Nobody Loves A Final Girl
So a few days ago, I read this article wherein Kevin Williamson posits that Sidney could become Ghostface in one of the future Scream movies.
NO. THIS IS STUPID.
And here's why: it's the same reason I've been bitching about the decay of horror movies since they recast Nancy Thompson. Because it ruins audience relatability to the Final Girl (WARNING: TV TROPES LINK; TIE OFF A ROPE) and destroys any character growth or potential.
Obviously of course it's possible - hell, it's even somewhat logical - that after all Sidney Prescott's been through in her life, she could easily snap and go crazy, even murderously so. Ghostface has been such a huge part of her life that it's easy to see where she couldn't function without him/her (depending on the installment) to define herself as a heroine, or even as a person. So sure, that's a great idea on paper, but it's still stupid. Why would you want to see that? Why would you pay money to see that? Sidney's been the center of all the Scream movies. I actually can't name a character in a horror franchise who has survived as many sequels as she has intact (feel free to research that, but I bet I'm right).
To take Sidney and break her in any way negates her power, and in doing so, actually hurts the audience. The goal of any film is to engage the viewer, preferably by having them identify with the main character. In horror, you want the audience to empathize with the victims, not the killers. There is a wonderful interview with Heather Langenkamp over at Ain't It Cool News, where she is asked about her thoughts on the NOES *spit* remake, and she answers thusly:
"[A] lot of people - boys and girls - say, 'You know, I looked at Nancy, and that helped me get through things that I was dealing with. She was such a strong heroine, and she faced her fears.' All these great things they say about Nancy. So I juxtaposed those really warm feelings with the marketing and the growth of the 'Freddy Mania' culture, which you see when you're at these conventions...My real thought was 'When did our culture start idolizing boogeymen, and try to sweep under the carpet the role of the hero?' It's not just in A Nightmare On Elm Street.' The role of the hero is actually kind of corny; it's a quaint notion...even in the cover art for [Nightmare Part 1]...it used to have that wonderful poster of Nancy on the front; now, the new editions only have Freddy and the glove. They're very stylized: it's all about Freddy, and the role of the heroic character has really been kind of moved onto the side....the original Nancy Thompson was kind of groundbreaking in that she was female and she was kickass and very resourceful; she really attacked Freddy and went after him. I want to see if that's still her role in the twenty-first century. Or have we switched back to where it's just victim after victim?"
Exactly. Trust Heather Langenkamp to say in a few sound bites what it takes me to opine on in blog post after blog post. Sure, Freddy looks cool, and he's a big draw and a horror icon, and Freddy is a fantastic villain and I can't praise his creation enough. But Freddy is the villain. Sure, you can identify with Freddy - everyone has that dark part of their psyche - but when you start rooting for him to win, to be the centerpiece of Nightmare, you've got some serious fucking problems. And so do the producers, because then they're doing it wrong.
To be really and truly horrified - it's called the horror genre, people - the viewer should be able to see themselves in the main character. In horror's case, this is more often than not the Final Girl, who embodies vulnerability (what we all probably are in the face of a psycho killer) and resourcefulness/bravery (our wish-fulfillment of what we'd like to be in her stead). She triumphs over impossible odds, even sometimes at the cost of her own life (Dream Warriors). But she's indefatigable (I suppose maybe not so much in Nancy's case, this franchise considered) and inevitably a heroic figure. The Final Girl is an ideal.
So why ruin Sidney Prescott? Why take three films' worth of courage and character development, around four-point-five hours' worth of viewer investment in and identification with this character, and throw it out with yesterday's trash? Because whatever you do to the Final Girl, you do it to us.
And I don't know about you, but I won't put up with being treated like crap by a human being, much less a Hollywood producer.
NO. THIS IS STUPID.
And here's why: it's the same reason I've been bitching about the decay of horror movies since they recast Nancy Thompson. Because it ruins audience relatability to the Final Girl (WARNING: TV TROPES LINK; TIE OFF A ROPE) and destroys any character growth or potential.
Obviously of course it's possible - hell, it's even somewhat logical - that after all Sidney Prescott's been through in her life, she could easily snap and go crazy, even murderously so. Ghostface has been such a huge part of her life that it's easy to see where she couldn't function without him/her (depending on the installment) to define herself as a heroine, or even as a person. So sure, that's a great idea on paper, but it's still stupid. Why would you want to see that? Why would you pay money to see that? Sidney's been the center of all the Scream movies. I actually can't name a character in a horror franchise who has survived as many sequels as she has intact (feel free to research that, but I bet I'm right).
To take Sidney and break her in any way negates her power, and in doing so, actually hurts the audience. The goal of any film is to engage the viewer, preferably by having them identify with the main character. In horror, you want the audience to empathize with the victims, not the killers. There is a wonderful interview with Heather Langenkamp over at Ain't It Cool News, where she is asked about her thoughts on the NOES *spit* remake, and she answers thusly:
"[A] lot of people - boys and girls - say, 'You know, I looked at Nancy, and that helped me get through things that I was dealing with. She was such a strong heroine, and she faced her fears.' All these great things they say about Nancy. So I juxtaposed those really warm feelings with the marketing and the growth of the 'Freddy Mania' culture, which you see when you're at these conventions...My real thought was 'When did our culture start idolizing boogeymen, and try to sweep under the carpet the role of the hero?' It's not just in A Nightmare On Elm Street.' The role of the hero is actually kind of corny; it's a quaint notion...even in the cover art for [Nightmare Part 1]...it used to have that wonderful poster of Nancy on the front; now, the new editions only have Freddy and the glove. They're very stylized: it's all about Freddy, and the role of the heroic character has really been kind of moved onto the side....the original Nancy Thompson was kind of groundbreaking in that she was female and she was kickass and very resourceful; she really attacked Freddy and went after him. I want to see if that's still her role in the twenty-first century. Or have we switched back to where it's just victim after victim?"
Exactly. Trust Heather Langenkamp to say in a few sound bites what it takes me to opine on in blog post after blog post. Sure, Freddy looks cool, and he's a big draw and a horror icon, and Freddy is a fantastic villain and I can't praise his creation enough. But Freddy is the villain. Sure, you can identify with Freddy - everyone has that dark part of their psyche - but when you start rooting for him to win, to be the centerpiece of Nightmare, you've got some serious fucking problems. And so do the producers, because then they're doing it wrong.
To be really and truly horrified - it's called the horror genre, people - the viewer should be able to see themselves in the main character. In horror's case, this is more often than not the Final Girl, who embodies vulnerability (what we all probably are in the face of a psycho killer) and resourcefulness/bravery (our wish-fulfillment of what we'd like to be in her stead). She triumphs over impossible odds, even sometimes at the cost of her own life (Dream Warriors). But she's indefatigable (I suppose maybe not so much in Nancy's case, this franchise considered) and inevitably a heroic figure. The Final Girl is an ideal.
So why ruin Sidney Prescott? Why take three films' worth of courage and character development, around four-point-five hours' worth of viewer investment in and identification with this character, and throw it out with yesterday's trash? Because whatever you do to the Final Girl, you do it to us.
And I don't know about you, but I won't put up with being treated like crap by a human being, much less a Hollywood producer.