Love or hate it, nostalgia is big right now. Film directors, theatre companies, games producers, and record labels are cashing in on our desire to relive decades gone by. And why not? It's a widely known part of the human experience that we hold the biggest place in our hearts for the pop culture of our childhood and teenage years. I can't name a single Billie Ellish song (but I know who she is, I'm not that out of touch) but ask me to recite every song from Green Day's American Idiot album and I'm your girl.
So obviously the Edinburgh Fringe is chock full of acts attempting to tap into everyone's inner teenager. But the performance that is shouting the loudest (if posters could shout) is the musical adaption of Cruel Intentions.
Cruel Intentions is a bit of a random film to adapt. I was just short of being a teenager in 1999, and while the film did perform well, it didn't have the same pop culture influence that Clueless or Mean Girls did.And as much as Sarah Michelle Geller was in her prime in the late 90s, these days we never really see her (see this YouTube video for a quick analysis as to why). Despite being a film I've always enjoyed, it doesn't stand out as one of the big ones.
But the producers were smart and decided to tap into the audience's nostalgia for all things the 90s. In addition to bringing the story and dialogue to the stage, they sprinkled some of the most recognisable pop songs from the 90s into the script. We're talking Britney Spears, N*SYNC, TLC, Goo Goo Dolls, Natalie Imbruglia and the Dawson's Creek soundtrack. And they made reference to AOL Chat and other 90s peculiarities.
Before I went into the theatre, I knew that this formula had the potential to really work...or fall flat on its face.
Thankfully, it really worked.
The singing from every cast member was on-point, Rebecca Gilhooley perfectly impersonated Sarah Michelle Geller's accent, Sophie Isaacs physically resembles Reese Whitherspoon, and a special shout out to Evelyn Hoskins for nailing the cringier scenes in her over-the-top take on the naive Cecile.
The musical adaptation also stays true to the original film but does soldier through it at a very quick pace (there's no interval). And as you would expect from any musical adaption, it is much campier than the original film (which wasn't very campy at all).
They performed the musical adaption in a pop-up marquee in George Square Gardens, which did mean they were limited by their performance space. Throughout the performance, they kept the same set that consisted of two chaise lounge-style benches (which wouldn't have looked out of place in the original film). A great set is difficult to acquire if you're limited by cost or space. And sometimes stretching a production budget to create visual set changes can make the audience painfully aware of how little budget you have (or at least it can for me). But the decision to make just one setup work for the entire show simplified the performance and meant the audiences' focus was on the story.
Saying that, if this musical gains traction (which I think it will) I would love to see what they could do with a proper stage set up and team. But I'm thankful the kept it simple at this stage.
Was it a high-brow Shakespearean play? Absolutely not. Was it fun? Hell yes. If fun pop songs make you break out in a rant about manufactured bands who don't write their own songs, then Cruel Intentions The 90s Musical is not for you. And if you didn't live through the 90s (did you know that people born in 2000 can now legally drink alcohol? Mental) then some of the references might be lost on you.
But if you like the original film and still boogie in your room to the Backstreet Boys, then Cruel Intentions The 90s Musical comes highly recommended.
If you don't immediately recognise the dress, it will make sense when you find out my favourite Eurovision act.
If I were to list my favourite yearly events, Eurovision would come second (the first would be Halloween). And I dgaf what anyone thinks of that. Years ago, I once even wrote a blog on why I love Eurovision so much. It's great and I will not hear a word against it.
With it being this Saturday and everything, I thought I'd mark the occasion with a list of my favourite Eurovision songs ever. Because I am the sort of person who thinks about these things. And if you thought that I thought about this for the sole purpose of this blog, you would be mistaken. I've long kept a mental list of my favourite Eurovision songs that I can recite when needed. This is just me putting it on paper. I might print it off later and laminate it.
In no order, until my favourite - which is at the end.
Lordi
Poor little Finland: until 2006 it had never won the Eurovision Song Contest and it doesn't even make the final half the time. But Hardrock Hallelujah was a stomper of a tune. I also went to see Lordi in 2015 when they were on tour in Glasgow because I am that cool.
Jedward
I'm not apologising for this. They've been in it twice, and I prefer Waterline to the other song. It's happy and reminds me of falling in love. That's nice.
Lena
Germany's song from 2011, which won them the title. This song was so good that my Eurovision-hating dad actually picked up the phone to vote for it. It's the only time he's ever voted.
Softengine
Apparently, when Finland do make the final I really like it.
Ruth Lorenzo
Everyone loved this one too. It's a power ballad.
Hanna Pakarinen
This was Finland's entry the year after Lordi won them the crown. It didn't do nearly as well. But it's still gothy because you can trust Finland to bring the goth. I voted for it.
The Ark
Also in 2007 was The Ark from Sweden with a bit of glam goth rock. The next day I downloaded it to the family computer from Limewire (probably with some viruses too) and it's still on my iPod to this day (it's a nano, and I still use it).
Precious
The first ever Eurovision I remember watching was in 1999, where the UK's entry was the girl band Precious. It's a happy pop song about saying I Love You for the first time. And one of their members is a pre-Atomic Kitten Jenny Frost, so what's not to love?
Selma
Alas, however, we cannot vote for our own country. So during the 1999 Eurovision, my mum let me break my voting virginity and I chose Iceland. Here is Selma with All Out of Luck (she came second, but Sweden won).
And my forever favourite Eurovision song...
Gina G
I have a slightly weird fangirl love for the one hit wonder that was Gina G. So much so, that I dressed up as her for Eurovision one year when we had to dress up as past Eurovision acts. The dress is the one in the picture at the start, and I intend on getting married in it.
She came second to Ireland and I believe she was robbed. I will die on this hill.
I've been pop-culture obsessed as far back as I can remember. As much as society, teachers, and parents tried to present tv watching as The Lazy Child's hobby there was no keeping me from new films or spending my pocket money on every magazine ever.
When I say tv watching and magazine reading, I'm not referring to the typical adolescent behaviour that most people aged 12-16 exhibit; I devoured the pop culture that surrounded me. While I wouldn't identify as a geek until my early 20s it's safe to say that I already was.
Saying that, I didn't grow up in a pop culture obsessed house. My parents aren't particularly big television watchers so we never had Sky with my mum even stating that if we were multi-millionaires she still wouldn't sign up for anything other than Freeview (though my parent's do now have Netflix...which only my dad uses). So there were some late 90s and 00s fandoms that I didn't have access to.
But like every teenager ever, I found a way around everything.
I also have a crazy good memory.
As you'll find out.
The Babysitters Club
I wasn't a massive bookworm as a child and even as an adult I gravitate towards non-fiction, but my earliest fandom ever was The Babysitters Club. I remember randomly picking up Claudia and the Great Mystery as my library book and it ended up being love at first page.
After speed-reading that first book, I would pick out another book in the series until I had read everything that was on offer in the school library (which I think was a measly six books; I grew up in a village so, naturally, our school library wasn't all that brag-worthy). Then whenever we had those school jumble sales it was copies of The Babysitters Club that I would scout out.
As an adult I have even purchased a few of the books to help fill in the gaps. The Babysitters Club has become a book series that I appreciate more as an adult. The characters are diverse, each with their own personalities and quirks. Plus, they weren't all white and there was a boy babysitter too. I also first heard about diabetes from The Babysitters Club and several diabetics around my age have confessed that Stacey was a character who helped them through their diagnosis.
Hollyoaks
I want to pretend I'm joking here, but I'm not: I was full-on obsessed with Hollyoaks as an early teenager and would consider it a major fandom of my adolescent years. Every weeknight at 6:30pm I would purposefully sit down to watch it, and would even tell my friends they weren't allowed to come in for me until 7pm! I don't watch it these days as all my favourite characters have left, including the only real celebrity/fictional crush I've ever had: Craig Dean aka Guy Burnett!
Scream
I've blogged about my love for the Scream franchise before, including the new television show (they can re-boot the premise as many times as they want and I'll still be its numero uno fan). I explicitly remember flicking through the channels one night in my mid-teens and Courtney Cox appeared on screen pacing through the college corridors. Thankfully I don't mind spoilers, including watching things in the wrong order, so starting on Scream 2 didn't prevent me from falling in love with its clever genre-bending horror-comedy storyline.
Friends
I think everyone was obsessed with Friends - but did you spend New Year's Eve inside by yourself watching a programme on its effect on western culture? No? Step aside.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
I was in two minds about including this. I do indeed love Buffy and believe it is one of the greatest television shows ever made (did you catch my 20th-anniversary blog?). However, my lack of access to digital channels did mean that my viewing was patchy, and I didn't watch it episode-to-episode until my early twenties. Either way, I will never tire of dissecting Buffy.
Veronica Mars
We all remember our first attempt at illegal online streaming, and this was mine. I caught the first season of Veronica Mars on E4 then.....nothing. So sneaking around online it was. But in all seriousness, this show was smart, had a sassy female lead (with a funky name) and a brilliant soundtrack. What's not to love?
The Powerpuff Girls
I told a white lie earlier; we actually did have ITV Digital for one year when my dad managed to blag a year's free subscription. Much to my parent's dismay, I glued myself to the Cartoon Network with The Powerpuff Girls being my programme of choice. I was a tomboy for a bit and fancied myself as a bit of a Buttercup even though I could barely throw a punch. I ended up with the nickname Mojojojo (naturally) for the last bit of primary school (I've never quite forgiven my childhood best friend for that one).
Bliss Magazine
Do magazines count as a fandom? Because I bought them religiously and even marked the release of the upcoming issue in my diary. Girl Talk was my natural introduction to magazines, before a brief fling with Shout during the summer between primary and high school, then finally settling on the monthly Bliss and weekly Sneak as my magazine subscriptions of choice.
I know neither could be described as 'geeky' per se, but when you're growing up in a non-geeky household and your friends also don't fit the geek mould, that was the best pop culture literature I had access to. Saying that, teenage magazines were amazing and I still firmly believe they were largely a good thing.
Harry Potter
I actually didn't get into Harry Potter until my late teens...and I started by watching 5th film in 2007 because why the hell not? The final two films were the only ones where I had read the book beforehand.
If you're ever looking to bump into me on purpose (which I'm sure you all are), attend some comedy shows in Glasgow and I'm guaranteed to show up at some point. For the purpose of this blog, I've even worked out that I've attended an average of four comedy shows a month since September (this is when I fell into the rabbit hole that is Glasgow comedy scene).
And because I can't quite get enough laughs in my life and four times a month isn't enough, I just had to check out the new Glee Comedy Club in Glasgow within weeks of its grand opening. (I wasn't previously familiar with Glee Clubs, but they are a chain of comedy clubs with venues already in Birmingham, Cardiff, Nottingham and Oxford, so they're a big deal)
Now, don't get me wrong I love the indie comedy nights I regularly attend in Glasgow (there is a blog on that half-finished in my drafts, but this blog is nipping ahead because Glee is topical and stuff). But almost all of these shows take place in a pub basement and sometimes you have to sit on those uncomfortable folding chairs with no padding. Look, I love a pub (there's booze) and I love a comedy show (there are giggles) but sometimes a girl wants a bit of glamour with her laughs.
And that's the gap in the market that Glee fills. Not only does it put on weekly comedy shows, but it also boasts a generous food and drinks menu, and - as I would find out when I attended last night - it's also stylish and well-decorated.
It's not bad value either. I won myself a discount code on Facebook for 50% off so me and my friend Emma (of Eat with Emma) managed to book ourselves a Show & Dinner Deal for £10 each. Normally it's £20 (which is still not bad!) and you can order your food in advance. You can choose from three pre-packaged meal choices (which is what we chose), or you can order a show ticket and add on some food from the wider menu. You can also pre-order your drinks, which includes cocktail pitchers, beer pitches (they looked a bit scary), and a bottle of wine.
And since most people who read my blog are looking for vegan content and I need to stay on-brand: there's vegan food. Quite a bit actually. I pre-ordered the Penang Curry as part of a pre-packaged deal, but the wider menu includes a vegan Margherita pizza (which I also ordered, because food) and a superfood salad. Plus there is fish finger sandwich, and a Portobello Mushroom burger that can be veganised! They even mark out which of their alcoholic drinks are vegan (if you're new here, drinks companies use fish bladders to give drinks that clear look...eurgh). And my pizza came with a lemon-scented hand wipe!
I know the next part of this review/rave is going to sound boring and like I'm turning into my mother, but bear with me. I'm a nervous person and a massive planner who hates leaving things to chance so I really appreciated the detailed confirmation e-mail (maybe it's the marketer in me who loves an informative e-mail). It had the normal things like confirming what show I had reserved, and for how many people. But it also confirmed that I didn't need to bring my email and instead just say my name at the desk, that we have been allocated a seat already, the rules of the club, and how I can add extra food and drink to my order. When we arrived a note was automatically sent to the kitchen to prepare our food.
(Note: the only thing I didn't like was that you couldn't choose your seats. Thankfully, Emma and I ended up three rows back, but you could see the terror on a group's face when they realised they had the front row...lol).
So there's vegan food, and a snazzy confirmation e-mail, but what about the actual comedy?
Aye, that was good too. Glee Club stages have been graced by some of the UK's most famous comedians and to get on the stage, you have to be experienced. So while I do love an indie comedy show where I discover new and local talent...it's nice to go in and know that you'll be watching comedians who have perfected their craft.
The comedians on last night were Rosco Mcclelland, Scott Gibson, Eleanor Tiernan & Ben Norris - and every single one of them made me clench my sides with laughter. Especially Eleanor when she talked openly about what it's like to be a vagina owner and how you never know "what will seep out of it next". I was remarking to Emma that it's refreshing to hear someone talk about a vagina on stage because (while I can appreciate dick humour) I can't relate (or always understand) when someone talks about having a penis, and a man turned around in front of us and said he agreed!
And just one final thing: the decor. It was still in a basement because apparently comedians really like a basement. But it was a trendy basement, with portraits of famous Scottish comedians on the wall, wooden panels on the floor, hipster lighting, and flowers in the toilets. I'm not complaining.
Seriously though, the staff at Glee Club offered some of the best customer service I've ever received anywhere, the comedians made me choke with laughter, and there was vegan food. Hands down, one of the best places in Glasgow for a low-key night out. It's a new favourite, and I might find my average number of comedy nights per month rise.
Glee is open Friday and Saturday, and you can book your tickets in advance on their website. The venue is on Renfrew Street, beside the giant Cineworld and opposute The Flying Duck.
Let's rewind to 1978: a time when neither myself, or most of the people read my blog, were born. It was an important year - at least if you're a big horror fan - as this was when Halloween was released and skyrocketed the slasher genre into mainstream consciousness.
Halloween is not my favourite horror film or franchise by any means (hello Scream) but it's hard to deny its influence. My apathy could probably be attributed to how dated it was by the time I got into horror films in the mid-00s - but it's more likely because the franchise as a whole got really out of hand.
Film franchises can get a bit wild if left unchecked, and Halloween was probably one of the worst examples of it. Spoiler alert if you haven't seen every film: but there have been (prior to the new one) 10 films with about three separate continuities. Laurie Strode has a daughter in one film but a son in another, and managed to get herself killed twice. There was a Rob Zombie re-boot. Plus a third film that had absolutely nothing to do with Michael Myers or Laurie Strode. And we can't forget about the one with Busta Rhymes doing kung-fu moves. I've seen them all, and I'm not recommending anyone follows my lead.
So when they announced they were making a new Halloween film set exactly 40 years after the original, I was a bit sceptical.
Until I saw the muthafuckin' trailer.
It looked fucking incredible. And the trailer clearly indicated - by mentioning that Laurie Strode is, in fact, not Michael Myers's sister - that the producers had decided to ignore those disorientated sequels and write the script as if none of the other films had ever been released.
Laurie Strode was only established as Michael Myers's much-younger sister in Halloween 2, so they were returning to the idea that Michael chose his original victims at random rather than as part of a revenge plot. The creators at the time of the trailer being released even said that the reason for this was because a murderer who had absolutely no personal reason for choosing his victims was a much more unsettling premise.
Now, I've always been able to take or leave Michael Myers as a villain. While I love the expressionless mask, the fact that we rarely see face, the muteness, his massive build, and the way he brazenly walks around with no fucks given - I usually prefer my villains a little bit more complex (or even morally ambiguous).
For me the real star of this franchise has always been Laurie Strode. While I have my issues with the Final Girl trope (get goods grades, don't have sex, or don't do drugs and you too will outsmart a serial killer! P.S. sluts die first) there's no denying that she is one of the best. Maybe it's because she has (almost) consistently been played by Jamie Lee Curtis, who could play a Teletubby and still hit it out the park.
And Laurie Strode did not disappoint in this film either. As is the case with a lot of films nowadays, she wasn't portrayed as someone who overcame her traumatic experience and went on to find peace with Michael safely behind bars. No. In the new film she is a crazy old lady who has been left severely impacted by her ordeal. In the trailer we can see that she has a Purge-esque house and mutters the words "Every night I pray he will escape so I can kill him". Because, in reality, it would be rare for someone to ever feel safe again after being stalked and almost killed by someone while they were just a teenager.
Plus, there are two new characters to add to the dynamic: Laurie Strode's daughter and granddaughter. Played by the fantastic Judy Greer and Andi Matichak, respectively.
But obviously, we all know that trailers can be misleading. So how did the actual film measure up?
When I visited my local cinema to watch it last Tuesday, I was pleasantly surprised to discover a film that found a sensible balance between paying homage to the original while still updating it enough that it wasn't the exact same film. Much like the Scream TV show (which I reviewed and raved about here) it kept the elements that made Halloween, well, Halloween. While Laurie had changed since the original, Michael Myers was the same hallow shell he had always been. He wore the same outfit, and we still don't see his face. His preferred victims still appear to be babysitters. There's a new psychiatrist who, like Dr Loomis, isn't that good at his job. Oh, and there's still the same iconic music and title card.
Honestly, for the first hour you're watching nearly the same film that came out in 1978, so for a while I was feeling a bit twitchy. But then came the final cat and mouse scene between Michael and Laurie, and it was everything I could have ever hoped it would be. I won't say exactly how it plays out but - while you see little homages here and there to the original - it isn't the same film. The closest showdown I can compare it to is Clarice Starling and Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs.
Another thing I noticed is that the film is more visually appealing than the original. In 2013, Netflix released The Curse of Chucky (and in 2017 the Cult of Chucky) and created a slasher film that was actually, uh, artistic? I don't have the vocabulary to describe film effects or visual styles but even an untrained eye can spot that the directors sat down to develop a concrete look and feel (with a lot of white and a dream-like hospital environment). Watch all the Chucky films and you'll see what I mean.
The slasher genre has never been typically associated with arty film types, and has even been looked down on by film lovers who consider themselves to have a more refined taste. I've never wished for slasher films to develop a stricter aesthetic because - as it has been argued time and time again - part of what makes slasher films appealing is their simplicity. But I'm not against this emerging trend either and directors should do what feels right for their film.
In the Halloween 2018 trailer we are greeted with a red and white checker-board; a clear indication that this was another slasher movie that had mapped out its visual elements. And you know what? I liked it. Its visuals weren't as structured as Curse of Chucky, but it was definitely slicker than the 1978 Halloween.
In a world where it feels as though every film and its soundtrack is getting re-booted or planning an unnecessary sequel, it can be hard not to role your eyes. There are a lot of franchises out there that like to milk as much money out of fans as they can instead of bowing out gracefully or waiting until they have a solid storyline before proceeding with a sequel.
Halloween 2018 was not one of those films (even if many of the other films in the franchise were guilty of being ridiculous). The storyline followed on nicely from the original 40 years ago, and had a generous scattering of Easter eggs - but still enough changes that it didn't feel like the same film all over again.
And that, Hollywood, is how you do a sequel.
Morag x
P.S. I have chatted to a few people who didn't think much of it, but then I asked them how into horror films they are and if they have seen the original - and it was a no. Maybe this is a film where only the lovers of the original will enjoy it.
You know all those super hot television shows that everyone was watching in 2017?
Stranger Things, Peaky Blinders, Riverdale, Orange is the New Black, Broadchurch, The Crown, GLOW, The Good Place, Dear White People, Silicon Valley, Mindhunter, The Handmaid's Tale, Twin Peaks....
...I've not see any of them*.
Because, since May, I've been knee-deep in the Arrowverse with the goal of completing all 300+ episodes by the time 2017 was out (which I managed). For anyone unfamiliar with the Arrowverse, it's a fictional universe comprised of the DC superhero shoes Arrow, Flash, Supergirl and DC's Legends of Tomorrow. So there's a lot of episodes, characters, and story lines to get your head around. It's the biggest tv-binge I've ever completed and I thankfully enjoyed it when I reached the end of the most recent episode. I regret nothing.
Here's why you should give it a try too, even if it will take you the best part of a year to complete. Lesser known comic heroes take the stage
I was originally inspired to start watching Arrow when I found out that Black Canary - one of my favourites - would be brought to life. While Black Canary isn't that unknown to comic fans, she's not exactly going to be popping up in the DC Cinematic Universe anytime soon, is she?
Other lesser-known characters that have been brought to life in the Arrowverse include Livewire, Captain Cold, Lena Luthor, Atom/Ray Palmer, Deathstroke, Damien Darhk, Vandal Savage, Vixen, Hawkgirl, Hawkboy, Kid Flash, Heatwave, Killer Frost, Vibe, Nyssa Al Ghul, Constantine, Firestorm, and Martian Manhunter all make an appearance.
You'll spot Easter eggs that reference the big-name superheroes
The Flash’s Welcome to Earth-2
The film studios have been protective about some of DC's big-gun superheroes so we're not going to see Batman or Wonder Woman in the Arroverse. But keep your eyes peeled and you'll catch the references. The most obvious was the back of Harley Quinn's head, but keep your ear's open for a conversation about Oracle and eyes wide for billboards with Ferris Air plastered across them.
A racially diverse cast
While the main characters - Supergirl, Arrow, and Flash - are all white (and that's not a good thing, main characters should be diverse too!), the wider cast is one of the most diverse I've seen. And they don't shy away from commentating on race either.
DC's Legends of Tomorrow is the most prominent example. Several members of the team are non-white, and when they go back in time to periods when racial tensions were far higher than they are now, it's not brushed under the carpet. One African American member of the team was so distraught by the treatment of the slaves that he frees them knowing it will blow up their current mission. And when they travel back to the 1950s, an older white male member of the team was reminiscing at what good a decade it was - only to be shut down by two members of the team who weren't white or straight.
And sorry racists, they changed Iris West's race for the show.
Women in STEM
Women are very rarely portrayed as scientific or tech geniuses in pop culture - not in the Arrowverse though. There's Felicity Smoak aka Overwatch: a hacker extraordinaire who is the eyes and ears at home base when Team Arrow run out on their nightly missions.
And there's Caitlin Snow. She's honestly a bit over-the-top and is some doctor/bio-engineer/chemist/hacker wonder women. But this is fiction and she's brilliant.
And LGBT+ characters
While it is frustrating that the writers haven't made Sara Lance utter the word bisexual, polysexual or pansexual - they don't use the word heterosexual or straight either. She consistently has relationships and casual flings with both men and women as the show progresses and her sexuality isn't treated as confusion or a stepping stone. But the word would still be nice....
Then over on Supergirl, we have a later-in-life coming out story. I won't say what character is it, but just that it is handled well.
A couple break up over wanting children/not wanting children
(I wasn't going to choose a gif that involved the couple due to spoilers, so here's one with Kara Danvers and Supergirl looking sheepish).
It's still rare in pop culture to see characters actively choosing not to have children. So it's no wonder that so many regular real-life people don't understand that some people make the choice not to have them.
It's refreshing to see a fictional couple realise that it doesn't matter how long you're with someone or how compatible you are otherwise - a partnership where someone wants children and someone doesn't can't have a long-term future. It makes this child-free lady fist pump.
(Monica and Richard Burke from Friends, and then Robyn from How I Met Your Mother are the only two examples I can think of).
The acting
While there are a few bad eggs here and there, the acting is second to none. Whether it's Tom Cavanagh playing multiple versions of Harrison Wells from different earths, or Grant Gustin playing a future version of The Flash, these actors know how to immerse themselves into a role.
You'll end up with a new fictional crush
It's Stephen Amell (Oliver Queen aka Arrow) everyone seems to be crushing over with his chiselled jawline and six-pack. But I've developed a little (okay, big) crush on Grant Gustin (Barry Allen aka Flash) because cute nerds with choppy hair cuts who wear Converse will always be my type. Plus, a male friend of mine totally has it for Felicity Smoak.
It's gives us DC fans something to watch
That's Thea Queen - ain't she cute?
I'm a DC girl through and through. However, even I know that the DC Cinematic Universe leaves a lot to be desired. All we have right now are the TV shows (and the animated series, which I've not seen, but heard amazing things about) until the film executives sort themselves out.
#TeamDC
Let me know if you'v watched the Arrowverse. What was your favourite bit?
* I did make an exception for 13 Reasons Why and Game of Thrones most recent season.
It's not like I haven't hinted at my feelings already. But I'm saying it officially: I'm no longer excited about the upcoming Batgirl film. Even back when it was first announced I didn't hide my confusion over the choice of director and an uneasiness on whether Batgirl was mainstream enough for the film to be a success. But as time has went on I've become less and less ecstatic about it.
A lot of this is to do with Joss Whedon. Those of us who like to geek out to film analysis, and have followed his work for a long time, already knew he was problematic. While the general public considered him feminist because he creates female characters who were powerful in a physical fight, those with a critical eye weren't blind to the lack of racial diversity in his work, the bi-erasure of Willow Rosenberg, creepy comments regarding Amber Benson's body, and spitting out the dummy over Charisma Carpenter's pregnancy.
But in August his cover was blown. His ex-wife spoke out about their marriage and how he wasn't quite the perfect little nice guy he had made himself out to be. I wasn't exactly surprised, but to have the confirmation from Kai Cole did make me even more disappointed that he was given the top job behind a female-lead superhero film.
Not just any female-lead superhero film, but Batgirl. She's my personal favourite and she's widely hailed as one of the most feminist characters in the DC Universe. Not only is she full of girl power, but she also has LGBTQ+ acquaintances and physical disability is part of her backstory. This is a film that requires the direction of someone who is sensitive to social justice issues. So, eh, not Joss Whedon then.
While Joss Whedon has incorporated social justice issues into his work, he has missed the mark on many occasions. This is what happens when someone (even the most well-intentioned ally) tries to speak on behalf of disadvantaged groups that they don't belong to.
One of the most obvious examples - to me anyway, my polysexual brain was startled straight (lol) away - is Willow Rosenberg's sexuality. Joss admitted that he had toyed with the idea of a Scooby coming out long before this storyline manifested. In fact, it wasn't until this scene that it was decided that it would be Willow and Tara.
They went on to become one of mainstream television's earliest same-sex couples, and I have no doubt Joss meant well by this. But those of us who fall under the polysexual umbrella didn't turn a blind eye to Willow identifying as gay. Did we imagine her infatuation with Xander? Or her healthy and loving relationship with Oz? Joss, this character has already had established romances with male characters - I think you need to do a bit more research on human sexuality, especially the bit about bisexuality being very real and valid.
Even when they break-up Willow speaks as though her love for Oz was real.
If Joss had carried out a focus group with LGBTQ+ fans of the show or hired an LGBT+ writer, these two things could have been avoided. This is why it's important to have diversity amongst directors and producers, not just cast members. And why allies should never think of themselves as saviours or possessing the same level of understanding as someone who lives the reality of that disadvantaged group.
This is why I want a woman at the helm of Batgirl. Even better, one with personal experience of LGBTQ+ issues and physical disability. Failing that, a female director who will do her research and seek opinions of these groups who do fit into these disadvantaged groups.
And, yes, I know it was Joss Whedon's idea to make a Batgirl film
In late August - in what looked like a PR stunt from the Whedon camp - it was reported that a standalone Batgirl film was not on Warner Bros radar until Joss pitched it. This does make sense given Batgirl's lack of mainstream clout. Why would Warner Bros consider a Batgirl film when they're already busy producing and promoting films involving Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Harley Quinn, Joker, Gothan City Sirens and Batman himself? Even though I love her, I can see why it wasn't on their radar (though I was hoping she would pop up within these films to help build her profile).
If this news was meant to make me glad Joss Whedon pitched the idea, you can wipe that smile off your face. It doesn't mean I should roll over and not complain about him getting the job, even if he was literally the only option. I wasn't even getting my hopes up for a Batgirl film, and I'm sure as hell could have waited longer.
There's also been a lot of talk that he won't use a famous actress, which further ignites my worry that this might be a financial flop. You could definitely argue that Aquaman isn't big guns enough to have his own film. But Jason Mamoa has star power and he'll have the Justice League films to help build up the character's fan base.
It problematic as fuck that we have to even think strategically about female-fronted superhero films. Superman vs Batman might have been a pile of balls and Jared Leto's Joker might have been cringeworthy - but these characters aren't going to be pulled. Even that George Cloony Batman film didn't kill the franchise. There will always be room for male superheroes, even when they produce flops.
But female superhero films? Wonder Woman was successful. Largely thanks to known actors, loyalty to the source material and great behind-the-scenes work. But the creative industries work in a capitalist system, and ultimately film execs decide what to produce based on balance sheets. And that is why it's important that every single female fronted superhero movie does well financially, because the studios will only produce more if they make them money.
I mean, you remember Catwoman in the mid-00s? What on earth was that movie? It's no wonder the industry waited a decade to produce another female-fronted superhero film.
Oh, and then there's that leaked Wonder Woman script
Joss Whedon really wants to produce a female-led superhero movie, because Batgirl isn't the first film he has pitched. Several years ago Joss wrote a Wonder script that never got made. And thank heavens it didn't. The script opens with the focus on Steve Trevor landing on Themyscira, and stumbling upon the beautiful Diana. From the outset Wonder Woman is taking a backseat in her own goddam movie as it we see her through the eyes of Steve Trevor. In the version that did get made (spoilers if you haven't seen it) the film starts with Wonder Women's backstory and then we're later introduced to Steve Trevor.
And the way he talks about other women in the cast isn't great either:
Thank you for reminding us that middle-aged women can still be beautiful and "in their prime". I thought they were all ugly.
And he decided to write the script while masturbating, evidently:
If Joss Whedon had been given the go-ahead, the film would have likely ended up being wanking material for 14-year-old boys. Rather than the strong and inspirational story for girls we ended up getting. No prizes for guessing which version I prefer.
Throughout the script Joss focused a lot on her love interest, Steve Trevor, more so than was probably necessary. The eventual 2017 film did feature him and they did kiss (because even Wonder Woman can't resist the puppy eyes of Chris Pine) - but their love story was not the focus of the film. The producers struck a nice balance between Steve being part of her life, but building her character to be more than just her romantic interests. Buffy might have been physically strong as hell, but a lot of her storylines still focused around her romantic life.
Will I go see the film? Probably. Batgirl is still the leader of my superhero Dream Team and I'm not going to pretend I'm not curious. But there's a large part of me hoping that Warner Brothers decide it's better off in the hands of someone other than Joss Whedon, or work the character up a bit more in another superhero film.
If you've spoken to me in the last two months about films, you'll know I'm going through a 90s phase. Specifically, films aimed at 90s teenagers who I was born a decade later than.
One of those films was Election. A 1999 dark comedy starring Matthew Broderick and a young Reese Witherperson as they fight their way through a high school election. Tracy Flick, Witherspoon's character and main antagonist, is that high school brown-noser we have all known. She is top of her class, always shoves her hand up first, is involved in multiple extra-curricular activities and feels entitled to success. She also struggles to make friends because no one can stand her.
We have all known a Tracy Flick
She's a character that is definitely interesting from a feminist angle, and I could feel my brain performing some critical analysis while I was listening. Turns out I'm not the only one. Even though the film was released before the internet was mainstream, many articles have been written on her character, posing the same question I'm asking with this blog. Journalists even compared her to Hillary Clinton (and Chris Klein's character, Paul, to Barrack Obama - more on that later). This is even despite the film being a box office bomb (but acclaimed by critics).
Tracy definitely wasn't scared of any glass ceiling. Which sadly, even in 2017, is still something to applaud and admire. She worked out the value of hard work very young, thanks to an encouraging (even slightly zealous) mother. I didn't do badly in school, but I definitely could have applied myself more than I did and taken a leaf out of Tracy's book. She was willing to go above and beyond to get good grades and plump out her college application - embarrassingly I didn't realise that a willingness to go the extra mile was one of the secrets to success until I started full-time work. We can learn a lot from the ambitious Tracy's of the world.
But reading all the required texts and putting 120% in every essay she wrote wasn't the only tactic Tracy was using. Tracy was also felt entitled to success and was willing to stick her elbows out to get it (sh'd be a textbook Capitalist Feminist). When she first finds out that Paul Metzler is running against her (she was previously running unopposed) she storms over to his election table and demands to know why. We see clips of her in the classroom where she isn't allowing other students the chance to speak. If you've seen the film, you'll know the scene where she rips down her opponents posters in the school halls in a fit of rage. All because two people chose to run against her.
I want to live in a world where women get ahead as equally and easily as men. I'm under no illusion that this is not yet the case. But I also want to live in world where people get ahead and promoted based on talent and hard work - and not because they ripped down someone else's campaign posters or stuck a straw up the manager's ass.
Tracy is also a job snob
This quote probably sums up her attitude perfectly:
Now that I have more life experience, I feel sorry for Mr. McAllister. I mean, anyone who's stuck in the same little room, wearing the same stupid clothes, saying the exact same things year after year for his whole life, while his students go on to good colleges, move to big cities and do great things and make loads of money... He's got to be at least a little jealous.
Since when is teaching seen as a low-level job? It requires a lot of training and is an important role that society requires. Ambitious Tracy types require good educators to get the ball rolling. As I get older and have more life experience, I've become even more disconnected with the idea that there are "real job" and "jobs". Or that being an underachiever or non-ambitious is a bad character trait.
We also see her at the end of the film working with a politician: a Republican no less. Ahem.
But let's take a step back from looking at Tracy as an individual and look at her place in wider society - and how that society influences her behaviour. Sexism still exists in schools and workplaces, and women do need to fight harder to be heard and get ahead. Tracy perhaps knew this and adjusted her behaviour to suit. Here is another quote from the film:
You might think it upset me that Paul Metzler had decided to run against me, but nothing could be further from the truth. He was no competition for me, it was like apples and oranges. I had to work a little harder, that's all. You see, I believe in the voters. They understand that elections aren't just popularity contests. They know this country was built by people just like me who work very hard and don't have everything handed to them on a silver spoon. Not like some rich kids who everybody likes because their fathers own Metzler Cement and give them trucks on their 16th birthday and throw them big parties all the time. No, they don't ever have to work for anything. They think they can just, all of a sudden, one day out of the blue, waltz right in with no qualifications whatsoever and try to take away what other people have worked for VERY, VERY hard for their entire lives! No, didn't bother me at all!
While this quote also demonstrates how self-entitled Tracy is, it shows how socially aware she is. She recognises that not everyone is born equal and how successful someone becomes is largely down to accident of birth. I'll speak more on Paul Metzler later, but he wasn't very ambitious but was a likeable good-looking white guy from a rich family - the demographic that gets a head start as soon as they're born.
Then there is the capitalism system that we work within. It encourages a survival of the fittest mentality, so it's no surprise people sharpen their elbows for success. Especially if they belong to a disenfranchised group.
Remember, this film was made in 1997 long before feminism and social justice were mainstream topics. Tracy was already recognising inequality that wouldn't get widely spoken about until two decades later. Girl was ahead of her time - and a little feminist shall I say.
But she isn't the only character worth speaking about from a feminist angle
Throughout the film Broderick's character, Jim, tries to sabotage her election (and future career) success. He's otherwise popular with the students, but he has a long term grudge against Tracy. Part of this is because she's annoying. But the other part is her student-teacher affair with Jim's best friend, Dave. Dave lost his job and wife because of the affair but Tracy got off unharmed and her involvement in the scandal remained a secret.
Statutory rape is statutory rape. Tracy may have been a willing participant (as it was depicted in the film) but teachers shouldn't be finding students who haven't finished puberty attractive. It's not said on camera, but Dave looked like he was in the late 30s or early 40s - what on earth someone in that age bracket would find attractive in a teenager I do not know.
Jim then goes on a mission to ruin Tracy's future. He is the one who talks popular Paul into running in the first place. He even throws away pro-Tracy ballot papers so that Paul can win the election. I don't like Tracy Flicks as much as the next Jim, but I've never tried to stop one from getting ahead. By trying to sabotage her election chances he was proving himself to not be any better than her.
And then there's Paul Metzler (said I'd eventually get to him)
He is a popular jock guy. Genuinely lovely student. He would make a great boyfriend. But class president? Not so sure. He's that male who gets ahead and is well liked just by being present. Though, despite not being as ambitious or hard-working as Tracy, he certainly has much better people skills. Anyone who was ever went outside their house to navigate high school and adult offices knows that good interpersonal skills are also a major factor in how well you'll do in life (both professionally and socially).
The media compared Barrack Obama to Paul Metzeler in 2008. Obama is definitely likeable and probably does have a better moral compass than most other politicians, but he wasn't exactly experienced when he first ran for President. Hilary Clinton (and even Sarah Palin) was definitely more qualified.
But my favourite character in the whole thing? Paul's sister, Tammy. She also runs for Class President to spite her secret ex-lover, Lisa, who starts dating Paul and becomes his campaign manager (that's one awkward love triangle, though Paul isn't aware).
Because she's right. My experience of pupil councils at school (I was even on it during my fourth year) is that they don't really change anything and people only run to impress universities. I wasn't that heavily involved in school extra-curricular activities but I was heavily involved in societies at university - and I'm not even going to deny that I was looking for CV boosters (and a way to avoid coursework).
Honestly, Tammy Metzler is probably the only feminist role model in the entire film (in a weird way).
I love my superheroes but when it comes to picking a personal favourite, it's Batgirl. Hands down. The first time I ever flicked through a Batgirl comic I was immediately taken by her balance between feisty and calm. Brainy but also good in a fight. Her redheaded-ness. And her vigilante backstory that is less I'm-a-rich-orphan-playboy-who's-parents-were-murdered and more I'm-going-to-fight-for-the-better-good-because-its-the-right-thing. (Internet nerds: I know Barbara Gordon isn't the only Batgirl, but she was the first one I became familiar with so pipe it down).
Obviously I am overjoyed at the news that Batgirl is getting her own film, with Joss Whedon at the helm (did I mention that I'm also a Buffy fan? Oh, I did...very recently). The announcement did take me by surprise because - despite personally being a big fan - I didn't think she was lucrative enough. I had high hopes of her showing up in another DCU film as a sidekick (I'm still not over that Jenna Malone 'surprise character') or even her own television show, but never thought someone would consider her for her own title film.
Which is why the nerves are kicking in a little. Will it be given the budget to compete with Avengers or Wonder Woman? Is she mainstream enough already or would it have been smarter for her to have a cameo elsewhere first? As with all film adaptions of our favourite comics and books: will they do it justice?
We'll have to wait and see, but in the mean time here are my hopes for the film. Are you listening Whedeon?
1. Joss Whedon employs female crew members
While Joss is very talented and I appreciate how many strong female characters he has created for the big and small screens, it's not enough. It doesn't fix the underlying problem of why there's a lack of strong female characters (answer: film execs are still mostly men). If Joss really is as much of an alley as he claims he'll be using his clout in the industry (and give up his own privilege) to discover and mentor talented young female directors/runners/script writers/special effects wizards/costume designers.
2. Gail Simone
On that note - wouldn't it be amazing to have the super talented Batgirl writer Gail Simone involved?
3. Feminist metaphors and undertones
One of the reasons why it's important Joss hires women to work with is to call him out and prevent any faux-pas (which all alleys do from time to time). Batgirl has always been a firm feminist favourite thanks to her intelligence and practical costume choices, so to not have a girl-power undertone would be out of place.
4. Stephanie Brown and Oracle
I know this will never happen as Barbara Gordon is the version of Batgirl most people are familiar with, but I love Stephanie pulling on the mask while Barbara is the brains behind the missions. While shooting Barbara in her back (while naked! as a plot device to hurt her dad!) was an absolutely ridiculous decision, the writers did what they could with the situation and created something amazing from something so shitty. Barbara Gordon/Oracle became one of the best representations of a wheelchair user in comics (and pop culture in general). It would be great to see this replicated for the big screen (or a TV show).
5. Black Canary
I think we can safely say that Birds of Prey isn't on the table (boo!) but Black Canary regularly pops up in Batgirl comics and she's one of my favourite non-central characters. She's currently on the TV show Arrow so has received some mainstream attention - maybe it's time for some more?
6. Dick Grayson
While the writers need to ensure that they don't make Barbara nothing more than a man's love interest, she and Dick Grayson are one of my favourite comic love stories. While their romance is on/off, whenever they share comic scenes I just feel it. I ship them like a teenager (so does Tumblr).
7. Alysia Yeoh
As Barbara Gordon's best friend in the New 52 incarnation, it would be difficult to not include her. As the first trans-gendered character in a mainstream comic, her inclusion would break new grounds and would be a great opportunity for a trans actress.
8. A Gotham City Sirens cameo
If there's an upcoming film where a Batgirl teaser cameo would make sense...it's the Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy and Catwomen mash-up. It would introduce her to a wider audience and we'd get a first glimpse of her, without it feeling forced.
9. Emma Stone
With some dubious casting choices recently made in the DCU, it's time fans were listened to. Emma Stone has been a top choice long before Batgirl was announced and I can picture her in the role. Though there are already rumours Lindsey Morgan will play her.
10. Suitable for teens (and maybe children)
The DCU has been a bit dark so far, and maybe its time to lighten it up a bit. If Whedon goes down a Batgirl of Burnside route then it could open the universe up to a younger audience. Even if he goes for a different incarnation of the character, she is a younger member of the Bat-family so a teenage-aimed film could totally work. It would be nice to have a superhero film that parents can actually take their kids along to without being traumatised.
11. That it's actually good
As a massive fan of Batgirl, I have a vested interest in this film doing well. But that's not the only reason. Female superheros aren't taken nearly as seriously and many internet nerds dismiss female superhero films - even before they're released. While female superheroes shouldn't have to prove themselves, they do - and it's not cool.
Plus I'm a DC girl at my very core and I think I speak for all fans when I say the DCU needs a film that can recapture the awesomeness of The Dark Knight. Not another Zack Snyder shitstorm.
For the past week my Facebook Newsfeed has been in a Buffy 20 year anniversary frenzy. Clearly the algorithms know me well as I'm a massive fan of the show and still rate it as one of the best ever made (and judging by the flood of articles, I'm not the only one).
So much, that it might surprise you to know that I didn't grow up with Buffy. It first aired in March 1997 meaning I was the humble age of six when it graced our screens. I actually did watch one or two episodes but the scene where Darla creeps up at the window behind Joyce Summer made me hide behind a pillow and I didn't watch an episode again until my teenage years. Heck, I didn't even binge watch the entire show until 2013! Clearly, this show ages well.
Given that I wasn't born early enough to make the threshold for having grown up with Buffy, I know several adults who haven't watched a single episode. I think this is wrong, and reckon anyone who hasn't watched it needs to do so pronto. Here are my top reasons. (with spoilers, duh)
1. The badass female characters
We all know Buffy herself breaks the mould - feminine but feisty and cutesy but ass-kicking. But the whole show is full of strong female characters, and that strength isn't necessarily supernatural. For girls like me who grew up shy and smart, Willow was our proof that we could grow up to be a talented super-powerful witch who successfully seduces Seth Green.
2. The metaphors and potential for geek analysis
The local high school being directly on top of the Hellmouth = high school is hell for a lot of us
Angel loses his soul after sleeping with Buffy = guy is nice until he gets to sleep with you
Willow's addiction to magic = general addiction
Love between creatures and bigotry towards different creatures = just general real-life bigotry
3. It wasn't all supernatural
We had Xander who - on the surface of things - was an annoying teenage boy with self-esteem issues. But he represented something important: he was proof that nobody needs superpowers to save the world. Buffy stated herself that he clocked more field time than any of the Scoobies put together, fixed the windows (Dawn was right, they did need fixing) and he - literally - did save the world with words of love.
Then we had Warren who serves as a painful reminder that humans can be just as evil as vampires and whathaveyou. And the heartbreaking death of Buffy's mother - a death that wasn't caused by a demon but a brain tumour, something we all know too well doesn't just take the lives of characters on a TV show. The same goes for Tara's death.
4. David Boreanaz
*drool* (#TeamAngel)
5. Successfully transitioning away from the high school setting
There's a lot of awesome TV shows that become not-so-awesome once the characters were forced the graduate. I actually enjoyed Sabrina's college years but I feel like I stand in the minority on that one. During her tenure Buffy transitioned from high school student, to college student (and dropout) to fully-fledged guardian of her younger sister. How many television shows that pulled that one off?
6. The passive humour
I've never been a fan of slapstick humour (JackAss? Not interested.) or punch lines, but give me California cool passive jokes and I'm rolling around. Here's a wee compilation.
7. But the show proved that didn't even need its dialogue
One of the most celebrated episodes of the season - and one of my personal favourites - was The Gentlemen. In case you're unfamiliar, the evil guys steal everyone's voices leaving the show to prove that it had more to offer audiences than just funny quips
8. The questionable clothing choices
The clothes in Buffy were awful. And not just awful in a dated 90s kind of way. Just awful. But that's partially what made the show and has become a massive in-joke for the show.
9. Willow and Tara
Willow and Tara were one of the earliest examples of a loving lesbian relationship on American TV and, to this day, remains one of the most positive representations. Joss Whedon wasn't allowed to explicitly show their love for each other on screen and he had to get clever prior to showing their first on-screen kiss.
10. It's a show for the misfits
The fact that the first two seasons were a massive metaphor for high school being hell makes it pretty obvious this show wasn't aimed at the popular kids who ruled the school hallways. If you ever felt out of place, Buffy was your gal.
There are two types of people in the world: those who read this blog title and thought I was genuinely asking what their favourite scary movie is and those who knew this blog would be about the Scream franchise. If you're the latter: can we be friends, please? I have friends I can speak incessantly to about Batman, but no one I can chat Scream theories to.
In all honestly though, sometimes people try to argue when I say Scream is one of my favourite franchises of all time.
It's the same argument: "the first one was great, but the 2nd and 3rd ones were okay and they really shouldn't have bothered with the 4th". We're all entitled to our opinions, but for me all the Scream films were brilliant and have went down in history as some of my personal favourites (in fact, my favourite Scream film is the third one - so suck on that!).
As you will (hopefully) know by now (and probably do know if you follow me on Twitter) is that Scream has recently been made into a TV series by MTV. I was cynical when it was first announced - because even though I loved the films, there have been other franchises I've loved that really should have bowed out gracefully (Sex and the City - are you listening? Sabrina, also looking at you). But they've not long finished the second season and I'm eagerly awaiting the third season to find out who the other killer is.
As an addendum, this is the final point where my love letter remains spoiler free. I don't know why you'd be reading a post about a film and tv show you've not fully seen yet and expecting no spoilers - but here's me spoon feeding it. If, like me, you don't mind spoilers (or have seen both the TV show and films) then read on.
One of the reasons I didn't think it would work, is the inevitable passing of time. Sure Scream did stay away from hideous 90s fashion so it does have a timeless look about it - but it still has been 20 years since the first one was released. Aren't the actors old now? Does the same set still exist? How can they aim a show at teenagers who weren't even born yet when the original film was released?
But the makers of the TV show didn't make all the same mistakes that other re-boots do. They aren't taking us back to Woodsboro again and again and again. They're not still trying to pass Neve Campbell off as a high school student (tbh, she didn't even pass as a high school student back then). And they're not taking Billy Loomis back from the dead.
The Scream writers were smart and kept what made Scream iconic: the killer who has watched one too many scary movies, the high school setting, the pop culture references, the whodunit, the creepy phone call, the voice. Those were the important parts - there's not a rule somewhere that Neve Campbell has to play Sidney Prescott until the day she dies (can someone let Hugh Jackman know this? I love Wolverine but it's time to let another character get centre stage). Other successful franchises go this route too. Think about James Bond - it has survived because they've switched up the actors and moved with the times.
In the Scream television series we are taken to Lakewood (not Woodsboro), the main character is Emma Duvall (not Sidney Prescott), the film geek is Noah Foster (not Randy Meeks), the original killer prior to the film is Brandon James (not Cotton Weary), and we even get a different mask! Oh and the killer doesn't just use phone calls anymore - there's text messaging and killer selfies! (This was a bit cringey at first, but you get used to it)
Despite the changes, the TV show still pays homage to the original films. The opening scene with Nina reflects that of Casey Becker, and the closing scene at Nina's house party mirrors the final kill-off in Scream 1. Which made my pop culture heart flutter - but I did wonder if audiences who hadn't seen the films might be a bit lost. Not actually, as I've found out from friends. The references just go over their heads and they continue to enjoy the show - which is an accolade to the talent of the writers.
However, the references do have a negative drawback - I was able to guess the killers because I've seen the films. I didn't pre-emptively identify Piper as the killer, but once it was revealed she was actually the half-sibling of Emma and her killing spree was an act of jealousy - I got a sense of dejavu. If you've seen the films you'll know that in Scream 3 it was revealed that Sidney had a half-sibling through her mum, who had been given up for adoption - and killed out of jealousy. So when season 2 started it didn't take long for my suspicions of Emma's boyfriend Kieran to grow because Sidney's boyfriend in Scream 1, Billy Loomis, had turned out to be the killer.
You might be reading this and thinking I'm an old codger who rants about the youth of today. If you are good at maths and know my exact date of birth - you might have noted that I was only 6 when the first film came out. I do actually have responsible parents who kept me away from age-inappropriate media, and I didn't watch Scream until I was roughly 15. The fact that I watched it almost a decade after its first release (and loved it) is a testament to its timelessness. Okay, there are a few things that give away its 90s-ness (covered in this funny YouTube video) but it has stood its test of time.
It wasn't until recently, however, that I discovered how important Scream was to the horror genre. Scary movies weren't having a good time in the early to mid 90s and Scream revitalised it. It was both a critical and financial success - due to its smart humour and cultural importance. The debate about whether slasher films encourage real-world killers is one that society still has today - and is actively discussed in the film. As Stu said "Movies don't make killers, they just make them more creative". The second film even comments on a lack of racial diversity in horror films:
The revelation that they're had been two killers made it stand out as well. Think about it: how many slasher films have two killers. Two killers makes it harder for the audience to identify the culprit (I managed to guess Kieran, but I spent a lot of series convinced there would be a second killer - my money was on Brooke, which I know will annoy a lot of fans).
Also, am I just old or is it really cool that the TV show includes a caption letting audiences know what song is currently playing? Is that new, or are all the cool shows doing it now?
To all that doubt Scream's brilliance and my love for it: 1) mind your own business and get back to whatever franchise is your favourite and 2) it saved the horror genre, managed to successfully launch a tv show two decades after the original and is full of pop culture references.
And I don't know what else you could want in a film.
