CallaghanFilms
Veteran
:beer:
Would my script be an action, or horror film?
- Thread starter ironpony
- Start date
Randall_Oelerich
Veteran
Looked up the meaning of 'Nuno'. Kind of cool. "[Nuno] may have originated among northern Portugal's Roman legions and is said to mean "the ninth." Perhaps coming from the latin word "Nonio."
I like my first name's meaning too. Randall translates as 'shield wolf'.
Looked up the meaning of 'Nuno'. Kind of cool. "[Nuno] may have originated among northern Portugal's Roman legions and is said to mean "the ninth." Perhaps coming from the latin word "Nonio."
I like my first name's meaning too. Randall translates as 'shield wolf'.
This is actually quite cool. Now I keep thinking what am I ninth in? I got to go and read up on this...
Where does Randall originate from? Scotland?
Randall_Oelerich
Veteran
Nuno / The Ninth -- maybe the reincarnation of some uber-warrior-savior to rescue humanity from___; maybe a movie title and movie concept in there somewhere!
I think Randall is Old English maybe, I like 'shield wolf' because it seems to read as 'defense + offense' at the same time. My last name means 'oil rich' but i have never seen any cash from any oil wells so it much refer to oily skin pores and acne my ancestors were cursed with!
And we don' want you to feel left out of the name calling Callaghan! So-- "Callaghan": Anglicized form of the Gaelic "Ceallachan", a diminutive of the personal name "Ceallach", meaning contention or strife. (Ref)
Last edited:
10s
Veteran
Hey guys, for me this is one of the best conversations I've read on this forum in a very very long time. Let's keep it going and be respectful because we can all learn something that will help us grow and become better, and to me, that's cool, that's why I'm here.
I think Nuno ( I hope I got the name correct) is helping me gain a better understanding of horror and I greatly appreciate it. I also appreciate the counter arguments because they are challenging the definition and this helps us define this sort of work. The more we understand and can articulate the fine details then this greater degree of understanding will make it that much easier to write something that produces the emotional ride we want our audience to take.
Given what I have read so far there seems to be confusion around the distinction of Thrillers and Horror. It appears the critics and marketers do not have a handle on it, and that's fine because they can still fair well with such misunderstandings. We, on the other hand need clarity, we cannot afford to waste time failing if it's a matter of having a greater level of understanding.
So I'm hearing that Thrillers create sensations of excitment, and elict the question, "what's going to happen next", etc., and off the top of my head they seem to be chased based while horror manifest itself in the audience as a deep felt dread and a deep involuntary bodily action of protection, hiding, holding one's breath, closing their eyes....
I think I have been writing a thriller that is somewhat horror based given what I currentkly understand. I really like the idea of the basic pure horror genre because of it's power to activate basic primal triggers of fight or flight in the audience. This is the stuff I need to work on, I want to push em past their control limits.
A fewe thoughts have come to me while reading this. I really think starting the story creation process begins with a deep understanding of the end result in the person sitting there watching our story. We need this understanding of the end result so we can actually craft everything toward this ultimate experience. Without this clear understanding we are basically guessing, or should I say, lost. The whole intent of Story is this personal expereince. We, the craftsmen of this experince, can observe external bodily reactions in our audience. These observations serve as indicators of internal processes in the mind of the audience person as the story process unfolds. This helps us understand the triggers (whether they are discrete events or cumulative results, or possibly both) so we can place them within the story/journey at keys points to maximize the overall effect. I would think that too much of this could result in exhausting the audince and cause early withdrawal and defeat the overall experince goal. Placement of too little triggering mechanisms will bore the audience; they want the emotional ride! Finding the Goldiloch's sweet spot (balance point for optimization) of trigger points appears to be sensible goal. This is similar to lab/rat behavoral science experiments of Operant Conditioning based upon BF Skinner.
Let's keep exploring this!
I think Nuno ( I hope I got the name correct) is helping me gain a better understanding of horror and I greatly appreciate it. I also appreciate the counter arguments because they are challenging the definition and this helps us define this sort of work. The more we understand and can articulate the fine details then this greater degree of understanding will make it that much easier to write something that produces the emotional ride we want our audience to take.
Given what I have read so far there seems to be confusion around the distinction of Thrillers and Horror. It appears the critics and marketers do not have a handle on it, and that's fine because they can still fair well with such misunderstandings. We, on the other hand need clarity, we cannot afford to waste time failing if it's a matter of having a greater level of understanding.
So I'm hearing that Thrillers create sensations of excitment, and elict the question, "what's going to happen next", etc., and off the top of my head they seem to be chased based while horror manifest itself in the audience as a deep felt dread and a deep involuntary bodily action of protection, hiding, holding one's breath, closing their eyes....
I think I have been writing a thriller that is somewhat horror based given what I currentkly understand. I really like the idea of the basic pure horror genre because of it's power to activate basic primal triggers of fight or flight in the audience. This is the stuff I need to work on, I want to push em past their control limits.
A fewe thoughts have come to me while reading this. I really think starting the story creation process begins with a deep understanding of the end result in the person sitting there watching our story. We need this understanding of the end result so we can actually craft everything toward this ultimate experience. Without this clear understanding we are basically guessing, or should I say, lost. The whole intent of Story is this personal expereince. We, the craftsmen of this experince, can observe external bodily reactions in our audience. These observations serve as indicators of internal processes in the mind of the audience person as the story process unfolds. This helps us understand the triggers (whether they are discrete events or cumulative results, or possibly both) so we can place them within the story/journey at keys points to maximize the overall effect. I would think that too much of this could result in exhausting the audince and cause early withdrawal and defeat the overall experince goal. Placement of too little triggering mechanisms will bore the audience; they want the emotional ride! Finding the Goldiloch's sweet spot (balance point for optimization) of trigger points appears to be sensible goal. This is similar to lab/rat behavoral science experiments of Operant Conditioning based upon BF Skinner.
Let's keep exploring this!
Hey 10s, glad you joined in!
I believe you made a very good analysis of this topic. I must say that its easy for people to misread a horror from a thriller, since both can navigate the same visual/thematic waters.
But what (for me) differentiates them clearly, is exactly what you said. Thrillers make people feel nervous, anxious, tense, excited, (around these sort of extreme feelings), where as a horror film, makes them feel attacked, either psychologically or physically (or both). I still believe that horror Its all about making people feel fear, as much as a comedy is all about making people laugh. At least, that's what they 'demand' to feel when the lights go out before 'Paranormal Activity' starts...
This, of course, is the top of the pyramid of my thinking. Because, obviously, a lot more factors come into play. But, if a film does not scare, then its not a horror, its something else. I'm not talking with any sort of authority, because I am none. Its just my opinion, based on my study and love for the genre.
Also, I remember a now very famous and Oscar winner screenwriter told me in film school that the single most powerful weapon a writer can have its the mastering of the genres (or genre of choice). And I still really believe that. It makes more sense every time I seat down to face a blank page.
To play with the audience's emotions is, for me, what film should do. Tarantino said it best when, 'I'm the conductor, I tell them; Be sad... be sad... be sad....sad... now - Laugh! And so on... That's I think a very clear description of what we should do as film makers. And lets face it, that's what people pay for when going to the movies. They want to be played with.
Of course, the way you are able to do this will determine if you will have a mansion in the Hollywood Hills, or a one bedroom in the Valley...
I believe you made a very good analysis of this topic. I must say that its easy for people to misread a horror from a thriller, since both can navigate the same visual/thematic waters.
But what (for me) differentiates them clearly, is exactly what you said. Thrillers make people feel nervous, anxious, tense, excited, (around these sort of extreme feelings), where as a horror film, makes them feel attacked, either psychologically or physically (or both). I still believe that horror Its all about making people feel fear, as much as a comedy is all about making people laugh. At least, that's what they 'demand' to feel when the lights go out before 'Paranormal Activity' starts...
This, of course, is the top of the pyramid of my thinking. Because, obviously, a lot more factors come into play. But, if a film does not scare, then its not a horror, its something else. I'm not talking with any sort of authority, because I am none. Its just my opinion, based on my study and love for the genre.
Also, I remember a now very famous and Oscar winner screenwriter told me in film school that the single most powerful weapon a writer can have its the mastering of the genres (or genre of choice). And I still really believe that. It makes more sense every time I seat down to face a blank page.
To play with the audience's emotions is, for me, what film should do. Tarantino said it best when, 'I'm the conductor, I tell them; Be sad... be sad... be sad....sad... now - Laugh! And so on... That's I think a very clear description of what we should do as film makers. And lets face it, that's what people pay for when going to the movies. They want to be played with.
Of course, the way you are able to do this will determine if you will have a mansion in the Hollywood Hills, or a one bedroom in the Valley...
Silence of the Lambs may not be a horror, but it's more exciting than most actual horror films. I guess my script is more of a thriller or action then. I knew it was thriller for sure, but not sure if it crosses into any other genres. I guess action, but the action is psychological different, than your typical action films.
10s
Veteran
Your clarity is a real treat for me. I've put plenty of time in reading books and talking with all sorts of people. You are easily one of the more knowledgable people I've come across regarding these fundamentals, and this particular fundamental (creating fear) is so important that if it is not mastered then, a master piece will not be produced. I think you're helping me get a much better handle on it.
Yes, fear is primary, pleasure must be its opposite primary. Fear helps us survive, but it sure is a terrible thing to experience. Without fear we would put ourselves into all sorts of danger and end our lives prematurely so it's a basic mechanism we have built into us to save us from being foolish.
I absolutely agree we love to be played with. It might be because we rarely experience fear so we go on rollercoasters, mountain climb and watch horror films. These things push us to the edge of our experience and as Joseph Campbell would tell us, we want to feel life, we want to feel the rapture of life. These things help us feel alive. Experiencing fear, even in a theatre, definately makes one aware of the depth we can feel. This is much different than the mundane normal day to day experience.
So how do we bring out fear using a cinematic story? One thing I learned is that how we enter a story is very important. Step by step we hear the music which immediately signals to us a sense of what we are in for. It sets up this expectation and this can make us squirm in anticipation, and this is before the credits have begun! Sound is incredibly important for this set up period as it is throughout the story. I think horror demands the best audio work of all genres because when we are scared our senses are heightened and with this increased ability the audio better be convincing and really make our skin crawl.... all good stuff! So how do we get this sort of stuff across in a screenplay? I'm still working on this. It may be something that lies completely in the hands of the directors ability, either the director has mastery over or he doesn't. Any ideas are welcome.
Nuno, I agree with your assessment on the importance of the lighting and photography also. So much in film is transfered to the audience visually and the screenplay has difficulty conveying it well ( at least I cannot do this very well) I guess it's because a screenplay has words that build a vision in the mind of the reader, but good cinematic shot construction can convey so much emotional/psychological meaning in a very short period I feel screenwriting can't really give ample guidance in this area. Maybe someone will have ideas about this for me. So this is another challenge for writers of the genre along the audio portion. There are so many questions that need to be explored in this genre as well as all others.
I see what you mean when you said it is the most difficult of all genres.
What do you think they basics are that must be there for us to produce fear? A complete mastery over the things which trigger fear responses is needed for conducting (as Tarantino might put it) this experience. Do you have any idea where to begin such a study?
Last edited:
Thanks very much for your words 10s, and I love the fact that you're willing to talk about this.
I did some study on this topic in terms of human evolution, like you so well said, fear exists in humans so they can survive a potential deadly threat. Case in point, animals. I 'study' my cats and dogs all the time...:happy:, and one of their most frequent and heavily built in emotions is fear. Fear keeps them alert, and animals have these sort of emotional fabrics very equal to ours.
So, animals can't rationalize, they react in fear to something their instinct tells them might be harmful to them, physically. We, on the other hand react in fear not only in the same way to animals when it comes to a physical threat but we also react to an emotional, psychological and even moral threat.
The Exorcist, for example, was so disturbing, not only because of its shock value, but mainly because all that gruesome imagery and violence was targeted at an innocent young girl, in the heart of an innocent normal family. That's above all a moral threat (in terms of our modern civilization).
More than dying, we, modern civilization, fear loosing our 'souls' or our humanity to everlasting doom. This might be because of our upbringing in Christian and Catholic values. Although I'm agnostic, I have nonetheless a Catholic upbringing, all my emotional and psychological DNA was built upon those values. So Heaven and Hell play a symbolic part in my sense of happiness and fear. As so do most of the western civilization.
That's why the supernatural theme in Horror is so productive. Its in the root of all our psyche. Religion. Also we fear much more something we can't see, can't understand, than a guy with a knife (in that case its 'only' a physical threat).
I think the best horror comes when its 'monster' its something that can threat us in all ways. Physically, psychologically and especially morally. And religion can do that by the bucket. I mean, the most gruesome wars and acts of violence were made in the name of religion. People can't deal in a healthy and balanced manner to a moral attack. And religion is, at its roots, a well defined set of morals.
And this is where thrillers can also work. Silence of the Lambs I believe is mostly disturbing because of its moral attack. This intelligent, sophisticated and charming old man, eats people! We don't even need to see him doing it, just the idea alone is morally disturbing. And we, as an educated, also sophisticated and morally healthy audience, can't deal with that in a rational way! So we get defensive, this guy is a monster!
I think the best way to attack an audience so they feel fear, its by the basics. With either our animal, physical instincts or our moral/psychological barrier. The Shinning - this guy is going crazy, and who'll be his victims? His young son and wife! Its primal and moral, the dad, the man of the family is the deadly threat! Paranormal Activity - your very own girlfriend, the one you share not only your life but your bed with, its possessed! You will never, ever hurt your girlfriend, but what if she turns looney, stands by your side at the bed for hours watching you and then eventually kill you? That's also a moral attack at its root.
I must say, I was very impressed with Paranormal Activity. Because as simple and basic as it might seem at first, its a perfect recipe for a horror film. The camera plays a big part in the scares, the static, wide open shots in the dark, are indeed nerve wracking. The sounds. Sometimes in the film, you'll want cat's years because you believe you're hearing things... and the story itself, grows really steadily but with deadly force.
And I really believe this is very, very hard to do. That's why there are so many few decent horror films.
I think still the best way to study a genre, is to pick any number of films/books that best resemble what you are interested in, then be completely honest with your self and ask questions. Why was it scary? Why was that so disturbing? Most importantly, ask quality questions and you'll get quality answers.
You have to be willing to scrutinize everything about it in order to better understand it. And as you do this, you'll find very clearly defined patterns. Take notes, write it down, even do small essays on it. And this will give you a lot of answers as you do the work, you'll slowly become more familiar with the world you're studying. And eventually grow more knowledgable and confident to build your own story. :happy:
Now that's a long post... sorry, I love to be clear and concise, but this time I lost it....
I did some study on this topic in terms of human evolution, like you so well said, fear exists in humans so they can survive a potential deadly threat. Case in point, animals. I 'study' my cats and dogs all the time...:happy:, and one of their most frequent and heavily built in emotions is fear. Fear keeps them alert, and animals have these sort of emotional fabrics very equal to ours.
So, animals can't rationalize, they react in fear to something their instinct tells them might be harmful to them, physically. We, on the other hand react in fear not only in the same way to animals when it comes to a physical threat but we also react to an emotional, psychological and even moral threat.
The Exorcist, for example, was so disturbing, not only because of its shock value, but mainly because all that gruesome imagery and violence was targeted at an innocent young girl, in the heart of an innocent normal family. That's above all a moral threat (in terms of our modern civilization).
More than dying, we, modern civilization, fear loosing our 'souls' or our humanity to everlasting doom. This might be because of our upbringing in Christian and Catholic values. Although I'm agnostic, I have nonetheless a Catholic upbringing, all my emotional and psychological DNA was built upon those values. So Heaven and Hell play a symbolic part in my sense of happiness and fear. As so do most of the western civilization.
That's why the supernatural theme in Horror is so productive. Its in the root of all our psyche. Religion. Also we fear much more something we can't see, can't understand, than a guy with a knife (in that case its 'only' a physical threat).
I think the best horror comes when its 'monster' its something that can threat us in all ways. Physically, psychologically and especially morally. And religion can do that by the bucket. I mean, the most gruesome wars and acts of violence were made in the name of religion. People can't deal in a healthy and balanced manner to a moral attack. And religion is, at its roots, a well defined set of morals.
And this is where thrillers can also work. Silence of the Lambs I believe is mostly disturbing because of its moral attack. This intelligent, sophisticated and charming old man, eats people! We don't even need to see him doing it, just the idea alone is morally disturbing. And we, as an educated, also sophisticated and morally healthy audience, can't deal with that in a rational way! So we get defensive, this guy is a monster!
I think the best way to attack an audience so they feel fear, its by the basics. With either our animal, physical instincts or our moral/psychological barrier. The Shinning - this guy is going crazy, and who'll be his victims? His young son and wife! Its primal and moral, the dad, the man of the family is the deadly threat! Paranormal Activity - your very own girlfriend, the one you share not only your life but your bed with, its possessed! You will never, ever hurt your girlfriend, but what if she turns looney, stands by your side at the bed for hours watching you and then eventually kill you? That's also a moral attack at its root.
I must say, I was very impressed with Paranormal Activity. Because as simple and basic as it might seem at first, its a perfect recipe for a horror film. The camera plays a big part in the scares, the static, wide open shots in the dark, are indeed nerve wracking. The sounds. Sometimes in the film, you'll want cat's years because you believe you're hearing things... and the story itself, grows really steadily but with deadly force.
And I really believe this is very, very hard to do. That's why there are so many few decent horror films.
I think still the best way to study a genre, is to pick any number of films/books that best resemble what you are interested in, then be completely honest with your self and ask questions. Why was it scary? Why was that so disturbing? Most importantly, ask quality questions and you'll get quality answers.
You have to be willing to scrutinize everything about it in order to better understand it. And as you do this, you'll find very clearly defined patterns. Take notes, write it down, even do small essays on it. And this will give you a lot of answers as you do the work, you'll slowly become more familiar with the world you're studying. And eventually grow more knowledgable and confident to build your own story. :happy:
Now that's a long post... sorry, I love to be clear and concise, but this time I lost it....
Last edited:
10s
Veteran
The Indian Ocean Tsunami, the one that wiped out areas of Thailand, India, Africa provided some interesting insight into the affect of civilization upon humans and animals. The observation was made that humans and their domesticated animals/pets had little natural awareness of the impending wave, whereas the animals outside the envelope of civilization, in the sourrounding forests, retained their heightened awareness and were already taking protective measures before the wave arrived and largely survived. In effect, the protective armor that civilization provides us also erodes away the natural defensive capability nature provides us. This eroded state is the current condition most of us are in. We are happily sheltered. On the other hand there are those amongst us that have previously experience traumatic events and they have openned up the nervous system pathways and as a result they are triggered by far less stimuli. A woman I know that went through many Earthquakes in San Fransico went through one in my area with us a few years back. The locals, including myself, kind of laughed and thought it was fun, weird and a little scary whereas she was frantic and in a state of instant panic. For her this was life and death. Why? because her previous traumatic experiences had burned the circutry in her brain and this panic system in her was open and well functioning. We locals were largely closed and ignorant and therefore more vulnerable to the risk presented.
So what's this have to do with screenwriting? That's a good question. Many would think it's interesting but irrelevant, I say it's important because these insights lead us toward a better understanding of who we humans are and how we act and react. This also gives us an awareness as to what underlying mechanisms are at work inside of us and how they are suppressed and triggered. Knowing about these triggers and how we can activate them can be very helpful in eliciting emotion -- and the audience is there at the movies to experience a full range of emotion in a 90- 110 minute ride.
The job of the story teller is to open up the individual in the audience and breathe new life into them. We film makers take our audience into another world where they will vicariously experience another reality. In this reality the story teller will stimulate intellectual curiosity, feelings of compassion, empathy and the many other emotions, and the story teller can punctuate the journey with extreme stimuli that evokes intense feeling, including fear, elation and all the others. By doing so, the individual experiencing the story (if well done) undergoes a personal transformation, much as one does after taking a good vacation, and emerges back into their normal environment reborn with a new sense of themselves and their world. A good story is a theraputic experience and this gives the individual the ability to go back into their life and actually live the hero's journey where he must edure the many challenges and setbacks and moral dilemmas this world imposes upon us. This is also one reason why we go watch movies; because the story informs us of how others endured their trials, and this gives us ideas and reassurance that we too can succeed.
So how does fear fit into this? Fear as we previously stated is a defense mechanism that actually saves us from danger. When we are fearful we either run for it, or we attack, as our last defense measure. In the final battle in the end of the story the hero often must come face to face with the likely prospect that death is certain and they will no longer be. This is the transformational step that transforms the protagonists into a hero. Facing one's fear is the basis of Story. In horror the fear that is faced appears to be somewhat different. In SOTL I think the Moral/Intellectual realization that we actually like and look up to a defective sociopathic cannibal makes us feel repulsed with ourselves. Our own judgement comes into call, we actually find this sicko attractive which makes us sickos as well. Now that's a great emotional ride, especially because it's all imaginary and yet we experience as it's real! But this isn't fear IMO, it's something else, repulsion of ourselves?
Personally speaking, I think Jurrasic Park or Jaws might have held some real terror/fear in it for me. To be under such an overwhelming monster with abilitiies far beyond a mere human is a horrifying experience of being trapped and helpless. The T-Rex attack in JP was intense. To frantically run and burrow into the muck and slime of the earth and barely breathe in order to survive the keen instincts of a maneating monster strips away any hope of the protective measure civilization might have offered and reinforces the humble reality of mankind's technological ascent. We are next to nothing when faced with the real powers of nature. What a message! The dark evil satanic forces are much like a superior dinosaur or a shark that rules beneath the waves. We are no match for them. They reign in their world where we are everyday prey. In our world we might feel safe, but outside this fagile envelope we return to our primitive vulnerable state and are largely at the mercy of circumstance.
Life is the moral value at stake in a dangerous world where nothing can be trusted. Often times only our smarts and some luck get us out of the mess. That's often the Moral message. It emphasizes what we've been told by our parents and those around us as we grew up, go to school and get smart, and with some good fortune we might survive. These stories are basically another form of getting through similar messages, like those in an Asoep fable. It reinforces something we already know.
So what's this have to do with screenwriting? That's a good question. Many would think it's interesting but irrelevant, I say it's important because these insights lead us toward a better understanding of who we humans are and how we act and react. This also gives us an awareness as to what underlying mechanisms are at work inside of us and how they are suppressed and triggered. Knowing about these triggers and how we can activate them can be very helpful in eliciting emotion -- and the audience is there at the movies to experience a full range of emotion in a 90- 110 minute ride.
The job of the story teller is to open up the individual in the audience and breathe new life into them. We film makers take our audience into another world where they will vicariously experience another reality. In this reality the story teller will stimulate intellectual curiosity, feelings of compassion, empathy and the many other emotions, and the story teller can punctuate the journey with extreme stimuli that evokes intense feeling, including fear, elation and all the others. By doing so, the individual experiencing the story (if well done) undergoes a personal transformation, much as one does after taking a good vacation, and emerges back into their normal environment reborn with a new sense of themselves and their world. A good story is a theraputic experience and this gives the individual the ability to go back into their life and actually live the hero's journey where he must edure the many challenges and setbacks and moral dilemmas this world imposes upon us. This is also one reason why we go watch movies; because the story informs us of how others endured their trials, and this gives us ideas and reassurance that we too can succeed.
So how does fear fit into this? Fear as we previously stated is a defense mechanism that actually saves us from danger. When we are fearful we either run for it, or we attack, as our last defense measure. In the final battle in the end of the story the hero often must come face to face with the likely prospect that death is certain and they will no longer be. This is the transformational step that transforms the protagonists into a hero. Facing one's fear is the basis of Story. In horror the fear that is faced appears to be somewhat different. In SOTL I think the Moral/Intellectual realization that we actually like and look up to a defective sociopathic cannibal makes us feel repulsed with ourselves. Our own judgement comes into call, we actually find this sicko attractive which makes us sickos as well. Now that's a great emotional ride, especially because it's all imaginary and yet we experience as it's real! But this isn't fear IMO, it's something else, repulsion of ourselves?
Personally speaking, I think Jurrasic Park or Jaws might have held some real terror/fear in it for me. To be under such an overwhelming monster with abilitiies far beyond a mere human is a horrifying experience of being trapped and helpless. The T-Rex attack in JP was intense. To frantically run and burrow into the muck and slime of the earth and barely breathe in order to survive the keen instincts of a maneating monster strips away any hope of the protective measure civilization might have offered and reinforces the humble reality of mankind's technological ascent. We are next to nothing when faced with the real powers of nature. What a message! The dark evil satanic forces are much like a superior dinosaur or a shark that rules beneath the waves. We are no match for them. They reign in their world where we are everyday prey. In our world we might feel safe, but outside this fagile envelope we return to our primitive vulnerable state and are largely at the mercy of circumstance.
Life is the moral value at stake in a dangerous world where nothing can be trusted. Often times only our smarts and some luck get us out of the mess. That's often the Moral message. It emphasizes what we've been told by our parents and those around us as we grew up, go to school and get smart, and with some good fortune we might survive. These stories are basically another form of getting through similar messages, like those in an Asoep fable. It reinforces something we already know.
Last edited:
This is it. I think real 'horror' comes when you can't understand the attacker's moral compass. The less you know about it, the less you know how to protect yourself from it. That's why its damn scary to be attacked by a T-rex or a great white shark. Because there is no morality in the beast, just pure physical force.
And we, as modern society have long abandoned our physical survival skills. Put any city boy (like myself) in the forest for a month and I seriously doubt I would survive. Let alone make my way through dangerous animals!
That's why, on the other hand, the supernatural subgenre works, because we can't understand it, and most times we can't even see it! How will we protect ourselves from this? We can't fight him (physically) and its morals are the exact opposite from ours, so you can't ever predict what his next move will be. That's a great source for scares!
Your read on SOTL is spot on. We are seduced by the guy (much as Clarice is) and that makes us feel odd with ourselves. Repulsed. But certainly not scared. That's why I never thought of SOTL as a horror film. Far from it.
The Blair Witch Project. Here's another gem of horror. Because when I was watching it, I kept trying to figure out if it was in fact some sort of evil witch messing with them, or if it was just a nutter out in the woods. And until the end of the movie I could never figure out wich was it! We never saw anything, only the psychological breakdown from the characters, and that was nerve wracking, and frightening.
But I'm a great believer that horror films should scare you, not disturb you. It should still be a ride, not an unpleasant 'vacation'. Because when I go see a horror film, I want to be scared, not to get slapped in the face... So, its a fine line, when writing a horror film. And I often look at non other than Mr. Spielberg for this kind of respect for the audience. Poltergeist was really scary (for my young self) but never disturbing. As were parts of Jurassic Park and most certainly Jaws!
Well, I believe Hannibal is such a danger because he is as smart as he is deadly, really deadly! Imagine having someone that had the power to manipulate your thinking into making you torture yourself to death, or letting him do it himself, with your blessing!
And that's all moral, isn't it? I mean, how would someone let himself be tortured? In the name of what? And why? only if your beliefs, your entire belief system suddenly collapses and you become someone else's physical and psychological property.
That's almost religious isn't it? Resembles the terrorists into killing themselves and a thousand other innocents in the name of who knows who, or even the primitive rituals of torture where people would give their bodies to God or whatever.
I think the attack from Hannibal is much more than the physical attack he can make, I believe his real danger is in his ability to turn his victims into puppets, without clear moral foundations, willing to be abused, tortured or killed.
And he is not a weird looking guy, he's extremely charming, he is very intelligent, polite and very courteous. Like we could never in a million years believe that man could have that kind of psychological power tangled with twisted morals inside of him.
He is a beautiful creation. But for SOTL to become a horror film, he would have to have a victim, and the film would have the point of view of this victim, in this case Clarice. But, if she was too fall into his powers, it would be too easy to defeat him. She could easily shoot his brains out, or even if she got killed, the cops would be all over him in a second and that wouldn't be that terrifying. So he is a perfect creation for a thriller, where the power of his story comes from the fact of how do you stop this guy from doing his evil deeds? When you can't even be sure of how many people he has come in contact with and how many people he might have already killed and because he's so smart, it will be almost impossible to find out...
And that's all moral, isn't it? I mean, how would someone let himself be tortured? In the name of what? And why? only if your beliefs, your entire belief system suddenly collapses and you become someone else's physical and psychological property.
That's almost religious isn't it? Resembles the terrorists into killing themselves and a thousand other innocents in the name of who knows who, or even the primitive rituals of torture where people would give their bodies to God or whatever.
I think the attack from Hannibal is much more than the physical attack he can make, I believe his real danger is in his ability to turn his victims into puppets, without clear moral foundations, willing to be abused, tortured or killed.
And he is not a weird looking guy, he's extremely charming, he is very intelligent, polite and very courteous. Like we could never in a million years believe that man could have that kind of psychological power tangled with twisted morals inside of him.
He is a beautiful creation. But for SOTL to become a horror film, he would have to have a victim, and the film would have the point of view of this victim, in this case Clarice. But, if she was too fall into his powers, it would be too easy to defeat him. She could easily shoot his brains out, or even if she got killed, the cops would be all over him in a second and that wouldn't be that terrifying. So he is a perfect creation for a thriller, where the power of his story comes from the fact of how do you stop this guy from doing his evil deeds? When you can't even be sure of how many people he has come in contact with and how many people he might have already killed and because he's so smart, it will be almost impossible to find out...
10s
Veteran
My 2 cents:
I apologize up front for being long winded and some spelling/ writing issues; I can't get the spell checker to work and these crutches have ruined any sort of promise I onced showed. This is just off the top of my head...quickly... so understand.
What is Morality? Most of the time when we hear the term Moral, Morals, Morality it is used in conjunction with sex or some other closely related topic. In reality this is just a small part of the true meaning of the word Moral even though in our popular useage of language it is often the term used to refer to chastity and fidelity. An example would be, "she has good morals." Which often means she's not sleeping around.
How I see Morality is different and much larger in scope and encompasses the above definition. Morality is based upon Human Life. Simply put, those things which give and enhance Life are Moral, and those things that end life and erode away life (illness, dieases, etc.,) are largely Immoral. Let's refine the distinctions by looking at where Moral codes originated.
There are two historical paths from which we can trace moral codes, one path is the revelations from God and the other is the wisdom gathered over the ages and found to be proper rule of thumb guidance for a good life. Did Moral codes come from God? They could have, but how do we know? Too often everyone has a different God and this gets really messy when we try and figure out whose God is correct. The problem is, is that we can't get God to show up and help us solve the confusion, and God's self appointed representatives ( preachers, clerics, monks, etc.,) fare no better than us average joes at authenticating their chosen deity. Instead we are left to our own devices of argument, logic and other strategies to figure this out but this proves nothing. How does one prove the supernatural, they are by definition above the natural so they are exempt from anything we can do to prove or disprove. As we all know there is no magic bullet answer on this one so if we want answers to the questions that originally brought about the answer we call, Morality then we actually have to sit down and think through this stuff for ourselves.
Luckily through the ages our ancestors from all parts of the globe have tried many ways of living and through trial and error they have put together some rule of thumb ideas (we call Morals) on what to do and what not to do so one can live a successful life. What is interesting is that these ancestors of ours never knew of each other but pretty much produced similar codes of behavior. We are the lucky inheritors of this trial and error wisdom.
Here's an example, They figured out what to eat. They put together the lessons learned by people dying and living what sort of plants give us nourishment and what to avoid so we don't fall ill. This alone is a huge accomplishment. How many of us could survive in the wilds and know what plant is good and what plant is bad? Did you notive that immdeiately with this minor sub-topic alone we already use the term, good and bad, and this is because that's where the terms good and bad originate; is it good for you or is it bad for you. Good and Bad are based upon our human body and what it requires for life. Not only did these ancestors figure out food but they also came up with practices for how we should, grow food, hunt, clothe ourselves, etc... and mate. This is the sex thing. Left to our natural impulses we would most probably have random sex and soon this in turn would produce many babies all without fathers that claim responsibility to provide and protect. In this harsh world where all things needed for life must be produced the women and the babies/children would perish. Life would come to a halt after one generation when there were no children to help the elderly. Our ancestors learned through experience that we need things like marriage and other social contracts with one another so life can continue. Remember Morality is about human life.
Well what about our Soul and Satan? Our interior soul/psychology is very improtant as well as our body is. Some claim they're one and the same but who knows? We do know that if one goes down the dark path in life we pick up behaviors that jepordize our health and others. If we lie and cheat we set up conditions of uncertainty amongst others and this causes all sorts of confusion, doubt, and negative things in our social world which do not lend themselve toward sustaining life. We need each other to make the stuff we need to survive so we are by design social creatures. If we take drugs we harm our bodies through addiction and we dull our minds. This is not good in a world where everything we need to live must be produced because a sick and dull mind addicted to chemicals is not in the best condition to take on these chores. Is greed a Moral sin? yes, why is this so? Is it because a man can become so obsessed with accumulating wealth that he becomes abrasive with others as he grows in monetary power and these two factora combined can allow him to eventually harm others through his own thoughtlessness. Most often greed is not good because it eventually harms others in emotional and often bodily ways. Didn't Scrooge overwork poor Bob Cratchet? Didn't we rejoice when Scoorge turned away from his evil ways and became a new man of joyful caring and thoughtfulness and brought Tiny Tim the turkey? yes we did. By the way, that story, A Christmas Carol, is a great example of character arc and it reinforces a moral lesson we already know, don't be selfish, care about others because we are our brother's keepers.
Back to our ancestors and all the stuff they learned the hard way.... and were kind enough to hand down to us....
Most all of these ancestral learnings were passed down generation to generation and they also became imbedded into all the religions as Morals. Many of these behavioral codes are still with us. Is it good to eat another human? No! Well why not? it's food, and food is good for life isn't it? Yes, but it's good for only the eater and not the eaten, so it may not be a practice we should condone in our social contract with one another. And on and on these practices and codes came about and are still here even if they are weird. Jews and Muslims do not eat Pork but Christians and Asians do. Why is that? Could it be that at one time it was thought Pork was unhealthy and spread illness? -- probably.
So what does this windy excursion have to do with a screenplay and what about Hannibal Lector?
Many if not all good stories are Moral lessons that emphasize in a quiet manner a lesson. Sometimes you really have to think about the story to get at this message but it's often there and the message is something we already know. In horror, the moral message is run! save yourself from a monster, don't be it's food. That sounds crazy to us today but a few hundred years ago a grizzly bear attack was something to think about if you wanted to survive. (actually a few people were eaten this year by grizzly bears) Once agin the Moral lesson is save yourself, preserve your life. That is as basic as Morality can get and the message is a reminder of our primary task that we all must do, survive. In our world we avoid autos and other such things that put an end to us quickly so as silly as that sounds looking both ways before crossing the street is a moral act. Other Moral lessons could be things such as don't lie-tell the truth, or save your money and be frugal. It all depends upon what the story is about at its core.
So was Hannibal immoral because he ate people? Yes! Was he immoral because he killed and hurt people? Yes! What was scary about him is that he was smarter than us and we liked him. That is a perfect monster that we can't detect. We are easy prey for such a preditor. The ending scene was of him walking along out in public where he blended in as a regualar person while he talked about having an old friend for dinner. That drove home the point this monster is really hard to find and he might be right in front of us.
Side note: There are hundreds of human serial killer monsters amongst us all across the nation right at this moment. We can't find them but they do their deeds every once in a while. These hoorible deeds show up in the press often as missing people, especially young girls. I once had a professor who was employed by the police to catch these types. He interviewed Ted Bundy and many others, let's say he knew these types well. In his office he showed me a national magazine the police publish weekly where in it shows the suspect they are looking for and tells their gruesome story. These guys kill all the time as they move from town to town. I was extremely shocked by what he showed me and the real crime scene photos of his investigations were... absoutely the mark of evil. Where once was a face of a young teenage girl was now a backened pile of bloody mush. In reality what is hidden from the public is mch much worse the SOTL, the only saving grace is that most of these human sharks are not that smart.
I apologize up front for being long winded and some spelling/ writing issues; I can't get the spell checker to work and these crutches have ruined any sort of promise I onced showed. This is just off the top of my head...quickly... so understand.
What is Morality? Most of the time when we hear the term Moral, Morals, Morality it is used in conjunction with sex or some other closely related topic. In reality this is just a small part of the true meaning of the word Moral even though in our popular useage of language it is often the term used to refer to chastity and fidelity. An example would be, "she has good morals." Which often means she's not sleeping around.
How I see Morality is different and much larger in scope and encompasses the above definition. Morality is based upon Human Life. Simply put, those things which give and enhance Life are Moral, and those things that end life and erode away life (illness, dieases, etc.,) are largely Immoral. Let's refine the distinctions by looking at where Moral codes originated.
There are two historical paths from which we can trace moral codes, one path is the revelations from God and the other is the wisdom gathered over the ages and found to be proper rule of thumb guidance for a good life. Did Moral codes come from God? They could have, but how do we know? Too often everyone has a different God and this gets really messy when we try and figure out whose God is correct. The problem is, is that we can't get God to show up and help us solve the confusion, and God's self appointed representatives ( preachers, clerics, monks, etc.,) fare no better than us average joes at authenticating their chosen deity. Instead we are left to our own devices of argument, logic and other strategies to figure this out but this proves nothing. How does one prove the supernatural, they are by definition above the natural so they are exempt from anything we can do to prove or disprove. As we all know there is no magic bullet answer on this one so if we want answers to the questions that originally brought about the answer we call, Morality then we actually have to sit down and think through this stuff for ourselves.
Luckily through the ages our ancestors from all parts of the globe have tried many ways of living and through trial and error they have put together some rule of thumb ideas (we call Morals) on what to do and what not to do so one can live a successful life. What is interesting is that these ancestors of ours never knew of each other but pretty much produced similar codes of behavior. We are the lucky inheritors of this trial and error wisdom.
Here's an example, They figured out what to eat. They put together the lessons learned by people dying and living what sort of plants give us nourishment and what to avoid so we don't fall ill. This alone is a huge accomplishment. How many of us could survive in the wilds and know what plant is good and what plant is bad? Did you notive that immdeiately with this minor sub-topic alone we already use the term, good and bad, and this is because that's where the terms good and bad originate; is it good for you or is it bad for you. Good and Bad are based upon our human body and what it requires for life. Not only did these ancestors figure out food but they also came up with practices for how we should, grow food, hunt, clothe ourselves, etc... and mate. This is the sex thing. Left to our natural impulses we would most probably have random sex and soon this in turn would produce many babies all without fathers that claim responsibility to provide and protect. In this harsh world where all things needed for life must be produced the women and the babies/children would perish. Life would come to a halt after one generation when there were no children to help the elderly. Our ancestors learned through experience that we need things like marriage and other social contracts with one another so life can continue. Remember Morality is about human life.
Well what about our Soul and Satan? Our interior soul/psychology is very improtant as well as our body is. Some claim they're one and the same but who knows? We do know that if one goes down the dark path in life we pick up behaviors that jepordize our health and others. If we lie and cheat we set up conditions of uncertainty amongst others and this causes all sorts of confusion, doubt, and negative things in our social world which do not lend themselve toward sustaining life. We need each other to make the stuff we need to survive so we are by design social creatures. If we take drugs we harm our bodies through addiction and we dull our minds. This is not good in a world where everything we need to live must be produced because a sick and dull mind addicted to chemicals is not in the best condition to take on these chores. Is greed a Moral sin? yes, why is this so? Is it because a man can become so obsessed with accumulating wealth that he becomes abrasive with others as he grows in monetary power and these two factora combined can allow him to eventually harm others through his own thoughtlessness. Most often greed is not good because it eventually harms others in emotional and often bodily ways. Didn't Scrooge overwork poor Bob Cratchet? Didn't we rejoice when Scoorge turned away from his evil ways and became a new man of joyful caring and thoughtfulness and brought Tiny Tim the turkey? yes we did. By the way, that story, A Christmas Carol, is a great example of character arc and it reinforces a moral lesson we already know, don't be selfish, care about others because we are our brother's keepers.
Back to our ancestors and all the stuff they learned the hard way.... and were kind enough to hand down to us....
Most all of these ancestral learnings were passed down generation to generation and they also became imbedded into all the religions as Morals. Many of these behavioral codes are still with us. Is it good to eat another human? No! Well why not? it's food, and food is good for life isn't it? Yes, but it's good for only the eater and not the eaten, so it may not be a practice we should condone in our social contract with one another. And on and on these practices and codes came about and are still here even if they are weird. Jews and Muslims do not eat Pork but Christians and Asians do. Why is that? Could it be that at one time it was thought Pork was unhealthy and spread illness? -- probably.
So what does this windy excursion have to do with a screenplay and what about Hannibal Lector?
Many if not all good stories are Moral lessons that emphasize in a quiet manner a lesson. Sometimes you really have to think about the story to get at this message but it's often there and the message is something we already know. In horror, the moral message is run! save yourself from a monster, don't be it's food. That sounds crazy to us today but a few hundred years ago a grizzly bear attack was something to think about if you wanted to survive. (actually a few people were eaten this year by grizzly bears) Once agin the Moral lesson is save yourself, preserve your life. That is as basic as Morality can get and the message is a reminder of our primary task that we all must do, survive. In our world we avoid autos and other such things that put an end to us quickly so as silly as that sounds looking both ways before crossing the street is a moral act. Other Moral lessons could be things such as don't lie-tell the truth, or save your money and be frugal. It all depends upon what the story is about at its core.
So was Hannibal immoral because he ate people? Yes! Was he immoral because he killed and hurt people? Yes! What was scary about him is that he was smarter than us and we liked him. That is a perfect monster that we can't detect. We are easy prey for such a preditor. The ending scene was of him walking along out in public where he blended in as a regualar person while he talked about having an old friend for dinner. That drove home the point this monster is really hard to find and he might be right in front of us.
Side note: There are hundreds of human serial killer monsters amongst us all across the nation right at this moment. We can't find them but they do their deeds every once in a while. These hoorible deeds show up in the press often as missing people, especially young girls. I once had a professor who was employed by the police to catch these types. He interviewed Ted Bundy and many others, let's say he knew these types well. In his office he showed me a national magazine the police publish weekly where in it shows the suspect they are looking for and tells their gruesome story. These guys kill all the time as they move from town to town. I was extremely shocked by what he showed me and the real crime scene photos of his investigations were... absoutely the mark of evil. Where once was a face of a young teenage girl was now a backened pile of bloody mush. In reality what is hidden from the public is mch much worse the SOTL, the only saving grace is that most of these human sharks are not that smart.
Last edited:
Randall_Oelerich
Veteran
(Tried to get a thread going on this) Some consider Buffalo Bill to be the antagonist, Hannibal to be a villain and also a mentor. With BB as antagonist, indeed we have victims and a main victim and horror. Clarice as protagonist has a goal of finding and stopping Bill (antagonist) who eludes her, and rescuing the lamb (Bill's victim/hostage) to redeem herself. Hannibal serves both as mentor and villain in her quest to find Bill; and like all good mentors, 'dies' (goes away) so that the protagonist is left on her own to fulfill the quest. I do see how one could also see Hannibal as an antagonist, opposition to Clarice reaching her goal, but I honestly see Hannibal more as an obstacle, mentor, villain.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Truby calls Hannibal a "fake opponent/ally" in that in spite of his outward malevolence he does exactly zero harm to Clarice (aside from some nasty insults, but hey - he's a psychopath, so it's 'normal'), and in fact helps her understand how to defeat BB. While Truby defines BB as the "opponent" (aka antagonist, presumably), IMO one might also argue that the opponent/antagonist in SOTL is:
TIME
Clarice believes/knows that BB will kill his victim within a specified time limit (30 days, IIRC). That, as much as anything, is what she's fighting against *most directly*: rescue her within 30 days, she lives. After that, she's dead.
My $.02
TIME
Clarice believes/knows that BB will kill his victim within a specified time limit (30 days, IIRC). That, as much as anything, is what she's fighting against *most directly*: rescue her within 30 days, she lives. After that, she's dead.
My $.02
When I think of Hannibal, I think of him throughout the entire trilogy, but in SOTL, I believe that the real antagonist/villain is none other than Hannibal. As Jack orders Clarice to meet with him in order to better understand and uncover the inner workings of a criminal mind and therefore in hopes to find and save the missing woman from the hands of BB.
In order to do this, Clarice has to get into the mind games of Hannibal Lecter, he will give what she needs, only if she gives him what he wants... her (hidden) life details....
In this scenario, Lecter, is the only antagonistic power stopping Clarice and the police force to find the missing woman. As in the context of the story, Hannibal, 'a genius man-eater', being their only hope, is also their opposing force. Of course, 'time' is there to give the audience a physical meaning to the entire mind scape of the film, as it all it really is, a psychological cat and mouse...
In order to do this, Clarice has to get into the mind games of Hannibal Lecter, he will give what she needs, only if she gives him what he wants... her (hidden) life details....
In this scenario, Lecter, is the only antagonistic power stopping Clarice and the police force to find the missing woman. As in the context of the story, Hannibal, 'a genius man-eater', being their only hope, is also their opposing force. Of course, 'time' is there to give the audience a physical meaning to the entire mind scape of the film, as it all it really is, a psychological cat and mouse...
Last edited:
astrozombie
Member
To the OP:
1. You're making either a CRIME movie, or a CRIME THRILLER.
2. The more you focus on the CRIMINALS, what makes them tick, the more you tell the story from THEIR viewpoint, the less of a CRIME THRILLER it becomes and the more of a CRIME movie it becomes.
3. If it's a CRIME THRILLER and the crimes as as horrifying as in Silence Of the Lambs or Seven,you've made a CRIME THRILLER/HORROR hybrid like those.
4. If you spend the movie largely in the criminals viewpoint and they are commiting horrific crimes (Devils Rejects, Maniac), you've made a HORROR movie.
1. You're making either a CRIME movie, or a CRIME THRILLER.
2. The more you focus on the CRIMINALS, what makes them tick, the more you tell the story from THEIR viewpoint, the less of a CRIME THRILLER it becomes and the more of a CRIME movie it becomes.
3. If it's a CRIME THRILLER and the crimes as as horrifying as in Silence Of the Lambs or Seven,you've made a CRIME THRILLER/HORROR hybrid like those.
4. If you spend the movie largely in the criminals viewpoint and they are commiting horrific crimes (Devils Rejects, Maniac), you've made a HORROR movie.
Last edited:
Randall_Oelerich
Veteran
I still believe as I have stated that SOTL is horror, but I know others disagree. I just finished watching this instant play for those of you that have Netflix, and in this most excellent documentary they address Silence of the Lambs as being a horror film, although it was labeled also by the academy and more political powers that be as a thriller, because of politics and a backlash against horror/gore films at the time, etc. Anyhow, for those interested, here is the instant play. ~randall
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Going_to_Pieces_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Slasher_Film/70061462
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/G...ll_of_the_Slasher_Film/70061462?trkid=2361637
I think it just depends on who you're marketing it to. If you're going to have an article in Fangoria about it, you tell them it's horror. If Entertainment Tonight is covering it, you tell them it's action or a drama. A lot of movies can go all ways. Cloverfield is horror and action.