in the day, the first sequels moved away from the original film’s religious-themed haunted house storyline in favor of streamlined, easily digestible concepts such as “haunted lamp” or “haunted mirror.”

As the budgets plummeted and indie filmmakers capitalized on the brand’s notoriety, it seems the wrong lessons were learned. Runtimes have ballooned past the 90-minute mark and the narratives are often saggy and unfocused.

Both issues are clearly on display in Amityville Karen (2022), a film that starts off rough, but promising, and ends with a confused whimper.

The promise is embodied by the tinge of self-awareness in Julie Anne Prescott (The Amityville Harvest)’s screenplay, namely the nods to John Waters’ classic 1994 satire, Serial Mom. In that film, Beverly Sutphin (an iconic Kathleen Turner) is a bored, white suburban woman who punished individuals who didn’t adhere to her rigid definition of social norms. What is “Karen” but a contemporary equivalent?

In director/actor Shawn C. Phillips’ film, Karen (Lauren Francesca) is perpetually outraged. In her introductory scenes, she makes derogatory comments about immigrants, calls a female neighbor a whore, and nearly runs over a family blocking her driveway. She’s a broad, albeit familiar persona; in many ways, she’s less of a character than a caricature (the living embodiment of the name/meme).

These early scenes also establish a fairly straightforward plot. Karen is a code enforcement officer with plans to shut down a local winery she has deemed disgusting. They’re preparing for a big wine tasting event, which Karen plans to ruin, but when she steals a bottle of cursed Amityville wine, it activates her murderous rage and goes on a killing spree.

Simple enough, right?

Unfortunately, Amityville Karen spins out of control almost immediately. At nearly every opportunity, Prescott’s screenplay eschews narrative cohesion and simplicity in favour of overly complicated developments and extraneous characters.

Take, for example, the wine tasting event. The film spends an entire day at the winery: first during the day as a band plays, then at a beer tasting (???) that night. Neither of these events are the much touted wine-tasting, however; that is actually a private party happening later at server Troy (James Duval)’s house.

Weirdly though, following Troy’s death, the party’s location is inexplicably moved to Karen’s house for the climax of the film, but the whole event plays like an afterthought and features a litany of characters we have never met before.

This is a recurring issue throughout Amityville Karen, which frequently introduces random characters for a scene or two. Karen is typically absent from these scenes, which makes them feel superfluous and unimportant. When the actress is on screen, the film has an anchor and a narrative drive. The scenes without her, on the other hand, feel bloated and directionless (blame editor Will Collazo Jr., who allows these moments to play out interminably).

Compounding the issue is that the majority of the actors are non-professionals and these scenes play like poorly performed improv. The result is long, dull stretches that features bad actors talking over each other, repeating the same dialogue, and generally doing nothing to advance the narrative or develop the characters.

While Karen is one-note and histrionic throughout the film, at least there’s a game willingness to Francesca’s performance. It feels appropriately campy, though as the film progresses, it becomes less and less clear if Amityville Karen is actually in on the joke.

Like Amityville Cop before it, there are legit moments of self-awareness (the Serial Mom references), but it’s never certain how much of this is intentional. Take, for example, Karen’s glaringly obvious wig: it unconvincingly fails to conceal Francesca’s dark hair in the back, but is that on purpose or is it a technical error?

Ultimately there’s very little to recommend about Amityville Karen. Despite the game performance by its lead and the gentle homages to Serial Mom’s prank call and white shoes after Labor Day jokes, the never-ending improv scenes by non-professional actors, the bloated screenplay, and the jittery direction by Phillips doom the production.

Clocking in at an insufferable 100 minutes, Amityville Karen ranks among the worst of the “franchise,” coming in just above Phillips’ other entry, Amityville Hex.

Amityville Karen

The Amityville IP Awards go to…

  • Favorite Subplot: In the afternoon event, there’s a self-proclaimed “hot boy summer” band consisting of burly, bare-chested men who play instruments that don’t make sound (for real, there’s no audio of their music). There’s also a scheming manager who is skimming money off the top, but that’s not as funny.
  • Least Favorite Subplot: For reasons that don’t make any sense, the winery is also hosting a beer tasting which means there are multiple scenes of bartender Alex (Phillips) hoping to bring in women, mistakenly conflating a pint of beer with a “flight,” and goading never before seen characters to chug. One of them describes the beer as such: “It looks like a vampire menstruating in a cup” (it’s a gold-colored IPA for the record, so…no).
  • Amityville Connection: The rationale for Karen’s killing spree is attributed to Amityville wine, whose crop was planted on cursed land. This is explained by vino groupie Annie (Jennifer Nangle) to band groupie Bianca (Lilith Stabs). It’s a lot of nonsense, but it is kind of fun when Annie claims to “taste the damnation in every sip.”
  • Neverending Story: The film ends with an exhaustive FIVE MINUTE montage of Phillips’ friends posing as reporters in front of terrible green screen discussing the “killer Karen” story. My kingdom for Amityville’s regular reporter Peter Sommers (John R. Walker) to return!
  • Best Line 1: Winery owner Dallas (Derek K. Long), describing Karen: “She’s like a walking constipation with a hemorrhoid”
  • Best Line 2: Karen, when a half-naked, bleeding woman emerges from her closet: “Is this a dream? This dream is offensive! Stop being naked!”
  • Best Line 3: Troy, upset that Karen may cancel the wine tasting at his house: “I sanded that deck for days. You don’t just sand a deck for days and then let someone shit on it!”
  • Worst Death: Karen kills a Pool Boy (Dustin Clingan) after pushing his head under water for literally 1 second, then screeches “This is for putting leaves on my plants!”
  • Least Clear Death(s): The bodies of a phone salesman and a barista are seen in Karen’s closet and bathroom, though how she killed them are completely unclear
  • Best Death: Troy is stabbed in the back of the neck with a bottle opener, which Karen proceeds to crank
  • Wannabe Lynch: After drinking the wine, Karen is confronted in her home by Barnaby (Carl Solomon) who makes her sign a crude, hand drawn blood contract and informs her that her belly is “pregnant from the juices of his grapes.” Phillips films Barnaby like a cross between the unhoused man in Mulholland Drive and the Mystery Man in Lost Highway. It’s interesting, even if the character makes absolutely no sense.
  • Single Image Summary: At one point, a random man emerges from the shower in a towel and excitedly poops himself. This sequence perfectly encapsulates the experience of watching Amityville Karen.
  • Pray for Joe: Many of these folks will be back in Amityville Shark House and Amityville Webcam, so we’re not out of the woods yet…

Next time: let’s hope Christmas comes early with 2022’s Amityville Christmas Vacation. It was the winner of Fangoria’s Best Amityville award, after all!

Amityville Karen movie

Continue Reading