Horror Movie Techniques
 

Hey,

I'm going to take a stab at doing a good horror movie, (mind the pun)and just thought I'd ask some opinions on classic horror movie production techniques to utilize.

Now I think everyone knows about the classic P.O.V shot of the murderer or monster watching people behind a bush with heavy breathing sometimes used or what not. But what about techniques that are more subtle but used a lot, like the shock cut -
Usually the main character is looking for clues or looking to see if a monster is in behind a door etc and then we hear the big sound effect of the monster and a fast close up cut.
Or how about you establish that there is a monster lurking in the shadows of a big room and a man is walking around slowly looking for the monster, and you see a quick flash across the camera in the extreme foreground of the monster running by, followed by a big sound effect, and then a close up of the reaction of the main character. I see that one in a lot more recent horror films.

I know lighting and sound and story all play a huge role in horror, but what about the actual shot by shot montage techniques that can be used? Any others you can think of? That are classic and induce the scares or newer techniques?

Luke

I haven't (intentionally, anyway) tried that genre; but one suggestion I'd make is to watch the Blair Witch Project - then, don't EVER do anything like that :=)

I used to hang out at the local movie theater (back when carbon arcs were still used for projection) and the projectionist showed me this stripe along the side of the film with big, wide blobs on it - he said this was what got played thru the system just before Dracula came into the room. It was subaudible in frequency, but he said that was part of why the speakers in that theater were 30 inch electrostatics - the low frequency (felt, not heard) gives you a sense of foreboding, and "presets" the stage for the entrance of the monster...

'bout all I got, I do mostly industrial safety/corporate stuff... Steve

Anything that will let the audience know bad things are going to happen that the character doesn't know will put the audience on edge (assuming you've sold us on the character already).

Showing a monster/bad thing in a house, then having the character try to get in...

Show an empty doorway in a frame, the main character passes it and the monster crosses when their back is turned...

Anything to build that antici........pation.

Hitchcock's rule
 

Decide if you want to go for shock or suspense. Hitch said that if two people are sitting at a table talking and a bomb goes off, that's shock. However, if you the viewer knows that there is a ticking time bomb in a breifcase under the table, that's suspense.

Remember to always consider what your audience knows at any given time in order to maximize the impact of that scene.

Don't hit them all at once, but "spoonfeed" with your structural descent into the story.

hey Steve Leverich,

Very cool story! I love stuff like that, it's those little things that make the big difference. Any other techniques any of you guys know of? I knew the hitchcock time bomb theory, and suspense. There must be other techniques they use to evoke the fear that is not noticed by most people, I will keep digging and post any findings, there must be a horror buff out there somewhere! haha

Luke

Like Steve Leverich said....SOUND, man!

Scary, subliminal sounds really add to the tension. There's a grumbly sound used in the movie The Grudge that makes the appearance of a dark spirit (or whatever is was!) 10 times scarier than it is while watched with the sound off. I know because I tried watching it with the sound turned down just to see how much of a factor it was.

By the way, for what it was Blair Witch was very well done, IMO. I was fortunate enough to see it before it was overhyped. By the time most people saw it their expectations had been raised way too high for a no-budget indie film with no SFX. It is a good example of what can be done with innuendo and suggestion. It is the movie equivalent of telling scary stories by the campfire with a flashlight under your chin.

I really like "the Village" for nonFX psychological horror. It's really the least effected movie I've seen in the last 10 years. I think the only piece they did was a wire removal for a safety wire when the girl fell in the pit.

And that opening shot is creepy as hell with the surround sound on...just a pan of trees that could be light and fluffy happy with cheery bird sounds and happy music...but they went with creaking wood and wind...very bleak and freaky.

What scares me is this type of setup:

Girl alone in a dark room thinks someone else is in the room. After a long, tense search, it turns out to be something simple like the cat scratching at the door or something like that. After she calms down, the unexpected happens... the killer with the machete is hanging on to the ceiling patiently right above her... and she doesn't know it. He doesn't move, and you're now the tense one waiting for him to drop down on the victim.

That's good stuff.

Your can also create tension with your framing. Give your character far too little nose room. This will create an unbalanced frame that causes subliminal
tension. It also creates a large hole in composition directly behind the character. The viewer subconciously expects this hole to be filled (by the killer/ monster) so the frame can be balanced again. The longer you persist in not filling this hole(within reason) the greater the anxiety grows. It's just like in music, a tension without resolution. If after the noise turns out to be the cat you return to a balanced framing the viewer will subconciously relax a little. A balanced frame means alls right in the universe. Hit them with the scare after you balance the frame and your shock effect will be maximized.

Pick your favorite horror movie, then steal some of its techniques.

There are very few pure horror films IMHO - most are some blend of horror, suspense, and action.

When I'm making a horror movie (I'm in pre-pro right now for my third), I always try to get it straight in my head what exact-type of movie am I making. Pure horror is very tough. I'd say, BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, THE SHINING, THE EXORCIST, and NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD are all examples of films that tried to be "pure" horror films. They swung for the fences and tried to scare the hell out of you. Maybe they failed, but they did try.

Something like JAWS or ALIEN are nearly pure horror, but the "escape" element of these stories adds a level of suspence and action that the former movies have in a much less degree - although the characters want to escape from the condition they're in, the is no real on camera action - they're either stuck in the woods (PROJECT), stuck in their own body (EXORCIST), or stuck in a house (DEAD). They can't leave the situation. In most horror films, it comes down to the last few characters running away from the monster - scary, but more in an action/suspence type of way.

One other aspect that I think's vital - can the heroes escape via any reasonable means? Horror comes when the characters, even when acting in totally reasonably ways, still can't escape. John Capenter's THE THING is a great example of this - they're doing the best they can, but often make mistakes - mistakes that even the audience doesn't know are mistakes - until it's far too late. It takes several viewings of the THE THING to know who's who and at what point - and even then, you're not sure what the good guys could really do to change the situation.

That's one of the problems w/JAWS as a pure horror film (great as it is) - all they have to do is stay on land and PRESTO! They're safe. In ALIEN, just don't go down to the planet, don't let the thing on board, keep him in stasis, stay together, etc. and they'd be safe.

The little girl in the EXORCIST can't escape from the thing inside her, and her mother can't leave her. This is central reason why many people consider this the be the most scary movie of all time - the monster is right there in front of you the whole time and they have no idea how to kill it without killing her. The fact that they are rich, beautiful Americans makes this even more potent.

Also remember this - no one cares if a teenager dies.

Good luck,
john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

I think one of the scariest things in a horror film isn't what you see, but rather what you don't see. What your mind is left to work out yourself.

I have never found myself scared by conventional horror movies. I know a lot of people didn't find it scary, but after seeing Signs, I was afraid to look out my car window on the way home. The whole time the only images you are given are alien sillhouettes or feet dissapearing into a corn field.

We've all seen aliens in movies before. Alien (no brainer), Independance day etc....knowing what an alien is and what is is doing isn't scary.

Not knowing what's crawling around in your cornfield? Very scary.

Notice how at the end of the film, in that rather banal standoff, the alien is no longer scary. Why? Because we know what it is, and why it is there.

It is fear of the unknown that makes a great horror movie.

I'll say this too, while I'm ranting (sorry everyone) that Mr. Sandison has it dead on about visual balance. Imagine a character in a house, at night, while noises are heard outside.
As the character listens next to a window that has closed curtains, a very tight shot frames only them and the curtains, very close with no backgroudn objects that may provide a subconcious visual escape route. Linger on this, and visually it gets very claustraphobic. It almost feels like we have been blinfolded. We naturally want to see further than 1 foot, but due to the very tight framing, we can't. When the curtains open and nothing is there, that tension gets released, and for a moment, the audience has their guard down...

Atmospheric imagery, good editing skills and above all, creativity will be your best friends here. Good luck!

P.S that was my first post in these forums.....hope it wasn't too long winded!

Love light and peace -Jon

Three words of advice (or at least my opinion): No more torture. I can't stand those films.

heath

Ugh, amen to that.

I rented out Hostel the other week.....was the most un-entertaining experience of my life. It really amazes me that scripts like that can get funded but others can't.

Yup - torture porn, if there ever was a place for it in films - has long run it's course. Nothing scary about these flicks at all - suspencefull, perhaps. But how hard is it really to get some suspence when you're tearing someone's eye out with a fork?

Stephen King said he'd always try to scare the hell out of you, but if that failed, to go for the gross-out. He has a point. Sometimes gore is needed. Hell, I like SCANNERS as much as the next guy. But these new movies don't try at all to achieve real fear for one minute - they just go for the gross-out. Enough of that.

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

There's gross-out, then there's torture. Scanners was great, but these movies...eh...In the mid- to late-1990s, it was self-aware/ironic humor horror films, a la SCREAM, etc., and it's impersonators. Not sure what I dislike more (I liked SCREAM, not the rest).

hwm

I can tell you how much I hated the movie "Pulse" if you really want to hear it.....

What you DON'T see is often scarier (because your imagination starts racing)

In the first half of the movie "Signs" it's creepy because we only glimpse the aliens, but in the second half we get to see an alien in clear view (and it's not scary at all)
So..keep the bad guys hidden. Let us glimpse a monster hand, or an eye..(much more effective)

My 2 cents

Wow keep the techniques flowing guys, I'd love to hear more.

When making your film utilize music and SFX as much as possible w/o over doing it. When your character enters that eerie, dark room looking for the monster, you should be playing eerie music; music with out many chops from overdone percussion. Chains rattling in the background make a perfect sound effect. Be sure to have subtle things like that playing behind the music. Remember that the idea is not to show the audience what happened, it is to make them think they saw what happened. I don't necessary mean to "kill" a person and then bring them back but rather make them imagine their death. Play the audience through the camera, if they are

sorry.

If they are on the edge of their seat, your goal should be to knock them right off. Let them feel safe, there is no one out that window, the audience will sigh a sigh of relief but when the person turns around, without hesitation or a chance to brace your self, the murderer kills the person. Bam, the shock will startle the person and ignite more suspense if the music kicks up and the friend is the next shot. Hope this helps.

While making our Feature horror Bio-Dead (Premieres on August 6th on Time Warner Cable, Charter and Brighthouse V.O.D. service - shameless pitch) we used many techniques to create suspense. I won't rehash what many have said but think of creative ways to build suspense, use your environment and write an feasible story. Many indies go for something not realistic for their budget limitations.

Also, to reinforce something said many times, solid sound is quintessential - I'd even put it higher than story for low budget film making.

Good Luck,
-C

Random thoughts


As already said-you cant underestimate the power of sound(or no sound) to create fear. I cant imagine Jaws would have been nearly as creepy if the music wasnt that du du du du du du du...
Or that death rattle sound in the Shining.

The POV killer shot can also be effective when its sped up--like in Army of Darkness when you see the camera whipping through the woods with a weird choral voice.

Another technique that I sometimes see-its the opposite of the POV killer shot. The killer is seen from a great distance--as in Halloween 78 when he is stalking around the house with a body in his arms, and in the Hal Holbrook movie Rituals you see the killer watching from atop a distant hill.
Slither(which i didnt care for) has a shot of the creature moving through a field--I found that creepy.

Another is a bait and switch, especially a prolonged one.
In Dont Look Now-for the whole movie you see this hooded figure of a girl crying, and at the end it isnt what you expect. They dont hit you over the head with it--the weirdness of it is just so shocking and disturbing.


The Ring had the very creepy scene of the girl coming out of the tv. I was squirming in my chair while watching that(ok it didnt help that someone had sent me the videotape in the mail marked ringu and I now knew I had a week to get rid of it heh). I havent seen the US version but I hear they cut away from the girl coming out of the tv--I dont think that would be as effective as that one long shot from the (japenese?) version. Its just weird and creepy-the way the girl movies, the fact that you cant see her face.

Devil movies are interesting in that often the Devil wins something if not completely. True of Rosemary's Baby, the Exorcist(he gets the priests), Race with the Devil, the Omen, Spellbinder, the Seventh Sign, Devil's Advocate(maybe), even Arnold had to give up the ghost in End of Days.

Rosemary's Baby, the Exorcist and the Omen make the innocent(babies, children) the embodiment of evil , which is disturbing in and of itself.
Same when you have innocuous objects like dolls, masks or puppets(in the Wiz there is a scene with this strange bobbing puppet that emerges from a subway--that thing creeps me out).

Sometimes good/weird character design goes a long way. No doubt ALIEN wouldnt have been nearly as unsettling if they didnt have the face hugger and the adult alien design. Imagine if it looked like a 1950s bug eyed monster.

Or Leatherface from Texas Chainsaw Massacre(one thing I found rather creepy in the remake was the scene where the killer puts on a mask of the boyfriend).

I have seen a million vampire movies but the makeup design in 30 Days of Night was really effective I thought. Nosferatu is still the creepiest vampire look to me. Some of the vampires in Salem's Lot 79 and Evil Ed from Fright Night are somewhat scary to me.

I never found Saw very scary-but the doll figure was creepy. I read that they had approached fx experts to make it but in the end they jsut used their original prototype.

The scariest scene in the Shining to me was when the wife sees the two guys in the room and one of them is wearing a bear costume.

Halloween 78--the look of the killer was creepy. A pale William Shatner mask on a tall skinny guy wearing grey overalls? Who knew that could be so creepy? They originally thought about using a clown mask--I think that would have been weird and disturbing too.


I dont think torture porn is scary-although torture can be very disturbing or horrifying.
Marathon Man for example, or the burning on the ladder sequence in Conqueror Worm(maybe it was all the more disturbing since you assume that sort of thing really happened).

I thought Blood on Satan's Claw was a very spooky movie that doesnt rely on the usual elements-like jump scares. The atmosphere is creepy, the weird music--the weirdness of the way the devil takes over.

I never felt the Thing was terrifying as much as it was horrifying. Most of the time it was an amusing gross out with one great jump scare during the blood test. The most disturbing shot for me is when you see Blair dragging Gary's body by his face-which has merged with his hand.

Or the use of mundane objects...like in Halloween 78 when the killer puts the sheet and glasses on. Or Nightmare on Elm Street when you see Freddy's silhouette through the wall.
Or when photos or paintings contain creepy elements.

Its interesting to read about how audiences at a particular time responded to a movie. I was listening to this podcast on Hammer Films and apparently one of the most disturbing things was the disintegration of Dracula sequence from the Horror of Dracula.

Obviously if you see it after having watched many other horror movies that does something similar it doesnt have much of an impact, but back in the late 1950s...

Kubrik said fear is not in the think of it but the feel of it.

This is all great stuff guys, but I was wondering whether anyone thought there is an issue going for a jump scare (the window scenario that everyone is talking about) compared to a scare similar to those in the Exorcist (the one that sticks in my mind is when they rush in to her room to find her violently distorting while crying for help).

The jump scare would be easier to pull off over a psychological scare (just an assumption, please correct me if I am wrong) so could a jump scare be considered cheap?

I am curious to see what other people think.

Chris

I dont think a jump scare is "cheap" in the genre unless it is done a few times, or handled lazily, or particularly unoriginal (guy diving under boat and finds shark victim sticking out of hull).

A particularly great jump scare just came to mind. The Woman in Black UK tv movie.

If you see it, you'll know what I am referring to.

aaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

I like to think back to when even with an 18 certificate there were things you couldn't see. Hammer Horror is a great example of how you really don't need the gore to scare you. If you watch these now, the lack of graphic detail is so obvious, and perhaps dates them, but the techniques they used to scrare you without real substance are quite clever.

I'm not a major horror fan but there are a few movies that I've enjoyed over the years that to me have overcome the banality that plagues many of the genre.

Going back to the original post, I find the "bad guy wooshes through foreground unnoticed by protaganist" really overused and stale at this point. It's creepy and effective but a full-on cliche.

One thing that I find fascinating is the psychological effect of something nasty happening as seen from a distance. We relate this, I think, to a sort of detached reality as an observer which makes it far more realistic and disturbing, and less like a movie. Case in point: not a horror film, but the "curbing" scene in "American History X" is something that few who saw that film even when it came out 12 years ago can ever forget--and the actual act is seen in a wide shot from some distance (perhaps the sound effect of jaw breaking on a concrete curb is what does it)!

Along these lines, using minimal cuts and reducing the cinematic aspect of a violent act can make it that much more horrifying, memorable and real. Again, not a horror film but consider the scene in "Zodiac" where the murderer stabs the couple in the park; it's somehow far more horrifying than any of the hundreds/thousands of stabbings we've seen in horror films that were far more graphic.

I'll throw out two moments in an old, generally overlooked film: Exorcist 3. While the second sequel was wretched, the third one managed some truly creepy moments worthy of the (appropriately celebrated) original. One is the women in the insane asylum scuttling along the ceiling, the other is the hooded nasty in the hospital hallway. Taken out of context these lose some impact of course...and if you haven't seen the movie, it will sort of spoil what I think are the two best moments in a pretty good if somewhat dated film.

I don't have a formula for you to follow, but I do have one piece of advice: avoid tired clichés.

I went to see a horror movie with a friend last week, and we both knew exactly what would happen about 15 minutes into the movie. We're not geniuses, it's just that the filmmakers took every predictable road possible and never strayed from it.

After the movie I asked my friend: if you spent $25 millions and a year of your life on making a movie, then why on God's green earth would you waste it all on the same old crap that people have seen countless times before?

The question is even more relevant if you only have $100,000.

Look at the classics and see what they did; then look at the innovators (like Blair Witch Project, in spite of its detractors), and try thinking of what others have NOT done.

Avoid cats leaping out of nowhere. Likewise for the friend of the heroine suddenly creeping up from behind and putting his hand on her shoulder (who the hell does that?). Don't substitute sudden loud noises for true fright. Remember that what you CAN'T see is often scarier than what you can.

Lay off the latex and fake blood. Gore porn is on its way out.


J.

I agree, one or two jump scares add to the tension (I'm thinking of in the Ring when the loud bang occurs when he closes the filing cabinet right after they cut from outside, scared me half to death!) but what about when a film is nothing but jump scares.

An example I'm thinking of was earlier this year I went and saw The Unborn around the same time I saw The Uninvited. The Unborn was just one jump scare after another and the story was quite disappointing. I think they relied on loud noises and quick cuts to get some thrills. While The Uninvited was based around an awesome story and yes there were a few jumpy moments but the story built up a lot of the tension and fear and was so much more enjoyable.

What I'm saying is that I felt cheated by The Unborn because of the poor story and clever filming techniques, while The Uninvited kept me hooked with its story and didn't go for the quick and easy LOUD NOISE!

Chris.

p.s. couple of posts mentioned John Carpenter--today I start working on a movie with the man, should be interesting!

But that's startling, not thrilling or scary. Most of the movies released nowadays should be called "Startle movies". They only way they know of scaring you is splitting your eardrum. It's stressful, not scary.

It's what filmmakers do when they can't come up with a compelling story. It's no substitute for building (and sustaining) a sense of dread.


J.

Carpenter used a jump scare a couple of times in Halloween, and in the Fog.

I dont think the Shining used any.

The last hollywood horror movie I saw was 1408 which I found very unscary.

The hand on the shoulder thing--best use of it I saw was in Dr. Terror's House of Horrors in which an art critic kills an artist and his severed hand is haunting him. The art critic is in a bar and this hand falls on his shoulder, and the critic freaks out--then we see its a very short guy friend who wants a free drink.

It is a very artificial kind of scare set up.

"why announce myself by talking when I can put a hand on your shoulder and spook you?"
lol

Has anyone read or browsed through the book "Film Directing: Shot by Shot?" It has a good section on how you can manipulate shot order to achieve different effects.

Other than that decent sound will do it ... but easy on the music ... I get the feeling that a lot of films overuse it ... especially when they have big budgets. No Country For Old Men had a very creepy feeling to it ... due to the lack of music. I think it was Sydney Lumet that said a lack of music adds realism. Wouldn't horror be scarier if we found it more "realistic" rather than just pure fantasy?

Also, let's not forget good old-fashioned character driven stories ... I think with horror, realism is very important. We probably want to do everything in our power to avoid letting the film feel like a fantasy.

I totally disagree. This has become such a cliché that EVERYONE expects the "unexpected" scare. It's like the bad guy having to be killed twice at the end.

J.

I love this thread. I'm going to show this to my 8-year old son, who's a huge horror (not gore) fan. He and I made a horror short earlier this year. My son wrote the script, directed and starred in it, while I did the videography and editing. Some of it's unintentionally funny, but that may be unavoidable when you have 8-year olds in the primary acting roles.

It's both of our first venture into this genre. Overall, we were both pretty pleased with the fairly creepy feel. Check it out, if you like. Flash and downloadable versions in a variety of formats are available here:

Prolefeed Studios Video Catalog: Inside a Car

Comments welcome.

In 1972 'The Other' played at the local theatre and scared the hell out of me when I was 14. I didn't even know it was a scary movie so it probably took me by suprise. I still remember the slow crawling fear during that movie. I saw it again with my kids on DVD this year. Didn't have the same kick as in the theatre, but I'm older and more jaded, plus I knew the ending. The technique they used is like a novel in a way, making you come to the obvious terrifying conclusion in your mind rather than showing the gory details.

"AAAAAAAH!... freaky..."

Your kid drives a nicer car than you!

Does he have an agent yet? ;-)


J.

Yeah, he surpasses his old man in many ways. Knowing him, he'll probably be his own agent. Does everything else himself, why not that, too?

Glad you liked the short.

@Charles I was surprised out how great and scary Exorcist 3 was. Chilling stuff. Even the beginning when the doors to the church open and the statue of Jesus' eyes open. Frightening!

Heath