This idea hit me for some reason on the drive home tonight. I'd be interested to find out what kind of kills make more of an impression on us: fast, violent, bloody/gory kills, or slow, more up close & personal kills?
There are spoilers in here, so read with caution if you have yet to see the films discussed.
For me, I think slow kills are definitely more effective from a scares point of view. They tend to get under your skin and cause you to empathize more with the victim (which is not a pleasant thing when you're empathizing with is death, pain & fear). Some examples are the kill in "Halloween", where Michael pins the guy to the wall with the knife (holding him up off the floor), and scrutinizes his work and the victim's reaction, tilting his head as he watches him die. "Halloween" is one of my favorite horror films, and this is the only kill that really sticks with me (and I just saw it again this past weekend). I also just saw "The Strangers", and while I was a little disappointed with it, I could see how the ending, where the killers 1) take off their masks, pretty much signaling that they don't intend to let Liv & BF out alive & 2) stab them both, slowly, in front of each other, the resulting wounds not resulting in immediate death. I think this scene could have been vastly improved by a little more emotion from the victims. Perhaps more pleading & screaming. Dignified deaths don't, IMO, make for good horror. But the concept is pretty chilling. And while not a horror film, I think the death of Pvt Mellish in "Saving Private Ryan" affected us all more deeply than even the most gory, violent deaths from the invasion footage. Or at least, it affected us for different reasons.
Which brings me to the othr kind of kill, a "faster", more violent, gorier kind of kill. I won't lie & say these don't make an impression on me, but it's more of a bloodthirsty "Wow!" reaction than genuine fear. I can see, however, how the violence & impled pain or the suddenness of it, can scare someone a great deal (to return to "Private Ryan", the scene where the soldiers in the landing craft get cut down by the machine gun before they can
even get moving onto the beach was pretty disturbing; I recall thinking: "Just like that? You die that quickly, with no chance to do or affect ANYTHING? Just poof! and you're gone?"
I think the near universality of the former may in part account for the recent torture porn trend. By definition, torture porn involves longer, drawn out, painful kills/acts of torture. Maybe the audience has pretty much become jaded by even the best executed "fast" kills, and need something a little more likely to get under our skin and hit us where we live to provoke a fear reaction (which is what we're there for), above & beyond the mere presence of blood & gore (which torture porn often provides as well). But that's just one Chewer's opnion.
Do you agree with me that "slow" kills are scarier, and why? Further, do you think this estimation is universal, as I do? And what of the link to torture porn? Do you agree?
There are spoilers in here, so read with caution if you have yet to see the films discussed.
For me, I think slow kills are definitely more effective from a scares point of view. They tend to get under your skin and cause you to empathize more with the victim (which is not a pleasant thing when you're empathizing with is death, pain & fear). Some examples are the kill in "Halloween", where Michael pins the guy to the wall with the knife (holding him up off the floor), and scrutinizes his work and the victim's reaction, tilting his head as he watches him die. "Halloween" is one of my favorite horror films, and this is the only kill that really sticks with me (and I just saw it again this past weekend). I also just saw "The Strangers", and while I was a little disappointed with it, I could see how the ending, where the killers 1) take off their masks, pretty much signaling that they don't intend to let Liv & BF out alive & 2) stab them both, slowly, in front of each other, the resulting wounds not resulting in immediate death. I think this scene could have been vastly improved by a little more emotion from the victims. Perhaps more pleading & screaming. Dignified deaths don't, IMO, make for good horror. But the concept is pretty chilling. And while not a horror film, I think the death of Pvt Mellish in "Saving Private Ryan" affected us all more deeply than even the most gory, violent deaths from the invasion footage. Or at least, it affected us for different reasons.
Which brings me to the othr kind of kill, a "faster", more violent, gorier kind of kill. I won't lie & say these don't make an impression on me, but it's more of a bloodthirsty "Wow!" reaction than genuine fear. I can see, however, how the violence & impled pain or the suddenness of it, can scare someone a great deal (to return to "Private Ryan", the scene where the soldiers in the landing craft get cut down by the machine gun before they can
even get moving onto the beach was pretty disturbing; I recall thinking: "Just like that? You die that quickly, with no chance to do or affect ANYTHING? Just poof! and you're gone?"
I think the near universality of the former may in part account for the recent torture porn trend. By definition, torture porn involves longer, drawn out, painful kills/acts of torture. Maybe the audience has pretty much become jaded by even the best executed "fast" kills, and need something a little more likely to get under our skin and hit us where we live to provoke a fear reaction (which is what we're there for), above & beyond the mere presence of blood & gore (which torture porn often provides as well). But that's just one Chewer's opnion.
Do you agree with me that "slow" kills are scarier, and why? Further, do you think this estimation is universal, as I do? And what of the link to torture porn? Do you agree?
