Lauren Graham Confirmed for Scream 4 and Two More Join the Cast

Marielle Jaffe Joins Scream 4In a recent story confirming Lauren Graham’s possible participation in Scream 4, we also learned the names of two more new cast members for Wes Craven’s upcoming film: Anthony Anderson and Marielle Jaffe.

First things first, though. Graham appeared on “The Tonight Show” this week and told Jay she WILL be in the film playing Emma Roberts’ mom. Roberts, you may recall, is portraying Jill Kessler, “one of the primary heroines,” a cousin to Neve Campbell’s character in the series. You can watch the video below the info on Anderson and Jaffe, whose casting was revealed via a quick mention on

Anderson previously appeared in Scary Movie 3 and 4 but is probably best known as Detective Kevin Bernard on “Law & Order” and Antwon Mitchell on “The Shield”. Jaffee (pictured) only has two credits on IMDB: Locked Away (currently in post-production) and Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief. No word yet on what characters either will be playing in Scream 4.

The horror series that reignited the genre and grossed more than $500 million worldwide is back! From Kevin Williamson, creator of the original Scream trilogy, the new film sees the return of cast members Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, and David Arquette along with a group of new stars, who can all hopefully stay alive long enough to figure out the new rules to this one-of-a-kind horror franchise!

Uncle Creepy

Got news? Click here to submit it!
Tell us about your favorite scary movie in the Dread Central forums!

Image Type 1:

Get this site 100% Ad Free Support Us on Patreon!

Steve Barton

You're such an inspiration for the ways that I will never, ever choose to be.

Get Your Box of Dread Now
*US Residents Only .
  • Legba

    I’ve always been interested in how Craven weaves social commentary into his films. To me, it’s that binding element that gave his work that raw power. Messiahman’s Bunuel comparison about the use of surrealism, also holds true on the eschewing of Bourgeois values. In NOES the monstrous is a perverse secret, hidden away (in the unconscious) to keep up the illusion of middle class suburbia. The dream world is an extension of fate enacted in the ‘real’ world. For all it’s aesthetic shocks and visceral scares, there’s some pretty genuine psychology that really transcends just surrealism. Making the recent remake seem even more like a completely dumb exercise. That element would take the form of satire in his later films (Shocker, People Under The Stairs), but never as provocatively intertwined after Elm Street.

  • James Coker

    hey FirerRam i have something to say about “As far as the cycle of horror goes, I remember great 80’s horror (Pinhead,Jason,Michael,Freddie) and then nothing for awhile except some BAD NOES sequels, then came “Scream”……. what about TALES FROM THE CRYPT TV show,CANDYMAN,DEAD-ALIVE and BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA??? all of those are greats and all of those came out before scream and are much better then scream

    • Messiahman

      Nobody’s saying the projects you mentioned aren’t worthwhile (although DRACULA is in my opinion hampered by two fairly awful turns from Reeves and Ryder) but they were few and far between (DEAD ALIVE only debuted on video here) and the horror landscape for a time was rather barren. And the argument isn’t about perceived quality – rather, it’s about about the fact that SCREAM, regardless of what you think of it, exerted more genuine influence on legitimizing the genre and getting more genre films made than any of the films mentioned, most of which had little commercial success. Just because you like the film less doesn’t discount its MASSIVE importance and influence. It is THE film that legitimized the genre to studios and indies in the 90s, as well as commercial audiences.

      The same goes for Craven in general. Were it not for him, New Line wouldn’t even exist — the company was in dire financial straits before ELM STREET came along. If not for his film saving them, they wouldn’t be around at all. That means no LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, no BOOGIE NIGHTS, no SEVEN, no IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS, to name a few. All of those were films that no one else in Hollywood would touch, except for New Line, who more more apt to take risks. If ELM STREET hadn’t been around to build the company, dozens of amazing projects would’ve never gotten made. So not only is Craven one of the essential filmmakers in horror, but he’s also had a drastic effect on filmmaking in general.

      • Ultimo Franco

        Exactly. Nightmare on Elm Street holds such an important place in the company’s history that the studio is often referred to as “The House That Freddy Built.”

      • Vanvance1

        I think what a lot of people have forgotten is that Scream was not really a horror film. It was a satire of the slasher genre up to that point.

        I believe the original film to be smart, well made and a positive contribution to the genre. Unfortunately there were sequels; like Saw the sequels grew progressively more pathetic and ridiculous, filled with the cliches the first film is lampooning.

        Scream was the right film at the right time. I think it’s a very long shot to believe that Scream 4 will be equally good or any good at all.

        • Messiahman

          Not quite in agreement here, as I think SCREAM is most definitely a horror film. It functions both as a slasher satire as well as a tightly constructed slasher itself. Williamson is on record at the time as saying that Craven was the perfect choice to direct because he got that it couldn’t simply be a jokey parody, that it had to work as a horror film also, and there are certainly tense, suspenseful and brutal scenes that are the earmarks of the genre. Just as there are fully developed characters who, when put in peril, cause the audience to empathize. Sounds like a horror film to me.

          Yes, the sequels watered that down somewhat and fell slave to the law of diminishing returns (although the second film does feature the ballsiest kill in the series) but knowing firsthand how difficult it is to get ANY film made in this town, I think it’s hard to fault a filmmaker for doing a film that has a pre-existing greenlight from the studio.

          As for the fourth film, I take heart in the fact that it’s been ten years since anyone touched the franchise. That’s a lot of time to reenergize creative batteries and a lot of genre water under the bridge. Craven himself wasn’t happy with where the franchise left off, nor has he been happy with the studio fuckery of several other projects he worked on in the ensuing decade, so I’m curious to see what he and Williamson will come up with. Craven’s a whipsmart intellectual (a former Ivy League college professor) who can discuss film and the genre as well as any true cinephile or horror geek, so I’ve got a feeling he’ll have something interesting to bring to the table.

          • Vanvance1

            Those are some well argued points and I will admit I have not seen the original Scream in many, many years; long enough that I can’t remember if it truly does function as a horror film.

            I also accept that Craven is smart and an intellectual who understands the genre. The problem I see is that his creative well has run dry. I’ll offer up three examples of his recent work to support my argument: ‘Cursed’ (yes, I realize there were many chefs in the kitchen), the script for the remake of ‘The Hills Have Eyes 2’ and ‘Red Eye’. The last was one of the dumbest thrillers I have ever seen, on par with anything made by Michael Bay.

            I also believe Williamson has nothing more to say. His creative output peaked with Scream was decent through ‘The Faculty’ and then came to an end.

            Perhaps both these men have had decent projects trapped in development hell, but more likely they simply don’t have any inspiration left.

            ‘Scream 4’ will be designed to press the nostalgia buttons for fans of the original. As such the script will not be a radical departure from the formula of what worked the first time. The end result should be predictable and uninspired.

          • Messiahman

            Okay, to be fair, I’ve met Wes Craven more than once, so this is colored by personal experience, but I certainly don’t think his creative well has remotely run dry. Rather, I think he’s been hobbled by the studio in most cases. Per my experience, the guy is still completely excited by filmmaking and is thrilled by revisiting the SCREAM franchise again for the first time in ten years. His enthusiasm is contagious.

            Addressing what you mentioned:

            CURSED – From all accounts, the original storyline was a dark, bloody affair. Contractually obligated by the studio, Craven was forced to reshoot 90% of the film to fit a new script concocted by multiple script doctors, and even then they took the film away from him to edit on their own, resulting in him completely disowning the project. Using that as evidence of loss of inspiration is utterly flawed, since the film that was released is a studio concoction and not remotely what Craven and Williamson intended.

            HILLS HAVE EYES 2 – Primarily written by Craven’s son and pushed through production VERY quickly by a studio wanting the capitalize on the success of the remake, which was also completely developed by Craven, who hired Alexandre Aja himself and worked with the production the whole way through. He was barely involved in the remake’s sequel aside from early story sessions with his son, as he was mostly busy at the time working on the script for 25/8.

            RED EYE – A work for hire project that, aside from one gaping plot hole, is MUCH more character-based and fun than anything Bay has ever had his hands on (the bulk of the storyline focuses on only two characters). I’d argue that the film is well-directed in spite of a script that could’ve gone through a few more rewrites, and that the performances of Cillian Murphy, Rachel McAdams and Brian Cox are all way above par. Also unlike Bay, you can actually SEE what’s occurring onscreen at all times, as the film isn’t proliferated with shaky cam and 100 mile a minute jump cuts.

            I think it’s completely unfair to assume that a creator has nothing more to say based on a string of films where their involvement is either minimal or where they’re a hired gun. As for Williamson, he’s on record as talking about how the next film will specifically be addressing more modern horror tropes that have been seen in the last decade of the genre and moving the story forward. It’s no secret that Williamson is also a tremendous horror fan, although he’s been trapped in teen soaps for a good while and is aching to get back into features. Combined with Craven’s excitement, they might just produce something enjoyable and interesting. I’m not saying it will be a reinvention of the wheel, but I’m much more willing to give them the benefit of optimism rather than falling prey to typical internet negativity. The fact is, I love the genre, I love plenty of projects they’ve been involved in, so I’m rooting for them to succeed. Fandom has so mired in negativity and skepticism for the past several years… why not ROOT for someone for a change? Many creators have come back and proven they still had plenty more to say. Assuming otherwise just because you didn’t like their last few projects seems to be, no offense, a bit narrow-minded, just as assuming that you KNOW exactly what the film will be like is a fallacy. You haven’t read the script, you haven’t been involved in the creative meetings, you literally have no idea what they’re planning.

            Why not wait until the film is released to judge? If anyone has earned that, it’s Wes Craven. From what I hear though the grapevine, he’s got a good deal of control over this one. And casting the terrific Lauren Graham is definitely a step in the right direction.

          • Vanvance1

            I’m not assuming the end result. I’m guessing what it will be based on the majority of Hollywood’s sequels.

            I appreciate your in depth break down of the films but feel you’re coming off as a Craven apologist. He’s putting his name on these projects so I’m going to go in expecting a quality job. Alas, constant disappointments have me anticipating another.

            I am not being negative for the sake of an internet trend; I have enjoyed a lot of Craven’s past output (People Under the Stairs, NOES, Serpent & the Rainbow’ etc…). I’m being negative because he is no longer making good movies.

            You want to blame everyone but Craven; but it’s his job to bypass the hurdles and entertain us. If he’s no longer capable of dealing with the studio system and delivering a decent slice of horror, why should Scream 4 be any different?

            You believe in his passion. I haven’t met the man and can only base my opinion on his recent films. With each failure my faith grows weaker.

          • Cinemascribe

            Vanvance1: While I would absolutely agree Cursed was a horrible misfire,I’d also counter that every director with a career spanning decades has at least a few films that just didn’t work (and Craven’s been doing this for-what?- almost forty years now). I agree that The Hills Have Eyes II was no great shakes, but-as you pointed out- Craven didn’t direct that. No, the script wasn’t the best, but in the hands of a more capable director it could have been a better movie. That being said, the writing was infinitely better than that of the 1980’s HILLS II, which Craven himself is unwilling to defend (he’s openly acknowledged that he did it for the paycheck).

            However, your comments about Red Eye lead me to ask-by what standard is this film a failure? I personally loved the film,finding it to be a much better watch than the similarly themed Flight Plan with Jodie Foster. Setting my own opinion aside, Red Eye was a box office success (earning $95 million on a budget of $26 million) and earned some fairly high praise critically…and this was Craven stepping away from horror into action/suspense territory.

            Looking at his track record, I would definitely slide Craven into the category of directors who have more hits than misses,particularly when you consider that the upcoming My Soul to Take marks his first film as both writer and director since New Nightmare.

            “I’m saying that I’m an insect who dreamt he was a man…and loved it. But now the dream is over..and the insect is awake.” – Seth Brundle

          • Vanvance1

            I think I’m coming across as someone who does not like Craven; that’s far from the truth. He has contributed an amazing amount to the genre. It’s just been a long time since he made a good film. That’s my subjective view. I have no intention of suffering through ‘Red Eye’ again so I can break down why I thought it was so dire. Suffice it to say the story had plot holes and illogical elements so obvious and ridiculous that it destroyed my ability to suspend disbelief. I have hundreds of DVDs and blu rays and that was one of 4 I sold. I loathed the film.

            I did enjoy ‘People Under the Stairs’ and I don’t see why someone wouldn’t; here Craven captured an almost Joe Dante-esqe vibe, creating a children’s fable that worked for adults.

            I truly hope he’ll make another good movie, but I’m not heading to the theater to see his films until he proves he’s still in the game.

            It only took Carpenter one bad movie (Ghosts of Mars) for him to go into temporary retirement. If he’s back it’s because he likely has his passion back. Craven hasn’t demonstrated any passion in a long time.

            If the studio system has become an unworkable situation for him he should do as Romero did and leave; working with smaller budgets on his own terms. That’s a stance that earns my respect.

          • Messiahman

            I’m not being an apologist at all; I don’t have to be, given Craven’s overall reputation. Nor was I trying to shift the blame from him; I was stating the facts. Anyone who paid any attention to CURSED knew what was happening to it, knew that Craven was being fucked every step of the way, knew that the Weinsteins (who have screwed over nearly everyone in this town) took the film from him – there was no secret about this, as it was extensively covered by a number of outlets and was well known here in town. As someone who also works within this system, I know that this sometimes happens, and it’s a shame. However, saying that he was supposed to bypass the impossibility of the situation demonstrates a woeful misunderstanding of the pitfalls that can occur during any studio production and what occurred in this case. Blaming Craven for CURSED is to display complete ignorance of the facts. How was he supposed to overcome a situation in which his film was taken over by Harvey Weinstein himself before being taken away and completely recut? I mean, you do remember what ultimately happened to the Weinsteins because of their practices with development and production, right? Many creators stopped working with them, Craven included. It wasn’t much later that they folded.

            Seems to me that you’re taking one of the most notorious recent cases of complete and total studio fuckery and trying to shift the blame to Craven, in spite of the fact that ALL sources say it was the studio, and Craven himself claims it’s the single worst experience he’s ever had.

            As stated, Craven didn’t direct HILLS 2, but only co-wrote it with his son and wasn’t even involved with the production. Attaching that to him as a failure is really grasping at straws to support your argument. It’s not part of his directorial canon, so why bring it up? It only serves to weaken your position.

            As for RED EYE, I’m not afraid to say that I enjoyed it overall, and it did well both critically and commercially. I think it’s certainly MUCH better than other lesser films of his canon like SHOCKER, PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS (don’t understand how ANYONE can like that godforsaken film) DEADLY FRIEND or VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN. Those are all mediocre to bad films that the man has bounced back from and are in my opinion much worse than the three examples you cited. As far as I’m concerned, RED EYE is far better than you’re giving it credit for, and I’ll be happy to write seventeen more paragraphs discussing it and its relation to his truly bad films if you wish. 😀

            Thing is, I wrote him off once before for films that are truly dire, and he still managed to surprise me. Why shouldn’t I expect that again? After all, that’s been his pattern for nearly forty years.

    • FireRam

      I started the paragraph “as I remember”. The paragraph was personal opinion not historical fact of a “horror cycle”. I kind of forgot Candyman and Dracula. Never bothered with Dead Alive. Don’t remember it it even being that popular.

      Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is.

  • Legba

    And what’s the harm in admitting you’re wrong? I mean none of us here are above making mistakes. Sometimes, even with the best intentions, you can be wrong. I just don’t get it. Maybe that’s another reason it’s harder to carry on conversations on the forums anymore. NO accountability for opinions, even when it’s blatantly obvious they’re off based.

    Anyway, enjoyed reading Messiahman’s impassioned rant on Craven. I’m not a Scream fan per say, either. But it did put the genre back to a level of mainstream acceptability that it had all but lost. Not sure if that was exactly the artistic avenue it needed, but that’s probably another argument all together. Totally agree about Elm Street and Last House, though.

    Thanks for the read!

    • FireRam

      I remember really,really liking “Scream” after I saw it. It was just good fun. And killer ending (I thought). Yes, the sequels went downhill as they arrived, but I welcome a new “Scream”. As far as the cycle of horror goes, I remember great 80’s horror (Pinhead,Jason,Michael,Freddie) and then nothing for awhile except some BAD NOES sequels, then came “Scream”. I remember thinking this is the best horror movie I have seen in a good while. Just how I remember is all.

      Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is.

  • James Coker

    TERMINAL are you reading what messiahman is saying WHERE ARE YOU!

    • Messiahman

      Maybe he finally realized that he only ever tosses out poorly-argued, grade school level hyperbole without a hint of logic or context and continually gets called on his own cinematic naivete and embarrassing misinterpretations, so he’s gone into hiding. If so, good riddance. Reading his posts is a surefire way to kill brain cells.

      Although if he does rear his ugly head, I’ll be happy to steamroll his inevitably vitriolic and ill-formed argument while predicting anything he’ll say before he says it. It won’t be difficult; the guy’s the quintessential broken record, repeating the same childish tunes ad nauseum. Jesus, talk about monotony.

      The thing is, I just presented a detailed analysis of Craven’s place in the genre that can for the most part be factually proven. Terminal’s never once been capable of that, because it requires actual thought, rather than pathetic single-line exclamations of “he’s a hack.”

  • Messiahman

    In addition to being an eternal MILF, Graham’s also a versatile actress, so her casting is promising. She got a slew of deserved nominations for her smart, stellar work on GILMORE GIRLS, and her turn in BAD SANTA is still one of the funniest elements in that mean-spirited X-mas classic. Who can forget “fuck me, Santa… fuck me, Santa… fuck me, Santa.” It was a sweet, sexy and hilarious performance.

    I’ll admit to being cautiously optimistic about this film. Despite an occasionally spotty output, there can be absolutely no argument that Craven is one of the most important, influential filmmakers to ever work in the genre. In three back-to-back decades, he directed revolutionary films that drastically changed the horror landscape around them, spawned a slew of imitators and inspired countless other creators. 1972’s LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, along with Peckinpah’s STRAW DOGS, was the progenitor of the “backwoods brutality” cycle that carried through myriad subsequent films in the 70s, culminating with TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE.

    In 1984, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET became one of the first mainstream horror films to truly embrace the surreal motifs present in the experimental films of Luis Bunuel and Roman Polanski while simultaneously creating one of the most iconic horror villains in history, launching several careers and legitimizing the genre in the eyes of critics. People who weren’t around can’t appreciate the effect ELM STREET had – it was like an atom bomb of pure creativity dropped on a flagging genre landscape that had for several years been peppered with run-of-the-mill slasher knockoffs. It was a gamechanger that appealed to horror fan and average moviegoer alike, achieved both critical and commercial success and built an entire studio from the ground up. ELM STREET is inarguably groundbreaking, and it helped to revitalize the genre in a heretofore unimagined way.

    As for the 1990s, regardless of what some hyperbolic naysayers will have you believe, SCREAM acted in much the same manner. Through the early part of that decade, both mainstream and independent horror had slid back into obscurity again (Fango, desperate for material, started running sci-fi covers) and it took a post-modern, self-referential deconstruction (that Craven had already begun to explore on NEW NIGHTMARE) to bring the genre back into the light. SCREAM was one of the first films that skewered and mocked the clichés that genre fans often discussed but had never had the wherewithal to transpose into a film. It offered an entertaining treatise on Carol Clover’s academic essays that never seemed preachy or above the genre. Craven and Williamson lovingly mocking slasher films while simultaneously presenting a tightly-constructed slasher that took itself seriously in spite of the overt satire. They even went so far as to have the heroine list off the clichés of the genre before being forced by the clever script to enact them, which is really somewhat brilliant. It’s also beautifully shot and filled with memorable performances. SCREAM is without a doubt THE most influential horror film of the 90s; it showed both major and independent studios that horror was marketable again and caused a slew of other films to get greenlit. Hell, its impact is still being felt today – it caused the genre resurgence that is still occurring.

    While Craven has certainly had his share of misses, he’s also got a thirty year record of genuinely shaping and validating the genre and creating thousands of horror fans. No matter what anyone thinks of his individual films, his massive, far-reaching influence cannot be denied. I’d love to see him do it again with this iteration – with everything that’s happened to the genre in the last ten years, he and Williamson have plenty of material to work with.

    • LifeMi

      I’m with Messiahman on this one 100% of the way.

    • Cinemascribe

      While I have frequently agreed with Terminal on a number of topics, I agree completely with your assessment of both the Scream saga and Craven’s impact on the genre, Messiahman.
      I’ll add into the mix that Craven’s 1977 shock masterpiece The Hills Have Eyes was ground breaking in that it was one of the earliest mainstream horror films to take the nuclear panic of the fifties and sixties to the next instead of grim visions of a world torn by atomic holocaust, we had a literal nuclear family,the mutated offspring of weapons testing who have shed the civility of the modern “nuclear” family and regressed to an earlier, primal state , preying on the more recognizable ambassadors of modern civilization. One can easily draw an allegorical connection between the rape/murders of the girls at the hands of the lawless monsters in Last House on the Left and the violation the vacationers endure in HILLS when members of Poppa Jupiter’s desert clan invade their motor home, murder the mother and steal away with the infant.

      As to Scream, I agree that it was a renaissance in the horror genre. I suspect that in most (not all, but most) instances, the backlash against Scream and it’s sequels- all of which have always seemed to me to be way above average (the immediate sequel was actually my personal favorite of the series) – has less to do with any perceived lack of skill or style and more to do with the myriad attempts at capturing the ironic tone of the film which followed, saturating the market with would-be Scream clones which eventually eschewed scares in favor of increasingly smug inside jokes and myriad scenes wherein young,beautiful CW stars and starlets espoused presumably witty, snarky dialogue which came off more as self congratulatory back-slapping sessions by writers who were nowhere near as clever as they surmised they were. Case in point: The atrocious Urban legend films.
      That said, I agree that there have been enough interesting developments in the genre to successfully resurrect this franchise, especially as all of the principals are on board.

      A couple of side notes: In your list of films which developed the sub-genre of backwater vengeance, let’s not forget Deliverance, which also bowed in ’72 and qualifies as horror on some level. Once those moonshiners told Ned Beatty to ‘squeal like a pig’,all bets were off.

      In deference to Scream- you may also want to check out a bizarre little bit of 80’s arcana by the name of Fade to Black. It features Dennis Christopher as an increasingly alienated and deranged young man who uses the motif of the classic horror villains (the Mummy, Dracula, Cagney in White Heat) to exact a violent retribution on people who have wronged him.

      “I’m saying that I’m an insect who dreamt he was a man…and loved it. But now the dream is over..and the insect is awake.” – Seth Brundle

      • FireRam

        DAMN-I remember hearing about “Fade to Black”,but then completely forgot about it. I just made a note so I don’t forget it again. I do want to check that out. Nice mention!!!

        Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is.

      • Messiahman

        Thanks for the well-thought-out and measured response, Cinemascribe. And of course, you’re right about Boorman’s DELIVERANCE as well. It, STRAW DOGS and LAST HOUSE form a trilogy of films that began the “backwoods brutality” cycle that carried through much of the 70s. And it also added an eternal level of horror to “Dueling Banjos.” Shiver!

        As for FADE TO BLACK, I first saw it on its theatrical release, having read early coverage of it in Fangoria. It’s the first time I can recall seeing Mickey Rourke on film, and it’s what got me interested in Dennis Christopher (who’s also excellent in BREAKING AWAY) and horror fandom in general. Not only do I still have the issue of Fango that covered it, but I even have the hard to find novelization of the movie as well as the out of print DVD. Good stuff!

  • James Coker

    and que TERMINAL in 3…2…1…

    • FireRam

      Terminal is currently consulting with BP and hopes to return soon after he masterminds a new way to plug the hole in the Gulf.What else could explain his silence for this amount of time?

      Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is.

      • Messiahman

        Actually, it’s pretty clear that his absence has to do with the returns of Messiahman and Ultimo Franco. 😀

        • Vanvance1

          Nah, I’m guessing he’s getting laid. Maybe by Lauren Graham (just to connect to the article)! Odds are she’s screaming too.

          • FireRam

            Normally, I would be jealous of Terminal if that was the case…..LOL,BUT, after watching Martyrs again yesterday I am officially back on my Mylene Jampanoi kick. That girls eyes are hypnotic!! I saw some pics of her at a Dior event,she looked incredible. And yes, I absolutely will see/finish Inside. I never made it that far in.

            Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is.

          • Messiahman

            “Nah, I’m guessing he’s getting laid.”

            Best laugh I’ve had all week.