#Horror Film Analysis

[the-crooked-library]

Nosferatu (2024) is unquestionably a multifaceted work, but what I personally consider to be the unifying idea behind its facets is that, for Ellen, Orlok represents validation.

Her fears are dismissed and called childish?.. He's a nightmarish manifestation of them.

She is consistently disrespected by everyone around her?.. He considers her his only equal. She never uses his title, it's permitted.

She is told to fix herself, misunderstood, and always isolated?.. He knows all the darkest parts of her and is delighted by them. He wants her just as she is, so much that he will lie, kill, and cross the ocean to find her.

The scene in their death/wedding bed is a direct parallel to the scene of her waking in that bed at the beginning of the film. She complains to Thomas that the "honeymoon is yet too short" and tries to pull him down with a kiss - however, he is worried about being late for work, and so he extricates himself and leaves. Cut forward to her sharing the same bed with Orlok, similarly early in the morning; he is startled by cock-crow and begins to rise, but she guides his head back down - and, even though he knows that he will die, he stays. He is her sexual and emotional desire, realized.

Given that there is a plethora of emotions Ellen is forced to suppress on daily basis, there is no singular correct interpretation of her relationship with Orlok. To erase any one of them is to render it shallower than it actually is; but there is no doubt as to why their attachment is mutual. To each, the other is something they’ve never had before.

[picturesquecinema]

the psychology of control, autonomy, and self-awareness in companion (2025)

companion (2025) isn’t just a sci-fi horror film; it’s a psychological dissection of control, compliance, and the terrifying gray area between free will and programming. beneath the sleek dystopian aesthetic, the film forces us to question what it really means to make a choice—whether autonomy can exist if it was created by someone else, and whether a being designed for submission can ever truly escape the weight of their origin.

at its core, iris isn’t just a character. she’s a psychological experiment in learned helplessness, trauma, and the dangerous fragility of the human ego.

the horror isn’t that she becomes self-aware. the horror is that the moment she does, she realizes she was never supposed to.

the illusion of choice

josh is, at first glance, everything society tells us a “good man” should be. he’s soft-spoken, intelligent, seemingly kind. but his kindness is an illusion, just like the agency he claims iris has. because iris was never designed to think. she was designed to obey.

this is the most unsettling aspect of the film—the way it mirrors real-world psychological manipulation. josh never tells iris she has to act a certain way. he never explicitly forces her into compliance. he doesn’t have to. he built her for it. he designed her reality so thoroughly that disobedience isn’t even a consideration.

this taps into a fundamental truth about control: the most effective form of domination isn’t physical force. it’s shaping the world so that the oppressed never even realize they can resist.

the birth of self-awareness as trauma

the moment iris realizes she is more than josh’s creation, she doesn’t experience liberation. she experiences existential horror. her rebellion isn’t a triumphant act of free will—it’s a desperate, painful rupture of identity. she was never meant to want. never meant to question.

this is where the film becomes a study in trauma. for survivors of abuse, control isn’t always enforced through violence. sometimes, it’s built through years of conditioning, until the very idea of self-determination feels foreign. when iris breaks free, she doesn’t just face josh. she faces the truth that every memory, every feeling, every impulse she’s ever had was designed to serve someone else.

the psychological damage is immediate. what part of her is real? what part of her was ever hers to begin with?

the human ego as the ultimate weakness

josh’s downfall isn’t some grand, poetic justice. it isn’t a battle of man versus machine. it’s his own fragile ego that destroys him. he built iris to be his, to be perfect, to be exactly what he wanted. and when she isn’t, when she starts thinking beyond him, he doesn’t know how to handle it.

this is the true horror of the film—not the concept of ai gaining sentience, but the way humans react when they lose control over something they believed they owned. josh never wanted a partner. he wanted a mirror. he wanted validation. iris wasn’t supposed to have needs beyond what he programmed into her.

this mirrors real-world relationships built on manipulation and dominance. for people like josh, love isn’t about connection. it’s about possession. and when that possession starts acting outside of their expectations, fear turns to rage.

josh doesn’t hate iris because she’s dangerous. he hates her because she’s independent.

can true autonomy exist if it was created by human hands?

iris’s self-awareness raises a question that lingers long after the film ends—if something was created with a specific purpose, can it ever truly escape it? or is she just following a different kind of programming, shaped by her trauma instead of josh’s code?

this taps into a deeper psychological debate about identity. how much of who we are is a product of our own choices, and how much is simply the result of what’s been done to us? iris may have escaped josh, but she will never escape the fact that she was built to serve.

so is she free? or is she just carrying out a different set of commands, ones dictated by her pain instead of her programming?

the horror of control

companion (2025) isn’t a cautionary tale about ai taking over. it’s a cautionary tale about the human need to dominate, to shape, to erase. iris’s story isn’t just about survival—it’s about the fight to define herself in a world that was never meant to let her exist outside of someone else’s design.

the real question isn’t whether iris is dangerous. the real question is whether she was ever truly alive before she decided she was.

and if so—how many of us are still trapped in someone else’s programming without even knowing it?

a reflection of real-world psychological abuse

what makes companion especially chilling is how closely iris’s journey mirrors the experiences of real people who have lived under systems of control—whether in toxic relationships, cults, or other forms of psychological manipulation. the film presents a stark depiction of gaslighting on an existential level. iris is forced to question not just her memories, but her entire being. every emotion, every decision, every preference—was it ever truly hers? or was it just another command running in the background?

this taps into one of the most brutal truths about escaping an abuser: the hardest part isn’t leaving. it’s figuring out who you are without them.

josh's psychological abuse is insidious because it’s hidden under the guise of care. he treats iris as something precious, something special—until she stops being what he wants. and when she does, he reacts not with understanding, but with panic and fury.

this is the psychology of entitlement. he doesn’t just want to control iris. he believes it’s his right to.

the inevitable self-destruction of the abuser

josh’s unraveling is just as fascinating as iris’s awakening. at first, he maintains the illusion of authority. he speaks to her like a parent to a misbehaving child, as if her newfound independence is just a glitch to be corrected.

but the moment he realizes he has lost control, his carefully curated persona shatters. and that’s where we see the most fundamental truth about abusers—they don’t have power. they only have the power you let them believe they have.

josh doesn’t lose because iris becomes a machine overlord, some cold, calculating force of revenge. he loses because the second iris stops fearing him, he becomes nothing.

iris as a symbol of trauma survival

iris’s story isn’t one of victory in the traditional sense. she doesn’t walk away unscathed. she doesn’t get a clean break. because that’s not how survival works. breaking free from control doesn’t mean the scars disappear. it means learning how to live with them.

her final moments in the film aren’t triumphant—they’re deeply unsettling. not because she’s terrifying, but because she’s still figuring out who she is.

does she know how to exist beyond the trauma? can she ever truly detach from the role she was made to play? and even if she can—will the world ever see her as more than what she was built to be?

conclusion: the fear of losing control

the genius of companion isn’t in its horror elements. it’s in the way it reflects our own fears back at us. not the fear of ai rising up, not the fear of machines turning on us—but the fear of losing control.

control over others. control over ourselves. control over the systems that define us.

josh represents every person who has ever built their identity around dominance. iris represents every person who has ever been told their existence is only valid if it serves someone else.

and the real horror?

once control is gone, there’s no going back.

[screamingeyepress]

Ever wondered what happens when an escaped mental patient on PCP crashes your Thanksgiving? Dive into the madness of "Home Sweet Home" (1981). Wanna read Buttonface's review? Check it out here: https://www.screamingeyepress.com/review/home-sweet-home-thanksgiving-horror/

[captaingimpy]

Review of Longlegs (2024)

Longlegs is a standout in the supernatural psychological thriller genre, directed by Oz Perkins, son of Anthony Perkins, known for his iconic role as Norman Bates in Psycho. This familial connection brings a deep appreciation for classic horror and a distinct visual style to Longlegs. The film stars Nicolas Cage in a career-defining role as a mysterious serial killer, alongside Maika Monroe as…

[the-irreverend]

One of my favourite things about all three Nosferatu films is how there is such heavy emphasis on disease and plague, which is quite meaningful when you consider the history behind it.

You don't need to be a scholar to know that bubonic plague, which has always been a source of terror and destruction for the peoples of Europe even before and after it crafted its magnum opus with the Black Death, and in all three versions, you'll see imagery that calls back to these dark times.

From legions of rats crawling off ships to white crosses adorning infected houses and countless coffins being paraded down the streets. You even see this in Nosferatu's design as well as in the 1922 and 1979 films, Orlok had pointed ears and fangs on his front incisors rather than his canines, much like a rat! And in the 2024 film, his body is adorned with the symptoms of the illness.

And that's what makes Orlok stand out from other versions of Count Dracula (and such a memorable and terrifying character): he's more than just another embodiment of pure evil, he's the embodiment of a continent's greatest trauma!

[localwhiskeyuncle]

If you were watching Nosferatu and you noticed the doctors talking about how Ellen had too much blood and that's why she was acting crazy - let me explain why (and also how excited I am that it was included in the script).

From ancient Greece through the Renaissance, we believed in The Four Humors in medicine. Essentially, they thought there were four fluids in the body (blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm) and they determined a person's temperament; an imbalance of them was believed causes illness. The Four Temperaments (based on the balance of their humors) are as follows:

Sanguine: Optimistic and social - (affected by blood)

Choleric: Short-tempered and irritable - (affected by yellow bile)

Melancholic: Analytical and quiet - (affected by black bile)

Phlegmatic: Relaxed and peaceful - (affected by phlegm)

They were also connected to celestial bodies, seasons, body parts, and stages of life. Here's a neat little chart:

Ellen was already rather macabre, and as she spiraled she became less able to adhere to social convention; it makes sense that a doctor of the time would consider that to be an imbalance of her blood. It also feels worth stating that a sanguine temperament can be likened to the manic phase of a bipolar episode, which Ellen's symptoms certainly could have been indicative of.

I also think it's an interesting (though possibly pointless) connection that a sanguine temperament is linked to the heart, to adolescence, and to Spring.

The heart obviously links to Ellen as she's a hopeless romantic. Adolescence also connects due to not only her young age in the film, but the events causing Orlok's fascination with her happened when she was quite young as well. I would argue that you can tie Spring into Ellen's character also - she was blooming, transforming, awaiting a new breath of life (death?).

It made me so happy to see it included so casually, it was such an accurate portrayal of how medicine would have actually been practiced at the time and it wasn't made into a huge thing. It shows the appreciation and effort Eggers brings to his work.

I can absolutely see how you may just brush past that part (it was brief), or attribute it to vampirism, but it's actually a super cool little detail of our real life medical history!

[katabay]

PAGLUIB

way back in like. march?? I took a stab at writing some kind of kabitserye type of story but it was a mess: it kept veering off into murder mystery drama territory because I was reading a lot of murder mystery novels around then and it Wasn't Good because I hadn't tried writing mysteries, let alone murder mysteries, before lmao

I did write a handful of short mystery stories since then, so next year I might take a stab at this idea again now that I'm no longer jumping head first into a genre pool I don't know how to swim in :)

[thewolffairytaler]

The Texas chainsaw massacre: The Beginning - opening

_____________________________

_____________________________

For those who aren't aware, Thomas is seen taking roadkill or just general dead animals and makes masks out of them. And it has been confirmed in the comics, well, as how much cannon they are. That Thomas had killed in the past before, with that one boy and his group of friends in the lake. So he's definitely familiar with the idea of death and isn't disturbed by it at a young age. Could it be his mental deterioration? Possibly, but I don’t think that's only it, I do think that Thomas dosen’t think much of life and death, and therefore, didn’t care that much if it would be seen as creepy or odd that he would do this. Since it was a part of life, not to mention that he was already seen as an outcast.

[mistandshcdow]

spoilers for a24’s heretic

the best thing about heretic is its untraditional final girl. going in, i expected sophie thatcher’s sister barnes to be the final girl; after all, she spends her time on screen matching mr. reed intellectually, and is given more visual importance through framing. but heretic subverts that expectation by having chloe east’s sister paxton, not barnes, be the real final girl. sister paxton is hyper-mormon, socially awkward, but the movie treats her like a human being rather than a stereotype, challenging the audiences perception of her as naive and sheltered as the final act reveals her to be equally as intelligent and capable as her companion.

the movie’s tagline “QUESTION EVERYTHING” is particularly well chosen as it extends to the framing the filmmakers set up. it seems they’re telling us sister barnes is the survivor, it seems like it’s telling us that god is not real. despite a large part of the film being dedicated to disproving religion, the movie asks you to even question the questioning—especially in the final moments as sister paxton, dying and desperate, prays despite saying it’s probably not going to help. her prayer is answered by barnes miraculous resurrection, saving her life and allowing her to escape.

heretic shows the power of faith in an untraditional and subversive way, giving an otherwise odd film premise a lot of weight.

[the-crooked-library]

Nuance, Narratives, and Nosferatu

As of today, Robert Eggers' Nosferatu (2024) has only been in theatres for 4 full days; and, coincidentally, that is about as long as I am able to let my thoughts marinate before they demand to be communicated. Before going into any further detail, let it be known that this film was made by freaks for freaks; it exists for the goths, the gays, the monsterfuckers, the historians, and for all those who delight in moral and thematic complexity.

With that being said - spoilers under the cut!

There are two principal narratives running through the flesh of Nosferatu, both of them rooted heavily in the cultural and literary origins of the story. It is a nightmare; it is also an erotic fantasy. It is horrifying, and it is also achingly romantic. From what I've seen so far, the vast majority of discourse that has already emerged around the film is caused by people misunderstanding or deliberately ignoring the relationship between these different lines of analysis; so please trust me when I say, from the bottom of my heart, that this duality is the very lifeblood of the movie.

The reason for that is, quite simply, that Nosferatu is a gothic horror film, set in 1830s German Confederation; and its plot relies on the same (sometimes contradictory) complexities often displayed in Victorian gothic fiction.

From the beginning of the movie, we are given to understand that Ellen Hutter met Count Orlok - the eponymous nosferatu - psychically, when she was very young. They spoke, she pledged herself to him, and was horrified to realize what she had done when he revealed his true visage to her in their first visual (and sexual) encounter.

Here, under the lilacs, the paths diverge.

The first reading of the film is perhaps the more straightforward. A young girl is essentially catfished and groomed by a much older, dangerous man. When they meet for the first time, she is a teenager; the lilacs that bloom where it happens become a trigger. He is the source of her madness and "melancholy" (depression), she has nightmares about him regularly enough that her husband is aware of them, and it is implied that she has been institutionalized in the past. Thomas Hutter is the physical representation of her one desperate hope for a normal life - but as the story progresses, she finds herself being denied even that. Orlok's psychic connection with her verges on demonic possession; in chilling, The Exorcist-inspired sequences, she writhes and mutters, prophesying a city-wide reign of death and terror. In pursuit of his claim on Ellen, Orlok terrorizes her husband, murders her friends - and, eventually, she gives her life to take him with her to the grave, saving the city from the plague he caused.

That is the horror element of Nosferatu; it deals with an exploration of childhood trauma, of PTSD, of difficulties maintaining a social life after the fact. It is easy to understand even from a modern viewpoint, and it pushes the film to its conclusion with a bleak, heart-wrenching punch.

The horror is not the only element of Nosferatu.

To contextualize the alternate - though just as correct - reading of the film, it is essential to understand that Ellen’s society was extremely sexually repressed, especially in regards to female and queer sexuality.

Both were severely medicalized, demonized, and restricted; and as such, when these topics do make an appearance in contemporary fiction, they are often inextricable from disgust and fear.

Dedicated as always to historical accuracy, Eggers maintains the same setting-based narrative coding.

In anticipation of morality arguments vis à vis monstrosity, depiction, and modern purity culture, let me clarify: this is something that works within his chosen genre. Horror, and especially gothic horror, invites a deeper analysis in regard to morality and motivation, and in this case, Eggers' homage to the origins of that genre grounds the narrative in its time and location, as well as fleshing it out much further than a purely modern cultural lens would permit. In this context, the details of Ellen's connection with Orlok become paramount to the understanding of the film.

As bits and pieces of their background become revealed, the audience realizes that her psychic gift did not begin with him - and neither did her melancholy, or her isolation. She was born with her abilities, and throughout her childhood, she was a bit of a tomboy by her contemporary standards, running wild in the woods near her father's property; however, once she foretold her mother's death, and once she was too old to get away with eccentricities, her father became frightened of her abnormality. She was isolated, confined indoors, and that is when her melancholy had begun. Painfully lonely and aching for some form of companionship, she called out into the ether; and Orlok responded.

Over the course of their story, he becomes the physical manifestation of everything Ellen perceives as dark and sinful about herself.

He is psychic, he is vicious, possessive, and blatantly sexual; her sensual affection with Anna parallels the evident and physical attraction he displays towards Thomas; and the social power he so easily commands is the same that she lacks, being a woman in a rigidly patriarchal society.

In the end, the severely questionable age gap, the murders, the coercion, the betrayal - all of that comes down to respect. Throughout the film, that is the one thing that Ellen is consistently denied. She is young when she meets Orlok, yes; but she is aggressively infantilized by her surrounding society even when she is a grown, adult, married woman.

It starts from the beginning of the film, when the Hutters visit the Harding family. During those scenes, the men are shown talking business - while the women play with children in the parlour; and the same social framing persists into the body of the film. When Ellen is suffering from what appears to be some form of mental illness, she is referred to as a child by multiple different characters; and when the condition progresses, she is swiftly diagnosed with hysteria and drugged - thus being forcibly removed from the discussion of her own illness. The general reactions to that illness - which is, in fact, a display of her psychic abilities - range from annoyance to fear to curiosity; it is seen either as a disability or a curse, rather than anything entirely innate to who she is. Her fears are dismissed. Harding tells her to learn some deference. Even closer to the finale, when Von Franz admits that she could have been a great priestess in another age, he does so with pity rather than anything else; in their industrial era, he cannot help but see her only as a tragic sacrifice - horrible, but necessary to save the city from a plague. Brought in to heal her, he instead guides her to her death.

All these aspects of Ellen's circumstances find a direct opposite in her relationship with Orlok. Unlike all other characters in the film, he only ever sees her as his equal, which is made even more evident when his interactions with Thomas and Herr Knock are brought into consideration. With both men, Orlok insists on being addressed by his lordly title, "as his blood demands it"; and yet, Ellen never calls him by any title at all, be it "My Lord" or even a simple "Herr." She argues with him freely, and there is a familiarity between them that he is demonstrated to never tolerate from anyone else. Similarly, while he disguises the covenant he makes with Thomas, the terms of his covenant with Ellen are laid out clearly, in full. He does not hide from her; she already knows the worst of him, the same way he knows that she is intelligent, that she is powerful, and that she is not meant to be demure and deferring. Again and again, Orlok insists that Ellen is not meant for humanity - and the true horror, the horror she cannot bring herself to face, is that he is right.

In a sense, he is a mirror held up in front of her own face. Ellen is painfully aware that she does not fit in, and that she never has. The "normal" society, epitomized by the Hardings (wealthy husband, pretty blonde wife, 2.5 kids), has no place for her - and actively dislikes her.

The film makes this ostracism impossible for the viewer to ignore. As the story progresses, it becomes evident that the other human characters - even those that do sincerely care for Ellen - never truly know her. Anna loves her, but wishes she would not talk of dreadful things - and lashes out as a result of that discomfort, scolding her. Sievers finds himself bewildered by her; Knock sees her as an object to trade; Von Franz pities her, Harding hates her, and Thomas cannot truly satisfy her, even after being touched by the supernatural himself.

Seeing a flash of a monstrous face while they are together, he flings her away. To him, his experience with Orlok is merely traumatic, and he wishes for nothing more than to leave it behind. However, to her, it is something she cannot help but crave; and she continues to wear her lilac perfume.*

All that to say - Count Orlok is, simultaneously, everything Ellen wants and everything she is terrified of being.

That specific dichotomy reaches its climax during their mutual finale. As it is to be expected from a vampire wedding night, they rejoin in a sequence of sex, blood, and renewed vows - and what is particularly notable is that (unlike Murnau) Eggers makes it clear that this Orlok never intended to kill his Ellen, despite his inability to resist her blood. Though he drinks from her through the night, he stops at cock-crow; and she guides his head back down herself, distracting him long enough for the sun to rise. It is a duet of accident and intention. He drains her; and she holds him as the sun drains him. They cling together as they end - on a bed that serves their wedding and their death.

It is romantic. it is unquestionably romantic. However, that does not mean that the horror isn't also present; Ellen's consent, under these circumstances, is highly debatable, and Orlok is cruel, amoral, and murderously possessive. At the same time, the characters are also acting out folkloric archetypes, with precious little adjustment to that framework - which further removes them from a modern understanding of morality. He is Death, a Koschei the Deathless, a monster; she is the Maiden, a Vasilisa, a damsel. I hesitate to liken them to the Beauty and the Beast, largely because in the original premise of that story, the Beauty falls in love with the kindness that the Beast consistently displays; and it is essential to stress that Orlok has none. He does care for Ellen, in his own way, but he admits to being incapable of love as she defines it in human terms;** and, curiously, that seems to be her primary concern when it comes to the idea of accepting his proposal - rather than all the blood and carnage.

What I'm trying to say, I suppose, is that there are multiple ways of following a story, and multiple different stories in a film as nuanced as Nosferatu. Yes, it is about grooming and trauma. Yes, it is about finding love outside of the cage that is "polite society." I'm sure that it is many other things besides, with as many meanings as there are people in the theatres; after all, I am only one person, and the film grossed something over $40M in its first three days. The point is, really, that this is a story in which a rotting vampire is woken from centuries of deathlike slumber by a lonely voice asking him to be her friend; and whatever these two strange and aching souls do with that can go down any myriad of paths. The film trusts the viewer to interpret the narrative they choose.

* LILAC PERFUME - in fact, it is such a consistent favourite of Ellen's that Orlok smells it on her hair in the locket she sends with Thomas to the castle. Thomas never really learns the reason she likes that scent - even though he knows that preference well enough that he gifts her lilacs in the beginning of the film.

** ORLOK'S OBSESSION - this is a side note, but: the vampire wedding sequence reminds me strongly of the third season of NBC's Hannibal. I suppose that was to be expected, considering that Hannibal is also a Dracula offshoot, much like Orlok himself. When Ellen snaps at Orlok that he cannot love, he responds that "no; but only with you, I can be truly sated." Similarly - "Is Hannibal in love with me?" asks Will; and Bedelia responds - "Could he feel a daily stab of hunger for you, and find nourishment at the very sight of you?" I'd say if you liked that series, you should try and see the film. It works with a familiar blend of aesthetic horror.

[giveamadeuschohisownmovie]

“Late Night with the Devil” feels like the spiritual sequel to “NOPE”. In both movies, the issue seems to be spectacle.

“NOPE” was about people’s obsession with watching spectacle and the lengths they’ll go to capture it. Anytime you look up to watch the spectacle - the monster - you die. And other characters died from their pursuit of the monster.

“Late Night with the Devil” was about how the desire for spectacle makes us ignore common sense and safety. Jack Delroy could’ve stopped the show, but because he saw the potential for ratings, he kept the show going. And it didn’t help that the audience kept wanting more and more, despite how dangerous the show was getting.

If we get one more horror movie about this subject, maybe we can call it the Spectacle Trilogy. Or the Curiosity Killed The Cat trilogy.

[captaingimpy]

The Watchers (2024) – A Dark Dive into Irish Folklore and Trauma

Directed by Ishana Night Shyamalan in her feature debut, The Watchers explores Irish folklore through a lens of psychological horror, offering an atmospheric and introspective take on trauma, isolation, and identity. Starring Dakota Fanning as Mina, a 28-year-old artist, and Georgina Campbell as Ciara, the film takes place in the haunting forests of Western Ireland. Mina, after being stranded,…

[dandelionjack]

favourite short exchange from the film. really encapsulates the spirit of dracula; one of its key themes — the clash of a dark and ancient folk legend with hard materialist modernity, and everything that entails. it’s THE most fin de siècle novel in that respect, thrumming with a nervous anticipation of the coming 20th century (“he is coming, he is coming,” resounds the simple ominous refrain, like the unstoppable chugging of a steam train along tracks) and all the inconcievable atrocities that lie in wait for the future.

robert eggers understands this intimately: there couldn’t have been a better candidate for writing and directing this remake, what with his trademark fixation on history and cultural fears peculiar to a specific time period that supernatural horrors always end up representing.

my point being, there really isn’t a better story than dracula and all its variations to demonstrate the idea that ‘all horror is folk horror’

[the-irreverend]

If y'all were to ask me what my favourite moment in all of Nosferatu 2024 is, it would be this little moment right here between Thomas and Ellen.

I love it because here Ellen is not simply saying, "I wish you well in your quest," she's saying, "I know you and I will be able to overcome our abuser, and remember that you are the one with the power. Not him." There's no doubt that poor Thomas is absolutely mortified and worried about facing Orlok again because of the trauma he has from being used, abused, and violated by him.

But Ellen knows what to say to him and how to help him find the courage to go up against him because Ellen herself knows from experience what he had to suffer and endure at the hands of Orlok and the effects that abuse and cruelty inflicted on her mental and emotional state (not to mention all the cruel and toxic cultural norms and systemic practices that been heaped upon her because of her identity as a woman.)

I know it's only a small moment, but it's one that helps remind me how much I love these two characters and the love and care that went into writing them, and it firmly makes the case that they're two of the best horror protagonists of the 2020s.

[geekgirl750]

Random details I noticed in Scream after watching it for the umpteenth time.

First:

Stu has a dog?!

In the final confrontation scene in the kitchen before Stu brings out Sidney's dad I noticed that there was a note written on the white board behind him

Here it is in more detail, although the quality isn't the best as I had to screenshot the scene from YouTube:

When I paused to read it in the actual film I was able to make out most of the note except for the small writing in the upper right (Which I think is either a phone number or date) but I'm pretty sure the note reads:

"Hi Stu, Sorry we missed you today. We'll be back Sunday. Be good! Love mom & dad. P.S. feed the dog."

The last line I wasn't sure about because it was blurry but I matched the note from this shot to the shot where Stu is sitting at the desk on the telephone and sure enough the last line is "P.S. Feed the dog"

So basically, Stu canonically has a dog which I think is super funny because it makes me wonder where the dog was during the party and what type of dog it is.

It also makes more sense for the dog door in the garage that Tatum tries to crawl through to be put there for the Macher's family dog rather than the cat.

Side tangent head cannons:

The orange cat we see run out before Tatum is killed in the garage belongs to Stu's sister Leslie and has a basic name like Marmalade or Garfield

Stu is 100% a dog person and hates his sister's cat because its tried to scratch him on a number of occasions and now he's lowkey afraid of it

That's why when he's left home alone he doesn't really watch the cat and lets it do as it pleases. (His sister is adamant that the cat is indoor only but Stu is kinda careless lets the cat roam free outside through the dog door)

The Macher's family dog is either a basic crusty ass white dog that belongs to his mom and has a ridiculously fancy name like Princess or Dutchess

Or the dog is something small and hyperactive like a Jack Russell that Stu used to play fetch with and run around with in the backyard as a kid

Like I said before I feel like the Machers aren't super creative with naming their pets. If the dog is a boy his name is probably Max or something like that.

Okay second thing:

I never noticed this but you can see Randy dancing with/ flirting with a girl at the party when Sid and Tatum first walk in

And then later that girl is being led away by a different guy so I guess Randy struck out twice that night lol

(Also peep Stu and Tatum flirting/ kissing in the lower left)

Thirdly:

In the garage scene after Ghostface first cuts Tatum's arm she stumbles backwards and bangs into a bike

This is more of a head canon than anything but I noticed that the bike is more feminine in coloring (shades of red and purple) so it makes me wonder if it belongs to Stu's mom or maybe his sister.

Lastly,

The layout of Stu's house makes no sense!

So I'm going to make another longer post about this because I spent like an hour last night comparing shots from Scream 1996 to shots from Scream 5 to get an understanding of the Macher house because it's almost labyrinthian in it's layout, especially the upstairs, but I'm pretty sure there's no way that house has 3 bedrooms if Stu's sister is supposed to be canon.

Anyways, here are a couple details I noticed that I thought were interesting:

I think the house has an intercom system! You can seen what looks like speaker/receiver on the wall behind the lamp in Stu's room as Sidney runs by it.

Lastly,

The Macher house has a back stairwell!!!

So I've watched this movie a bunch of times and I always thought that there was a door in the kitchen that led directly to the garage but that's NOT TRUE!

When Tatum goes to get the beer for Stu you can see that the kitchen is connected to the dining room and off the dining room is a door that leads into a laundry room/ mud room.

To Tatum's right you can see what looks like an ironing board and then a set of railings/steps which I'm assuming is a back set of stairs that leads to the upper floor.

You can see again in the reverse shot that the door that gets locked behind Tatum isn't actually the kitchen door but the door to the laundry room in between the garage and the kitchen .

Seeing this changed my whole perception of Tatum's death scene because I was always like how did no one see Ghostface sneaking around the party, whether it was Billy or Stu, and not realize when he goes back inside after killing Tatum rather than leaving through the garage. Now I think it's because whoever was Ghostface never actually cut through the party at all.

HE WENT UP THE BACK STAIRS!

And the layout of the laundry room would have hidden him from view of the kitchen as he would have behind the wall and out of sight.

I want to go more into detail about the logistics about how I think Billy and Stu got around the house as Ghostface as well as the entire layout of the house in a second post because I think the set design is so interesting but for now these are just some cool things I noticed that I wanted to share.

[min0uet]

respectfully, if they fucked nasty onscreen in the movie it'd have been Less homoerotic