Lilli Keeve
Between 1996 and 1999, American cinema witnessed an explosion of teen horror movies. Some include Wes Craven’s Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer, The Craft, The Faculty, and The Blair Witch Project, with Scream setting a precedent for studio expectations, box office success, and positive critical reception. But, many films during this period went undetected, never receiving the recognition they deserved, getting pushed aside due to a lengthy list of teen horror bait being pumped out because of pressure from studio executives.A film on this list was The X-Files alum David Nutter’s 1998 horror sci-fi flick Disturbing Behavior, which drew inspiration from The Stepford Wives and parallels the brainwashing conditioning tactics utilized in A Clockwork Orange.
The movie takes place in the dreary Washington town of Cradle Bay, symbolizing a fresh start for teenager Steve Clark (James Marsden) and his family grappling with the devastating loss of their eldest son, Allen, (Ethan Embry) and things seem off from the beginning with Cradle Bay High’s group of model-like citizens called the Blue Ribbons. Despite its flaws, Disturbing Behavior is a relatable vehicle for teens of the time, presenting a fully realized and horrifyingly utopic vision of a society where adults are the true villains and the troubled youth are the victims, while analyzing congruent themes such as conformity, individuality, and identity under a late ’90s lens.
On the first day at his new school, Steve befriends three outcasts: aimless stoner Gavin Strick (Nick Stahl), his best friend, U.V. (Chad E. Donella), and the cool girl from the wrong side of the tracks, Rachel Wagner (Katie Holmes). One of the film’s most memorable scenes is the iconic cafeteria scene where Gavin introduces Steve to the class hierarchy of their high school, clearly indicating a “them versus us” mentality—the Blue Ribbons control their side of the cafeteria. Cafeteria scenes like this that introduce each clique are the bread and butter of teen movies, yet the razor-sharp dialogue and observations of the cynical Gavin make it feel oddly fresh and fun.
Functioning as the movie’s protagonist, Steve struggles with acclimating to a different school and town and doesn’t necessarily strive to fit in. Gavin’s a skeptic from the start, giving off warning signs about the Blue Ribbons and the school’s psychiatrist, Dr. Edgar Caldicott’s (Bruce Greenwood) sinister motives, yet Steve continually ignores them, and, perhaps, there is a part of him that wants to attain some normalcy in his life, and not believe there’s anything wrong. However, when Gavin’s parents induct him into the program, he returns to school the next day as a completely different person—an intense fight between Steve and the Ribbons that Gavin participates in signals that Steve knows Gavin is right.
Almost 30 years later, the haunting brilliance of Disturbing Behavior lies in its grounded ability to make the residents of a small town more frightening than any fictional entity seen before in horror movies. John Carpenter’s 1978 slasher classic Halloween remains one of the greatest horror films ever. Still, perhaps the most enduring one is that a serial killer stalking attractive babysitters is something that could happen in the real world. In the case of David Nutter’s movie, even though concerned parents enrolling their misfit teenagers into a mind-control program that essentially turns them into even worse versions of what they were before is far-fetched, the idea isn’t completely implausible.
While the corrupt nature of humanity on display in Disturbing Behavior isn’t a revolutionary concept; it showcases a contemporary viewpoint that parents don’t always know what’s best for their children. The manipulative and calculating Caldicott is the mastermind behind creating a Stepford-esque society, turning former delinquents into outstanding students. Caldicott experimented on his daughter as training for the Blue Ribbon mind-control program and then locked her in an institution; he views himself as God coming to save the reckless young people of Cradle Bay.
Ironically, the creator’s creation becomes the source of his downfall, shattering the warped dreams of forming a utopian world, upholding traditional values, and turning bad apples into good ones. It’s a thematic element akin to the relationship between Victor Frankenstein and Frankenstein, channeling the consequential effects of power, and the abuse of power in the name of science and progression. In that same vein, Caldicott neglects to understand how his actions and desire to play God destroy the unity he planned for, with destruction, violence, chaos, and death as a result— perfection will never be attained.
Another unfortunate side effect of Caldicott’s brainwashing is that the moment a Blue Ribbon is provoked or feels aroused, behaving erratically and shows signs of malfunctioning. Their programming tells them that desire is bad and fighting against the urge will reward them, yet that’s contrary to basic human instinct—and for hormonal teenagers, that’s a recipe for literal disaster. Rewiring and reprogramming a developing mind to suppress feelings and emotions contrary to what’s deemed right goes against humanity’s innate nature to cope. The Blue Ribbons represent the suppression of individuality and natural desires.
In the context of the Blue Ribbons’ mind control, it’s chilling to consider that this forced suppression of individuality and standing out from the crowd, plus conforming to unreasonably high societal expectations, was perceived to be solved with a quick fix. Naturally, parents of teens with issues look for easy solutions instead of reasoning or talking about what’s occurring beneath the surface. The film resonated with teenagers of the 1990s who related to the struggles and problems depicted on screen, the tensions within familial relationships, and the detrimental clique mentality of high school.
It’s no secret that Nutter was far from pleased with MGM’s cuts of Disturbing Behavior. The outcomes of the test screenings held by the National Research Group of Los Angeles took precedence over Nutter’s opinions. Nutter shared with the LA Times in 1998: “Once they were afraid the picture wasn’t going to do well, they were in such a position of fear that they just responded to the NRG.” NRG’s findings revealed that one group didn’t like the film’s original ending which was not happy enough — the enduring heroes Steve and Rachel defeat Caldicott and the Blue Ribbons, leaving the pair looking off into the distance wondering what would happen next.
The favored ending screened in theaters sees Gavin carrying out Caldicott’s legacy by teaching at a public high school filled with unruly students, further reiterating the Blue Ribbons’ “Go Forward” mission. While this ending isn’t completely terrible, it doesn’t make sense when the primary protagonists and survivors are Steve and Rachel, not Gavin. Taking over the film’s ending completely is another product of MGM’s firm grip on control and hyper-sensitivity to audience test screenings.
Marsden, Holmes, and Stahl do their best with the material they are given and deliver powerful performances. The full potential of character development and the resolution of clearly defined character arcs was diminished at the hands of MGM’s choices and the feedback of multiple test audiences. Thanks to the screenwriter Scott Rosenberg and director David Nutter, the characters, narrative intentions, and atmospheric cinematography, are strong components of Disturbing Behavior, and it is a criminally campy, underrated entry in the teen horror genre.
