Quantcast
Connect with us

Editorials

‘Scream’ Defined the Decade and Changed Horror in Ways Both Good and Bad [We Love ’90s Horror]

Published

on

The ‘90s often get a bad rap with horror fans. After the numerous successful slashers and creature effects films of the ’80s, the ‘90s offered a different variety of horror fare. Though there were plenty of hits, hidden gems, and misunderstood classics, the ‘90s usually don’t get the kind of love that other decades get when it comes to horror. It’s time to change that.

There was no question I’d cover Scream at some point with this column. It’s often touted as the best horror film of the ‘90s. While that moniker is certainly subjective, it’s more than fair to call Scream a seminal film for both the genre and the decade. Its shadow is cast wherever it stands, and that shadow looms large over the entirety of ‘90s horror.

And that’s something of a problem.

Before I get into that, I don’t want there to be any confusion about my feelings towards Scream as a movie. It’s a very good mystery/slasher flick with clever direction from maestro Wes Craven and a slick script from Kevin Williamson. Above all, the casting for Scream is uniformly excellent. There isn’t a single weak link in the chain, with Neve Campbell delivering a horror heroine for the ages in Sidney Prescott. Not to mention a scene-stealing performance from Courtney Cox as Gale Weathers. Add in delightful turns from David Arquette, Skeet Ulrich, Matthew Lillard, Rose McGowan, Jamie Kennedy, and few choice cameos and you’ve got a Murderers’ row of talent.

Speaking of cameos, let’s talk about the opening of the film. Maybe more than the movie itself, the pre-credits opening of Scream is an all-timer. It sets up the meta premise of the movie, introduces us to a creepy killer with a specific personality, delivers tons of tension and scares, and finally pulls the rug out from under the audience by killing Drew Barrymore and showcasing her gutted corpse. Even today, it’s still a shocking and powerful opening that’s so effective it kind of acts as a standalone short film.

There’s plenty to like about Scream, from its eclectic cast of characters to its slasher sensibilities. Thanks to Craven’s smart understanding of the genre’s hallmarks, he always keeps the movie moving at a brisk pace and the mood of the entire piece is nothing but unbridled fun. I like Scream and I completely understand why most people love it.

But, Scream suffers from a problem that all great successes fall victim to: their influence is often the worst element of their legacy. And Scream’s influence created some serious issues in horror and horror fandom.

The most immediate was that mainstream horror tried to copy Scream’s unique tone and voice, and while there were a few worthy successors like Urban Legend, the majority of the post-Scream slashers were disappointing imitations. That actually shows just how special Scream was at executing its goals.

Another unfortunate side effect of Scream’s impact was how it turned everybody into a supposed horror expert. With the character of Randy Meeks pointing out the presumed “rules” of horror movies, audiences turned into armchair authorities on everything about the genre. This led to a lot of horror movies (both contemporary and classic) being viewed through an ironic lens. Whether this had a lasting impact on an entire generation of horror fans is another debate entirely, but it’s no question that Scream caused this viewpoint to be the default for quite some time.

The most pertinent repercussion of Scream for this column is what it did to the perception of ‘90s horror. The reason I started this column was in the hopes that the decade could undergo some reappraisal. My feelings are that it’s a decade littered with legit classics and underappreciated gems. However, Scream continues to hover over the conversation in a way that I didn’t expect. What surprises me is that Scream is a deliberate parody of the genre, and yet that parody is regularly hailed as the benchmark for the decade.

This outlook has made the entire decade fall under the scrutiny of Scream’s satirical intentions and that’s a real shame. While Scream is a genuinely entertaining time, that’s also all it’s really interested in being. Any supposed commentary is really just well-crafted jokes, as opposed to Wes Craven’s other meta ‘90s horror film which has a ton to actually say about the genre. It’s not that Scream is vapid – again, Williamson’s script is intelligent – but it’s aspirations are more crowd-pleasing than actually analytical.

To reiterate, don’t let this read as a negative screed against Scream itself. It deserves all the love it gets, but the fallout of its popularity hasn’t all been positive. With another entry on the way from some talented filmmakers, I’m hoping a new Scream can put itself under the microscope a little bit. No matter what, all the Scream films have managed to deliver popcorn thrills and plenty of laughs. Still, I hope now that we’re thirty years removed from the ‘90s, the decade can start to stand outside of Scream’s reputation.

Drew Dietsch has been professionally writing about film and entertainment for over a decade. His bylines include FANDOM -- where he was a founding contributor and Entertainment Editor -- Bloody Disgusting, SYFY WIRE, Atom Insider, CHUD, Crooked Marquee and more. He created and hosts GenreVision, a weekly film discussion show at genrevision.com.

Click to comment

Editorials

André Øvredal’s ‘Troll Hunter’ Remains One of the Best Found Footage Movies

Published

on

André Øvredal's Troll Hunter

In this day and age, the wordtrollis 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 shoutstrollat 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.

troll hunter

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.

Troll Hunter

Otto Jespersen as Hans the Troll Hunter.

There is always a small risk whenever using the termmockumentaryto 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 callfound footage.

troll hunter

A bridge troll reaches up for food and finds Hans decked out in armor.

Continue Reading