Obstacles in horror filmmaking.

[burning_of_la]

Excuse me if this topic is stupid, but it's something I was thinking about the other day.

Horror films, more than any other genre film, are at a certain disadvantage from the outset. If the intention is to scare the viewers(which isn't always the intention), horror filmmakers are already fighting an uphill battle because the audience KNOWS you're trying to scare them simply because of the genre title at hand. A lot of horror movies are structured in a way where the first thirty minutes are spent developing a "normal" state of things, but most of the audience anticipate that normality crashing down so it's never shocking and usually results in not being scary.

The point of this thread is to discuss ways horror filmmakers overcome the disadvantage of the audience knowing you're trying to scare them. Let's try to come up with particular examples and discuss what it seems makes them scary. Most mainstream horror these days seem to rely on jump cuts to scare the audience, which in my opinion is one of the cheapest and least respectable methods. Most viewers know a jump cut is coming, so any scares are only due to the surprise rather than any unique aspect of the film.

How should young, up and coming directors deal with this obstacle? Is it a matter of new ways of telling a story? New camera angles? Better writing?

What made the classics scary?

[Brendan M.]

I don't think its a stupid topic at all, I think it could generate some good discussion.

I pretty much disagree with you though on introducing the characters normal life before the horror elements kick in being a storytelling method that doesn't work. It gives you time to ease into the film and become attached to the characters before you see them go through hell. If you don't know the characters that well, then you won't care when danger presents itself to them. I honestly can't think of one single horror movie that doesn't do this.

It also helps a great deal when you have good actors and the focus of the movie is developing those characters and the elements at hand are only there to enforce that. A person's whole entire life can change when faced up against death. If you only put the scares into the movie because you think you can get the audience to jump at that particular moment, then that's not going to work.

That's all I have to offer right now.

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

Make loveable characters and kill them off...brutally. If the audience is scared for the characters, then you have succeeded. Be edgy and unpredictable, nobody wants "safe Horror". (kid lives, MC lives, no surprises/shocks) But less can also be more, and undertones have a way of unsettling people that in your face does not always have.

Hope that helps. ;)

[Needaname]

Playing to people's phobias can work. The Descent did that well. The "monsters" were kind of an afterthought to me, but the claustrophobic feeling the movie produced was more scary, in my opinion. The situation offered in The Ruins also worked. The movie in itself wasn't scary, but the feeling of "we're screwed either way" worked really well. Stephen King's IT worked very well, even though it was just a T.V. movie,(I heard they're remaking IT for theatrical release) because...who isn't afraid(or at least wary) of clowns?

It is really hard to put a new spin on horror, but it can be done....

[Duke Nukem]

To specify more on jump cuts, the only thing that is scary about them is the orchestra chord the musical crew member cranks up - either when the killer predictably pops out of nowhere or when a good character "casually" pops up and "unintentionally" scares the heroine. If it is the killer or a fake scare, relying on a loud musical note to get a jolt out of us is disrespectful.

And relying on fake scares alone is just as disrespectful. Fake scares may have been around since the first era of horror films, but they became terribly over-used in the `90's and `00's. It would be nice if today's filmmakers honestly tried to put in more effort. It would also be nice if they had faith in the power of silence to take full advantage of potentially frightening scenes.

Another thing I believe in, and agree with, is building up the "normality" of a given story and then letting it all loose. Just as a lot of recent horror movies have gone the easy way out with jump cuts, they have also gone the easy way out with story and character development.

In today's day and age, I believe it can still be done right. Not everyone has ADD nowadays. It's okay to take your time with the characters before anything possibly happens to them. I believe that a well thought-out story with genuine characters doesn't need a terribly high body count. If you invest yourselves in the characters, it is worth waiting for their fates.

I must sound really old-fashioned right now, but this is how I feel about it. One could say that the requirements I'm speaking of were thrown out of the horror movie handbook one or two generations ago. I've seen the newer horror movies and how they play out. Not all new-school horror movies are bad, but old-school horror films still leave an overall better impression on me.

[Brendan M.]

I think you guys mean jump scares. A Jump cut is something completely else that has to do with editing when a cut in the film is jarring and brings attention to itself and always focus on the same subject. Like when a big chunk of time is cut out from the middle of a single sequence of film.

[zombievictim]

Aww damn I came into this thread thinking it would be about actual filmmaking. Because that is a HELL of a lot harder than doing a drama per se.

[Brendan M.]

Aww damn I came into this thread thinking it would be about actual filmmaking. Because that is a HELL of a lot harder than doing a drama per se.


I don't understand, what do you mean by this?

[Donnie_Darko]

Good topic.

As per films of "the day", there were scary mostly because stuff like that hadn't been seen before. It was new, fresh and "taboo". The Exorcist was absolutely terrifying when it first hit the scene, but now, even most 12 year olds go, "That wasn't scary." Now, you see horror on cable TV every day, but in the early 70's, stuff like that either came along once every 2-3 years, or never.

Another way to see the big difference is in the ratings. From the early 70's to the late 80's, ANYTHING classified as horror or thriller got an instant R. No begging or pleading, you got an R. Now, it seems you have to have extreme gore, drug use and titties, and even then, you can get off with a strong PG13 (or a 14A in Canada).

Take Silence Of The Lambs, which in Canada was hard R. Then 10 years later, the sequel Hannibal, which was just as graphic was only AA (PG13 equivalent at the time). Times do change.

The biggest bump for horror in terms of "getting shit done", is for film makers to TRY and do something original. Loading the flick down with gore, or uneasy scenes doesn't make it scary. Inverse, neither does loading it down with "boo" scares and loud orchestra hits. That's not being scared, that's being startled. A startle wears off after a few second, but being scared stays with you on the ride home. A feeling of uneasiness with the situation is better than the uncomfortable feeling you get with seeing someone's eyes cut out. Granted I like seeing someone's eyes cut out, but make me feel uncomfortable with the situation, and I'll remember that more... and not laugh when it's over.

I love horror, I do horror, I write horror, and it's getting harder and harder to make people care about horror. I watched Haunting In Connecticut the other day and it's really what's wrong with horror/thriller right now. It didn't suck, but it was just littered with horror contrivances. Boo scares, violin hits, sweeping haunting orchestral score, misdirection cues, ghost flashes in the mirror (way too many of those), just took away from the actual scariness of the story. Watch the TV version (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0439602/), and you'll find it actually scarier and creepier than the big budget movie. Even the "A Haunting" episode based on this was creepier.

Basically what I'm saying is, I love horror, and firmly believe JFK was killed by the FBI, CIA and The Queen, in conjunction with the Roswell Alien, under the guise of building a better planet for the future junior builders of America.

[zombievictim]

I don't understand, what do you mean by this?

Filming horror movies is far more of a pain than doing some other movie. It usually involves blood which means the locations can't just be anywhere out of fear of staining shit. Same with clothes. It's a pain in the ass!

[Cropsy]

I've allways thought that the atmosphere created is far scarier than a quick "jump" scare.Also,the longer a scene goes on makes it.Being chased by something is the one that really gets to me.
A few good examples of this would be Leatherface chasing Sally in TCM.That scene just seemed to go on forever and was very effective.
The opening scene's from 28 Weeks Later and Dawn of the Dead(R) are other great examples.Being chased by some foaming at the mouth lunatics that are running like track stars is something I'm sure we can all relate to.How fast you can run,or can you out run these things, really adds a level of scare to these scene's.