The Mary Sue: Ever since I watched Heather O’Rourke get sucked into the TV in Poltergeist, I’ve always wondered about child actors in horror movies. As a perpetual scaredy cat growing up, I struggled to see how the hell these kids coped on-set. Did they understand what was really going on around them? Did the grown-ups sugar-coat it to retain their innocence?
8 comments:
I've always had a big fascination with horror/thriller film behind the scenes. This is weird coming from someone who can't even sit through one, but nevertheless I would consider myself pretty knowledgable about these behind the scene moments, and particularly the wringers that actors were placed through. Directors and producers (and other movie staff), no matter the emotion they are trying to get their actors to express, or the shot they're trying to get, should place such a heavy emotional and physical burden on their actors. Most of the women in here I have read about at one point or another, and the thing that has struck me about this is the amount of stress they are willing to go through in order to play a part. For a lot of women, they find their star moment in a horror film, and for that reason they will be subject to a lot of demands. This isn't to say that women are pushovers, or that they would really do anything for any old role; these women fight hard for these roles, and to be seen, that they're willing to commit to a character if it'll secure their place and show their worth. It truly saddens me to see how some of these experiences, rather than build a career, broke it instead. A relationship between directors and actors should be one of trust, both should be pushed, but not to the point of insanity.
This article is well-timed for Halloween making it a relevant way to bring up some real issues in the entertainment industry, particularly in film. I appreciate that the writer addressed that this is not an issue exclusive to the horror genre, but is rather wide spread, with a larger concentration in horror due to the violent nature of the films themselves.
I think sometimes artists can get in their own heads – directors included – and forget that there is more to creating a work of art than the final product. Ellen Burstyn of The Exorcist recognized this too. Even though she came out with a serious back injury, she was still very mature and understanding of the director’s intentions, which is a little eerie to me. It’s unsettling to think that a woman who was permanently injured after expressing concern about that exact thing and being ignored still finds a way to forgive and remove blame from the person who let it happen. Call me dramatic but I think that’s absurd. Granted, I don’t know much about the situation outside of what I read in this article, but I can’t imagine a situation where that sort of injury is justifiable. That’s the bit that stood out most to me.
I really like watching the behind the scenes of films and knowing everything that goes on off camera. The processes of how a film is put together has always been pretty interesting, and I used to love making short and stupid films when I was a younger kid. I’ve heard of plenty of things that have gone on in horror films that have seriously scarred actors and have done permanent damage. I understand that there are a lot of people out there who like to suffer for their art, even go so far as to do things that take on a serious toll on their mind or bodies. But even still, I don’t believe that directors should push their actors, or let their actors push themselves to such extremes that could endanger their lives or seriously hurt their futures. Like in the movie Poltergeist, throwing an actress in a pool of REAL corpses? That’s disrespectful to the dead, as well as terrifying to the actress involved in the scene. I also think it’s pretty disrespectful to do things without the actors knowing or consenting just to get a better shot of a “real reaction.”
This is going to sound awful but yes and......? The directors got the shot they needed to make these classics of horror. The concept of the director not telling the actors what is going to happen to get a genuine reaction is a very old technique. They used it for all of the actors, even Gene Wilder, for when they first enter the chocolate room, so those stunned looks are completely real. I personally think its the degree to which this is taken. Hitchcock's treatment of the actress in Birds was completely unacceptable, but at the same time that would NEVER happen today, mostly because of the animal rights people and CGI. The Exorcist's injury was more of a mistake or accident than a recurring torment. But let us remember all actors have suffered for their art in the past, does not make it right it is just a thing that was. Heck, Jim Cazivel was literally struck by lightning and had his ribs broke by the whip while playing Jesus, I do not think that counts as "method acting." But back to the idea of not telling actors, I very much have no issues with it, if the script is thorough enough they should at least expect what will happen and should raise issues beforehand. These actresses all had very unfortunate experiences that should not have happened, but think of the amazing films that have come from it.
Yeah, so, no film is ever worth sacrificing your physical or mental health for. I tend to tell my crew members that when setting up a big piece of scenery. I say "If this thing starts to go, let it. Do not try to save this piece of scenery by injuring yourself. This thing means absolutely nothing in comparison to your safety." It has gotten me a few scornful looks from the designers of these sets, as well as scoffs from production management, but it's true. No form of entertainment is worth putting yourself in mortal danger for, period. Ok, so the film won't be as good if our actors and actresses aren't pushed to an emotional breaking point. And? I love film and television, they are gorgeous mediums in which to tell stories. But I think I'd be able to manage if an actress didn't fly into a wall fast enough to make a convincing demonic happening. Give me a break.
This is just absurd. Directors and producers who behave in this manner is disgusting. Acting exists because it is a suspension of disbelief. If a director cannot get an actor to perform the way he wants, the solution is not torture them. accounts of this abuse such as, "Kubrick kept Duvall in the dark regarding various traumatic scenes, such as the famous door scene, with her panicked screams supposedly those of true fright," or "During filming, the cast were sent to the woods without really knowing what the filmmakers had in store for them. Once there, they were forced into a state of constant anxiety. To make the actors’ reactions more believable, interaction between the cast and crew was severely limited." The examples given here range from emotional and mental abuse to physical damage and threats. In no other industry would any of this behavior be acceptable. If a CEO allowed his directors to threaten an employee with physical damage if they weren't producing high enough, they would be arrested for assault. Just because our industry is in the imaginary world does not give anyone the right to harm others to achieve whatever desired effect or reaction. I can't stomach the idea that anyone could use an ends justify the means argument for something and inconsequential as movie.
I think Kelly said it best: "no film is ever worth sacrificing your physical or mental health for". The reality is that once you strip everything else away this is a JOB for these actresses, and by threatening these women and keeping them in the dark about potential trauma they are creating a very unsafe working environment. Could you imagine if you walked in for a day of run crew and your ASM threatened to push you off the stage if you didn't hit your spike? It sounds absurd but this is really the same situation that these actresses were put in. Something that's even closer to this example is the rehearsal room. When we are working with any kind of violence or sensitive content we bring someone in to work on it with the actors and the directors. This is not to censor the art, but rather to protect the actors that are working. Something like this could be very beneficial on film sets that may encounter similar content.
Sebastian said above that "These actresses all had very unfortunate experiences that should not have happened, but think of the amazing films that have come from it". I think that is a very dangerous position to take, as if we continue to justify this traumatic working environment by the work it creates then nothing is going to change. Yes, The Shining is a classic, but I for one can't watch it without thinking about how much it ruined an actress' mental health and career. There is a big difference between surprising your cast with something positive like a chocolate room or for someone to beat down a door to a room in which they're cowered in the corner.
I just saw the shining for the first time in my life, and man can you see the anguish in Shelley duvall's eyes honestly whenever she's on screen. I wonder how much of it was her acting and how much of it was the actual emotional abuse she suffered while on set. I can't imagine being on that production, treated that way by the director and crew, while also being in that isolated hotel. The hotel used for filming the movie was an actual hotel in the middle of Yellowstone national park, which meant that their isolation was fairly real. But Shelley Duval's treatment isn't really the only problem with the movie. For one, the only real black character in the movie only interacts on an equal level with another black man. This along with gratuitous use of the n word in one scene still allow it to be a masterpiece, so long as we qualify it as a slightly racist masterpiece that came from abuse.
Post a Comment