The “Scream” movie franchise, known for its meta commentary on the horror genre and the subversion of expectations, has always been defined by its reflection of the current times. The first “Scream” movie, released in 1996, became famous for breaking the fourth wall and commenting on horror movies while experiencing a similar scene. That film defied expectations with the reveal of two killers at the end, making it stand out from other slasher flicks at the time.
This commentary on current trends in horror films became the standard for “Scream” films. It’s one of the elements that helped the franchise withstand the test of time. In “Scream 4” (2011), the commentary was that people today don’t need talent or skills to become famous, they just need to withstand something traumatizing.
In “Scream 5” (2022), the killers drone on about franchise revitalization and how a popular series will often live on past its expiration date, just for the sake of making a quick buck at the fans and the series’ expense. “Scream 7,” now in theaters, covers all these events, but not in the way anyone hoped it would. This time, instead of commentating on these aspects, it has become them.
“Scream 7,” has been in and out of the news for roughly two years after controversially parting ways with lead actress Melissa Barrera (“Scream 5” and “Scream 6”). Barerra’s firing was announced by Paramount in Nov. 2023 following a series of stories Barerra uploaded on her Instagram account that were considered “antisemitic.” According to Variety magazine, she reportedly reshared a post accusing Israel of “genocide and ethnic cleansing.” She said she was questioning the lack of media coverage of the Palestinian side of the Gaza-Israeli conflict.
In a statement issued by the production company Spyglass, for Variety magazine, the company stated, “Spyglass’ stance is unequivocally clear: We have zero tolerance for antisemitism or the incitement of hate in any form, including false references to genocide, ethnic cleansing, Holocaust distortion or anything that flagrantly crosses the line into hate speech,” as their reason for cutting ties with Barerra. This even led to there being pro-Palestine protestors at the “Scream 7” Los Angeles premiere, which took place Feb 25.
Since then, it has been speculated that Paramount, the U.S. distribution company behind the franchise, has a list of actors and actresses they have blacklisted for speaking out about what is happening in Gaza.
Shortly after Barerra’s firing, Christopher Landon, the original director of “Scream 7” and Barerra’s co-star Jenna Ortega exited the film. While both
originally gave alternative explanations, Landon and Ortega have separately told Variety that they left in connection to the wrongful firing of Barrera.
This was not the only controversy facing “Scream 7.” In the wake of the movie’s release, they allowed the likenesses of the “Scream” characters to be used in a commercial for the controversial gambling website Kalshi, and also partnered with Meta AI to promote the “Scream 7” movie by using scenes from the film to personalize social media posts.
With all the controversies leading up to the release of the film, viewers expected big results. The movie itself, however, does not have much to say. It seems to exist just for the sake of existing.
After firing Barerra, the production company could have chosen to take a break in the series, as they have in the past. There was an 11-year-gap between “Scream 3” and “Scream 4,” and another 11-year-gap between “Scream 4” and “Scream 5.”
Instead, rather defiantly, they chose to rush production of “Scream 7,” without Barerra in the cast. According to Variety, the company spent $500,000 in rewrites and another $7 million to bring back actress Neve Campbell who starred in the first five films. The result was a movie with the lowest fan and critic scores in the entire franchise, and a crowd of people wondering “how did we end up here?”
I believe “Scream 7” will go down in history, but not for the reasons the fans or creators hoped it would. I think in the future, the production and reception of “Scream 7” will be seen as unintentionally mirroring the current Trump administration and the public’s reaction towards the current state of U.S. politics.
“Scream 7” seems to exist solely for the sake of saying, “Look, we can still make a “Scream” film without the lead actress or the public’s approval.”
This is the same feeling I get when I look at the current U.S. administration. How many policies has Trump ignored, rules has he broken or, now that we’re in a war with Iran, lives that have been lost simply for the sake of him being able to prove no one would stop him?
Whether it’s the arrest of journalist Don Lemon for covering a demonstration against the ICE protests at a church in Minnesota (his right under the 1st Amendment), or starting a war in Iran without congressional approval, so much of what the administration is doing is the equivalent of an almost brazen middle finger to the country, saying “I don’t need your approval. I can do it anyway.”
That is the energy that “Scream 7” brings to the table.
Over the weekend, in a desperate attempt to distract from the fact he is allegedly mentioned 38,000 times in the infamous files of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Esptein, Trump has teamed up with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to declare war on Iran. This was done without congressional approval as outlined in the War Powers Act of 1973.
In a similar way, Spyglass attempted to distract fans from the fact that they fired their lead actress over a free speech issue. To try to bury this, “Scream 7” resorted to baiting the audience with nostalgia to try to fill theaters by bringing back past cast members Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox, along with Matthew Lillard (Stu Macher), David Arquette (Dewey Riley), Laurie Metcalf (Nancy Loomis) and Scott Foley (Roman Bridgers). It was nothing more than an excuse to get people talking about the movie for reasons beyond the controversies.
Horror movies, intentionally or not, have always been a political genre, whether it is in-your-face commentary, such as in the “The Purge” franchise, or with a more subtle approach. Filmmakers play on the fears of their audiences. It makes sense that the horrors portrayed in these films portray the times the film is created in and what is scary at the moment.
“Panem et circensus” is a Latin phrase that translates to “bread and circuses.” This phrase comes from the belief that food and entertainment are the two things a government body needs to keep their citizens under control.
This phrase can be used to sum up what is happening both with “Scream 7” and the current U.S. government administration.
The “Scream 7” production team using past stars and flashy ads is meant to distract you from the controversies around it, just as the war with Iran that Trump declared without congressional approval is meant to distract from the Epstein files and his alleged entanglement in them.
“Scream” as a franchise has always reflected the times, but this time, it reflects the actions off-camera instead of in the movie.
Between the firing of Melissa Barerra, the use of Meta AI to recreate scenes from the film for social media, the nostalgia baiting and the boycott at the film’s LA premiere, I believe that “Scream 7” will be remembered as a film that documents just how far we have fallen when it comes to the U.S. Constitution and protected speech in the so-called “land of the free” and what lengths those in charge will go to distract those watching.
