when do subjects/content cross the line?

Randall_Oelerich

Randall_Oelerich

Veteran
I have a horror short in mind. My general question as it relates is when does content or subject matter cross over the line? What is acceptable, not acceptable? I mean we have had Hostel, Tourista, Silence of the Lambs, the Saw franchise, Friday the 13th, Chainsaw Massacres. What is too much in terms of violence, subject matter? What about children-- what could be shown or not shown? (don't worry, I have no nudity or violent acts planned against children in my short) I mean, there is the Exorcist from the '70s with some pretty graphic horror with little Megan and crotch blood and all.
 
There is no line for a filmmaker just for an audience. I don't want to see all that gore but some people do. You can poll them in the pit at the next Manson concert lol.

Error on the side of caution I'd say but man... in this industry that may make or break you. Just do what you want and cross your fingers.
 
Yeah, especially in horror, it depends entirely on your audience - some people think a movie's no good unless other audience members are retching or walking out.

Presuming you're looking at any sort of commercial distribution, there is a legal line to consider in terms of what censorship rating you'll get - the censor may simply 'ban' a film if it's 'offensive' enough, which may impress your hardcore fans but ain't going to impress any legit distributor.
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
when does content or subject matter cross over the line?
Click to expand...

Like others have said, it is subjective and determined by each viewer.

What is acceptable, not acceptable? What is too much in terms of violence, subject matter?
Click to expand...
Alot of what is "acceptable" or not weights heavily on the context in which it is presented.

What about children-- what could be shown or not shown?
Click to expand...
For the most part, you have to use your own judgment or that of someone you trust. If in writing or filming you feel something crosses a line or is just too much, then step back and make the appropriate changes.
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
I have a horror short in mind. My general question as it relates is when does content or subject matter cross over the line? What is acceptable, not acceptable? I mean we have had Hostel, Tourista, Silence of the Lambs, the Saw franchise, Friday the 13th, Chainsaw Massacres. What is too much in terms of violence, subject matter? What about children-- what could be shown or not shown? (don't worry, I have no nudity or violent acts planned against children in my short) I mean, there is the Exorcist from the '70s with some pretty graphic horror with little Megan and crotch blood and all.
Click to expand...

For a no-budget filmmaker, unless the story is so 'ready for church' presentations, I would not recommend using 'children' at all.

Many films were a 'teen' is depicted, when you look at the credits the 'teen' really is 20's something. I recall in the first "Twilight"(2008) installment the lead actress, Kristen Stewart, was 17 for most of the production, and only after she was 18, did they do the 'first kiss' scene.

For Adrian Lyne's rendition of "Lolita", there was a whole lot of stuntbuttery using an 18 year old model...

But these are 'big budget' deals so, such a production could afford 'legal' advice to make sure all 'i's and 't's are dotted and crossed.

Any 'stunts' in a horror film have sever constraints on the ages of those involved in the shooting of the pratical stunt action.

----------------------------------------------------------

As for 'how far', given the range that you have indicated, I say that other than unsimulated sex, there is no 'limit'... (Ok, even simulated sex is severely limited...)
But if there's no sex, then you can be the filmic equivalent to Vlad the Impaler, and the most you may get is an R...

In a word... they don't call it 'torture' porn, because it has nice safe blood letting...
 
you might also consider delivering a scary/gruesome scene without actually showing scary/gruesome stuff.

i notice in a lot of popular horror flix, the scariness is achieved by exactly what they're not showing you. rather, the horror element is insinuated through scene setup, editing, sound fx, etc.
 
Good advice. Probably the closest thing to what I have in mind is the scene from the 70s film The Exorcist where Meghan rams the crucifix into her crotch and we see the bloodied clothing there, although we do not see anything besides the bloody clothing-- so, is that doable in a short horror, with a child? No nudity, but that sort of thing with red blood in a crotch area, if it is highly relevant to the plot? Seems like The Exorcist got away with it.
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
Good advice. Probably the closest thing to what I have in mind is the scene from the 70s film The Exorcist where Meghan rams the crucifix into her crotch and we see the bloodied clothing there, although we do not see anything besides the bloody clothing-- so, is that doable in a short horror, with a child? No nudity, but that sort of thing with red blood in a crotch area, if it is highly relevant to the plot? Seems like The Exorcist got away with it.
Click to expand...

Totally different mind set these days. In the 70's one had "The Exorcist"(1973), "Taxi Driver"(1976), and "Pretty Baby" (1978). On the topic of "Pretty Baby", the actual 'film' was shot with Brook Shields in a 'body' suit to avoid 'nudity' on screen. However a stills session was shot by Gary Gross, that these days in all likelihood would not be shot, or probably open the photographer to charges. In that regard Jock Sturges was embroiled in a years long battle about 'controversial' pictures he took, with parental permission, of their children 'in the nude'. I think there was some issue about Maplethorpe's 'nudes' of children, again with parental permission, as well. Sally Mann, another still photographer, had much controversy surrounding pictures she took of her own children as well.

In addition to these films, there were also rock group album covers, featuring nude/seminude 'adolescents', which would not be done at all in these modern times.

About the only photographer that seems to have 'stayed the course', and probably because he works out of Europe, is 'David Hamilton', whose 'dreaming/gossamer' images of adolescent girls has been the topic of protests by the leaders of moral prudery, for years in the US.

Here's the problem. In the case of the "Exorcist", or similar representations, a filmmaker could possibly argue that the scene depicted is not intended to 'excite' a sexual response. That it is a depiction of this 'horrible' evil spirit, etc. And with an army of lawyers, and the money to pay them, one could probably 'get away with it'.

The problem of course, is that one who is making no-lo (sounds so... legal...) budget films, one does not have the money to pay for defense.

Example... a few years ago a porn film maker and his wife were charged with producing obscene material, basically 'rape/murder' porn. The films were all made with 'consenting' adults, and 'no one was actually raped, or murdered'. However, the couple was charged under 'obscenity' laws, which use 'community standards', and have various 'redeeming social value' criteria. Eventually after several rounds in court, the couple apparently decided to plead to some set of charges, as they claimed their financial ability to defend had dwindled to nothing.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Zicari)

Basically the lesson to be learned here is, forget 'freedom of expression', if you don't have the money, you don't have the freedom. In this regard, Larry Flint has had the ability to use the proceeds from "Hustler" magazine, which has sold well in almost everywhere it has been offered, to allow him to mount local defenses with 'massive' financial backing. The above mentioned filmmakers didn't learn this 'basic' lesson, and only had limited financial resources to use for fighting charges.
 
Last edited:
Charli said:
Entertainment. Once it loses it's entertainment value, people walk out.
Click to expand...


In sort of a totally coincidental event, I posted a thought about M. Night Shyamalan's work, where in most cases he does not depict 'gore', or the 'monstrous' in his films.

While people have criticized, complained about his films of late... he's still able to muster financing... so someone, somewhere seems to think what he does 'works' for some audience...

I also made the comment that this 'no show' on gore, is sort of like much of Hitchcock, where people are still jammering about "Psycho"(1960), and whether or not Janet Leigh's boob shows in the shower scene or not, that the knife pierces her skin or not, or how the use of chocolate syrup 'appeared' red to some viewers, despite the fact that the movie was shot in B&W.
 
Charli said:
Entertainment. Once it loses it's entertainment value, people walk out.
Click to expand...

Had the ending for the movie The Strangers not have been, well, the ending, I would have walked out. Good example of a scene that lost its entertainment value and made me never want to see that movie again-- Rogue Pictures lost what might have been more revenue from DVD rentals/sales from myself and others.
 
I was reading the script to Halloween a few weeks ago, and it really struck me how little gore and stabbing there is in that film, in terms of minutes of screenplay. If I recall, of course there was the opening hook with the very brief scene where little Michael kills his sister but that was brief. Then there is pretty much no violence until the last 10-15 pages. The vast majority of that film is dread, suspense-- where is Michael? Is he gonna get someone?
 
This thread has helped. I am making some revisions to my short script idea, seeing what I can remove, what to keep. Hope nobody got the wrong idea. I would never do violence in a story/film to a child, I don't like grisly violence even to adults in stories (never seen a Texas Chainsaw, I have yet to watch a Friday the 13th, watched one of the Saw movies but never the sequels). Just wanted to get a discussion going on what are the limits, boundaries, to find the edge of what is tasteful and legal and safe for a supernatural horror short film I have in mind to write and film.
 
Think about where your film is going to end up. If it's for an online audience like youtube the line would be very different to exclusive audiences at horror film festivals.

The further the line the more restricted the audience, you know the drill !
 
I loved "The Strangers" The only line that can be crossed with me is violence against children. Anything else I could watch once. "Inside" "The Human Centipede" "I spit on your grave" and few others are films I would never watch again.
 
FYI, the Harrison Ford film "Air Force One" received an "R" rating, specifically because of one scene where the hijacker holds a gun up to a kid's head. I forget the kid's age, she was probably around 13 or so. He didn't shoot her, he was just using her as leverage, and that was enough to earn an "R" rating.

The studio sent Harrison Ford himself in on appeal, to try to get it down to a PG-13 rating. Nothing else in the film came anywhere near getting an "R", they had made it purposely to get a PG-13, and they really wanted that PG-13. But the MPAA was insistent, and eventually the director and studio decided that the scene was necessary enough to the storytelling that they decided to leave it in and accept the "R" rating.

So, keep that in perspective I guess; some of the things that have been contemplated in this thread as violence against kids or whatever, certainly seem like they're far more shocking/offensive than seeing a gun held up against a kid's head, yet that was enough to push a major studio blockbuster into "R" territory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top