This post contains spoilers for “Smile 2.”
Before writer/director Parker Finn sits down to write a script, he has to know the ending. “Smile 2” ends in astounding fashion, with pop star Skye Riley (a tremendous Naomi Scott) killing herself on stage in front of hundreds, or maybe even thousands, of adoring fans. Previously in the “Smile” movies, the curse — known as the Smile Entity — had just been passed from one person to the next, but this ending ramps up the possibilities in a huge way. Finn knows some savvy horror fans might have immediately come to that conclusion as soon as the premise of this bigger, better sequel was announced, but that doesn’t bother him one bit.
“For me, it felt like the inevitable place that we would take Skye’s story, and that it didn’t matter if that thought occurred to people, because the journey of how we get there is going to be surprising and effective, and the execution of that ending was hopefully going to blow out whatever anybody might’ve had in their mind to get there,” he told me in a recent interview tied to the film’s home release. (“Smile 2” is available on Digital today, and coming to 4K/Blu-ray/DVD in January.)
The execution was flawless, and Finn was looking to get under the viewer’s skin with the way that scene plays out. Part of his goal was to tie Skye’s fate directly to us, the moviegoing audience.
Did audiences cause Skye’s death by watching Smile 2?
One prong of Finn’s two-pronged approach involved turning the spotlight on us as viewers and essentially interrogating us about what we want to see in movies like this and why. “I wanted to blur the lines between reality and fiction with this character of Skye, but also to have this meta commentary at the end about not only the audience [in the arena] staring through the screen at the audience in the movie theater […] this idea that, are we somehow complicit in what’s happened here by coming back for a ‘Smile 2’? Have we done this to Skye? Which feels very apropos to celebrity, and fandom, and parasocial relationships,” the filmmaker told me.
The second prong asks a question about the nature of celebrity and the responsibility that comes with gaining a voice as a public person. “On the other side of the coin, [I wanted to explore] this idea of celebrities, and people with platforms, and their influence over large swaths of people,” he continued. “And it felt so deliciously ‘Smile’ to sort of say, ‘This influence, this person who’s literally on stage, literally on a platform, and what she is spreading into the world.’ That felt very exciting to me.”
That aspect of the movie hits a little differently in the wake of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, which saw pop stars like Taylor Swift and Beyonce endorse Kamala Harris, only for Donald Trump to ultimately win. Perhaps the pop star platform isn’t quite as powerful or influential as we all assumed.
You can hear my full interview with Finn on today’s episode of the /Film Daily podcast:
You can subscribe to /Film Daily on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and send your feedback, questions, comments, concerns, and mailbag topics to us at bpearson@slashfilm.com. Please leave your name and general geographic location in case we mention your e-mail on the air.