PG-13 and Horror: Can They Get Along?

While taking a stroll through the blogosphere, I noticed reviews coming up for the recently released film, Prom Night. (See image on left) It wasn't surprising to discover that this was yet another bad horror movie. This has been a recent trend with horror movies, but then I came a cross an interesting blog post making the argument that a horror movie going for a PG-13 rating (such as Prom Night) is almost practically guaranteed to fail. (See image to the right) The PG-13 rating came about as an answer to those movies which were too mature to be considered PG, yet were not so bad as to be seen as an R rated movie. Steven Spielberg had an important part in this as he was pushing for something that would allow him to have the heart ripping scene in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, without having getting an R. The fact is that the teenage market is a large money making group for the film industry, and so by making movies that can still allow teenagers to go and see them without the need of a parent, this allows for more profit. So, with movies like Prom Night, horror movies are trying to reach the audience that will give them the most money. These films are thinking less about the art of making a film, and more about how the business aspect. I thought I'd look into this by responding to two blog posts dealing with these issues. The first is the post mentioned earlier, about PG-13 horror films, written by Scott Weinberg for the blog site, Cinematical. It's titled "Fan Rant: PG-13 Horror Sucks and I Can Prove It." The other post is written by Doug Nagy, co-host of The Movie Blog's podcasts, titled "Prom Night Review." It basically talks about how bad the movie was, but also mentions how ratings had an effect on the film.

"Fan Rant: PG-13 Horror Sucks and I Can Prove It."
Comment:
I could not agree with you more. Horror movies in general have been pretty bad lately, but especially those that try to go for the PG-13 rating seem especially worse. It really seems to have come down to the business side of film making, the money making, rather than the art. The result is terrible stories and sad rip-offs of good foreign horror films. There have been the occasional movies that actually are good, but they are few and far between (and Tremors, although I really like it, does not really feel like a horror film to me). It really is sad to think that the rating that originally seemed like a good way to open more movies to a younger audience now seems like mainly a target film companies want to target in order to make some cash. Rather than being a benefit, it's more of a restriction, because now film makers have to make their films fit within certain limitations rather than being allowed to stretch out and let their creativity decided how the film should be (and whatever gory results that may come along with it). I agree that it seems like the best movies are the bloody ones, like the original Halloween, or A Nightmare on Elm Street, or The Exorcist which had many other gruesome, if not bloody, scenes. Although, I feel like the blood shouldn't be key to a good horror movie. This could be partly because I'm more into the psychological aspect of horror. For example, The Ring, not the American rip-off, but instead the original Japanese film, seemed much better, and yet had less in it. When people died in the American version, they looked like drained out corpses, but in the Japanese version, they looked like they were frozen in their last moment of terror, which seemed so much creepier. There was no blood. A lot of these Asian horror films seem to be going for this psychological side of horror, and for me it seems very effective. But then, I'm also a fan of Asian cinema, so I'm a bit biased. Still, it works. How do you feel about this? It's sad that the good horror films now seem to be only found outside the U.S.

"Prom Night Review"
Comment:
Thank you for enduring such a movie so as to provide us with a review. Also, congratulations on the kittens! If I had not already decided to stay away from this film, reading your review would have helped me make the decision. Although I love all sorts of films, I find myself avoiding many these days, especially horror films. They just seem to recycle the same formula, over and over, without attempting to make any drastic, and possibly interesting, changes. So now, I just tend to avoid these films altogether. I often end up having to look outside of the U.S. to find a good horror film. I recently came across an interesting blog that was talking about how PG-13 horror films just never seem to work out, because the PG-13 rating becomes a target for the movie companies so that they can get their films out to a larger audience. It becomes more about business than art. He also argues that horror films pretty much need some sort of blood, gore, or at least some kind of shock value in order to be a good film. I thought this was interesting because you mention how the movie seems to have held off the realistic side of things (such as the lack of blood despite a slit throat) in order to keep the PG-13 rating. And, as use said, a slasher film needs blood. The term alone, "slasher," already implies that there should be blood. But how do you feel about the need for blood in general in a horror movie? Do you think it's necessary to make it a good film? It's expected with most horror films, but I feel like it's not necessary to be successful. It will require good story telling and suspense to achieve it, but I still think blood doesn't need to be a factor. But it should not be absent if what's going on in the scene requires it. Because it's true, it does seem far less believable when a dead body with a large open wound lays there without a pool of blood.

Film Versus Digital: Who Will Win?

In earlier posts I have brought up how digital technology has come so far that anyone can be a filmmaker. It's true, the digital age has allowed for more independent filmmakers to go out there and make movies. But despite this fact, there is still a question of which is better, digital or film. Each side has their benefits and drawbacks, and adding them up, it's difficult to say which is the best. And right now, both are used commonly, from commercials, to television shows, and big budget feature films. The television show, Heroes, is shot on 35mm film, but then there's Superman Returns (see image on the right), which was shot digitally. Here at USC, I've been lucky enough to have had the chance to work with film and digital technology, and I've been able to see the advantages of each. But even the film school has been making changes, and a lot of the film classes I've taken are going digital, when before they used film. It's great that the world of movies is embracing new technology, but it will not yet give up the old ways; there is a reason digital technology still strives to replicate film. Despite the benefits that digital offers in the film making process, it still doesn't replace the fact that it doesn't look as good as film does.

When shooting a movie, a lot of time is spent lighting the set, making sure everything looks right. The camera needs to be loaded with film, which requires skill and time (film needs to be loaded in darkness, often in a little tent, so one has to learn to load based on touch). And when working with film, the light needs to be measured, so that the film can pick it up so it shows up the way it is meant to be. Then there's the problem of not knowing how things have turned out until the film has been sent to the labs to process it which can take a day or two. Also, there are the mishaps that may happen, like the film getting caught somewhere in the camera and bunching up, the little problems that can cause much pain and wasted time. With digital technology, it eliminates a lot of those troubles. Loading the camera involves pressing a button, sliding in the tape, and closing the lid. There's no film to get bunched up in the camera, although there may be the occasional tape troubles, but those are few and far between. Another benefit is that all one needs to do is plug a monitor to the camera and the image presented is the actual image, the final image without any processing needed to be done. So it eliminates the wait, and allows the results to be viewed and reviewed after being shot. It also gives that instant image to work with when setting lights. There's no question whether a light it too bright or too dark, because it can be seen right away. Digital does certainly seem to have an edge in making the production process much easier and less troublesome. It's also cheaper to use than film. But cinematographer Bobby Byrne, of the show Titus, mentions how because the camera operator now looks through a little screen in the eyepiece of the camera, rather than looking through the actual lens of the camera, it makes it hard to notice things like lens flares (caused by light hitting the camera lens). "My operators can't see them on their small video monitors. Flares, therefore, have become totally my responsibility." The job of looking out for those problems now goes to whoever is watching the monitor during the shoot. So, digital technology does have some side effects.

While shooting digitally does make working on the set easier, there is still the one all important factor: what is the result? How does the digital image compare to that shot on film. This is where things become clear. Digital technology, although it has come a long way, still cannot hold up to film in picture quality. It has difficulty handling colors like red and white, and it mutes a lot of the other colors. That's not to say that it looks bad, but when compared to film, there is still a difference. Film can pick up a much wider range of colors, bright and dark, and lay it all out to be seen. This can be seen in things like clothing and fabrics, which have different colors and designs. A digital image will not provide as much of a visual display and give it justice. There's also the problem that a lot of digital cameras cannot handle certain patterns in things like clothing. There are things that it has a little more difficulty processing. Another difference between the two is depth of field, and how much control each medium has over it. Depth of field is how much of what is in focus in front of and behind a subject in the shot. It's more difficult to control in digital because a lot of the shot will be in focus, which is not always the wanted result. One other issue, which I recently discovered during a meeting with Garret Smith, an employee of Technicolor, is the storage life of each medium. Film lasts much longer, and is cheaper in the long run. Garret backs up this fact by saying that, thanks to film , today we are able to see re-releases of old movies, which are restored and look better than even the original copy. Digital, on the other hand, has to be constantly backed up and replaced, especially as the technology changes. This ends up being much more costly. Film holds up better over time.

The fact is, digital technology is not yet up to par with film, and it continues to try and replicate it. So, until it can actually achieve the same results, film still will be dominant in terms of what the movie looks like in the end. And really, that's what matters, so while using film may be tedious, it's definitely worth the time and effort because it looks great. We're transitioning from film to digital, and right now both are being used just as frequently as the other. There are some directors, like Robert Rodriguez, who swear by digital ("...digital is immediate. We can move really fast."), and then there are those like Steven Spielberg, who choose to stick with film because they feel it is better ("...a film frame is alive with movement ..."). While I enjoy using film, I will, for at least right now, be using digital technology. It's high quality, and much more affordable for a beginning filmmaker, and, as I said earlier, it's easier to use. But I definitely won't turn down the chance to make a movie on film! (See left!)