Horrific Inquiry: SCREAM 2 (1997)

Welcome back to the newest, and at times goriest, column here at Film Inquiry: Horrific Inquiry. Twice a month, I will be tackling all things horror, bringing two films back into the spotlight to terrify and frighten once more. And occasionally looking at those that could have pushed the envelope further. Join us as we dive deep into the heart of horror, but warning, there will be spoilers.

We are back with our Horrific Inquiry Scream Countdown. As the release of the fifth film rapidly approaches, this month brings us to the franchise’s first sequel – one that retains the energy and vibe of its predecessor. And while it may not live up to the bar set by Scream, Scream 2 delivers a solid sequel that not only expands the rules of horror but lays the groundwork for the subsequent trilogy – and eventual franchise.

Scream meets Inception

According to Randy (Jamie Kennedy), “by definition alone, sequels are inferior films”. Scream 2 may leave room for improvement, but it invites viewers to return to the expanding horror of Woodsboro, leaving the town and high school behind. From the moment the film opens, it feels like a Wes Craven/ Kevin Williamson collaboration. There is a deeply rooted familiarity in its formulated beginning, yet an elevation to the dramatic nature. Viewers are immediately introduced to Phil (Omar Epps) and Maureen (Jada Pinkett Smith) arriving at their local theater for a sneak preview of the new horror film Stab. And yes, per Sidney’s (Neve  Campbell) prediction, Tori Spelling does in fact play her.

As they are buying their tickets, debating the option of a Sandra Bullock film and the inclusion of black actors in horror, there is a continuity in the film’s awareness of its self and the horror genre. It feels, especially as the opening continues, as though Phil and Maureen are narrating their own end as they make their way into the theater. Instantly, we are aware of what their fate will be, through formulaic predictability and their own unaware narration.

As they enter the theater, they are handed Ghostface props and costumes on behalf of the studio, eerily literal desensitization and commercialization of tragedy. In an instant, Scream 2 embraces its inception  – a movie within a movie. Where Scream was commercialization in its own right, inspired by its own real-life murders, Scream 2 goes deeper, a sequel about a horror film based on a real-life murder – with its own soon-to-be franchised film for its characters to watch. It is a clever layering within the film, one that will further compound as the Scream franchise continues on. As they watch a fictionalization of the Woodsboro murders, and the film we have already seen, there is an acknowledgeable similarity, with the artistic changes in Stab left for viewers both here and in the film to decipher the “fiction” from “reality”.

As viewers begin to embrace the inception of the film there is anonymity that begins to rise, a horror in its own right. In the original film, Ghostface found their power hiding in plain sight, integrating themselves within Sidney’s life. And while Scream 2 promises the same delivery (as does the up-and-coming Scream 5), its opening scene ticks the terror up just a notch further. As Phil and Maureen enter the theater, there is madness in a sea of Ghostfaces. The desensitization of real-life events has unfolded into an adrenaline-powered exertion of entertainment. As the audience embraces their studio gifts, the theater loses any sense of individualism, giving pure anonymity.

As the opening murders begin to unfold, there is no hope that the killer will be caught or even be noticeable – until it is too late. Even eagle-eyed viewers will not be able to spot the moment until it is already here. There is no need to hide evidence or clean up, there is no face that a finger could point to, no eye that could identify. And as Maureen is repeatedly stabbed, the mass hysteria of euphoric experience and the anonymity provided culminates into a terrifying examination of our culture and ability to not only desensitize but rationalize. While the rest of the film may live up to the expectations of a sequel, Scream 2’s opening excels.

Sequels Have their own rules too

It would not be a Scream film without “the rules”. Scream layered out what we as viewers already knew about the horror genre, its inclusion in the first film an awareness of its existence. You can never have sex, you can never drink or do drugs, and never, ever under any circumstances say “I’ll be right back”. Ironically, as aware Scream was of the rules, it was not afraid to break them. Scream 2, however, is more willing to adhere, its rules becoming more of a warning, foreshadowing, and answering of expectations.

The body count is always bigger, the death scenes are more elaborate (“more blood, more gore”), and “never, ever, under any circumstances assume the killer is dead”. While in the film Randy never finishes warning of this last rule, the film’s trailer brings the rules full circle. And Scream 2 does live up to the rules. There is a higher body count (two extra bodies to be exact), there is more blood and gore (a particular pole in the eye comes to mind) and while Randy’s warning was never fully issued, no one ever truly assumes the killer is dead. And while only Dewey (David Arquette) was present for the rules, Randy’s warning at the end of Scream foreshadowing Billie Loomis’s (Skeet Ulrich) return for one last scare carries through here.

It is the rules of horror that would become a staple of a Scream film, one I truly hope Scream 5 does not forget. There is always a desire to push the envelope with each horror franchise induction, an attempt to stay modern and relevant. With Scream, its rules not only do just that, but also speak to its continued awareness of itself and the genre it derives from.

A Horrific Memory

One of the final rules from Randy is to never assume the killer is dead. And it is interesting the take Scream 2 has on this particular rule. While Billy Loomis and Stu do not technically return (though Matthew Lillard does have a blink-and-you-will-miss-it cameo during a sorority party), it does not mean that the memory of Billy Loomis is far from gone. While the characters retain their account of events, so too do the ripples that spread far and wide following the events in Woodsboro.

Specifically, in regards to Billy Loomis’ mother – here under the alias Debbie Salt (Laurie Metcalf). Reminiscent of Friday the 13th, Billy Loomis’ mother arrives to exact her revenge on the teenagers that harmed her boy.When Phil is in the bathroom, he illfatedly puts his head up against the stall, listening to the whispering, “listen Mommy”, driving the Mrs. Voorhees reference and bringing a quiet continuity between the opening scenes between Scream and Scream 2 (Oh Casey, Mrs. Voorhees was the actual killer!).

Conclusion: Scream 2

As Scream 2 continues on, its formula follows Sidney through a series of terrors, ones that cause her to question the identities and intentions of everyone around her. And as the body count begins to pile up, there is the same reverberating superhuman feeling that is Ghostface. The ability to be in two places at once, to always be one step ahead of everyone – including the police. While the film does fall into place alongside many of its horror predecessors, its awareness of self and strive for continuity elevates it beyond “just another sequel”.

With each kill, and each match up with Ghostface, the nativity and hope of Sidney slowly begin to harden. As the film closes, she shoots Debbie Salt in the head, mirroring the conclusion of Scream. Yet, where the first film brought her relief, here she is presented as cold, the thought of moving on no longer possible. And as Sidney is advised that “being alone is not the answer”,  these words linger. foreshadowing the direction for what would become a trilogy. As the camera closes out, she stands alone.

Next Month, the Horrific Inquiry Scream countdown returns with Scream 3!

Watch Scream 2