Magic and Horror Films

Aug 31, 2007
5
0
I know you guys all like to pontificate on some of the deeper meaning and theory behind magic, so I figured you might like this.

I'm an english student who has a passion for both magic and horror films. While studying both of them, I discovered many similarities in terms of structure, theory, and psychology.

I had been kicking around the idea of writing a little article on the subject for a while.... and I just finally got around to it. This is the text only version of the article so far. I think in the future I will punch it up with video examples and such (without tipping any techniques, don't you worry).

It's available here: http://reddingmineshaft.wordpress.com in three parts.

I'd be interested to hear whether you agree or disagree... or whether you think it's valuable for discussion. Your thoughts?
 
Apr 28, 2008
596
0
This is a very interesting subject, 2 totally different things I would never have considered comparing. I agree with you on most points, particularly on timing and suspense.

The only point I really disagree on is gimmicks. It doesn't matter how the end result is achieved, it's the audiences experience that matters. I personally use pure sleight of hand 99% of the time but I still respect those who choose to use gimmicks. They're just different means to an end. The audience won't be able to tell if you use gimmicks or sleight of hand. Unless you use them inappropriately, e.g. constantly showing all the cards the same on a Svengali deck. Something like that would be equivalent to excessive 'jump scares' in my opinion, not gimmicks themselves.

I think you could take this a step further. I believe magic theory is only valuable if it has practical applications. Perhaps you could write another part about what we could learn from horror films and apply to our magic?. You briefly touch on this several times but I think you could do more. This would turn the article into something that is mildly interesting to something with real practical application. You could maybe make a video showing how you have applied what you've learnt to you're magic, this would me immensely interesting.
 
Aug 31, 2007
5
0
I personally don't look down upon the use of gimmicks, but it's true that many performers do. Like I said in the piece, gimmicks work well, but they need to be handled properly. Maybe I need to rework that section, but what you wrote is more or less exactly what I meant.

I realized while writing this that I could definitely go further from there, both in terms of applying it to magic and in terms of getting into even more detail with the article. The blog I posted it on isn't really a magic based blog though, but more of a film and video game one. I do hope to apply and test many of my observations in the future though. Maybe I'll come back here with stuff like that.

I'm glad you liked it, thanks for reading.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
A shame to see something intelligent once more languishing and bleeding to death because more people want to talk about how they spent their Christmas money.

I'm a huge horror movie fan, and a subject that I think you could build on even more is the importance of pathos. The human element.

Most horror movies suck because all of the victims are unlikeable 1-dimensional caricatures who exist only to give the make-up artist an excuse to use his spirit gum and latex. There's no horror to be had because there's no reason to be feel bad when Generic Teenager #347 gets a meat cleaver through his face.

And a problem I see in a lot of magic acts is that it's all spectacle but no substance. They have no idea how to connect with an audience as human beings.
 
Aug 31, 2007
5
0
That's another thing that I kinda touched on but didn't really get into. The idea of spectacle.

There are horror films that are no substance but all spectacle, and some of them are the most notorious ever made. Of course, they aren't seen or respected by the general public, but gorehounds will hunt 'em down and watch every damn one of them.

Magicians can sometimes be gorehounds with their own technique. I can't help it either. When I see Brian Tudor doing those lightning quick moves for their own sake I'm always pulled in by it. Yet, he's usually one of the names that people come up with when they cite magic routines as meaningless and without connection.

I was hoping for a little more discussion on this front. The post wasn't written for the magician crowd, but I thought by bringing attention to it here we could bounce ideas around and get at some practical applications like squ!rrel was talking about.
 

Lex

Dec 18, 2007
51
0
52
Chicago, IL
Interesting comparison. Fundamentally, I think you're on to something. Both magic and horror are (often) about a very similar theme: "ordinary" people coming into contact with something "unreal" or "supernatural."

Stephen King, I think it was, subdivided the broad category of horror into three. (I may have the first two terms mixed up.) Suspense is the thing that jumps out at you. Terror is the gross-out gorefest. True horror, however, is when you realize there's something just a little bit wrong . . . .

Great horror films combine these techniques. Think of Alien: it has stuff jumping out and people blowing up over the dinner table, but up to then there's also that lingering sense of something just a little off-kilter that people can't figure out.

Or consider what I would label as a combination mystery-horror, Dead Again. Everything is mysterious and inexplicable, and then at the ends come that one moment when Kenneth Branagh's character uses the wrong name: every single time I watch the movie with other people, it takes them the 0.8 second silence after the line to process, but then they scream. Nothing jumps out (yet), no blood is spilled (yet)--all he does is mix up two names. But that is sufficient to make people scream with horror.

Any or all of these techniques could be used in magic. Suspense/surprise is the card that pops out of nowhere when the spectator thinks the trick is still going on. It can be used to end a trick with the same feeling like a car that hits a wall. Terror, in this case, is that excess that gets the spectator riled up. Not only did you pull their Ten of Hearts out from behind their jugular, but Every. Single. Card. Is. The. Same. as you pull them off one by one, finally spilling a sea of red cards across the table.

Horror,in this sense, would be the hardest to capture in a single trick. Really, I guess, it is the whole impression the magician leaves. You're a normal person, with a normal deck of cards, but you're just a little bit wrong. That can build to a climax--the trailers for Thread are, I think, a gorgeous example of that--but that sense of horror is what leaves an impression over time.
 
Dec 22, 2007
567
1
Long Island, New York
I really enjoyed the article. Magic can also be compared to horror literature. If most magicians got their points across like good horror writers, no one would be complaining about the direction of magic. It seems like everytime I read E. A. Poe or HP Lovecraft my magic improves...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
I really enjoyed the article. Magic can also be compared to horror literature. If most magicians got their points across like good horror writers, no one would be complaining about the direction of magic. It seems like everytime I read E. A. Poe or HP Lovecraft my magic improves...

Lovecraft is on my list of required reading for anyone who wants to do magic with a darker edge. His storytelling was equaled only by his friend and contemporary Robert E. Howard.
 
Aug 31, 2007
5
0
I've been reading more of Strong Magic since writing my original post. Ortiz overtly mentions horror films and the "spectacle" thing we were talking about on page 197 (of my edition). He makes numerous references to films throughout the book. He particularly likes Hitchcock references.

I've made several posts about non magic related stuff on the blog since putting it here. So I'll provide links for people so they don't need to search for them in the future.

Part 1 :
http://reddingmineshaft.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/horror-and-cinematic-sleight-of-hand/

Part 2:
http://reddingmineshaft.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/horror-and-cinematic-sleight-of-hand-part-2/

Part 3 :
http://reddingmineshaft.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/horror-and-cinematic-sleight-of-hand-part-3/


It's not terribly convenient to have 'em in three parts... but that's the way it was written. I hope to punch up the original article more in the future... and perhaps do a part 4 about applications.
 
Lovecraft is on my list of required reading for anyone who wants to do magic with a darker edge. His storytelling was equaled only by his friend and contemporary Robert E. Howard.

You never cease to amaze me with your over indulgent wealth of knowledge from a realm unheard of. This is why we shall dine watching b-rated horror epics sharing a sense man meat mixed with carnage. Whooahaha!
 
Very interesting blog posts Ace.

However...I'm not so sure on the following section in Part 01:

"More than any other form of entertainment, horror film directors and magicians want to AFFECT the audience. They want them to laugh at the right time, gasp at the right time, and clap at the right time. Affecting the audience isn’t the only goal of course… they also seek to entertain, but they seek to entertain while holding the audience in their control."

Really? More than any other form of entertainment, HORROR film directors want to affect the audience??

Sorry...but that is surely not the case. All good films and literature seek and succeed in affecting their audience. If they don't...then they're not particularly good.

And then the last bit of that paragraph also, surely, is not true? (I'm speaking specifically of film makers now) All good plots - whether they be horror stories, thrillers, dramas or comedies - seek to entertain. Entertainment is the whole point (unless we're talking pretentious artistic waffle created solely to make the creator feel self-important).

That one point in particular is my main gripe with professional critics. I have never understood how a person can be paid to give their opinion on a thing. It's just wrong, in my opinion...ha....ahem...ummmm...?

Most - if not all - critics of film are neither actors, screenwriters, novelists or movie makers...and yet their opinions are paid for and, every now and again, completely re-write the course of a movies success.

What an awful state the world is in.


Anyway, that's a rant that's not for here...sorry.



As for this bit in Part 03:

"If we look at something like Pulse… the s****y american remake of a japanese film called Kairo. It got heavily criticized for using “loud noises” in order to get a rise out of the audience, without adequately building tension before and afterwards."

No foreign horror film should ever be remade in or by America(ns) as they always screw it up*, not understanding the difference between commerce and disturbing an audience, and in that there is a massive correlation between horror films (bad remakes) and the slew of 'non-performance' that many try to pass off as magic these days.

An exception would be the 2008 remake of the 1997 Austrian film Funny Games by Michael Haneke. However, in that instance he wrote and directed both and used the exact same script. It's also not really a horror film, even though it is. It's also utterly brilliant...but that's neither here nor there.



Really nice read though mate, and this thread is very interesting too.



Rabid
 
Aug 31, 2007
5
0
It's interesting you mention criticism... and maybe that'll help me better explain the horror films and affecting the audience thing. Yes, all forms of entertainment should (and usually do, as you pointed out) seek to affect an audience. I think with the example of horror though, the emphasis is more on controlling them moment to moment. "Moment to moment" really is the key here. A good piece of literature absolutely should have some affect upon the reader, but often it isn't until you reach the end of the story that it occurs.

A comedy is there to make you laugh... but maybe every joke in the film doesn't work. A good horror film needs to have a greater degree of control (through tension usually) in order to be effective.

With criticism, critics often can say they thought a film was well made, even if it didn't affect them consistently. Not to get too off track here, I thought Slumdog Millionaire was good, but it didn't HAVE me, if that makes sense. Parts of it did, parts of it did not. It absolutely did entertain though. Some critics would argue that you can only really talk about the emotional impact of the film... others would argue you can only talk about the concrete construction of the film... most would agree you need to mention both the objective and subjective.

To take it back to magic, we have an art form that exists only in the mind of the audience (like horror, like comedy). We have a similar emphasis on audience control moment to moment. That's why we build our routines to hit hard with an opener before going into the more long form tricks.

All of the above forms exist for entertainment... there's no getting around that. It's more about the method through which they balance the surprise with the entertainment that I was getting at.

As much as I want to... I won't get into a discussion of Funny Games here either haha. Thank you so much for reading my mini essay though!
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
This brings up the issue of timing, which is of supreme importance in both horror and comedy.

In the case of horror, one need look no further than the cinematic skidmarks we have to deal with now. Silent Hill (the movie, not the game), The Unborn, The Grudge 1 and 2, Saw and all its illegitimate children, Rob Zombie's Halloween, Dead Silence... the list just goes on and on.

These films have terrible pacing and no real sense of dread or effective timing. I can accurately judge how bad a movie is going to be by what I call the Boo System. Count the number of times in the trailer that you have something pop out and startle you, usually accompanied by harsh sound effects and a shrieking orchestra hit. Count it as two if its preceded by a moment of "tense" silence as a character slowly moves forward to inspect something. These are Boo moments.

If it happens once, you're generally in good shape.

If it happens twice, it could go either way.

Three times, see it at the dollar theaters if you really have to. Otherwise, wait for it to come out on DVD or appear on cable.

Four or more Boo moments, and the director and screenwriter are obviously too incompetent to be allowed within 100 yards of fog machines, spirit gum and latex, and fake blood.

The trailer for the upcoming Friday the 13th remake masterminded by Michael "Never Had An Original Idea" Bay has 7 Boo moments. Anyone care to take a wager on how bad it's going to be?

So what is my point in all this? To put it one way, a lot of magicians use bad "jokes", sucker endings, and out-of-place flourishes typically involving Sybil and her slutty sisters to punctuate everything much in the same way a hack director uses Boo moments in lieu of anything genuinely scary.
 
Feb 27, 2008
2,342
1
34
Grand prairie TX
This brings up the issue of timing, which is of supreme importance in both horror and comedy.

In the case of horror, one need look no further than the cinematic skidmarks we have to deal with now. Silent Hill (the movie, not the game), The Unborn, The Grudge 1 and 2, Saw and all its illegitimate children, Rob Zombie's Halloween, Dead Silence... the list just goes on and on.

These films have terrible pacing and no real sense of dread or effective timing. I can accurately judge how bad a movie is going to be by what I call the Boo System. Count the number of times in the trailer that you have something pop out and startle you, usually accompanied by harsh sound effects and a shrieking orchestra hit. Count it as two if its preceded by a moment of "tense" silence as a character slowly moves forward to inspect something. These are Boo moments.

If it happens once, you're generally in good shape.

If it happens twice, it could go either way.

Three times, see it at the dollar theaters if you really have to. Otherwise, wait for it to come out on DVD or appear on cable.

Four or more Boo moments, and the director and screenwriter are obviously too incompetent to be allowed within 100 yards of fog machines, spirit gum and latex, and fake blood.

The trailer for the upcoming Friday the 13th remake masterminded by Michael "Never Had An Original Idea" Bay has 7 Boo moments. Anyone care to take a wager on how bad it's going to be?

So what is my point in all this? To put it one way, a lot of magicians use bad "jokes", sucker endings, and out-of-place flourishes typically involving Sybil and her slutty sisters to punctuate everything much in the same way a hack director uses Boo moments in lieu of anything genuinely scary.

Lately this remake mania has taken on a decidedly ironic thrust,as Hollywood began to remake once-low-budget 'sleeper' hits such as dawn of the dead,the texas chainsaw massacre,and assault on precinct 13 as slick,expensive,ultraviolent Hollywood spectacles,expressly for young audiences who have probably never heard of the original films and hence are unaware of being served last weeks leftovers warmed over.Usually the result(as with Vanilla Sky) is to strip the original work of the very qualities(its raw simplcity,spontaneity,and invention) that made it interesting to begin with.
Remaking a B-movie as an A-movie(or an indie classic as a big studio dud) more or less sums up the situation regarding the current (and indefinitely continuing) famine in Hollywood,its desperation to harvest a new crop of cinematic material even if it has to plunder the local farmers land to do so.

Of course,studios wouldnt give even half the money these remakes cost to the original directors to make new films(fair enough when you look at Hoopers,Carpenters,and Romeros recent work,but still).
The total dearth of good new material in Hollywood is all-too-aparrently the reason it is starting to feed off the carcass of independent cinema.
The Dawn of the Dead remake was a respectable horror movie and one of the more enjoyable studio films of the year; but even so it seemed largely pointless.Why not make a new zombie movie with an original script?How hard can it be?(by the way,im looking forward to bruce laBruce's OTTO, a different kind of zombie film)
The answer is that Hollywood is both temperamentally disposed towards recycling old material and deeply averse to working with new ideas.
Ergo,Cannibalism comes naturally to it.
Also up for grabs were recent foreign films that could be bought up and done over with Hollywood stars, free of those pesky subtititles.(the American public has built up a resistance to non-american movies-or non-american anything-and to reading in general,most especially at the movies,at least this was what studios assumed;the runaway success of Gibsons Passion of the Christ seemed to contest it).
A recent foreign art house hit such as abre los ojos(a visionary and sophisticated spanish film by alejandro amenebar) was remade-through the intervention of Tom Cruise and his director-in-pocket Cameron Crowe-as the asinine Vanilla Sky,a grotesque anti-vanity vanity piece for the star
...Ive seemed to have strayed too far off topic....

P.S.There are few exceptions to the remakes such as Chris Nolans Insomnia,which deftly adapted Erik Skjalabjoerg's original into a haunting Al Pacino vehicle.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results