Posts

Showing posts from October, 2018

1996, the best year in movie history, pt. 8: Scream

Tonight is Halloween, and so this month’s essay is about Dead Teenager movies in general and Scream in particular.

Though it came out in 1996, Scream seems to belong to the later 1990s or early 2000s. Surely this is because of its many sequels, imitators, and parodies.

I’m not an authority on Dead Teenager movies. I haven’t seen very many of them, and my understanding of the genre must be old-fashioned. Nevertheless, I’m going to present my view of its artistic merits and limitations.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

The theme of a Dead Teenager movie is punishment. Gruesome death is meted out for misdeeds.

Misdeeds in a Dead Teenager movie may be terrible or innocuous. If they’re innocuous, then the punishment is for sin as such.

Thus, a Dead Teenager movie is a like a morality play.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

This interpretive framework is more flexible than may initially appear. Consider that it accommodates:

(1) The terrifying It Follows – the best Dead Teenager movie of recent years – although, in that movie, there’s no singular punisher. (It Follows is more like Robert Louis Stevenson’s “The Bottle Imp” than like a paradigmatic “slasher” tale, e.g., Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None.)

(2) The Virgin Suicides, in which teenagers punish their parents by punishing themselves.

Scream follows the traditional “slasher” pattern.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

The theme of punishing teenagers is especially urgent to those obsessed with the niceties of teen conduct – I mean, the teenagers themselves. It’s less important to those who’ve outgrown that stage of life. We forgive a person’s youthful acts once we notice that he or she has learned to behave like an adult.

Whenever I view the scything down of a movie teenager, I lament the prematurity of it. I regret that this person never will have the chance to outgrow the teen stage. To my adult eyes, it matters little whether, in that moment, the teenager deserves to be butchered with a knife (or crushed by a garage door, or impaled upon a fence).

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

So, I think that the Dead Teenager genre is, at best, compelling to a teenaged (or teen-minded) audience – whose members probably shouldn’t be watching the sex and violence anyway. And if a certain movie is no better than a fine specimen of that genre – which is the usual assessment of Scream – then it’s subject to the same criticism.

All right: I’ve lowered Scream down into a hole. Now, I’ll try to lift it out.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Scream is thought to have occassioned a paradigm shift for the Dead Teenager genre. It’s often noted that the teenagers in Scream are well-versed in horror-movie conventions. They’ve all seen Halloween, Friday the 13th, and A Nightmare on Elm Street countless times. Thus they know which characters in their own social circle “deserve” to be killed and which “deserve” to be spared.

That is, unlike their cinematic forerunners, they’re able to apply the earlier movies’ lessons to their own lives.

(The guru in Scream who articulates much of the horror-movie “wisdom” is a geeky video store clerk. But the other characters share his worldview. All judge their lives by the same horror-movie laws.)

Ever since Scream was released, movies have depicted teenagers as living, breathing encyclopedias of popular culture. And this depiction is accurate. I don’t know to what extent Scream helped to make teenagers this way; maybe it just documented something already in full bloom. Indisputably, though, other movies followed Scream in depicting teenagers as culturally hyperaware.

Scream is hardly the first relentlessly allusive screenwork. Other examples from the same decade include The Simpsons and the movies of Quentin Tarantino. In those works, however, the allusiveness is ornamental (or else it’s the whole point, which makes the work not much different from a quiz show). Scream’s allusiveness has a more interesting purpose. Its teenagers cite previous horror movies in the manner of Puritans citing the Bible, as if those movies were sources of practical wisdom. Pop culture and, especially, recent horror movies are what make up these teenagers’ canon.

And this is the crucial fact that makes Scream more than an exercise in a largely irrelevant genre. Scream is a commentary on the flaw that defines teenaged immaturity, which is this:

Teenagers, despite their lack of experience, are supremely confident in the “wisdom” they glean from the culture in their immediate vicinity.

This flaw is imperceptible to teenagers. Only adults can see it.

Why do the teenagers in Scream kill and die?

Because horror movies tell them to.

Why do they obey the horror movies?

Because they haven’t lived long enough to acquire wisdom anywhere else (and, at this stage, their parents seem useless to them as sources of wisdom).

Nor, in their youthful zeal, are the teenagers able to question whether horror movies contain all the wisdom there is.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

One character in Scream is not like the others. This is Dewey (David Arquette), the twenty-four-year-old deputy sheriff. Dewey is shy and self-effacing. He’s no genius. He makes mistakes. He’s barely an adult, as he repeatedly points out.

But compared to the teenagers, he’s a model of clear-headedness.

Another character – Casey Becker, played by Drew Barrymore – is a cutie-pie brimming with teenaged zest.


A lesser Dead Teenager movie would have made Casey its heroine. But, as we all know, Scream disposes of her after just one scene.

Dodgers 3, Red Sox 2

Last night, Karin & I watched the first half of Alfred Hitchcock’s Rebecca. Then we turned it off, agreeing to save the rest for later. We were tired, and we wanted to see what was happening in Game 3 of the World Series.

The Dodgers and Red Sox were tied with one regular inning to go. We decided to watch the rest of the game. (It was about eleven o’clock.)

Ha! The game went into its tenth, eleventh, and twelfth innings. The managers made moves and countermoves. Runners populated the bases but were stranded by gritty pitching.

Long after midnight, Karin went to bed.

The thirteenth inning was wild. Each team committed a blunder that allowed the other to score. The game was still tied at the beginning of the fourteenth inning.

Then, the quality of play worsened. Batters stopped trying to get on base: they swung hard at every pitch, hoping to quickly finish the contest. There were many flyouts and strikeouts. At the end of the seventeenth inning, I decided that nothing of interest would follow, and I went to bed. It was after 3:00am.

Sure enough, the Red Sox failed to reach first base in the top of the eighteenth, and the Dodgers then won by hitting a leadoff home run. It had been the longest game in World Series history – the equivalent of two games, inning-wise; and, time-wise, longer than the entire World Series of 1939. I’d watched half of it.

As I type, the teams are tied in Game 4. It’s the top of the ninth. …

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Update: The Red Sox scored five runs in the top of the ninth.

Update: The Dodgers managed just three more runs.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Update (Sunday): The Red Sox won Game 5 and clinched the World Series.

Woes

Most days, my students drop by unannounced, and I tutor them in the order in which they arrive. On Wednesdays, though, I tutor them by appointment. The disadvantage of the “by appointment” system is that I don’t get paid if a student cancels thirty minutes before the starting-time. (Moreover, when a student misses an appointment without canceling, I receive payment only for the first thirty minutes of the non-tutorial.)

Today, I met with one student at ten o’clock and with another at eleven o’clock. I worked with each student for one hour. Then I had lunch. All of that was OK.

Then, a student missed her one-o’clock appointment (she overslept, she later told me in an email). I obtained credit for thirty minutes of work. Also, because this was her second unexcused absence, I canceled her privilege to continue making tutoring appointments.

At 1:15, another student canceled her 2:00–4:00 appointment due to illness. At 3:30, the next student canceled his 4:05 appointment. (More illness – “the runs.”) And a little after 5:00, the last student called to reschedule her appointment (she’d had a workplace emergency).

So, although I was at the job longer than seven hours, I earned payment for about 2.75 of them.

It was similar two weeks ago. Wednesdays are generally pretty bad.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Also, tonight, Elders Johnathon and Richard canceled the supper they were supposed to cook for us.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Yesterday was pretty awful, too. I had to miss work for the draining of a trichilemmal cyst on the back of my neck. (If you want to see some disgusting photos, perform a Google search for the word “cyst”; my own cyst was much handsomer than those depicted.) The procedure hurt like hell. Afterward, I had to wear a very uncomfortable bandage.

When my surgery was over, I wasted much time at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. I went there to update my ID card. After a long wait, my number was called, but I was told I’d failed to meet certain requirements for my objective.

During the wait, I reread a good chunk of J.M. Coetzee’s Life & Times of Michael K, the great South African novel of Kafkaesque misery. It got me feeling sorry for myself.

I decided that it might be funny the next time to bring along Kafka’s own stories to the BMV.

Poor Jonah

Long-term readers of this blog (are there any short-term readers?) will recall that Jonah is my favorite book of the Bible.

They won’t be surprised, then, to hear that I was excited about the new sermon series at my church: “Jonah: Not the Story You Remember.”

(I’d helped to put up the letters of the church sign that announced this series’s title. On its reverse side, the sign admonished: “Tweet Others as You Would Have Them Tweet You.”)

And yet, I doubted: Would I really hear anything new (or unremembered) about Jonah?

It transpired that I would. Our new young pastor began yesterday’s sermon by having us recall Jonah’s brief appearance in 2 Kings 14:25:
Jeroboam II recovered the territories of Israel between Lebo-hamath and the Dead Sea, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had promised through Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath-hepher.
[New Living Translation]
Equipped with this verse, our pastor eagerly described the historical context of the book of Jonah. He was guilty of three inaccuracies:

(1) He said that during Jonah’s prophesying, Israel’s king was Jehoash II. (It was Jeroboam II.)

(2) He said that Assyria and Israel were archenemies. (Not quite: Assyria and Israel were less like cat and dog and more like lion and mouse.)

And (3) he said that the book of Jonah could be dated to approximately 750–800 years before Christ’s birth. (Again, no; it was written during the post-exilic period.)

Then he performed an exegesis of Jonah 1, highlighting three costs of Jonah’s disobedience: the financial cost (Jonah had to buy a ticket for his voyage), the physical cost (Jonah was so tired, he slept through the storm), and the social cost (Jonah retired to the hold of the ship, away from his shipmates).

Despairing, Karin & I turned to the commentary in Karin’s Jesus-Centered Bible (NLT). This was much better:
There’s humor in how Jonah is a successful “evangelist” in spite of himself, in the same way Inspector Clouseau is a successful detective in the Pink Panther comedies. He does everything wrong, but it always turns out right.

There’s an unmistakable element of Jewish comedy in the story of Jonah, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a very serious message – a theology of mercy – buried in the humor. In the story of Jonah, the Jewish people learned to regard their election as God’s chosen people with humility and even self-deprecating humor. God would prop up the nation of Israel as a light to the Gentiles, not because they were better than other nations, but simply because God had called them just as he’d called the irascible Jonah. And Jonah is a good prophet not because he is a good man, but because God is a merciful God.

Later, this theology of mercy will find full expression in the life and teaching of Jesus.
Cheered by this commentary, I’ve decided to pray: Lord, exercise Your mercy: Let our new pastor be successful in the manner of the prophet Jonah.

Helaman 5:12

Tonight, Karin & I had a quiet supper with the Elders. One of them liked our cooking so well, he took a second helping.

Then we discussed our respective churches – especially, their missionary predilections.

And later, as if to fulfill his duty, one of the Elders read us a verse from The Book of Mormon:
And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo [sic?], because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall. [Helaman 5:12]
What about Job, I asked. Though he was God-fearing, didn’t the devil drag him down into the gulf of misery, so to speak?

Job did endure a little misery, they answered. But things got better for him. (His woe wasn’t endless.)

Ah, OK.

We’d love to have supper with you again next week, they said.

How about you cook it the next time, I suggested.

October’s poems

Two in iambic tetrameter.

First, “The Character of a Happy Life” by Sir Henry Wotton.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
How happy is he born and taught
That serveth not another’s will;
Whose armour is his honest thought,
And simple truth his utmost skill!

Whose passions not his masters are,
Whose soul is still prepared for death,
Untied unto the world by care
Of public fame or private breath;

Who envies none that chance doth raise;
Nor vice; who never understood
How deepest wounds are given by praise;
Nor rules of state, but rules of good;

Who hath his life from rumours freed;
Whose conscience is his strong retreat;
Whose state can neither flatterers feed,
Nor ruin make oppressors great;

Who God doth late and early pray
More of His grace than gifts to lend;
And entertains the harmless day
With a religious book or friend;

– This man is freed from servile bands
Of hope to rise or fear to fall:
Lord of himself, though not of lands,
And having nothing, yet hath all.
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Second – and which is even more famous – “An Irish Airman Foresees His Death” by William Butler Yeats.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
I know that I shall meet my fate
Somewhere among the clouds above;
Those that I fight I do not hate,
Those that I guard I do not love;
My country is Kiltartan Cross,
My countrymen Kiltartan’s poor,
No likely end could bring them loss
Or leave them happier than before.
Nor law, nor duty bade me fight,
Nor public men, nor cheering crowds,
A lonely impulse of delight
Drove to this tumult in the clouds;
I balanced all, brought all to mind,
The years to come seemed waste of breath,
A waste of breath the years behind
In balance with this life, this death.
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Another ambitious read

Karin has “beaten” the Rugrats in Paris video game.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

A tutee of mine, writing about Fielding’s Joseph Andrews, is quite taken with the titular character’s virtue.

I, not so much. But the assignment has piqued my interest in Fielding, and I’ve decided to read Tom Jones. Afterward, I’ll be able to watch the movie in good conscience. It’s supposed to feature Albert Finney prancing up and down the countryside as a young man.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

The Elders saw me tonight at Barnes & Noble. They asked if I’d read much of the Book of Mormon lately, and I had to say I hadn’t.

I promised to discuss more of it with them on Wednesday.

Before then, I must turn in a dissertation chapter, or two, to my adviser.

A glitch

Karin played Rugrats in Paris for three days. Then her avatar, Chuckie, got stuck in a doorway.

She tried for hours to get him out, but only managed to warp the display.


She had to quit the game and start again at the beginning.

I wish I had juicier news, but this is as tasty as I can deliver at the moment.

Karin’s birth week

We’ve celebrated as follows:

Last Saturday, we trudged around and around inside Thistleberry Farms’s Lord of the Rings-themed corn maze. It was none too easy. Toward the end, it became perilous: the sky darkened, and we only reached the exit fifteen minutes before closing time.

It was nearly as tiring as Frodo’s and Sam’s journey with the One Ring.

On Monday, we ate chicken wings with Karin’s dad and his two other children: Lily, Karin’s sister, and Julian, Karin’s stepbrother. It left Karin & me feeling quite poorly.

Wednesday was the birthday itself. We did very little. My parents sent a monetary gift through PayPal. Others sent Facebook greetings. I ordered an Agatha Christie book for myself.

On Thursday, Karin’s mom gave her some cash. Karin & I went to a used-media store and bought seven movies and one video game, Rugrats in Paris, which Karin played the rest of the night.

Yesterday (Friday), we ate Italian food with Mary & Martin and Stephen & Edoarda. When we got home, I ordered this puzzle for Karin:


Then the Mormons came over for a while. After they left, Karin played Rugrats in Paris.

Today, we’re going to buy some sale-priced frozen yogurt.

We aren’t Kardashians, but we’ve still managed to have a nice little week-long party.

Brett Kavanaugh

Various bloggers and Facebook friends – Democrats, Republicans, and “independents” – have been sharing articles and blog posts under, roughly, the following description: “This is the best item I’ve read about the U.S. Supreme Court candidacy of Brett Kavanaugh and the allegations against him by Christine Blasey Ford.” The pieces they’ve shared have expressed a wide range of views about the affair.

Well, this article by Nathan J. Robinson is the best thing I’ve read.

It’s meticulous.

It confirms what I thought when I heard Kavanaugh give his testimony: This guy seems dishonest, and his reasoning is shoddy enough that his appointment to the Supreme Court would be a disaster.

Not all of Robinson’s arguments are convincing. But more than enough of them are.

Some conclusions:

(1) Perjury: Kavanaugh told falsehoods under oath. Again and again. Sometimes on purpose, and sometimes with a reckless disregard for the truth. And he did so concerning issues that matter to his own credibility, to the credibility of his accuser, and to the discovery of the truth.

(2) Evasion: In response to straightforward questions, Kavanaugh changed the subject. Again and again. …

(3) Testimonial sufficiency: Certain “subjective” considerations (such as the aggressiveness of Kavanaugh’s tone) are much less important than the content of the testimonies. This content, along with fact-checking, suffices to establish (1) and (2). And (1) and (2), along with plausible principles about who may be appointed as a judge (e.g., “An appointee must not be recently guilty of perjury”), suffice to disqualify Kavanaugh as a judge in the Supreme Court (or anywhere!). As Robinson puts it: “At this point there is absolutely no need” for further investigation “unless Christine Blasey Ford wants it.”

To summarize: even if Kavanaugh didn’t assault Ford, he certainly lied and, in other ways, made the truth harder rather than easier to assess. These facts should disqualify him from being allowed to join the Supreme Court.