Cavalorn ([info]cavalorn) wrote,

Looking For The Quintessential Scary Moment



Hughes’ Tiger, The Uncanny Valley and the Eye of Yamamura Sadako

An Essay, by Cav

Confession time.

Fear is fundamental to who I am. It fascinates me. I like nothing better than to explore it, investigate it and slide its various surfaces around in the hope of finding a way inside. I am most truly myself when I am scaring the shit out of people by some means or other, whether by writing or gaming or sitting them down in front of favourite DVDs or whatever method comes to hand. I hope that this does not make me a bad person.

There is nothing worse for a horror writer than failing to be frightening. When you can achieve true fear, it is better than sex. When your attempts fall flat, then nothing will revive them. So, I often find myself looking into the mechanics of horror, if only to get some kind of comprehension of how to create it.

The recent Channel 4 show, The Top 100 Scary Moments, was about what one could expect from these barrel-scraping compilations. They are not even honest representations of public opinion. A panel of ‘experts’ choose the top 100 potential Scary Moments or Sexy Moments or Comic Characters, and all that the public do is vote on which order they are to come in. This, for example, is why ‘Train arriving at a station’ is on the list at all.

More annoying still, it is not even a collection of moments. It is a collection of films. ‘A Nightmare On Elm Street’, for example, is not a ‘moment’. This irritates me to a disproportionate degree, because I am interested in the moments. I want to know what it is about a particular sequence that makes it frightening.

Of the films in the top 10, I can identify only three in which there are ‘moments’ of especial terror. These are Alien, Jaws and of course Ring, with only the latter two really qualifying for terror as opposed to shock and dismay. The Shining and Halloween also get a look in, for reasons that I will go into later.

The pivotal moment in Alien is generally thought to be the chestburster scene. However, I cannot remember anyone (least of all myself) finding that fantastic sequence at all frightening. It was certainly fascinating and horrible in a way that allowed the audience to fear the worst while simultaneously confirming their fears (‘what the… they didn’t! they couldn’t… growing INSIDE him? oh god, they DID.’)

I would instead place the pivotal moment quite close to the end of the film. Ripley is running away, trying to reach the shuttlecraft, and comes across the Alien in a corridor, abruptly and terribly there, seen for the first time in all its glory, instead of being glimpsed as a stray limb, tail or skull. The Alien does the worst thing it could possibly do.

It raises its head and looks at her.

The moment in Jaws is easy to identify, too. The diver goes down under the boat. He finds a shark tooth embedded in the boat’s staved-in side. As he pulls the tooth out, the boat rocks and the dead, white face of a man swims into view. We instantly cut away, and then instantly cut back to a full-face shot of the dead man, his mouth open, teeth showing, and one eye gone. The other eye is, of course, staring right at us.

As for Ring, the moment is the climax of the whole film. It really needs to be seen to do it justice. I am assuming that everybody reading this has seen it – if you haven’t, then please stop reading and come back to this essay once you’ve had a chance to watch the movie.

Go through it stage by stage. The television turns on by itself. (That alone is sufficiently frightening to warrant a separate study. Unexpected behaviour from household objects, which are supposed to be our silently acquiescent servants, is a staple horror theme, more as a background than a main player, and here it works with exactly the right degree of subtlety.) Sharing Ryuji’s shock and disbelief, we watch Sadako grope her way up from the well. We have already seen foreshadowings of this emergence in earlier viewings of the video. Like the Alien, there have been momentary flashes of the murdered adult Sadako, and now we are clearly going to have her full emergence. We have seen the child but not the real Sadako. We have not seen that thing that is also, somehow, the oozing skull with its tangle of black hair that has already been fetched up from the well.

Sadako is thus already an awful mystery. We have never seen her face. There has only been a set of rotten remains. We have no idea what will be behind the fall of black hair that makes her faceless. It is immediately apparent, though, that something is very wrong. She does not move like a human being. She comes towards the screen in a horrible lurching gait, like a broken thing.

As my good friend Madam H has observed, the most frightening part of what comes next is not that Sadako emerges through the television screen. It is the moment when you suddenly know she is going to. This is literally nightmarish. Everyone is familiar with the nightmare when you suddenly know what is going to happen and you still cannot take your eyes away.

The most disturbing aspect of Sadako’s jerky approach is its slowness. We can look to another ‘Top 10 Scary Moment’ here and take a brief diversion down another of horror’s back streets. In John Carpenter’s ‘Halloween’, while Jamie Lee Curtis is trying to flee, the killer (faceless, much as Sadako is) emerges from the house she has just left and walks steadily in her direction. Why should this be so much more frightening than, say, a jogging trot? No idea, but it is. The most frightening apparition is that which approaches you steadily and unhurriedly, getting a little closer every time you look. One must here refer to that masterpiece by M.R. James, O Whistle And I’ll Come To You, the TV adaptation of which was also in the Top 100 Scary Moments; but I digress.

Ryuji cowers as Sadako crawls across the floor. She is suddenly at her full height, though we do not see her stand. We are braced for some kind of revelation and think we know what is coming. Now, thinks the audience, we will get to see her face, and it will be all nasty and decayed, or something like that. The camera plays along with us, going for a sequence of rapid cuts, each one closer to the next. Sadako standing, with her drooping head in centre screen; a sudden jump inwards; then another.

And then, with a nerve-jangling screech on the soundtrack, the screen is filled with a clearly human-but-not-human eye, grotesquely distorted, reminiscent of a face pulled by a child. (What the rest of her face is like, we can only guess.) The effect is staggering. The faceless enigma of Sadako, which the film has steadily and subtly built up, is replaced by something horribly actual, which is looking at us. It is the one and only time that we look through the mask of hair and see Sadako clearly, and although what we see is the briefest of glimpses, it shows us all we need to know. There is nothing more quintessentially alive than an eye, and yet we know that Sadako is dead.

If it had not been for the false climax of the well scene immediately before this one, the terror of the eye would not have been so scalding. The skeletal remains in the well were not in the least frightening. In that scene, despite a momentary shock as a pale childish hand grabs Reiko’s arm, the parting of the pall of hair reveals only a very ordinary skull. The empty eyes even seem to weep (yes, they were flowing with slime, but the suggestion is there) and the scene is pathetic rather than threatening. Reiko pulls the bones to her and embraces them. The soundtrack, with its melancholy strains, tells the audience what the prevailing emotions are. The scene is one of closure, comfort and reconciliation.

Eyes Of The Dead
We don’t like dead people to have open eyes, do we? We gently draw them closed, or put coins on them, but we can’t stand them to be open.

The Scary Moment that I did not really expect Channel 4 to include (though I would have been damned impressed if they had) which genuinely is a moment as opposed to a whole scary film, is one that many of us thirtysomethings have in common. It is a scene from the 70s disaster movie, The Poseidon Adventure. A group of passengers who are trapped in an overturned ocean liner and are trying to make their way towards the surface find themselves in the ship’s galley. Without warning, we have a shot of the dead body of a cook. He is clearly dead, but his eyes are open, as is his mouth, much like the pallid corpse in Jaws.

Cut away to the passengers, reacting on our behalf. One of them throws a coat over the burned corpse. Cut back; and again we see those staring eyes for a moment - thanks very bloody much - before the coat lands over the body and they are hidden from view.

Connection
Among my collection of childhood relics too poignant to throw away (which in practice is almost all of them) is a copy of a children’s magazine called Cricket & Company, which sold in America as Cricket. I remember it as something of a curate’s egg. Some parts were forgettable. Others have never left my memory since the first time I read them. The issue I held on to I kept primarily for its Jan Pienkowski cover, but also because it had a feature by Ted Hughes.

There was some of his poetry for children in the issue as well, which at the time I found interesting and funny, though less so than his prose work. Hughes’ writing for children seems to me to take full advantage of their ability to visualise the monstrous and accept a grotesque or bizarre situation without demanding explanation or apology; he can narrate the progress of a colossus up to a cliff that it then falls over, smashing to pieces on the rocks below, without having to justify it. There is a delight in the sheer situational power of the image, huge and ogrish, floating in darkness without any causal origin. ‘Where did he come from? Nobody knows.’ The film of the Iron Man added explanations, which I feel diminished the power of the idea, but then, so did turning it into a cartoon.

The little article by Hughes that accompanied his poetry explained how he became a writer. Since I am not aware of any article anywhere else that gives this account, I like to think that he deliberately chose to tell it to an audience of children. It is, after all, in childhood that such seeds as these are shown, and iron giants begin to lumber out of the dark towards their eventual destinations.

Hughes explains that he was reading a boys’ comic, in which there was a story about the draining of a swamp. The machinery that was draining the swamp suddenly became blocked and a crew was sent to clear it. The object that was hauled out of the machinery was the perfectly preserved body of a sabre-toothed tiger, kept intact for centuries by the waters of the bog. The workers were discussing what to do next, when suddenly the thing’s eye opened.

‘A terrible, terrible eye, from millions of years ago, stared at them.’

Hughes does not describe how that moment makes him feel. He only says that he cannot remember what happened next, but will always remember the emotions he experienced. Other things, later in life, other moments, would make the eye open again for an instant. He even describes his poetry as a repeated attempt to capture the moment of the eye’s opening.

This is what I thought of when I tried to explore why a video I watched this morning was so disturbing. You can go and watch it yourself if you want to get into the mood for this essay. Why is it that something with eyes is much more frightening than something without? The skeletal thing that flashes up for a moment is clearly looking at you. You can tell, because it has eyes. If it had been an empty-eyed skull, would it have been quite so bad?

One of these days, I’m going to put a ‘scary video’ together along the now-familiar lines. Instead of a dead baby or rotten skull-face suddenly appearing, it will be a bright yellow banana. However, the obligatory scream will still be there. It would be very interesting to me to see what effect it had. Common objects can be terrifying in nightmares. One woman said that the worst nightmare she ever had was one in which she was looking at an electric radiator. A friend of mine describes one of her nightmares as hinging on the moment when she saw that an otherwise normal boy had grey ears.

Shock
A woman is on her own in her house. All her curtains are drawn. She is uneasy, and has the creeping feeling that someone is watching her. No matter how she tries, she cannot relax. She goes to the window and draws the curtains back, and there is an insane tramp, staring right at her, his mouth gaping.

This was told to me by a friend as something that really happened. Whether it was or not, it is a marvellous example of the usefulness of anecdote in crystallising out some aspect or other of our humanity. We do not want to look into the mirror after dark, or out of the window. Looking into a keyhole, we fear that an eye will suddenly appear and look back at us. Even in the animated adventures of Wallace and Gromit, there is a chilling moment; during the Wrong Trousers, while Gromit is hiding in the wastebin, the penguin suddenly looks right at him with its horrible beady black eyes, and an ominous chord sounds. Cut back to Gromit’s terrified eyes.

Consider, also, the climactic meeting with Norman Bates’ mother in Psycho. The chair rotates, and wham! – we are staring into a shrivelled skull-face that screams back at us. Would the scene have that impact if it were anything other than a form of face that we encountered? I do not think so. Hitchcock, the marvellous bastard, then forces us to watch the skull take on a semblance of life as the lightbulb above it swings crazily back and forth, casting shadows and highlights, changing the skull’s expression, emphasising the horrible vacancy of its eyes and mouth.

Sudden face contact, or worse, eye contact under any circumstances is bad enough. Sudden eye contact with something that is sufficiently close to what you are to make eye contact, but is also sufficiently different from what you are to be frightening, is the archetypal moment of terror.

Why do we close our eyes in response to a frightening sight?

We want to break the connection.

We do not want to see something that can see us.

Wrong Faces
I have a private theory that the stimulus that presses the ‘fear’ button more reliably than any other is facial distortion. There is some kind of trigger switch deep inside the human psyche that reacts very, very badly to anything being wrong with the face. Skulls, for example, are frightening not because they are the remains of the dead but because they are distorted faces. Some kinds of distortion are more inherently frightening than others, as we will see.

Why should facial distortion scare us so? I can think of some reasons. Expressions that convey anger, such as a snarl, are designed to send a surge of adrenalin into our systems. This is good biological sense. If something is looking at you and it does not have a happy face, you probably want to get away from it, or brace yourself to fight it. This scratches the surface but does not get right down into the psyche.

To properly get to grips with the terror of the wrong face, I believe we must look to a theory of robotics, the ‘uncanny valley’ of Doctor Masahiro Mori, and consider the peculiar way in which resemblance works. Go here for an in-depth look at the uncanny valley research.

In brief, if you have a graph showing a steady increase of resemblance to humanity on which various depictions are placed, with, say, a stick figure at the left hand end and a fully-rendered CGI virtual popstar on the right, and plot that against how comfortable the observer is with it (or how much the observer identifies with the figure) you will find that comfort steadily increases as resemblance increases, until the point just before you reach complete resemblance. At that point, comfort drops away sharply. This abrupt dip is called the ‘uncanny valley’.

Let me give you an example. A Lego man is not a very accurate depiction of humanity, and we are comfortable with him. Michelangelo’s David is far more accurate, and we are comfortable with it. A dead human being is very accurate indeed, but we are far from comfortable in its presence. A waxwork is even more accurate, and even if we are still slightly uncomfortable, we would rather be in the presence of a waxwork than a dead person.

To be frightening, a distorted face must still be recognisable as human. It must sit in the middle of the uncanny valley. Go too far to one side or the other and the reaction begins to warm again. A large scar is not frightening (too little distortion), nor is the face of a fish (too much).

This brings us back to Ring, which I personally consider to be the most perfect horror film ever made. Facial distortion is fundamental to how Ring works. Sadako’s victims are left with horribly twisted faces. We see them only briefly, but it is long enough to leave an impression.

Facial marring is also used as a prefiguring story element. In the photographs of those who are subject to her curse, the faces are distorted. In one memorable sequence, Reiko asks Ryuji to photograph her, so she can see whether she too will have a distorted face. (Ryuji has been stolidly sceptical so far.) He does so, takes the photo from the camera, looks at it, makes no comment at all and hands it to her. We almost think that his lack of reaction means that there is nothing to worry about, until we look through Ryuji’s eyes at the picture, and with a dreadful crash on the soundtrack we see her smeared, warped face.

The face is the focus of the whole person and the eyes are the focus of the face. When we look at an eye and the eye looks back at us, we make contact on the most basic of levels. I am aware of you, and you are aware of me. We read information from the rest of the face, and if that information does not fit with what we expect to see, we become fearful.

The anticipation of facial distortion is part of the process of terror, just as much as the moment of encountering it. In the marvellous film The Eyes (!), a piece of Japanese horror to rival Ring for sheer creepiness, there is a sequence in a lift in which the visible ghost of an old man (already uncanny, as his calloused feet are hovering slightly above the floor) slowly rotates behind an unaware woman, with more and more of his face coming into view. We know that there will be something wrong with it, and the film does not disappoint.

We can even see facial distortion when it is not actually there. It seems to be part of what we expect from horror. The dwarf at the end of Don’t Look Now is only shocking because we were expecting a child inside that red coat. He is not, in himself, especially frightening, but when he turns around and we see a wizened creature instead of a little girl, the immediate reaction is to see the face as twisted instead of simply old.

Conclusion
The true moment of horror is not that you see something nasty in the woodshed. Horror happens when you see the nasty thing in the woodshed seeing you. The focus is on the face, and most especially on the eye.

If you would like to give some feedback, please go and watch this first. It is one of those cheesy ‘BOO!’ flash animation things, of which there are so many, but it illustrates what I have been trying to say rather well, I think.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 46 comments

[info]reddragdiva

March 28 2004, 05:58:09 UTC 8 years ago

And, earlier on my friends list: http://www.livejournal.com/users/catbiscuit/429295.html

[info]mr_tom

March 28 2004, 07:00:38 UTC 8 years ago

Some random disconnected brane-dumping:

Hitchcock once famously said that the art of suspense was to create a situation in which the viewer was entirely aware of what is about to happen, and realises that they are in no way able to prevent it: the Sadako/TV sequence in Ring neatly illustrates this.

"The eyes are the windows to the soul" is a trite cliche, but appropriate: by looking into the eyes, we are able to empathise with whatever is facing us, and infer intent. It's just human nature.

Combine the two, a situation in which we (the audience) and we (vicariously, the victim) are able to understand what is about to happen to us, and that we are powerless to prevent it, and it's hard to think of a more terrifying situation.

[/going off on one]

[info]rosewater

March 28 2004, 10:35:59 UTC 8 years ago

At some point I vaguely intended to write a paper on the whole eyes-as-soul-windows phenomenon as connected with depictions of cyborgs. The idea of creating an eye is central to several literary and cinematic cyborg plots -- Blade Runner, "The Sandman" (on which Freud's theory of the uncanny hinges). I was thinking something like that the difficulties of cybernetics can be boiled down to the question of whether you can make an eye that can see you.

Mme. H makes a great point about the Gaze, too. That's one of those things that, as a disaffected grad student, I always turn my brain off when I hear it (usually people are talking about the Male Gaze or something equally annoying), but it's surprising how important the gaze really is in cinema... I read an article about how it's used in Whale's Frankenstein which was pretty cool. I think Cav's thesis fits in pretty well with cinema studies theories about the importance of who owns the gaze.

[info]mytholder

March 28 2004, 07:56:27 UTC 8 years ago

Eeenteresting.

I think a large part of the horror of the Sadako-coming-out-of-the-tv scene is due to violation of accepted reality - it screws with what you've learned about the world. Hmm. No wonder the scene is so effective - it works on multiple levels (intellectual, emotional, visceral) at once...

[info]lucybond

March 28 2004, 08:05:37 UTC 8 years ago

I think [info]mr_tom also has a good point, but I want to say this:

After much discussion with [info]madam_h, I think that a very major factor in horror is the moment when the central character realises they are not, as they previously assumed, in control of the situation.

It is not just the monster looking back at them, it is the realisation that the monster is more intelligent than they anticipated, or that things are behaving in an unnatural way, & that they no longer know the rules.

In films like In The Mouth of Madness & Jacob's Ladder, reality itself is questioned, as the main character is given horrible hints that they are not in Kansas any more, followed by an ultimate revelation.

For instance:

You have just been told that the serial killer is also a cannibal, you already know he knows his way to your building, because you are certain the note pushed under your door was genuinely written by him. But when the key turns in the lock, & the caretaker walks in, smiling casually, but holding a boning knife, you know that he could have let himself in at any time.

Contrary to all your scientific proofs, you now see that vampires exist, & you are not certain the storybook precautions will have any effect on them. The malformed creature advances as you brandish a crucifix, you are filled with fear & doubt. The monster starts to laugh as it paces closer.

You are nervous as you enter the dark room, strung with webs, & feel as if many eyes are watching you, so you turn on the light, but see nothing unusual. Cut back to the lightswitch, where a vast spider deliberately flips the switch back off, plunging the room into darkness, screams & scuttling.

So I think that the change in the balance of power is vital to horror. Sadako is NOT just a video-recording, the tape can change, showing different events. Videos don't do that. The tape influences the external world. She is going to climb from the TV screen into the real world. That is impossible.

The boundaries are smashed, the goal-posts moved, & all we previously believed, the things that keep us sane & let us sleep soundly in our beds, are of no use to us now.

And no, I'm not rushing to watch the animation, as 9 times out of 10, IMHO the 'jump' in a horror film is not the bit I enjoy. I could do that to you by poking you with a stick. I prefer a little more artistry...

[info]elusis

March 28 2004, 08:32:58 UTC 8 years ago

I like the "uncanny valley" research; I'd read it a while back and was thinking of it as I was reading along.

You are still not going to get me to watch horror movies, though. I am a complete and total mess at dealing with them (and would make a lousy test subject. "Is that scary?" "Yes." "Is that scary?" "YES." "Is that scary?" "YES!!!!!" "Can you tell me why?" "[incoherent gibbering with face buried in hands]").

[info]gnat23

March 28 2004, 08:36:48 UTC 8 years ago

Heh! Having just seen "Dawn of the Dead" yesterday...

The one that sticks in my memory was the Nightmare on Elm Street 3 scene where the kid is being puppeted by veins in his arms and legs that had been ripped out.

You'd get a kick out of this. There's a lot about eye mutilation:
http://www.retrocrush.com/scary/

[info]cavalorn

March 28 2004, 09:38:54 UTC 8 years ago

THANKYOU. That is MUCH more like the kind of thing those prats at Channel 4 should have put out and didn't.

As ever, you rock. :)

[info]spiderine

8 years ago

[info]gnat23

8 years ago

[info]etcet

March 28 2004, 08:57:09 UTC 8 years ago

Facial Distortion

This didn't seem to be included in the list [ffs, five per page? sheeeeesh], but the first creep factor that came to mind when you touched on this subject was the kid who plays the banjo in "Deliverance."

In "The Shining," which got you more - "Honey, I'm home," or "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." I know which does better by me, certainly.

As for the "walking the victim down" idiom, I think it's a concordance of a few factors - the common nightmare of not being able to flee at full speed; the inevitability implied by the pursuer's lack of haste ["why should I run? you -will- tire, and then I will catch you"], which also implies that the pursuer is dominant or powerful; the unnatural behavior skews the pursuer just that much further from what is "right" and "safe" [this is especially true of human/humanoid antagonists, because of the resemblance to normal humanity that it skews from].

the Barnesfly in "The Fly" is creepier than the armada of bugs in "Starship Troopers" for a number of reasons - it's not simply "grosser looking," it's the combination of the alien with the humanity trapped within it; the unspoken desire to be put out of its misery, despite how alien it -looks-, is a tear-jerker, because, despite the grotesque appearance, audiences can identify with the underlying emotional content, which, if some people would reflect on, might give pause.

[info]kormantic

March 28 2004, 09:39:17 UTC 8 years ago

The Poseidon Adventure

I had a terrible cold and I was visiting a friend's house for Thanksgiving. I was in the third grade, and had one of those stupid sun visors made out of translucent green laminate, with little colored peglights on the band. We watched that movie sitting on the carpet with the lights burning, and the whole time I felt I was trapped under water, too. Just thinking about that song "There's Got To Be A Morning After" gives me the creeps, and I remember how horrible it was for me to watch poor Gene Hackman getting all steamed to death to save the rest of them, but it was that dead man with his charred face and startled blue eyes that truly freaked me out.

[info]madam_h

March 28 2004, 09:50:21 UTC 8 years ago

?Lyall Watson? reported a test in which psychologists showed their subjects their reflections in flat mirrors that had four little adjusting screws set at the corners. The psychologists then buggered about with the screws, warping the mirrors to produce bizarre reflections, and asked the subjects to re-adjust the screws in order to show perfect reflections again. They couldn't do it, something was always wrong and adjusting one screw would throw the others out in unpredictable ways. Eventually the subjects became extremely distressed, violently demanding that they be shown proper mirrors so that they could see their real faces again.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that the focus is the face in the sense of an actual physical eyes-nose-mouth combination, but more on the face as the Gaze, the perceptive and calculating intelligence. Think of the Eye of Sauron (cheap and cheesy, I know) and, by extension, the searching gaze of the Ringwraiths. Most of the time the Eye isn't seen, it is felt - its victims feel that something has turned its attention upon them. I still consider the scene in which the Hobbits hide beneath the tree roots to be the only frightening moment in the entire LotR story - the unseen Rider with every sense straining for them.

Also, "Dark Night of the Scarecrow" (I think), when the final man is impaled upon the tines of a fork held by the scarecrow stuck in the field: the little girl says something along the lines of "What shall we do now?" and the scarecrow - this inanimate object - turns to look at her. Or water leaking from the old ship's nameplate shorts out the radio player in "The Fog", causing a voice to speak from it that wasn't there before, a voice simply oozing malevolent intelligence.

Many folk have discussed fear as a product of that moment when the victim realises, the precise moment of cognitive dissonance: something happens that cannot happen (Sadako climbs through the screen), or is where it ought not to be (the locked door lies ajar).

Cognitive theories of education suggest that the individual undergoes a period of disequilibrium when she (I'll be a gal today) receives new data. She then goes through a period of assimilation, transforming the data into information and using that information to adjusting her world-model accordingly to achieve a new, expanded equilibrium. I wonder if a lot of fear is a result of the individual being subjected to an unnaturally high level of psycho-somatic disequilibrium.

There's also the matter of powerlessness, of inexorable and unavoidable sense of the Gaze being able to take it's time. Think of the Buffy episode "The Gentlemen" in which we see both lurching, speedy igor henchmen types and the elegantly attired skeletal figures. Although the henchmen are physically more distorted I don't think that they are half as terrifying as their bosses - they have only a Clive Barkerish level of physical distortion. The Gentlemen themselves, however, combine several types of this cognitive dissonance: they drift above the ground, their faces are distorted (the whole "living skull" affair"), they have The Gaze (Olivia looks up from the kitchen sink to see one of them drifting past the window and looking straight at her) and they do not ever hurry. They are so courteous to each other, so deliberate and graceful and slow. They have all the time in the world, assured of their dominance.

I'll shut up now because I'm rambling and not explaining things terrible well. Excellent piece of writing - a real kick to the ol' intellect.

[info]etcet

March 28 2004, 10:38:17 UTC 8 years ago

Shock Value

Cognitive theories of education suggest that the individual undergoes a period of disequilibrium when she (I'll be a gal today) receives new data.
This is also one of the ways "instant trance" works - a command/suggestion is slipped in during the half-second of perception shear between the expected event and the realization something unexpected has taken place. . . I found this to be worth skepticism until I actually -did- it to K [with her acquiescence].

The exercise goes something like this:
You (the subject) place your hand atop mine and press down lightly while I resist the pressure. Suddenly, I pull my hand away suddenly and say "sleep" directly to your ear. Because this direct communque slips in while your conscious mind is asking, "where did his hand go?" your subconscious/body simply reacts to the command. When I did this with K, she nearly slumped out of her chair.

Horror, when done well, takes advantage of this "mental latency" to slip a bit of *twitch* in, or lets the aftershock from the realization do the dirty work, so to speak.

[info]elusis

8 years ago

[info]takhisis

March 28 2004, 10:15:27 UTC 8 years ago

I'll respond in more depth later, but just watched the link you posted. It was well done, but I just had to say that the "Dedicated to Torgo" part at the end currently has me in stitches. ;)

[info]cavalorn

March 28 2004, 14:52:08 UTC 8 years ago

TORGO! Oh, dear God, the KNEES!

[info]duranorak

March 28 2004, 11:19:55 UTC 8 years ago

Semi-coherent thoughts and stuff.

I cannot watch scary films.
I don't mean I don't like watching them. I would love to be able to watch them, because I love the way they are designed to manipulate. But I can't. Every time the music says "Something scary is about to happen", every time there's blood on the screen or something a little bit weird is happening, I cannot physically make myself look at the screen. I would have to be strapped to a chair with my eyes pinned open like poor dear Alex in order to watch any of the things you've cited here.

But I did find this fascinating; I love finding out about the things that frighten people. (And still nobody can give me a plausible answer for why clowns are scary - not even me, and I'm terrified of them. Fear is so interesting and so strange. Anyway...)

A dead human being is very accurate indeed, but we are far from comfortable in its presence. A waxwork is even more accurate, and even if we are still slightly uncomfortable, we would rather be in the presence of a waxwork than a dead person.
I have never been in the presence of a dead person that I could actually see, but I suspect this wouldn't be true of me. Fair enough, you were generalising, but why would you be more comfortable in the presence of a (non-disfigured, simply accurate) dead person than a waxwork? Just curious, since I believe I'm wired the other way and I don't entirely get it. :)

Because I can't watch scary films, the scariest thing I've ever seen on film did indeed involve eyes and facial distortion, and was out of that laudable entertainment film we like to call "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" I'm sure you know the bit I mean. It scared me so much I buried it and quite literally had a screaming fit of terror when [info]dennyd waved the box at me in suggestion that we watch it. I seriously doubt anyone else was particularly bothered by it, but nothing I've seen on screen has ever scared me more. Is that just ludicrously pathetic? ~s~

I'm rambling, I know, but I've just taken a look at the list that [info]gnat23 linked to, and that's fascinating, too. Not least because it includes - and I was amazed by this - the Pink Elephant business, which scared the life out of me when I was little. As well as - and I was delighted by *this* - the boat sequence from Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory.

Ramble, ramble, incoherence, blah. Sorry. But it's a subject I find terribly interesting, even if I can't form ordered thoughts about it...

E.
x

[info]arkady

March 28 2004, 11:55:29 UTC 8 years ago

I so wish I hadn't clicked on that link.

[info]ex_unagothae16

March 28 2004, 14:11:55 UTC 8 years ago

I'm still most frightened of what I can't see.

The moments leading up to the big boo in that animation were far more terrifying than that face. I was expecting something much more subtle and terrible. My mind knows what is most terrifying to me and fills in the blanks far more effectively than any visual image ever could.

I'm afraid of malevolence, that unspeakable darkness that will cause me harm if I draw it's attention. Santa Claus and clowns wear a veneer of frivolity, but they are ultimately terrifying to me because there is nothing good beneath the facade.

I hate that Christmas movie about a kid who just wants a BB gun and everyone keeps telling him he'll shoot his eye out. It absolutely terrified me, especially the scene with Santa Claus because he fights his way through a crowd to find a benevolent sympathizer who will graciously grant him his heart's desire, only to find mockery and malevolence.

Something Wicked This Way Comes is another example of the evil that hides behind a sugar coating.

I'm not afraid of the wicked witch. I'm afraid of the poison apple. I'm afraid of dolls because they look so sweet, but I know evil is lurking behind those glass eyes. My worst argument was with a roommate who loved dolls because she insisted on keeping the creepiest of her dolls in the livingroom and it was ALWAYS looking at me!

The scariest things don't need to move all. They don't need to harm your body in the least. The scariest things eat you from the inside. Madness, fever dreams, an illness that takes over your body until there is nothing left of you. I just read such a story by Neil Gaiman in Smoke and Mirrors. It was very much like that Ray Bradbury story about a fever dream I read as a child. They both terrified me, as did Attack of the Body Snatchers. At the very end you see his face and in his eyes is no hint of who he was, only emptiness and that alarm. Dead eyes are terrible because there is nothing there.

Death is not scary if there is something of me that will survive after. I'm not afraid of hell and eternal torment if I have my thoughts to escape to. I'm afraid of not existing anymore. I'm not sure why that frightens me so because it would mean no pain and no fear and just plain old nothing. But it's why I won't ever kill myself. It's better to exist and go through whatever life throws at me than it is to contemplate not existing at all.

I am most afraid of empty eyes, eyes that will swallow you whole and make you empty too.

[info]jacquez

March 28 2004, 14:45:06 UTC 8 years ago

Reading this made me think about all the scary moments I've seen on film and read in books, and which ones have stuck with me.

The first film moment that comes to mind is near the end of the old Robert Mitchum flick "The Night of the Hunter". The murderous preacher (who has already provided a slew of scary and eerie moments throughout the film) has the two children he is after holed up in a house after being taken in by a woman. You *know* that he's gotten inside. You *know* it. The woman knows it, too; you can see it in her clutch on her gun and in the lines of her shoulders. And every time he comes up out of shadow, I jump and yelp. Repeatable terror, condensed into an instant.

The next is - well, huge chunks of the original "The Haunting", with Claire Bloom and Julie Harris - but the opening and closing monologues are masterpieces, and inside the movie, the scene that ends "Whose hand was I holding!" never fails to scare me. And the bit with the door rattling and bowing in, as if something outside is trying to break in...*shiver*.

In the land of the written word, no one has ever gotten me the way Shirley Jackson (especially The Haunting of Hill House and We Have Always Lived In the Castle), Ted Sturgeon (many stories, but particularly Some of Your Blood and "The Professor's Teddy Bear"), and Mark Danielewski (House of Leaves) get me. Lovely.

[info]elusis

March 28 2004, 15:56:29 UTC 8 years ago

"House of Leaves" was interesting - I'd been repeatedly told how scary it was, and was bracing myself throughout the book because many people who'd warned me read some very scary stuff. I found bits of it creepy, especially the first time they measure a wall and it's different lengths, but I never got scared the way I was prepared to.

[info]spiderine

8 years ago

[info]elusis

8 years ago

[info]cavalorn

8 years ago

[info]madam_h

8 years ago

[info]elusis

8 years ago

[info]jacquez

8 years ago

[info]spiderine

8 years ago

[info]jacquez

8 years ago

[info]typhoid_mary

March 28 2004, 17:10:40 UTC 8 years ago

Interesting essay. Have you thought about the connection between the horror of being looked at and the tendency to cover the eyes in pornography? Starting with classical rules against drawing a direct gaze out of a painting of a nude, up to the black bars I've often seen on women's faces (in my rather limited experience). I had wondered if the issues was that a naked woman's nipples become a second pair of eyes, the pair that the viewer wold rather look into, so her real eyes become the model's way of observing while remaining unobserved, but maybe it's more basic, a horror of being watched in a private activity.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, even if I'm getting increasingly paranoid about the windows behind my back.
-Mari

[info]deadlychameleon

March 28 2004, 17:50:38 UTC 8 years ago

There's a lot of discussion in gender studies right now about the "male gaze". The idea behind pornography is that the woman is reacting to the "male gaze" and is submissive to it. If she were looking the man straight in the eyes from the magazine photo, she would not be submissive, and further, she would be engaging the viewer in such a way that it would make the viewer uncomfortable. Looking someone in the eye is a challenge. That's why we don't do it on subways, dark streets, or other places we feel we are at risk.
-Silverksyt

[info]deadlychameleon

March 28 2004, 17:40:03 UTC 8 years ago

The scariest simple image I can think of is disembodied, glowing red eyes. Empty, dark eyes are bad too. I think there's probably some evolutionary reasons for this. Predators (as well as modern day cats and dogs), have eyes that reflect light in the dark, but if you get a good look at them, have pupils blown way beyond what humans are capable of. They have black, reflective eyes, and in the case of cats, are almond-shaped. If you've ever driven at night and caught the eyes of a cat in your headlights, you know what I'm talking about. If you're prey, the only part of a predator you're likely to see is the eyes, probably reflected in the moonlight or fire. Depending on the lighting, they're either going to glow, or be very black. It's pretty disconcerting to see predator eyes on a human face.

The motion thing is a little harder to explain. I could also try and explain it as a prey instinct. If you can't predict the way something moves, it's going to catch you much more easily. There is an issue of rule violation here too. There's a scene in the re-released version of the Exorcist where Reagan, the girl, does this really weird crabwalk down the stairs at a high speed, my guess was that they sped up the film to do it. That was scary.

I studied psychology and perception of faces for awhile. There is apparently a very specific part of the brain that recognizes faces, and our memory for familiar faces is very good. There are people with brain damage who cannot recognize faces at all, and No one can process upside-down faces. It doesn't work. We can only recognize them by parts of the face, but not the face as a whole. We can say the hair looks familiar, or the lips do, but not all of it together as a face.

-Silverkyst

[info]madam_h

March 29 2004, 02:28:50 UTC 8 years ago

and No one can process upside-down faces. It doesn't work. We can only recognize them by parts of the face, but not the face as a whole. We can say the hair looks familiar, or the lips do, but not all of it together as a face.

Back in art classes we were told that turning something upside down made it easier to draw because that way the brain would look at the spaces, at the lines and shapes, rather than at the whole object.

Reminds me of the scene in "The Draughtsman's Contract" when Mrs Talman and Mr Neville discuss artistry: the difference between drawing what is perceived by the eyes and what is known by the mind. The urge to draw what you know is there rather than only what you see.

[info]kitsa1

6 years ago

[info]ashbet

March 29 2004, 06:51:30 UTC 8 years ago

REALLY interesting essay . . . and I'm dying to go back and read the middle part once I've actually seen "The Ring" . . .

As an aside, although they're not genuinely FRIGHTENING, I do jump and emit gratifying little shrieks at unpredictable jump-out-booga-booga moments in movies, to my chagrin and others' amusement.

Book-wise, I find Ramsey Campbell to be one of the most horrifying authors on the planet . . . he's definitely right there in the uncanny valley himself, with this awful sense of creeping unease and *wrongness* and movement out of the corner of your eye . . . one of his short stories has left me with a lingering shudder at the sight of a plastic bag blowing around outside, if that gives you some idea. Gnnngggh. Very, very disturbing man :/

Funny story:

Cav, you've already heard this one, obviously, but I'm sharing for the benefit/amusement of the general population:

I'm 13 years old, and a big "Phantom of the Opera" fan (not so much the musical, but there's an *excellent* book called "Phantom" which is a retelling of the story, which I quite enjoyed . . . anyway, I see this ad for a movie by Dario Argento called "Opera" showing at the art-house theater in Minneapolis, and somehow the ad copy convinces me that this is an adult/horror remake of *Phantom* . . . (you can see where this is going, particularly if you're familiar with Argento or the movie in question.)

So, I take the bus downtown, by myself, feeling very grown-up, and sit down in the nearly-empty darkened theater, looking slightly nervously at the Rasputin-looking bearded man who's sitting a few seats down, one of the only other people there, but I settle in and start watching the film . . .

. . . which turns out to be this really brutal sado-sexual film about a killer who likes to tie up this young girl and *tape pins under her eyelids and force her to watch as he butchers everyone she cares about, over and over again* . . .

(Please note that I have a bit of an eyeball-phobia -- not just random loose eyeballs, but I can't even wear contact lenses) . . .

. . . so by the end of the film, I've got my feet up on the seat, my arms wrapped around my knees, and MY eyes taking up my whole face, with this look of frozen horror . . .

. . . and I start to collect my stuff to get ready to go, and something the bearded man is doing catches my eye (I'm completely paranoid at this point), and I look over at him, and he's taken out his glass eye and is cleaning it on his shirt, and then looks at me and grins . . . and I LIT out of that theater like my ass was on fire!!!

* * *

Then, just to add to the fun, the first time I went to go stay with my friend Kate, the horror-movie fanatic (she's the one with the giant tattoo of two nuns making out on her thigh, which says about all you need to know about her personality), guess what she has hanging DIRECTLY OVER THE FUTON IN THE LIVING ROOM WHERE I'M SLEEPING??!?

Yep, you've got it . . . an original Italian gigantic theater poster from "Opera," with the bleeding pin-taped eyes taking up half the image. She's since moved it into HER bedroom, since she kept receiving reports of guests unable to sleep under it ;)

It's fucking hysterical in retrospect :D

* * *

LOL,

-- A <3

[info]kest

April 2 2004, 17:40:39 UTC 8 years ago

That's a really fascinating essay. I'm not too into horror, not (like some of the people who have commented here) because they scare me, but rather because I"ve got some selfprotective instinct or something that turns of the suspension of disbelief. I go 'it's just a movie' with a feeling rather like disgust at being manipulated, and go find something else to do.

[info]scarfish

April 17 2004, 09:40:42 UTC 8 years ago

distorted faces

I stumbled here from [info]cmpriest's lj.

Here's another point of discussion about the distorted faces part--in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, there are a number of scenes where Joel is semi-awake and aware of the doctor in his office, but in each scene, the doctor's face is obscured, smeared, distorted. It's a shape resembling a face but with no features--no eyes, no mouth.

In another scene, Joel tries to turn Patrick around in a bookstore, but can never see his face. It seems like the whole of his head is the back of a head.

Both of these scenes lead an element of panic and terror to the audience in order that we feel the loss of control that Joel is feeling while his memory is being erased. It wasn't an element of fear as much as an element designed simply to disturb. I'd be interested in hearing what other people have to say about this.

[info]kitsa1

August 23 2005, 22:22:35 UTC 6 years ago

Thank you for the brilliant essay. I really enjoyed it.

I share the disurbed feeling regarding distorted faces and undesirable eye contact, but unnatural movements are what really get me. In Ju-On, Fuji Takako's stair scenes nearly had me crawling out of my own skin, and they were all the worse because they were not assisted by computer. When the scene was trimmed for the American remake, I was thankful. However, I saw Kayako in my peripheral vision for months.

Ringu's and "The Ring's" moments were just as terrible as you describe but for me the slow stop-motion crawl of Sadako/Samara were what threw me into a panic.

Very unnatural, very disturbing.

[info]cavalorn

August 23 2005, 22:25:42 UTC 6 years ago

The Sadako well and telly-crawling sequences were, I have since learned, filmed backwards. That partly accounts for the strangeness of the motion.

[info]cavalorn

6 years ago

[info]kitsa1

6 years ago

[info]moveslikegiallo

May 19 2008, 09:04:18 UTC 4 years ago

Wow, you posted this four years ago, so it's a bit late to be replying, but what the hell!

I really shouldn't have read this late at night. I left replying until this morning, because I spooked myself pretty thoroughly remembering the climax of Ring. I adore that movie, but it scares me stupid. I'd never put the ideas of Sadako and the uncanny valley together before, so this was awesome. :) Why is it that dead bodies are so scary to us, though? Is there some kind of evolutionary basis for that?

RE: eyes, I've had recurring nightmares for most of my life that involve a gigantic eye staring at me through a window; in the nightmares, I'm always trying to find a room without windows, so that I can find, but there very rarely are any. The eye might be a giant or a dinosaur or any number of things, but it's always the sight of the huge eye peering at me through the window that's scary. It's kind of reassuring to know that that's a pretty common thing to be terrified of! (And I just remembered that I wrote about this on my journal, also in 2004. Odd.)

Finally, bit of a pedantic point - The Eye is a Hong Kong movie, not a Japanese one.

[info]cavalorn

May 19 2008, 10:25:38 UTC 4 years ago

Precision isn't pedantry. Thanks for the correction. :)

Why are dead bodies so scary to us? Well, evolution certainly keeps us away from them by making the smell of decomposition repugnant to us, so there's a survival factor there. But it doesn't explain why something so intrinsically harmless to us should be so creepy. Also, if there were warning bells going off in our deep psyches because one of our kind was dead nearby (alert, alert, this area is dangerous) then we'd be frightened BECAUSE of the dead body, not OF it, and I expect we'd know the difference.

I think it comes down to our habit of seeing human beings as constantly doing something or other - walking, eating, sleeping, breathing. A human is always an active agent. A corpse can't just be seen as doing nothing, because our minds don't work that way. So, its corpsey qualities become somehow proactive when we are in its presence. (We're not frightened by the thought of Shakespeare being dead, after all.) 'Dead' is not just its status, but its current activity. It is, if you will, 'deading' at us. It radiates wrongth.

As for the eyes, I remembered this Walter de la Mare poem again after who knows how long:

'Grill me some bones,' said the Cobbler,
'Some bones, my pretty Sue;
I'm tired of my lonesome with heels and soles,
Springsides and uppers too;
A mouse in the wainscot is nibbling;
A wind in the keyhole drones;
And a sheet webbed over my candle, Susie, ---
Grill me some bones!'

'Grill me some bones,' said the Cobbler,
I sat at my tic-tac-to;
And a footstep came to my door and stopped,
And a hand groped to and fro;
And I peered up over my boot and last;
And my feet went cold as stones:
I saw an eye at the keyhole, Susie! ---
Grill me some bones!'

[info]dr_arnzen

July 4 2008, 21:31:37 UTC 3 years ago

Great post!

Fascinating post! You've given me a lot to chew on. I found your entry via Stephanie Lay's excellent "Uncanny Valley" research project -- http://www.uncanny-valley.co.uk/ -- and I also discuss these ideas in an early post on my new weblog, The Popular Uncanny: http://www.gorelets.com/uncanny/

Thank you for this excellent treatment of 'the return of the gaze'!

-- Mike Arnzen, gorelets.com

[info]trystn

July 5 2008, 02:08:48 UTC 3 years ago

I need to reread this one, but I can see where that researcher is interested. Stephen King, in Skeleton Crew, makes much of "The Bad Place" and "The Good Place Gone Bad." You're going for much more a personal thing. The human being turned horribly otherworldly. This makes me think of British and Irish fairy lore where there is always "something wrong" with the appearance of spirit folk. The facial distortion of the once-human, the dead seeing us, these are profoundly disturbing and I think you're hitting the nail on the head.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…