Editorials
Stabbing Our Way Into a Second ‘Scream 4’ Press Conference
With anticipation building for the April 15th release of Dimension Films’ Scream 4 – the latest entry in the top-grossing slasher franchise after more than ten years of silence – B-D reporter Chris Eggertsen and a horde of other journalists crowded into a conference room at West Hollywood’s Mondrian Hotel this week to engage in a Q&A session with director Wes Craven, returning cast members Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox Arquette, and David Arquette, and new additions Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Rory Culkin, and Anthony Anderson, to discuss their involvement in the massively-hyped new sequel.
Topics covered included the reasons behind revisiting the franchise after such a long absence, updating the rules and conventions of the series for a modern audience, and how the ill-fated town of Woodsboro has changed in the decade-and-a-half since the original massacre. See inside for the full report.
With the addition of a horde of fresh-faced young cast members, who in many ways echo the crop of self-aware young high school students featured in the original ‘Scream’, one could be forgiven for experiencing a slight sense of déjà vu when watching Dimension’s upcoming ‘Scream 4′, the belated third sequel in the iconic postmodern slasher franchise that’s finally being unleashed on April 15th. It was a sensation actually experienced by many of the original cast members as well, who recently gathered – along with their next-generation “doubles” and director Wes Craven – at Los Angeles’ Mondrian Hotel to discuss the heavily-anticipated new entry.
“I think with the new cast coming to this, it was really interesting to see because they were kind of reflections of us when we first got there“, said Arquette, sitting with Craven and fellow returning cast members Neve Campbell and Courteney Cox Arquette. “It just really sort of [generated the same] electricity that I felt on the first film.”
For her part, Campbell related a self-aware moment that she shared with Cox Arquette during the initial read-through with their younger cast-mates prior to the start of production.
“Courtney and I looked at each other and we were like, `we could be their mothers!’” laughed the actress, looking just as radiant and beautiful as she did when we first laid eyes on her over a decade ago.
“Grandmother!” remarked Cox Arquette in response, leaving the group of reporters seated before her to begin calculating the math in their own heads.
Of course, since the release of ‘Scream 3′ at the turn of the new millenium (now guess who’s feeling old?), there has inevitably arisen an entire new crop of horror franchises and sub-genres, not to mention a host of changes in both the culture at large and the technologies we use to navigate it. Craven, who at 71 years old keeps himself refreshingly up to date on how today’s young people both communicate and consume entertainment, spoke to the evolution of the culture since the last installment and how that factored into he and the Weinsteins’ decision to revisit the hugely successful franchise after so many years of being away.
“[Bob Weinstein] originally told us I think after `Scream 3′ that there were not gonna be anymore for a long time. They didn’t want it to feel like we were just knocking `em out to make money“, said the soft-spoken Craven, as always exuding an aura of quiet grace and intelligence. “But I think at the end of the decade, there was a feeling that this was a perfect time to turn around and look at the first decade of the 21st century. It was quite distinctive from others. 9/11…that’s sort of hovering over things. And certainly the presence of the electronic media being brought down to the people, to the level where everybody is online. Everybody’s on Facebook, people are tweeting people all over the world all the time. That’s totally different [than it was].
“…I have a step-daughter who’s 20 years old, [and] she’s watching movies on her computer or her phone“, he continued. “So the whole business, as you well know, is changing dramatically. And the way the fans follow the movies, and participate in the movies, and make their own movies…[it’s] profoundly different.”
Campbell, now in her fourth outing as perennial victim Sidney Prescott, got back into character not by looking forward so much as delving into the past, taking time to revisit the first three films again prior to the start of production.
“I had fun watching the films again before we started this, just to get a sense of it“, she told us. “It was really nice to see that they still hold up really well. But…it isn’t difficult to get into the character. With Sidney, it’s just like imagining her circumstances and doing it.”
Cox Arquette found herself not only marveling at Craven’s predilection for staying connected to youth culture, but also at the way he’s been able to maintain a sense of what scares people after 40 years in the business.
“He’s an amazing filmmaker…he is the master of this” she said. “And the way he directs Ghostface, it’s the most…the way he tilts his head, it’s so eerie! I don’t know, there’s something about Wes that’s just like a choreographer when it comes to Ghostface…he’s just a great director.”
As for keeping the details of the new film a secret, Craven smartly recognized the need to balance preserving a sense of mystery with making fans of the franchise feel acknowledged and included in the process. To accomplish the latter goal, he maintained an active Twitter account during production.
“We did everything from have contests [to win] posters [of] the film…to having contests where people would identify photographs of weird bugs that we took off of the set…when we were shooting at night, and all these strange bugs [were] falling out of the sky“, he said. “We just sort of kept the fans aware that we were filming, and that we knew they were out there. I have to say, it was very intriguing to see how quickly people answered [the tweets]…[it] made me realize even in the process of filming how different this reality was from even emails, you know? Just much, much quicker, and worldwide.”
He was also diplomatic (damn it) in response to a question about the alleged sour grapes that arose between original screenwriter Kevin Williamson and the production after ‘Scream 3’ scribe Ehren Kruger was brought in for last-minute rewrites.
“I think we’re all pleased with the way the script turned out“, he intoned. “It was a result of Kevin’s original master script, and Ehren did a decent amount of work on specific scenes and areas…and I wrote sections of the film myself. But it very much is Kevin’s concept and characters and situations and overarching framework for the film.”
Following this uber-short Q&A session with the original ‘Scream’ crew, four new cast members – Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Rory Culkin, and Anthony Anderson – took their place on the panel to discuss joining the storied franchise after years of being exposed to the films as moviegoers.
“It’s an exciting thing to be a part of“, remarked Panettiere, who in the film plays Kirby Reed, the best friend of Roberts’ character who is essentially an updated version of Rose McGowan’s “Tatum” from the first movie. “It’s like a sequel, but at the same time a remake, but it’s a combination…it’s cleverly remembering where it comes from, the clichés, and really using them to our benefit and growing with the audience. Because as generations go on, they just get smarter and harder to scare, and all that stuff. So it’s a very cool movie, a fun thing to be a part of. I mean, who wouldn’t want to be in [a] `Scream’ [movie]? I thought, I was sitting on set and I was going, `Aren’t I supposed to be watching this movie? I don’t think I’m supposed to be here.’ I would never [have] imagine[d] myself on screen with Neve Campbell and screaming. It just doesn’t make sense.”
Anderson, one of the loudest, most insatiable hams I’ve ever had the dubious pleasure of being confronted with, spoke to the surreal nature of being involved in ‘Scream 4’ (he plays the character of “Detective Anthony Perkins” – get it?) after having appeared in the third and fourth installments of the (initially) ‘Scream’-lampooning ‘Scary Movie’ series.
“I’m a fan of the franchise. Actually, I was in another film that spoofed this franchise, and now I’m in this franchise. So that was that“, he acknowledged, before later admitting he hasn’t actually seen the movie yet: “I just found out who the killers were like 27 minutes ago, honestly. Because my script never had an ending to it. I don’t know if they didn’t trust me…the lines that I prepared the night before, when I got to set everything was different. That’s how I went to work. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one like that, but honestly, since I haven’t seen the film and my script never had the ending part of it, I didn’t know who the killers were until literally before [the] last roundtable discussion.”
Emma Roberts, who won the lead role of Sidney’s teenage cousin Jill after Ashley Greene reportedly turned it down, talked rather generally (the name of the game at the practically worthless second panel discussion, which quickly devolved into an Anthony Anderson stand-up act) about what attracted her to the project – in a bit I’m only including because it was more or less the sole usable quote offered up the actress during the mercifully short 15-minute session.
“I was a huge fan of the franchise, I’m a huge fan of Wes Craven, and I thought that the fact that he was coming back to direct this one meant it was gonna be good, and yeah, I love the part“, said Roberts. “I read the script, and it was an interesting role, and I’ve never done a horror movie, so why not?”
At the far end of the panel from Roberts sat lost little Rory Culkin, who didn’t even attempt to compete with Anderson’s apparent personal mandate to dominate practically every second of the discussion. It was only near the very end that he was finally able to get a word in edgewise – and only after Roberts cheerily implored Anderson to give his fellow cast member an opportunity to speak.
“He’s always a different person with different motives“, intoned Culkin, in response to a question about what makes Ghostface so scary. “You don’t really know why they’re doing this…it’s also weird because the whole town sort of celebrates this massacre that only happened like ten years earlier, so everyone in town is sort of twisted. It’s a pretty sick little town.”
Therein lays one of the most interesting components of the new film, which heavily references the first installment in painting a picture of how the fictional town of Woodsboro has itself changed in the last ten years. While it would’ve been disingenuous of the filmmakers ‘not’ to have referenced the ’96 original in crafting the latest installment, there’s also the obvious risk of making viewers pine for the good ol’ days if they end up feeling significantly let down by this new entry. There’s no doubt the world has changed dramatically over the last decade, but thankfully some things – like the hypnotic allure of a good piece of filmmaking – don’t ever go out of style.
In this day and age, the word “troll” is often used to describe various online nuisances. Yet as abundant and irksome as the modern troll can be, they aren’t usually as fearsome as their mythological counterparts. I’m not talking about the small and gentler versions that have become more common to see in media. No, there are much bigger and scarier trolls out there—and André Øvredal’s movie Troll Hunter is one of the best places to find them.
It doesn’t take long for Troll Hunter (or Trolljegeren) to dump the Blair Witch Project-esque setup and aim for something a lot fresher. The trajectory of the story is augmented by Otto Jespersen’s character Hans, the titular Troll Hunter. The second he comes barreling out of the deep, dark woods and shouts “troll” at the camera, this movie takes a turn into what feels like uncharted territory. Not only subject-wise, but also conceptually.
For fantastical and made-up subject matter in cinema, found footage is a fast way to add a guise of believability. After all, what we accept to be the most crucial aspect of documentaries—the truth—rubs off on pseudo-documentaries, despite our understanding of the pretense involved. That is what Øvredal delivered with Troll Hunter: a movie so convincing that some viewers wondered if trolls really do exist. So, had this been straightforwardly made, it likely wouldn’t have been as effective. Conventional narratives would be more inclined to treat something like trolls as flat out unreal, and never try to convince the audience to think otherwise.
Hans petrifies the three-headed Tusseladd troll.
The viewers, like the characters trailing Hans, are quickly thrown into the deeper end of that extraordinary story. They have to process all this new information while staying on the go. So, although there is no significant amount of meandering, narratively or physically, there is still a good amount of atmosphere, not to mention tension building. It’s never anything frightful, but then again, Troll Hunter isn’t your standard offering of horror; it’s more on the low end of the dark fantasy spectrum. We aren’t ever spirited away to a faraway world—we stay in rather familiar surroundings, as well as dip into those less so. The outcome is a movie where you’re constantly more in awe than in terror.
As fantasy fiction might do, Troll Hunter prefers not to deal with incredulity. There is no time to waste on doubt, as interviewer Thomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud), soundperson Johanna (Johanna Mørck), and cameraman Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen) all follow Hans around, recording whatever this character is willing to reveal about his bizarre job. Of course, the Troll Hunter himself is not an open book; in that respect, the diegetic documentary fails to fully capture and unpack the more interesting of its two subjects. Yes, all those giant, monstrous trolls are indeed incredible, but understandably, your mind wanders to their pursuer. What kind of person signs up for this gig and then chooses to stick with it for so long?
Reviews have called out Troll Hunter for its lack of character development. In regard to Thomas and his fellow documentarians, that criticism is valid, but bear in mind, they aren’t the focus of the story, either. Meanwhile, Hans is a well-crafted character. At least better than first realized. Before he was introduced, Hans had already grown tired of the troll grind. Fed up with that low compensation for his services, resentful of the bureaucracy, and wanting to expose his employer on a large scale, Hans’ discontent is glaring.
Then there are those finer details about the Troll Hunter, such as that indifference to both the natural splendor of his everyday surroundings and the affections of an obviously smitten colleague, that also suggest some level of despondency. So it is fair to say this movie doesn’t feature any sizable growth for its characters; however, the namesake isn’t underwritten. No doubt, putting a real-life character like Otto Jespersen in that role is partly why Hans is so fascinating—maybe even relatable.
Otto Jespersen as Hans the Troll Hunter.
There is always a small risk whenever using the term “mockumentary” to describe a found-footage movie, as the word could imply humor where there is none. In the case of Troll Hunter, the term’s usage is appropriate. Some folks have claimed the English-dubbed version has the more comedic tone, however, the Norwegian cut isn’t exactly humorless. Apart from the trolls’ absurd appearances, this is a movie where the characters nearly choke on the monsters’ farts, and Christians are like walking targets. Hans’ complete apathy towards everything is another cause of laughter. Overall, the comedy is intentionally dry and inconsistent. Unfunny, though? Absolutely not.
In a movie where endemic creatures are maltreated, as well as disavowed from living freely and peacefully, it’s hard not to notice the ecological message buried beneath the story. In addition to that is the unmistakable political satire. There is this whole business about intrusive and unsightly power lines—like trolls, they’re big blemishes on the land—that leads to what is perhaps the movie’s funniest moment. The scene in question is that one where certain electric lines, the ones secretly being used to keep the trolls at bay, go in a loop and don’t actually send power to any residents. Yet the monitors of said lines don’t find this at all weird. So it stands to reason that Øvredal was having a go at those who accept the government’s doings without question.
Looking past the fact that trolls aren’t actually real, this movie is an enlightening source of information. And not just for international audiences; Norwegians, too, get schooled about their homeland’s own mythology. It’s also evident from everything on screen that Øvredal and his crew were enthusiastic about the topic. The creature designs are the most indicative of that zeal; those imaginative yet myth-accurate manifestations are equally amusing and grotesque. One second you’re laughing at their phallic noses, the next you’re white-knuckling during a hairy sequence. Most surprisingly is how well the trolls’ visual effects hold up after fifteen years. It’s not all spotless, but on the whole, they remain impressive.
Vouching for a mockumentary about trolls isn’t easy, but those who do come around and give it a shot will more than likely be grateful for the recommendation. For Troll Hunter is a real find in that vast and varied genre we call “found footage“.
A bridge troll reaches up for food and finds Hans decked out in armor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.