[LNH/Precogs] Road to Killfile Wars

Tom Russell milos_parker at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 2 12:21:32 PDT 2005

Jesse Willey wrote:

>   Well, I definately agree with Hitchcock on the
> nature of terror.   You show someone gore and it is
> only disturbing as long as it is one the screen... and
> then it disturbs you less because you know what's
> coming.   If you don't see it... or you only see part

But Mr. Hitchcock was not really so much concerned with terror as he
was with suspense.  I agree that not showing all the gore is, at times,
more effective, but it was always more exciting when it was more
suspenseful-- when you knew what was coming.

His analogy, if I remember correctly, is that if you have two men
sitting for five minutes talking about their wive's knitting patterns
and all of the sudden, a bomb goes off, that's a shock.  But if you see
the bomb and cut back to it as they talk about knitting patterns, than
that is suspense.

> of the picture it is more disturbing because the
> imagination fills in the gaps.   And it can create
> things far more disturbing than even the best CGI
> could possibly create.

I despise CGI personally, and I will go on record saying that if you're
trying to disturb and shock, it's best to paint viscerially, in which
case, some stylish, well-timed, and effective gore and blood can do the
trick.  Example of good gore: most of SUSPIRIA.  Example of bad gore:
the shot in SUSPIRIA where the knife stabs the beating heart.  A little
much, there.  :)

More information about the racc mailing list