While researching some different aspects for my 3rd screenplay, (still trying to decide between comedy, biopic or horror) I have been doing some serious thinking about just what is it that attracts us to horror films; or what it is about them that scares us. Terror is defined as an intense, sharp or overmastering fear. I believe that the true films that stand out in our genre are films that terrorize, horrify, and have the ability to gross you out at least twice during each film.
I found a very interesting article in the Journal of Media Psychology that breaks up horror films into seven different psychological theories of accomplishment.
- Psychodynamic
- Catharsis
- Excitation Transfer
- Curiosity/ Fascination
- Sensation Seeking
- Dispositional Alignment
- Gender Role Socialization
- Societal Concern
Each of these attributes when combined correctly influence our decisions on viewing certain horror films over others and in a greater general consensus more successful than others.
Psychodynamic or psychoanalysis is the use of symbolism and other general figures to impact the viewer on several different levels simultaneously. It is important that we view archetypes or primordial images that reside in our collective unconscious as dangerous and fearful. In other words we are genetically programmed to be afraid of the unknown; to be afraid of sharks, aliens, snakes, spiders and more generally the darkness. Many films use this underlying force to excite and strike fear into their audience but few do so in such a way that create a truly terrifying experience. I believe Jaws to be the true champion of this universal theme.
Catharsis is the opportunity to purge oneself of certain negative emotions. By viewing horror films people can get away from the doldrums of everyday life by experiencing fear and utilizing their imaginations to escape. There have been numerous studies on people of the effects of viewing violent media and content and the subsequent acts of aggression that could be triggered by exposure to such images, most of which show a negative correlation, yet we continue to watch horror and action films. I have seen hundreds of horror films and haven't killed anyone. Yet certain themes do seem to resonate in the subconscious and by viewing such acts of violence, and the watcher of such films can purge the negative emotions toward society by mentally exhausting one's self through film... But hey, that's just my two cents.
Excitation Transfer is a variation on the overall views on catharsis and the surrounding emotions. It has been proven that the viewers of horror films can be psychologically aroused and intrigued by the simple viewing of a terrifying movie. People become excited, and during the stressful scenes of a rather effective film, the viewer will experience a wide variety of emotions and physiological effects. Heart rates rise, breathing can accelerate and in extreme cases the brain will actually emit endorphins when the stress of the plot-line is resolved. This is hard to believe, but if a movie really freaks you out.. your brain will reward you when the antagonist is killed at the end.
Horror films can have positive side effects like curiosity/ fascination, which is often triggered by an exploitation of of societal norms and everyday experiences. This effect is especially pronounced when certain "rules" are broken throughout the course of a film and the characters are punished for their actions. We all know that the slutty girl is going to get the ax and the pothead will not make it into the third act. It has been proven that people respond favorably when these type characters, whom are the norm violators, are butchered. When you break it down, it is a little hard to believe that some high school student really deserves to be stabbed with a fire-poker just for smoking some herb, but in the eyes of outstanding society... they deserve it...???
Now I believe I probably fall into the next category of sensation seeking. As far back as I remember I somewhat enjoyed being totally freaked out as a kid after watching scary movies. The move that got to me the worst probably was Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare. Yea yea, I know... it's not scary whatsoever, but for some reason it really got to me. My family had a cheater PPV box growing up, which I blame for my fascination with movies, but it also gave my the opportunity for multiple viewings of the same movie. When Freddy's Dead came out I was so excited to finally see the film... then I don't think I slept for like three days. But I kept watching the movie whenever it was on. I was a thrill seeking little dude and just couldn't get enough of it even back then. I wish I could resurrect that feeling nowadays but hopefully one of my screenplays will affect America's up and coming youth.
Dispositional alignment is the overall judgement of certain scenes the audience is likely to adopt. People are less likely to give a shit if the girl who sleeps with the jock gets a machete to the face than they would be if an innocent 6 year old boy got it instead. The viewer will actually adapt a positive view of the violence toward the slutty girl and not toward the child, which could make or break an entire film.
Gender Role socialization, just the fact that a psychologist had to point this out and I didn't even think of it makes me laugh. Guys like to watch horror films with girls because they get scared and try to clutch onto them. Girls like it when guys are the master or their domain and show no fear whatsoever. Horror films provide this atmosphere for everyone to enjoy. It is a shame that the lame ass MPAA is slapping R and NC-17 ratings on everything causing half of the largest demographic for horror, 14-34, not to be included. I believe that this does in fact have a significant impact on the financial success of certain films.
You also never really think about it, but horror films seem to mimic the hot button issues of the times. The early creature features of the 1950's reflect a timid society in the shadow of the nuclear era, the slasher's of the 1980's reflect the fear of authority figures and the subtle essence of cold war totalitarianism. An effective horror film will have this subtext and be able to relate to the subtle issues plaguing modern societies.
All in all this blog post is a mere reflection of just how the themes and contexts of our favorite films can be broken down and generalized into a successful venture into the fear and the unknown. My next post will analyze the allure of popular horror cinema and their effectiveness in establishing terror...
Tension, relevance, and unrealism.
-Cjevy
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Nightmare on Elm St. Remake
After just concluding my screenplay for a Hellraiser reboot, I decided that I wanted to go back and revisit "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and try to figure out why it was such an epic fail in my eyes. The point of this is exercise is really to make sure that I have not just made the same mistakes over again. And for the record I am writing this after watching the new NOES on DVD.
Wes Craven's beyond classic 1984 film has everything needed to create masterful horror in my eyes. I can actually remember watching the film by myself, at midnight, in the dark, when I was probably oh six or seven years old. I specifically remember that it was on USA and I had snuck out of my bedroom in order to catch a glimpse of the film. I want to officially say that the original Nightmare probably kickstarted my lifelong obsession with horror movies, for just the sheer thrill of being scared. When you are that age, the adrenaline really flows while watching a film. Now, at 26 I hardly feel like that anymore while watching a movie, it's just not the same. But anyway, the original had EVERYTHING needed to be successful. A terrifying antagonist in Freddy Kruger, likable protagonist,; Nancy, romantic interest; Glen, the "oracle" character in the drunk mom, everything needed to create an amicable ensemble of characters needed to complete the journey into the realm of the dream world. Freddy himself, Robert Englund, just had that on screen presence that made your skin crawl. The fact that anything is capable in the dream is what really makes him terrifying. Anyway, I don't think I really need to go into too deep a detail as to why Nightmare on Elm is an all time classic.
Now the 2010 reboot of Nightmare On Elm is a very interesting ploy and on paper I think could have worked. First... what it did have... A variety of "new" spins and takes on the original story.
- Freddy is apparently a pedifile
- The use of "micronebs" or dreams while you are awake
- Great opening with the knife to the throat suicide.
- Scenes from several different Nightmare films, not just the original
- Unique Flashbacks
These elements should have made for a great new spin on the franchise. Well, they didn't and I don't think I have ever been more pissed off in my life leaving the theater, well except for when I paid to see "Signs", but other than that pretty freakin' angry. The Nightmare Franchise to the children of the 80's is up there on our nostaglia list with "The Goonies" and Ninja Turtles, so it is pretty goddamn important to be re-launched correctly.
Well first off, Jackie Earl Haley is a terrible conception of Freddy Kruger. His on screen presence just isn't scary. Groundskeeper Willy from that one Treehouse of Horror was more intimidating that JEH. He is just barely 5 ft tall and all the CGI makeup even lessens the case for terror. The decision to re-vamp Freddy's backstory, which on paper sounds great, totally ruins any sort of horror hero quality. People like to root for Jason or Leatherface to crush the pothead, or the annoying girl... but making Freddy belong on "To Catch a Predator" just sort of ruined his persona.
My biggest problem with the film is the pacing and character development. From the get-go I originally thought the hot blonde was Nancy, because the story revolved around her for the first twenty minutes. Then she dies in a lame excuse for the upside down ceiling kill from the original then we pretty much meet Nancy afterwards. She has similar qualities to the original Nancy but she has to talents or drive to defeat Freddy like the original. She just follows the guy from "A Haunting in Connecticut" while he figures out how to defeat Freddy. It's Nancy's battle with Freddy that makes the original awesome.
All in All the third act is decent, but the first two are just so bad that they can't make up for it. I hope in my heart of hearts that I can somehow get my Hellraiser script to Dimension because if it is true, and the guy who wrote Jason X is on the project, that franchise will wind up in the graveyard just like A Nightmare on Elm Street....
Wes Craven's beyond classic 1984 film has everything needed to create masterful horror in my eyes. I can actually remember watching the film by myself, at midnight, in the dark, when I was probably oh six or seven years old. I specifically remember that it was on USA and I had snuck out of my bedroom in order to catch a glimpse of the film. I want to officially say that the original Nightmare probably kickstarted my lifelong obsession with horror movies, for just the sheer thrill of being scared. When you are that age, the adrenaline really flows while watching a film. Now, at 26 I hardly feel like that anymore while watching a movie, it's just not the same. But anyway, the original had EVERYTHING needed to be successful. A terrifying antagonist in Freddy Kruger, likable protagonist,; Nancy, romantic interest; Glen, the "oracle" character in the drunk mom, everything needed to create an amicable ensemble of characters needed to complete the journey into the realm of the dream world. Freddy himself, Robert Englund, just had that on screen presence that made your skin crawl. The fact that anything is capable in the dream is what really makes him terrifying. Anyway, I don't think I really need to go into too deep a detail as to why Nightmare on Elm is an all time classic.
Now the 2010 reboot of Nightmare On Elm is a very interesting ploy and on paper I think could have worked. First... what it did have... A variety of "new" spins and takes on the original story.
- Freddy is apparently a pedifile
- The use of "micronebs" or dreams while you are awake
- Great opening with the knife to the throat suicide.
- Scenes from several different Nightmare films, not just the original
- Unique Flashbacks
These elements should have made for a great new spin on the franchise. Well, they didn't and I don't think I have ever been more pissed off in my life leaving the theater, well except for when I paid to see "Signs", but other than that pretty freakin' angry. The Nightmare Franchise to the children of the 80's is up there on our nostaglia list with "The Goonies" and Ninja Turtles, so it is pretty goddamn important to be re-launched correctly.
Well first off, Jackie Earl Haley is a terrible conception of Freddy Kruger. His on screen presence just isn't scary. Groundskeeper Willy from that one Treehouse of Horror was more intimidating that JEH. He is just barely 5 ft tall and all the CGI makeup even lessens the case for terror. The decision to re-vamp Freddy's backstory, which on paper sounds great, totally ruins any sort of horror hero quality. People like to root for Jason or Leatherface to crush the pothead, or the annoying girl... but making Freddy belong on "To Catch a Predator" just sort of ruined his persona.
My biggest problem with the film is the pacing and character development. From the get-go I originally thought the hot blonde was Nancy, because the story revolved around her for the first twenty minutes. Then she dies in a lame excuse for the upside down ceiling kill from the original then we pretty much meet Nancy afterwards. She has similar qualities to the original Nancy but she has to talents or drive to defeat Freddy like the original. She just follows the guy from "A Haunting in Connecticut" while he figures out how to defeat Freddy. It's Nancy's battle with Freddy that makes the original awesome.
All in All the third act is decent, but the first two are just so bad that they can't make up for it. I hope in my heart of hearts that I can somehow get my Hellraiser script to Dimension because if it is true, and the guy who wrote Jason X is on the project, that franchise will wind up in the graveyard just like A Nightmare on Elm Street....
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The Sixth Sense
So I was doing some research online about some of the most successful screenwriters in the trade today and a surprising number of them named "The Sixth Sense" in their top five scripts they have ever read, so I decided to download it and give it a read. It has been years since I last saw the film, probably in 2000 along with everyone else.
The script is powerful and moving. You really feel for Cole (Haley Joel Osmund) as a poor kid who wants nothing more than to be normal. Dr. Malcolm on the other hand is struggling with his own personal demons throughout the entire screenplay, and plays a great ally/ mentor for young Cole. While reading it I dissected the pacing and structure more than I would any other typical god-awful crap I was required to read. The moment we find out that young Cole "sees dead people" was on page 64. The screenplay is 127 pages long, so pretty much the exact middle of the story. Convenient? More like precise. One thing that Shyamalan does perfectly throughout the entire screenplay is that he sets the mood in each new scene with a short and adequate description. Whether the room is cold, dark, bright, ominous... whatever he uses short descriptive phrases that lay the mood down perfectly.
After being forced to dissect scripts for the tiniest of mistakes I can also say that his script would have been penalized by "reader" standards and forced to have been given a 3 or 4 out of 5 because of it. He often phrased entire paragraphs using ALL CAPS. It works beautifully to draw attention to something important but the reader in me wants to scream out. He even called a silly ancillary character two different names in the same scene. And of course the most noticeable of mistakes is that the script isn't even in Courier font. From the looks of it, it might be Arial, or something similar. It makes me want to yell because he made almost 3 million dollars on selling the script. By "hollywood" standards it is too long, and not properly formatted, so the question is how did he get the bound, three-hole punched paper, past the gatekeepers, and into the hands of powerful executives. But that is another story....
All in All, check it out, it is a good and surprisingly quick read, especially if you haven't seen the movie in a while. (It's on instant Netflix)
http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Sixth-Sense,-The.html
The script is powerful and moving. You really feel for Cole (Haley Joel Osmund) as a poor kid who wants nothing more than to be normal. Dr. Malcolm on the other hand is struggling with his own personal demons throughout the entire screenplay, and plays a great ally/ mentor for young Cole. While reading it I dissected the pacing and structure more than I would any other typical god-awful crap I was required to read. The moment we find out that young Cole "sees dead people" was on page 64. The screenplay is 127 pages long, so pretty much the exact middle of the story. Convenient? More like precise. One thing that Shyamalan does perfectly throughout the entire screenplay is that he sets the mood in each new scene with a short and adequate description. Whether the room is cold, dark, bright, ominous... whatever he uses short descriptive phrases that lay the mood down perfectly.
After being forced to dissect scripts for the tiniest of mistakes I can also say that his script would have been penalized by "reader" standards and forced to have been given a 3 or 4 out of 5 because of it. He often phrased entire paragraphs using ALL CAPS. It works beautifully to draw attention to something important but the reader in me wants to scream out. He even called a silly ancillary character two different names in the same scene. And of course the most noticeable of mistakes is that the script isn't even in Courier font. From the looks of it, it might be Arial, or something similar. It makes me want to yell because he made almost 3 million dollars on selling the script. By "hollywood" standards it is too long, and not properly formatted, so the question is how did he get the bound, three-hole punched paper, past the gatekeepers, and into the hands of powerful executives. But that is another story....
All in All, check it out, it is a good and surprisingly quick read, especially if you haven't seen the movie in a while. (It's on instant Netflix)
http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Sixth-Sense,-The.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)