Tension in Horror: Why it Doesn’t Always Work

A blonde, cute protagonist enters a dark room. She anxiously scans the shadowy walls as the camera zooms in on her face. We see every line of fear in her. She slowly walks into the room, wringing her hands. The music intensifies. She turns the corner when BAM! She runs into a lamp. Oh thank God it wasn’t the villain or something interesting! That would have been horrifying!

With Halloween right around the corner, a good number of horror movies and shows have wormed their way into just about every streaming service and cable TV channel. The October over-saturation of  spooky stories comes with its fair share of potential classics and total dogs. But what makes the few stand out from the many? Why has Netflix’s The Haunting of Hill House created such a buzz, while FX’s American Horror Story still struggles to maintain relevance? What differentiates good horror from abominations that leave you asking for your time back?

ugh
The promotional material for American Horror Story is often scarier than the show itself.

The answer lies in how the director and editor choose to establish and subsequently break tension. When making a movie, most filmmakers want to evoke some form of emotion from the audience, whether it be sadness, happiness, or fear. There are multiple ways to subtlety influence audiences to be in the right frame of mind or mood: color saturation, music, lighting, the list goes on. With regards to horror, low saturation, dramatic yet tense music in a minor key, dark or exaggerated lighting, and dramatic cuts are used to arouse fear. If this is so straightforward, then how come some works of horror leave you sleeping with the lights on, whereas others have you yawning at the climax?

meat hell fest
Pictured: me at Hell Fest (2018) (image courtesy of getty images)

All the previously mentioned tools act as ways to build tension, but not how to break it. It is that breaking point that creates the jolt of fear, that brief shot of adrenaline that horror fans so crave. What certain horror movies or series do that works against them is shatter the tension, thereby calming down the audience and having to work to re-engage them. The most common way movies or shows do this is through jump scares. These can be effective (see Halloween (1978), Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), and Alien (1979)), but too much of it combined with choppy, inconsistent editing leads to a boring, not-at-all-scary experience (here’s looking at you, Hell Fest (2018)). In order to prevent the audience from getting bored, it’s important to bend the tension rather than destroy it. Hell Fest stands as an example in How to Bore Your Audience, since it breaks the tension it built up then goes right back to dialogue no one cares about, leaving the shattered remains of a decent horror flick for the actors to tread upon.

MV5BMjIyMjU2MzIxOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzI2NTUyMw@@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1431,1000_AL_
This single image is more tense than the entirety of some horror films. Taken from Alien (1979).

A certain amount of creativity is needed to bend tension rather than just break it. The Haunting of Hill House does this wonderfully by not drawing too much attention to the scare. The camera pans to the ghost rather than cutting to it, which builds tension in of itself. Since a violent cut does not occur, the audience takes a half second to react, therefore reducing the impact but still ensuring the audience stays with the tone of the film. It Follows (2014) does this as well, adding another element by having some of the more terrifying scenes occur in broad daylight.

In short, what really makes a horror movie or show work is how it breaks the tension it builds. If it slowly bends it, the audience gets an additional dose of anticipation and keeps that built-up tension for the remaining scares. Should the film shatter it, the fear and adrenaline last only for a moment.

Jigsaw (2017)

I’m a pretty big fan of horror. Anything from “pop” horror like It (2017) to Junji Ito’s wonderfully terrifying mangas. But the Saw franchise has never managed to hold my attention. I did not see the first one until over a decade after its initial release, and have seen bits and pieces of the other 7 or 8 films. I know what they are – fun thrill rides with a dash of torture porn and grotesque deaths. Honestly, I see the appeal; it’s fun to watch these characters (who are often so underdeveloped they act more as mannequins than people) go through creative traps. There’s tension, it’s sometimes goofy in a macabre way, I get it. But Jigsaw (2017) – the “reboot” of the series – has none of these things.

MV5BMTk2MzE4NzU3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjg0NDk5MjE@._V1_SX1492_CR0,0,1492,999_AL_
RIP creepy and creative traps. From Saw (2004)

Before getting into my many, many issues with this movie, it’s worth noting that the directors (Peter and Michael Spierig)and writers of this had not previously worked on a Saw movie. All of them have horror credits to their name (the Spierig brothers directed the so-so vampire film Daybreakers), but not one has worked on a franchise of this calibre. And it shows.

Jigsaw opens up with an intense car chase in the middle of the day through a city – quite different from the traps and dark rooms we are used to seeing. I appreciate the attempt at breaking from the norm here, but it is so forgettable that I had to google “Jigsaw opening scene” because it serves almost no purpose to the rest of the film. Nothing gross or creepy happens, so it doesn’t stand out in your mind. The rest of the film follows the same formula as the previous Saw iterations: opening trap, different characters need to confess their sins, they either do or don’t, we get our blood and gore.

jigsaw
Such violence! The film lacks in blood and gore, one of many issues it has.

Of course there’s a twist at the end, but the story is so convoluted and steeped in the lore of the Saw series that it meant nothing to me. There was a weak attempt to introduce the audience to the potential players and/or orchestraters of the trap set-up, but I just didn’t care. I assumed these characters were from previously installments and I had missed out, but a quick look at IMDb tells me that this is everyone’s first Saw experience (sans Tobin Bell, who reprises his role as John Kramer/Jigsaw).

who are you
WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE

Discovering that these characters are new to the franchise is troublesome, because they are treated as thought they are established. I am speaking exclusively about the forensics team that is investigating the death of the man in the opening sequence, because the people caught in the trap(s) do not matter at all. I can’t recall a single name, and can only vaguely remember what they were each guilty of. It’s totally irrelevant. Only one character actually matters, which the film graciously provides flashbacks to remind us who the hell he is.

All of the script problems and plot structure issues could be forgiven if the movie leaned into its silliness and gave the audience what they wanted: cool, creative traps that people get shredded in. But that doesn’t happen. Yes, there are traps. No, they are not particularly creative or interesting.

MV5BMTkxNzA5ODQyN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNTczNjg2MzI@._V1_SX1500_CR0,0,1500,999_AL_
Remember when we had cool traps? The movie attempts to pay homage to past creativity.

But the biggest problem – the thing that totally ruins this movie – is its editing. I don’t know how they managed it, but the editing is so inconsistent that it does not help to create any sort of mood. In this scene, (all credit to the filmmakers) there is no creativity with the camera, and very little tension built up. The shots take too long to start with, and are too quick at the end for the audience to react. The directors shied away from creating what could have been the highlight of the film.

It’s best to take a hard pass on this. The poor writing, mediocre acting, and horrible editing make it a painful experience, and not in a good way. 1/10

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started