Halloween color corrected for maximum impact

N

Nick Rivers

New member
Just finished this horror short for halloween, did the final color correction in Apple's Color, this is the first project I've finished in that application, very happy with the results. Of course, doesn't shine through as well as I'd like, given YouTube's compression, but I followed the compression techniques suggested on Ken Stone's Final Cut site for compressing for YouTube. Anyway, this short might not be everyone's cup of tea, it's definitely 'horror' - no laughs here, each frame was chosen for maximum ickyness - so don't say your weren't warned,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSiVjAn98Ac
 
Its cool, but sick. Maybe if you used a person AT LEAST 17 and up. but a kid/baby? cmon What do your parents think of u? Have they seen it?

ps, are u goth?

nice look to the video though
 
This will probably get deleted just as your other post featuring this short did.

I'm not sure that it should, though. I definitely don't agree with your choices to include the shots of the small child flopping around in his own blood, but without being able to see how it was shot, we don't know if it really was as "gruesome" as it seems. Heck, I could shoot a child fingerpainting and edit it together to make it look like this.

Either way, to be on the safe side, I'm not totally against deletion. Tell us how you achieved those shots, and maybe that'll change people's minds.

If you really did stick that kid in a tub and have him squirm around in blood, you should be shot.

-brown
 
halloween reactions

halloween reactions

Yes I agree that if you had some information on how this admittedly disturbing video was made maybe you wouldn't think I'm such a degenerate.
First off I'm married with no children, I'm not Goth, I live in Toronto and edit financial/corporate/commercials for a living. I'm a horror movie fan, particularly the old stuff by Tobe Hooper, Wes Craven, and Mario Bava.
'Daddy' is played by a local actor who I've worked with before, he raised his own son by himself. The 'Boy' is my nephew C.J., he was quite excited to be in a movie, and by the end of the evening was very connected to the actor playing 'Daddy'. The only disturbing stuff is the shots of fake blood spraying on C.J., take away that and you've got pretty standard 'scary' footage, which is perhaps made more scary by the sickly synthesizer music that I created specifically for this short. My intentions were to shock and horrify - not lightheartedly amuse. So far I think I've succeeded.

Anyway the objectionable shots were created very simply. I sat C.J. down in the bathroom, his other Uncle whom he lives with close by, and told him we were gonna have a food fight, with 'strawberry sauce'. At first he seemed confused that I would purposefully make a mess, but then very quickly got into the fun. And Yes I did ask him to 'play dead' in a very fun cartoon kind of way, knowing that I had no intentions of using his face in any of the shots. And all this time I was panning wildly with the camera, sometimes taking more time to compose, hoping I would get some useable footage. The very first shot of his leg is his Uncle shaking his leg a little at my request. After about five minutes we cut the camera and started to clean him and the mess up.
Later, when I saw the footage at home I did feel a bit awkward, because this stuff looks horrible. And yet, I realized, that's the power or movie magic, and even more so of editing. I knew from the get-go that if I intercut shots of a guy with a knife with shots of a child, that would get a reaction. Later I thought let's include a close-up shot of the child's arm flopping on the ground with blood on it, and from there that's how I went with it.
So Yes, I used a child intentionally because I knew that would be more disturbing than an adult's arm. I'm a no-budget style filmmaker, I use what I can to create what I want - provocative imagery. And if you hadn't noticed, that's all it is - a kid with fake blood on him. There's never a knife anywhere near him. That's the power of editing. Also, I used a hand massager my wife bought me from the drugstore on the camera during those shots, which makes them jump and stutter, an effect that lends an even more gritty uncomfortable feel.

In the end, C.J. had a great time playing with all of us, we had pizza and drinks, and he got a bag of goodies from the dollar store as reward for his great performance. Do I think I exploited him? Yes, I exploited the fact that he's a child to get a reaction from the audience. Do I think there has been or will be any negative effect towards him because of his willingness and downright excitement to "be in a movie"? No. We'll see in ten years when I show him the video.
Much like the producers of the recent movie 'Hard Candy' I set out to make something provocative because as a small no-budget project I knew it would be hard to get attention or noticed. I think I've got your attention, and I thank you for it, but please remember it's just fake, and every frame was calculated to make you uncomfortable, much the way Hooper's 'Eaten Alive' or Craven's 'The Hills Have Eyes' do, or at least that was my self-appointed task.

Thanks,
 
eventhough you didn't actually harm a child, it's still messed up to even think about. I loved the syth you got going on in there, very much like Craven's first Nightmare film. Also the shot of the knife being thrown into the sink was really cool. I really liked the gritty look.
 
Last edited:
Nick,

I don't think it's entertaining seeing a kid murdered by his dad. I find it repulsive. If that was the end of it you'd have succeeded and we'd all be fine. The problem are those who are entertained. There's a certain responsibility that comes with filmaking. Art does change the world.

Would you be bothered if you saw a movie that simulated sexual abuse of a kid? Let's suppose for a moment it just showed the kids head bobbing up and down. I'm sure everyone here especially those with kids are grimacing right now.

That's going over the edge aye? But simulated murder of a child is acceptible somehow?

There are lines that don't get crossed for a reason. No studio wants to be associated with the fallout. In Asian cinema these lines get crossed more frequently They're way less squeemish about violence. (Sympathy for Mr Vengeance, Old Boys, etc.) It might be interesting to note the statistics of crimes against minors in those places, but honestly you have to look beyond your desire to make people squirm and ask yourself about that 'one person' who gets a little too much titillation from this and is guided or moved by it. Do you want to be the guy that moved that guy? Do you even want one frame of your short in that person's head as they're hurting a child? Having read your post I'd say surely not.

Just my 2 cents, do as you will.
 
Ming said:
Would you be bothered if you saw a movie that simulated sexual abuse of a kid? Let's suppose for a moment it just showed the kids head bobbing up and down. I'm sure everyone here especially those with kids are grimacing right now.

That's going over the edge aye? But simulated murder of a child is acceptible somehow?
Click to expand...

Without deliberately starting a debate, I disagree. Children are killed in movies all the time, and they're also sexually abused. Sometimes for entertainment, sometimes to show the long instilled trauma of abuse. Not that I agree with some of the choices of the filmmakers, but I do respect their right to tell the story as they see fit.

Case in point:

Stephen King's "Pet Semetary"

and Gregg Araki's "Mysterious Skin"



and to be perfectly honest, despite me totally disagreeing with and feeling repulsed by this short, I'm starting to think this thread shoud NOT have been deleted yesterday in the clips section.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that is true RCBrown - but those are both movies in which children get killed as part of a greater story. This is exactly why I posted earlier asking if this was the "short film" he had made, or just a trailer for it.

There is no story here, there is no context, there is nothing here except for images of a child getting murdered by his father.

Big difference.
It's the difference between a movie with a sex scene and porn.
One exists within a greater context, the other exists merely for the sake of itself.

However - that said - this all reminds me of a quote from Hitchcock who said:
"I am responsible to my audience, not for my audience"

I don't think filmmakers shouldn't make and release things like this out of concern for what an audience member might do.
Personally I think filmmakers shouldn't make and release things like this because they don't really add anything to the world.
No story, no entertainment, nothing to relate to, not even a catharsis of sorts... only negative imagery.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all your observations, don't agree with all of them, but glad some of you feel that at least I should have the right to post the link and comment/recieve comments on it.

I didn't mean to start this discussion, but I'm enjoying it nonetheless, you all have interestinig points.

As far as the responsibility of the media maker, I feel no obligation to cater to society or not to. I make what I want - always assumed that was the first rule of creation, please yourself first.

That being said, it does not please me to meditate on the idea of a father killing his child. It frightens me, which is why I chose to explore the notion. And I think that's something many others can relate to - the idea of being scared of your Father, have I displesased him? etc.

In terms of narrative, this is a short, I prefer to think of it as a nightmare - it certainly qualifies as such. Personally I'm not uncomfortable with films/books/etc. that incorporate dream logic. I find that much more close to real life half the time anyway. But whatever, this is a video, not real life, but regardless it is a nightmare - a roller coaster ride with only scary plunges.

And in the end, I feel that the emotional impact is different than if there had been a 'twist' at the end and the boy had been the killer. This video ends on a downbeat, and that is bothersome to many, or at least that leaves a bad lingering taste in our mouth which many find disagreeable. Personally I like that (from time to time :)). But then I like the original 'The hills have eyes' because it contains that same intensity, similarly in 'The Witchfinder General'.

But don't get me wrong, I don't like to dwell on these things, I don't live in a world of hate and darkness, I don't decorate my walls with black imagery or listen to heavy aggressive music. Not that there's anything wrong with any one of those things, my point is simply that I don't fantasize about violence or wish to see it happen, or want it to happen to anyone for that matter.

thanks,

--------- and glad you liked the music smpproductions, let's talk more about that aspect,
 
Nick Rivers said:
That being said, it does not please me to meditate on the idea of a father killing his child. It frightens me, which is why I chose to explore the notion. And I think that's something many others can relate to - the idea of being scared of your Father, have I displesased him? etc.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - I do think that is something others could relate to.
But as far as 'exploring the notion' there simply didn't seem to be any exploration of the notion at all in this - it is really jsut a representation of the notion. There is no real meditation on it, there is nothing being said (that I can take away from it anyhow).

I'm not trying to bash here - sincerely.
I have no issue with your creation of this, and I'm not saying you shouldn't have made it, etc etc. Simply my two cents that while it shows that you have a good handle on editing/shooting/mood - it does nothing in terms of exploring the notion of a father killing his child. It just shows us what it might be like. The motivations, the inner workings, the ramifications (both psychologically and physically) are things that I would expect to delve into if someone told me they wanted to explore the topic. There is no exploration here, only a guy killing a child.

In terms of narrative, this is a short, I prefer to think of it as a nightmare
Click to expand...

I'll give you that - you definitely hit your mark.

Personally I'm not uncomfortable with films/books/etc. that incorporate dream logic.
Click to expand...

Me neither - but again, we're talking about things that incorporate dream logic as part of a greater whole.
In this case there is no 'greater whole' - The nightmare imagery is all we have.

This video ends on a downbeat, and that is bothersome to many
Click to expand...

I guess my issue is that it starts on a downbeat as well.
There is no progression, there is no ebb and flow, it is simply pure horror for 2 minutes - a flat line with no juxtaposition, no context.
Honestly, it could have been more of a narrative and more horrific (in my opinion) had it started on an upbeat.

But again, I'm left with a feeling of - why?
Am I to take something away from this?
Or is it simply the act of giving an audience an strong emotional reaction?

Anyhow - I'm just sort of rambling now.
Not trying to really debate much of anything here, as clearly we are discussing differences in taste and personal opinion.
I appreciate that you're taking the discussion in stride - and hopefully everyone who comments will do the same.

For what its worth - I do think it was well shot, well edited, and well colored.
I just don't feel it was well conceived - and honestly feel you could have reached the same end with a more engaging and less graphic product. You also could have reached the same end with a less well shot, edited, and colored piece. Because unfortunately I don't feel it is the skill of the camerawork or editing that really makes this piece so evocative to people. What I mean is, while it was well put together - it could have been done sloppily and still gotten the same reaction.
 
Last edited:
I'm all for freedom of expression, but I think we as creators have to be responsible for what we put out. Hitchcock never put out anything like this, it always had some context. Pet Cemetary had a kid with violence and disturbing content, but again the difference was in those stories there was a context. It's not the idea of a father murdering his kid that deserves moral scrutiny, it's the graphic portrayal. I'm not complaining about the kid used in this movie, although I certainly wouldn't let my own kid participate. I have both a 2 and 4 year old boys if it helps you understand. How many kids are going to watch this on you tube and have that floating around in their heads? It's not your job to babysit people's kids... It's not. It's your job to make sure there's something awful for parents to hope their kids dont see - and if you don't someone else will so it might as well be you.

Simulated child murder on you tube. We NEED this in the world. It's very important.

I'll fight and die for people's right to express, but I'll also ask them kindly not to use this right to set us backward merely for the sake of expression. A hammer can build wonderful things, but also has the power to destroy.

Hopefully I'm done here. If nothing more your short gives us something to talk about that matters a great deal. I still don't want psychos and children watching it.
 
Last edited:
Lots of food for thought gentlemen, and although I don't regret creating it or even just dreaming it up, there's always room for improvement with anything we do.

More context perhaps would improve it, and maybe YouTube isn't the best place for it. I'm not sure. But I am proud of it, and I disagree that the camerawork & editing don't play a role in it's reception, or that the act alone is enough to horrify. The thought of the act alone IS enough to horrify, but it still could be put together very cheaply - I believe it could look a lot sillier, and showing too much could lessen the impact; there's still a lot left to the imagination. Also a co-worker (a fellow director) did comment on the actor playing 'Daddy', noting that his intensity of expression really added to the his feelings of revulsion/horror. And personally I think the music does a lot to emphasize the mood.
But I think I've said enough at this point, I appreciate all of your comments, and I hope to bring you something in the future that is not deemed so downright offensive, or if it is I hope it stands up a little better under scrutiny. I'm going to continue to promote this short for the rest of the month, and if it just gives a few folks a shudder then that's enough for me, and hopefully that's the only impact it has.

Thanks,
 
This is a good discussion, and a civil one. for that... this clip is serving a purpose. I hope the discussion continues as such
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top