“Meta” is a term frequently used—by critics and characters in the film itself—to describe Scream 4, the latest “screamake” and “shriek-quel” in the series. In one scene, Gail Weathers says “How meta can you get?” Her husband Sheriff Dewey replies “How what-a can you get?” ”I don’t know, I heard them say it,” she retorts impatiently.
“Meta” generally refers to self-aware, self-referential aspects of films and other popular culture artifacts: characters realise they are in a movie, are aware of the camera and the audience, and so on. This is nothing new: Sherlock Jr. (1924) is justly famous for Buster Keaton’s adventures in a film-within-a-film and, more importantly, being affected by the film form: playing a cinema projectionist, he “walks into” a movie and is perplexed as successive cuts transport him from a quiet garden to a busy street to a mountaintop to a jungle to the desert to the ocean to a snowy forest. In other films, characters break the fourth wall and talk to the audience (Groucho Marx), talk about the previous movies and the non-filmic lives of the performers (Hope and Crosby), and other such “meta” activities.
For the most part, until relatively recently, these illusion-shattering attributes were largely restricted to comedy films (and close cousins, such as animated cartoons) where their absurdist nature would be accepted by audiences as part of the fun, and to the occasional experimental art film. The Blair Witch Project and similar faux-documentaries brought a “meta” aspect to dramatic cinema, but another trend (which is not exclusive to, nor was it originated by, the Scream franchise) is meta on a different (and lesser, in my opinion) level, chiefly the inclusion of characters who attempt to apply their knowledge of films to “real”-life situations which seem film-like, and a concomitant expectation on their part that the “rules” of film will apply. [And while I use “film” as an example, other popular culture references work just as well. Kick-Ass, for example, briefly shows what would happen in real life to someone who tried to emulate a comic-book superhero (he gets seriously injured), before yielding to the fantasy and allowing the wannabe hero actually become successful.]
For all its self-proclaimed “meta” credentials, Scream 4 only briefly meets any of these requirements. Instead, after a much-praised and actually rather amusing but still essentially predictable pre-credits sequence, the film becomes very traditional in form and content. Yes, characters talk about “life imitating art imitating life,” and there are passing stabs (heh) at commentary on notoriety, celebrity, and the media, but this no scathing criticism of contemporary society’s desire for fame a la Natural Born Killers (nor does it really aspire to be). It’s not even a spoof or a film which has a witty take on slasher films as a genre. Instead, Scream 4 is a routine horror movie that’s actually rather bland.
10 years after the events in the first Scream (which was actually released in 1996), “final girl” Sidney (Neve Campbell) returns to her home town to promote her book about the positive aspects of being a “survivor.” Meanwhile, ex- reporter Gail is now the wife of Dewey (promoted from deputy to sheriff); her book about the original murders spawned a film series (Stab 1-7) but she’s been unable to repeat her success (or write anything else, for that matter). But as luck would have it, a new serial killer (wearing the same outfit and Edvard Munch-inspired mask) is back at work, killing snarky teenagers. A fair number of the latter are, as unlikely as it seems (the young women are especially unconvincing as movie-nerds), slasher-movie fans.
Scream 4 doesn’t do much with the concept of either movie-related murders or potential victims using their film knowledge to outwit the killer or expectations being raised based on previous experience with the genre only have them cleverly subverted by new variations on an old theme. It doesn’t do much of anything with anything, to be honest.
There are some stray clever bits of dialogue but it’s self-consciously clever rather than naturally clever. People, not even film fans, simply don’t talk this way. The characters are unpleasant and/or under-developed. The murders are unimaginative. The denouement isn’t especially surprising. The well-worn trope of the killer refusing to die and returning time after time to threaten the protagonists is executed effectively, to give the film credit where credit is due, but this begs the question…is simply repeating a formula accurately “meta” and if so, who cares?
Putting aside these issues and judging Scream 4 strictly as an entry in the slasher genre, the film is moderately entertaining. It’s not boring, it’s paced reasonably well, the production values are satisfactory, the performers are adequate. But a good, exciting, suspenseful film? Nope. I stick by my “bland” comment.
On a side note, my track record with recent film series is not especially strong. Perhaps the only popular series of the past three decades I’ve seen in its entirety (and in the correct order) was Harry Potter. Otherwise, I tend to watch the first movie and skip the rest (Batman), or come in late and struggle to catch up (Iron Man 2, Saw VI). Or, I ignore the whole series (The Lord of the Rings, Spiderman).
Is it possible my evaluation of Scream 4 is skewed by the fact I didn’t see Scream 2 or Scream 3, and have little or no specific memory of the original Scream? One wonders if—given the long period of time between entries (Scream 3 came out in 2000)—the franchise name still has commercial value and, more importantly, if there is any significant continuity in the collective audience mind. Who watches Scream 4? People who saw the first 3 when they were originally released? Younger horror-movie fans who were only introduced to the Scream series on DVD? People who don’t really care that it’s Number 4, but are merely interested in watching a “scary” movie?
Meh, perhaps I’m over-thinking it. Or… to quote a “meta” bit in the beginning of Scream 4, “did whoever make [this movie], just under-think it?”
