how far is too far?

[KidzTvMadeMeDelusional]

Hey people. As a first time poster on the board i thought id take a moment to say hi and ask for your opinions on a little thing i've been thinking over in my little overworked brain. As a writer of the horror genre i was wondering whether it was possible to take things too far in a script by, for example, having a character kill a child (i've read that this is a bad move) or something similar. I love the horror genre because it lets my imagination run riot but i was wondering whether there were any "rules" on this sort of thing? What sort of things (if any) should i avoid writing into a script?

Many thanx. Lx

[TonyRob]

Folks will tell you all sorts of things...

"Never show a child being harmed or killed ON SCREEN" is one of the biggest no-no's... however, I submit THE EXORCIST, one of the most successful horror films of all time, for your consideration. Regan was beaten, raped, mutilated and all sorts of other things on screen (so that the PC brigade of today was ranting about the film's supposed endorsement of the viewing of a filmic depiction of "child abuse" as an acceptable voyeuristic fetish when it was re-released last Setptember, while completely missing the point of the film, of course)... yet it was critically acclaimed, won oscars and Golden Globes, audiences flocked to it, and even the Church endorsed it both times around...

Also, there's the "never harm or kill a domestic animal on screen (rats, bats and other vermin are okay)".

There's all kinds of others, too, just can't think of them off the top of my head.

Basically, I'd say it depends on what kind of an audience you're going for... If you're going for the cult horror film loving audience that enjoys Henenlotter splatter-fests like Brain Damage, then the boundaries would seem to be non-existent. Target a more mainstream audience and you had better be careful.

Tony (grew up with Gorezone and Fangoria)

[Actor]

Henry Fonda killed a child in <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Once Upon a Time in the West<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. You didn't see the child get killed. You saw the gun pointed at the camera and heard it go off. Later you see the boy's body.

In the remake of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> The Blob<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> a child gets sucked up by the blob. Gruesome.

[loudlonald]

No such thing as too far, in my book. I say write what you will, so long as it's essential to the story. If you're going to kill a child in a screenplay, don't do it just for the sake of shock value. It has to be important to the plot. I've written a treatment for a horror screenplay in which the main character's personality is an effect of seeing her brother slaughtered when they were kids. If I didn't need it to show her past, I wouldn't put it in there because it would be ludicrous.

Again, if it serves the story, do it.

[AndyWarholsGhost]

I would feel as long as it's not "violence for violence's sake" it should be alright. If it serves the story, I guess it would be alright.
However, now that I think of it:
You have to ask yourself, "Would I, as an audience member, want to see this scene?"
Ah hell, I don't know what I'm talkin' 'bout, I love movies like "Blood Feast" and "Color Me Blood Red"!

AGhost

p.s. I also grew up on Fangoria. Starlog also.

[RyRy]

From experience I can say don't kill a child in s script. Children can DIE, but to affirmatively KILL one will likely result in one of two things: rejection, or, if everything else is brilliant, you hearing this line in a development meeting---'Okay, first, the kid can't die....'

So, you can change it now, or change it later...

[Bonespurs]

Hi,

I wanted to respond to this since I'm working on another horror script of my own and the thought had crossed my mind as well.

There are two ways to present a scene of horror, you can bludgeon your audience over the head with graphic scenes, ala Clive Barker, or you can use what horror writer Charles E. Grant referred to as the "slice of the shadow". Implied threat with a situation leading up to the horrible event...and then cut away and let the audience's imagination do the work. A recent example, particularly in the child-killing arena, would be "Sleepy Hollow" The scene where the small boy is under the floor and the Horseman finds him. You do not see the Horseman kill the child, but that sack he's carrying in the next scene looks like it has 3 heads in it. Implied violence here and much better than showing him harvesting a small boy's head.

Nothing you show will ever be as frightening to every single person as what you don't show. Each person's fears and phobias are different. Certain things touch on universal fear based emotions. Isolation, darkness, being helpless...etc. But as a rule, unless that scene needs to be shown you are going to scare them more with implication than exposition.

Let each person's horror and imagination supply the details, you supply the ambiance, motivation and setting. The rest will take care of itself.

Or just go for the splatter...whatever works for you..

[BlueParrot]

Or you can make the child into a 9-year old autistic who can crack government codes. People are out to get him.

And this boy is kept alive by a balding action star. If you killed this child, then you would have no movie. And if the author killed the child in the novel, he would not enjoy pie or Pepsi... hypothetically speaking.

As Sally Struthers would say, "Won't you please Save the Children? Ten cents of your dollar goes to feed them. The rest to feed me."

[RyRy]

Sally Struthers.......enemy agent. Hmmmmmmmmmm. Let me write this one down. She's not trying to save the children---she's trying TO EAT THEM!

[Strange Mind]

yes but will she skin them first, so they squeal like piggies?

[AndyWarholsGhost]

Would this be like "Children of the Creamed Corn"?

[KidzTvMadeMeDelusional]

hey many thanx people. definitely some info i'll bear in mind for my future scripts and the sort of responses i was hoping for.
thanx for your advice regarding "slice of the shadows" Bonespurs, that is certainly something i am going to consider implementing into my script. i have a few scenes which could be more effective using this technique and so i am considering revising them.
many thanx to everyone who replied.Lx

[ksk2]

Forget the philosophical crap. It may play out with rom-coms/dramas, but has no bearing on the Horror Genre. And since the Horror genre rarely wins awards or "will place" in contests, I'd worry more about the PRAGMATIC issues inherent within it.

So let's speak of the concrete, Kid (---)Delusional...

It depends on what's morte (pun intended) important to you: getting sold, or selling to a "bigwig" prodco.

Meaning, there are the companies that regularly make Horror films, those that focus on them but only make a few and only in a high-budget manner (Dark Castle Films), and those that rarely make them (choose your "Big Studio") but will consider a Horror script (though only if it's nothing short of "genius" and crosses demographic boundaries).

As for the latter, consider Zoetrope; aside from Dracula, what Horror flicks have they made?

Then consider Dark Castle; they live to bring back the joy to be found in the classic stuff from William Castle, and have big backing (take that, wowzers). But they don't have that much on their slate (comparatively).

But DTV's are a different matter.

And DTV's follow the example of Mario Bava.

Bava is one of the best known names in Horror. He might be dead, but his son ain't. Neither are folks that want to be like Bava.

(Anyone from the Bava School of production/direction won't give a crap if you waste a kid in your script, assuming that then script is actually "Horror"; see below.)

Now, they might be European, but they make movies/get movies MADE. Movies that get shown on places like Cinemax.

And any paid credit is better han no credit at all, especially for the Horror genre.

But Genre is not "genre". F-Uck anyone who disagrees with that. Slasher stuff is not Horror. "Seven" is not "Horror".

If you're talking about a Slasher script where a kid gets capped, that's entirely different (regarding the context of your question) than a demon possessing a kid, or a nasty Ghostie messing with a kid. The different GENRES/CONTEXTS affect the manner in which the story will be viewed. Cases in Point:

The Entity: A ghostie repeatedly rapes an innocent woman. Still got made and is still shown on both premium cable and basic cable (though edited in the latter arena). Always in the video store, too. Meaning residuals.

"Home" (X-Files episode): This sucker opens with an INFANT being murdered (far worse and less wowser-friendly than even a child copping it). WORSE, the infant is only killed due to the red-neck f-ck-ups made by the "parents" (Inbreeding is easy to do but hard to deal with). And THAT sucker was shown (and re-shown) on Fox.

Fox, the same folks who gave us Ally Mc"I-need-a-Big-Mack".

So. The answer to your question depends on whether or not you're doing Horror or Slasher (if your script's child-killer is merely a psycho that kills a kid, w/no otherworldly-element, it's slasher, not Horror). If it's *REAL* Horror, you have less worries and more options.

If it's other than Horror, talk to Meltdown. He knows the difference, and has dealt with such professionally.

And with that, I wish you the best of luck, as we need more true Horror/Supernatural writers around these parts.


Best, Kosk

[Steve]

If you want the audience to hate the killer and want him to be brought to justice then do it. It just depends on who is doing the killing, what you want the audience to feel, and what happens in the story. The only "rule" that's important is that it should be a compelling story.

[Meltdown]

To elborate on what Kosk had to say - horror comes down to the psychological element.

I wrote a slasher, but it had horror elements to it. Slasher is basically how you can kill someone, there is little pschological impression as it is about the act of killing. (hack stab, cleave, squash...)

Horror is about breaking into those dark area of the mind that make you squirm and run for the light.

Talk more later - I have to get hom,e...

MELT

[KidzTvMadeMeDelusional]

Hey kosk, many thanx. Thats a better response than i could have hoped for.A No bullshi-t answer that has told me pretty much the way things are. i am planning to write both slasher, and as you put it, *REAL* horror stuff in the future, so you were more than helpful with your answer.
thanx again, to you all.Lx

[KidzTvMadeMeDelusional]

hey meltdown, sounds like you know your stuff and there's a few things about horror i could learn from you. i'm more than willing to listen to anything you have to say on the topic so either post it or drop me a mail at tv_made_me_delusional@yahoo.com , if you have the time of course. The way i look at it is that i can never know too much, thanx again to all you people who took the time to enlighten me on a few things. Lx

[Meltdown]

Back again.

Okay to keep going from yesterday....

One of the things to keep in mind is "visually graphic" versus a "terrifying situation".

Look at Seven - Kosk is right,it wasn't horror, it was however dark psychological thriller as it used visually graphic effects to really draken the mood.

Was it a terrifying situation? Not at it was told in an after the fact point of view from Pitt and Freeman's standpoint.

Being "visually graphic" can help enhance the feeling of horror, by taking a situation of terror and turning it up a notch.

Think about a terrifying situation - it usually involves the unknown or some type of force that is supernatural/mythilogical based - a force that is much stronger that the protagonist and hold the edge psychologically.

Vampires, werewolves, etc are creatures that represent a "force" along these lines. They can tap into our psyche as they are like the "bump in the night" - they are an unknown and humans - well fear of the unknown getting the best of them is par for the course.


In the script I'm working on, the horror element in the lies in the fact there is a "creature" that is tipping the scales of long standing war in a quasi fantasy world. It hunts the strong, moves with incredible speed and attacks at from the shadows.

The horror grip it has will end when the creature is identified, beause then the reader/audience can associate it so somethign they know.


Think about the psychology of standing on a back woods road and you turn to see a set of eyes in the moonlight. It could be a kttien for all you know, but for that split second, you're loading your shorts, because you DON'T know what it is.

That is a essence is horror.

One of the most psychological unnerving things to most peiople is blood - realistic potrayals of blood.

Sit through Friday the 13th part whatever ( not 8, it sucked)
visually grapshic, you get the odd reaction from the crowd as in "eeeww".

Interview with a Vampire - that scene of feeding in the room - the crowd I was sitting with was squirming - several got up and left. The way it was portrayed went one layer deeper than any FRiday the 13th.

The supernatural automatically opens the story up to horror as it is that "unknown" I'm beating to death here. When you're talking demons and the devil, they are of a power we can't comprehend and by default cannot be beat. ( there is an intersting article on screenwriters utopia about the pratfalls of a man vesrus the powers of HELL)

Most people see a pentacle drawn in red and fear enters the picture. The symbol represents a greater power, one that ( to some) is the ultimate evil - the ultimate terror. Something that can't be controlled.

One of th best horrors I can remember was "Pin" ( If i have the title correct ) It's an old one, but didn't have to rely on visual graphic - same with the original "The Haunting".

Decent Horror that used visually graphic to enhance the horror: Serpent and the Rainbow and to smaller extent Prince fo Darkness.

You want very very good horror these days - you go rent games like Resident Evil or Silent Hill - the people behind these games have taken horror psychology for a serious redline run. These games are down right scary.

You want to see a really subtle differen in Slasher versus horror. Watch the first Nigthmare on Elm Street and the then watch #3. The first was pretty good horror, the third was acorss the line to slasher.

Now Slasher can have horror to it. I did this with my one script that Kosk read. It is slasher, period, but what the producer liked about it was that there was true horror elemetns to it. There is a terrifying situation heavily influneced by something visually graphic - but the psychology was set up early in the script to make it work.

Without it, the script would be just another hack and slash.

Anyway hope that helps.

MELTDOWN

[KidzTvMadeMeDelusional]

Thanx 4 taking the time melt. V helpful and much appreciated.
i'm already thinking of ways to improve my scenes for the better. once again, many thanx. Good to see there are people out there who are willing to help. Lx

[ksk2]

Good one, Melt. :)

Also, Kid, remember that one of the first (and greatest) suspense thrillers of cinema history featured and revovlved around a child killer: "M", starring Peter Lorre, directed by the inimitable fritz Lang himself. And that was back when sound (in film) was new. So there's a good precedent for including what you're asking about.

I highly recommend that flick for anyone writing "creepy" stuff.

[jwa418]

I would have to agree with Kosk and Meltdown on this, I haven't been here long be they both seem to know what they are talking about.
If it is a true Horror film you can get away with it, people go to these films to be scared and or shocked. If it is a slasher or any other genre, I would only kill a child if it was central to the plot. Slashers draw in a lot of the same crowed as horror films, but they also bring in a more diverse group of people, some of which may be completely put off by seeing a child killed.
Also if you are writing for the DTV market you can get away with more. The DTV producers aren't as tied up in the Hollywood politically correct, majority rules BS.
Simple solution, if it needs to be in the script, put it in the script, if not, don't.
I am working on an action script in which the plot centers on the hero seeing his 8 year old son killed. The death has to be in the script, but I tried to work it out so that it is implied, so no one has to see the kid get shot.


J.W.

[akaRichie]

My two cents on the fear thing...I think Meltdown's word 'unknown' hits the nail on the head. If you think of any stressfull situation in life, you can trace the 'feeling of stress' to uncertainty. In other words, uncertainty is what causes stress. Eliminate the uncertainty, you eliminate the stress. Create uncertainty, you create stress.

What's in the dark/under my bed. Is that psycho going to stab me while I'm in the shower. Does that kid really see dead people. Does my nieghbor have a body buried in his basement and why is he so damned happy all the time.

With this in mind if you create uncertainty in a life and death situation you have horror. Along with this, the more realistic the situation or the closer a situation is to ones beliefs, the greater the amplitude of stress/fear.

If you think of any scene that scared you, it was believable to you, and there was uncertainty in the situation.

Personally I feel blood and guts are cheap tools used to create fear. Honestly, who here (above the age of 12) was scared watching Night of the Living Dead.

The real fear lies in execution of uncertainty.

[Cornell]

Dittos to Loudlonald's post....

"No such thing as too far, in my book. I say write what you will, so long as it's essential to the story. If you're going to kill a child in a screenplay, don't do it just for the sake of shock value. It has to be important to the plot."

Don't do it for the shocking aspect--do it because it belongs in the story. Only then will it seem right to be there.

[Daughter of Lir]

I never really understood why SO many people got wigged out on that scene in "Interview", I mean it wasn't *that* bad (I thought it rocked, heh)... then again that sort of thing doesn't get to me. I can handle blood, I can handle flat-out killing... the s-hit that gets to me is the things that shouldn't, logically, BE... that little girl should NOT be spiderwalking backwards down the stairs, Nyx should NOT come out of that grave still alive and all gooey, the damn coffins should NOT be popping up out of the swimming pool and coming after them, and that guy sure as HELL should not be twitching and cavorting and turning into a slavering wolf-headed critter... I mean, its the things that shouldn't, that "can't" be that scare me... Its interesting though, I haven't really put any gore into any of my screenplays yet. Creepy crap, yes. Its like... I dunno, for ME (not for anyone else!) its almost too easy just to put some nasty gorey stuff... I want to creep you out. I want you to be scared to go to the bathroom at night. I want you to be unable to look at the staircase as you pass it because everytime you do, you see Regan skittering down the stairs at you. So... to sort of summarize what the rest of the Scooby Gang is saying (in various ways and means), I don't think its going "too far" to kill a kid, but as was said previously don't waste space on it unless its necessary to the flick. Killing a kid for killing's sake is a waste of space where you could be inserting insidiously spooky writing... :)

Back to the crypt,

DoL