Do splatter and torture movies, get unfairly judged by critics?

H

harmonica44

It's a low budget thing. They can't afford explosions, shootouts, and big chases, like big budget thrillers can. So they have opt for gore and 'torture porn'. Or at least show some sort of FX that can make up for no explosion or shooting effects.

I mean audiences don't like implied violence, they want to see it. In The Dark Knight for example, all the explosions and wreckage was shown. There was no character staring at it, while we could hear the effects on the soundtrack only. There were in some shots of course, but there were still shots where they showed it. Same with pretty much almost all action movies.

Personally I tend not to like most of these movies, mostly because I find their plots to be kind of dumb and lacking character depth, but there are a lot of dumb big budget thrillers as well. So when it comes to low budget horror movies, why do critics often pan them, saying the violence would be given more depth if it was implied with showing so much? But critics don't pan action movies for showing their violence and FX. Is it still a moral distinction of how the violence is betrayed, or should we look at it from a budget perspective, in which case the critics may be issuing a double standard?

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
harmonica44 said:
I mean audiences don't like implied violence, they want to see it.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Some of the greatest cinematic scenes in history have been based on implied violence. The classic example would be the shower scene from Psycho. Jaws was a great film, yet how much actual gore did it contain. Even modern blockbusters might have a lot of explosions and expensive stunts and CGI but again, the explicit gore is either non-existent or more commonly, limited and enhanced by implication. Making violence (or anything) implied rather than explicit brings into play the audience's imagination, which is the most powerful and shocking of all the filmmakers tools. The downside is that it's extremely hard to pull off, without excellent directing (and acting, editing and sound design, etc.), instead of engaging the audience's imagination it does the opposite and looks like a low budget cop-out and destroys the suspension of disbelief. If you can pull it off though it can add great power and depth.

A good film is a real team endeavour, a combination of good script, directing, acting, cinematography, editing, sound and music, etc. You can be a bit weak in one area, maybe even two but you've got to really make up for it elsewhere. A good film is all about the telling of the story. Most slasher films are very weak in many if not most areas and seem to believe they can "make up for it" in shock value alone with lots of fake blood spurting everywhere. The story is there just to provide a reason for all the blood and guts, rather than the other way around. It just doesn't do it for me, the vast majority of the public or obviously the critics.

G
 
harmonica44 said:
I mean audiences don't like implied violence, they want to see it. In The Dark Knight for example, (...)
Click to expand...

...Huh?

What about the Joker killing Gamble? Or the man burning alive on top of the money? Or the Joker's news footage? Etc.

Those instances and a lot more were implied in the Dark Knight. Sure, some of it was to ensure a PG-13 rating, but in my opinion it made it all the more effective.

The fine line comes in what violence to show overtly, and what to imply. A simplistic analysis would be to say that, in The Dark Knight, any violence caused strictly by the Joker was implied, but any violence between the Joker and Batman was overt. I think this was pretty intentional to show their conflict.
 
I'm not talking about violence, I am talking about special FX more so. A lot of microbudget movies cannot do big explosions and chases, so they opt for gore as FX, since gore is a lot cheaper to pull off. Audiences may like violence being implied but they still demand some sort of special FX, so that's why cheap thrillers throw in what they can.

For a special FX example, let's go with Titanic. If implying is more powerful than showing, than why didn't James Cameron just imply that the ship sank, rather than showing it for almost 1/3 of the movie. He must have felt that the audience demand to see the effects were quite high, and perhaps implying it, rather than showing, would have disappointed a lot of moviegoers.

Or in Star Wars, if George Lucas, thought that implying was more powerful than showing, why not just show Princess Leia, in the control room, listening to the radios of all the fighter ships being attacked, and implying the whole battle through the radio, rather than showing it? Audiences want to see the FX. So I think the same demand is there for microbudget horror movies, which is the gore is shown more than usual, to make up for not being able to do other FX. Which is why perhaps these movies are being hypocritically judged perhaps, unless I am wrong. But I'm talking about special effects demands, and not violence specifically only.
 
This may be diverging too much but let's look at two horror film examples that are polar opposites in terms of showcasing gore:

Halloween (1978) is a slasher film where the killer murders people but when we see it happen it isn't in graphic detail and it isn't gory and extremely bloody. This film relies more on suspense and the shock of the death coming to the character, not to repulse the viewer and make them feel sick.

Friday the 13th (1980) is a clone of Halloween, it's a slasher film where the killer murders people but in this film when that happens we see it in graphic, bloody detail. This film relies on the suspense angle too but it is more focused on the repulsion of the viewer seeing the victim being killed.

In these two films the subject matter is the same but the execution and aftermath are different.

Now let's look at movies like Saw and Hostel:

Saw (2004) is a film about a killer who captures his victims and places them in a device or predicament that is intended to damage them psychologically and of course physically and give them a choice of whether they want to die or live life except with some sort of sacrifice to be made.

Hostel (2005) is a film about backpackers being lured to a location where they are tortured by regular people who pay for the experience. In this film though the victim isn't given the ability to choose the choice is taken out of their hands because they're at the mercy of the person who is torturing them.

These films are essentially the same movie that both have the same end goal in mind - to repulse the viewer with gore but the difference is that the gore in these films is explicit and made to look as realistic as possible.

Personally I don't like horror movies like Saw and Hostel because for my tastes they are too close to reality whereas horror films from the past like Halloween etc are more my type of horror film.

Critic's like any other viewer have their own idea of what is entertaining and what isn't because it is a subjective experience. So while some critic's pan these films there are those who embrace them.

Whether a filmmaker decides to showcase the gore or only imply it is up to them and depends on many different factors at play in the process. Then it's up to the viewer to decide if they want to see such a movie and if so, does the filmmaker succeed in affecting that viewer?

Also different genres have different variables to consider as well. Not showcasing the battles in Star Wars would have been ridiculous because of the type of movie it is.
 
Hey Rodney i am going have to dissagree with you (respectfully tho) on Friday the 13th on several points.
First friday is clone of a movie called Bay Of Blood aka Twich of the Death Nerve from the master called Mario Bava. You can see some of the influence (intetional or not )lifted from that movie. But as for the gore...its really a pretty dry movie. There are only 2 scenes (maby 3) that show the gore and violence - the Keven Bacon scene and the slit throat scene, that is really quick scene but you do see some blood..alot of the carnage is after the fact, where the lead finds the dead bodies. That is why friday worked and is why it is/was a verry scarry movie, alot of the gore was implied or the viloence was ...friday has a rep for being really bloody and viloent but that rep bleongs to its sequels.
Just my 2 cent and my perspective.....

But i do agree it is up to the filmmaker to add, imply or obscure any viloence or gore...but be felxable. Remember filmmaking (esp indy and low budget) is chaos and if you cant change or bend with your curcumstances (what ever they may be) you might fail or put out a product you are not happy with.
 
Last edited:
No problem Psychosis :) I haven't seen those films you mentioned. Now that you mention it and I think about it you are right about the first F13 there are only a few scenes that show a graphic gore shot of the victim being killed.
 
H -
You gotta look at both the audience the director/producer/distributor are shooting for in tandem with the nature of the story.

Generally speaking, an MPAA rated R film has little NEEEEED to hold back on the gutsNgore. It's already an R - if the story dictates so. If the story can't be served without harsh language or some bald face T&A then you might as well not cut away just as the swung axe meets the skull. Keep the next few frames in there.

However, an MPAA rated PG-13 can reach out and potentially secure more $$ for everyone involved. If the story and target audience can best be served by characters saying "D@mn!" or "Sh!t!" instead of "F#ck!", if a side-boob and grinding beneath sheets will suffice, then there's no need to show actual decapitations when shot 1 is a broadsword being swung and shot 2 is the severed head rolling to a stop at the screaming significant other.
PG-13 action films are great for (near) bloodless kills. Implied kills are de rigueur.

It's often a more eventual retailing $$ question than a production $$ or artistic choice.

Once the director, producer, distributor can all agree on what audience they wanna shoot for then they can begin designing and budgeting for appropriate SFX for the end user.
 
Last edited:
Rodney Petrie said:
No problem Psychosis :) I haven't seen those films you mentioned. Now that you mention it and I think about it you are right about the first F13 there are only a few scenes that show a graphic gore shot of the victim being killed.
Click to expand...

There are some really unknown gems out there eventho they all have the basic idea the execution (pardon da pun) is unique. This list is a mear history lesson on how the american slasher/killer movie had evolved. Granted Psycho is a top player but these other movies are just as good.

If you want to view some relative unknown slasher/killer movies try these you might be plesantly surprised.

giallo films
Deep Red: the Hachet murders aka Profondo rosso

The Bird With the Crystal Plumage

Don't Torture a Duckling

Blood and Black Lace <this film maby last but not least.....verry artistic, if you can read some of the images it might give you a thought or 2 about society..again Mario Bava is the creator and this movie is why he is a master film maker.

Forgotten american movies, not great but surley worth a nod.
Sleepaway camp
Just before Dawn
American Gothic
Henry a portrait of a serial killer

enjoy!!!
 
Last edited:
harmonica44 said:
For a special FX example, let's go with Titanic. If implying is more powerful than showing, than why didn't James Cameron just imply that the ship sank, rather than showing it for almost 1/3 of the movie.
Click to expand...
Or in Star Wars, if George Lucas, thought that implying was more powerful than showing, why not just show Princess Leia, in the control room, listening to the radios of all the fighter ships being attacked, and implying the whole battle through the radio, rather than showing it?
Click to expand...
Possibly the two most ridiculous examples ever given...

Audiences want to see the FX.
Click to expand...
And an unsupported sweeping generalisation to boot.

If all Star Wars was, was a few scenes of battles, or all Titanic was, was a a scene of a ship sinking, they'd be terrible movies. Star Wars isn't good because they show battles, and Titanic isn't liked because they show a ship sinking. Both have great scripts and are good movies, regardless of the battle or ship sinking.

You're generalising about everything here; if your movie is a high-action fantasy adventure, then it's going to be disappointing if you don't have any high action scenes, or any fantasy scenes. Imagine how average Star Wars would've been if they hadn't production designed the hell out of it and done sfx as good as they possibly could. If Star Wars had just used average locations around town, and shown Princess Leia listening to the battles, it would be a completely different movie. Now, some movies can work like that. If it had been intended to be a drama about a man who is so scarred by his aunt and uncle's death that he creates his own fantasy world where he is a spaceship pilot, and his sister Leia listens to him playing in his room pretending there's a battle, it may have been a heart wrenching drama, but certainly not the same film at all.
 
GeorgiaHilton said:
back to the original question.... who cares what critics think, if the film makes money. :cool:


cheers
geo
Click to expand...
Granted, no one can make 100% of the audience pleased 100% of the time, but we've all seen films which have teased our interests only to royally p!ss us off after we've spent time or money on their product.

My two fave examples are 'The Devil Inside' and 'Splice.'
Both garnered tons of revenue and complaints.
And then there's 'Avatar.' Bazoodles of revenue and a generally well liked story, but by all means it wasn't impressing everyone.
And how many Academy Award winners for best picture or director have fantastic ROI's? Not too many.

So, as a creative person our goal is not to please everyone, but to consider that critics might actually have a point when they make disparaging remarks about our film products.

Trolls and KoolAid drinking cheerleaders aside, comments on youtube shorts often have more than a kernel of valid (thus useful!) truth to them.
 
If you have stars in your movie, you don't need graphic violence/nudity/etc. If you don't, the distributors need a hook, which usually means graphic violence/nudity/etc. That's the bottom line.

After three undistributed features, you'd think I'd learn this lesson, but nope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top