What is Scary?
"This guy wearing a Dracula mask just kept following me everywhere that I was in the house!" I try to stress to my Oct. crew to create "Anticipation"(like Dr. Frankfurter says in Rocky Horror, "An-ti-ci-pa-tion"! Then I feel you are really getting into their minds, and thats where it all begins and ends, in their minds.To be constantly thinking and looking for what MAY be around that next corner stimulates the (their) imagination and a customers imaginator can and will come up with the personally terrifying stuff that we cant begin to put in front of them, why? Because every ones fears are different and fairly personal. All of this ends when the "Goon" is finally revealed, "OH, its just a guy in a rubber mask(maybe a very good rubber mask, ) but their illogical fears now have been transferred to something physical that they can more readily handle, game over! Its sort of like a really good, suspenseful movie that keeps the "Goon" in the shadows until the last scene, that "dark at the top of the stairs" to quote some guy named Steven King!
- Raven's Grin Inn
So you want to know the secret of being scary /terrifying? This is my formula:
first off
- Patrick Matthews, Nightmare in the House of Wax
I believe the use of a live actor is far more intimidating. You have the ability to single out the ones who are scared, the ones who try to hide behind their friends, and also avoid the younger ones who are crying. It gives you a chance to "mingle" with the patrons as well as hear the response to a particular scare. If something isn't working just right....change it up a little. If the timing of the groups going through starts to hasten, the actors are there to slow a group down, or speed one up. While some of the animatronic props can be good scares (someone not expecting the "corpsepultilator" can be fun to watch), I agree that they are better of used as diversional set ups for the actor to finish it off. Just my thoughts,
- Brad Cain
Notes on Safety
Actor safety I do know the problem of actor safety. We had more than one actor attacked by patrons. It's a serious concern requiring an overall safety/security, call and response plan. The bottom line? Enforce a 'don't touch' rule with your actors, and make sure your actors are always either with another actor, or within the sight of radio-wearing, in-house safety staff. It's hard to explain to an enthusiastic actor why touching patrons is not wise. It's an incredibly effective way to evoke a response. But as soon a your visitors know that their personal space isn't safe, then they are more apt to violate our actors.
The other obvious tip is to avoid those people who have 'that look.' You know the one I mean. They tell you by their stare, and body language 'don't mess with me.' For whatever reason, they've paid to be scared, but they are wearing an attitude you don't want to mess with. These are not the people to 'go after.' Don't stop the show, but also don't try the 'intimidation' number either. This is what they are waiting for. Finally, the other reason for not touching your guests (beside the possibility of sexual harassment charges) is that fear causes many people to strike out. Especially those excitable 8 - 18 year olds. Throwing punches at charging actors, is like teasing their siblings back. They swing and kick, and then don't understand why their response is not appropriate. One of the best scare 'tactics' I saw actors use, was to direct attention to one guest, build tension, and then make a dramatic movement towards that guest, only to redirect the scare at the last moment to the person standing next to them. Neither one was ever touched, but the whole group reacts. But my own personal favorite scaring technique is humor. There is nothing I liked better than watching a talented actor engage visitors in a slice of verbal, character based madness, have them all disarmed by laughing, only to turn on them.
- Sharon Maronzano, Hades Haunted House
Notes on Scaring as Entertainment
from
a mailing list 'thread'
From: Doug Ferguson
When this appeared, I thought I'd shut up for a bit and see if other people
cared to insert some opinions. This particular hardtop of ours has been dark
and quiet ('too quiet...') lately, so I thought I'd take a shot and see if I
could wake up some of the 'silent stunts.' Warning - the following is long-winded!
Anyway, Cliff Martin wrote:
> I've recently seen a thread (on a chat line) about haunters
> 'getting back to their roots' and just scaring people, not
> attempting to "merely" entertain them. So, isn't scaring
> entertainment? (Ask any thrill ride owner, imho!)
> Anyway, they are making a distinctions between scaring,
> exploring many emotions (i.e., humor) and the use of
> expensive props to replace actors. Too many mixed ideas,
> though it does bring up a good point...
The best entertainment - for me - involves drama: suspense, humor, artistry
and everything in the emotional spectrum that we experience in everyday life.
Scaring is entertainment, absolutely. Suspense is definitely necessary. Artistry
is there regardless of how stripped-down and minimalist the attraction strives
to be. It is there, if in no other form than the aesthetics of the scare process.
Someone has to decide what form the scare will come in, and imagination necessarily
comes into play. As far as 'roots' - the origins of scaring people as a trade
for income are firmly tapped into an entertainment context. These _are_ the
roots. Anyone who says, 'Let's just scare 'em - forget entertaining!' doesn't
know the origins of their craft too well (keeping Doug Higley's remarks about
real vs. stage horror in mind, this is especially true.)
There is one subset issue, the argument over the use of humor, asks whether
comic relief is appropriate in a venue which has the intent of delivering maximally
effective fear as a product. House of Shock has a philosophy of 'no humor -
just terror.' The HOS attitude - for those of you who haven't heard Ross Karpelman
speak about it in the QT movie - is that humor doesn't _belong_ in horror. In
other words, he feels there's nothing remotely funny about a horrifying situation,
and that patrons aren't paying for padding or dilution of the mainline potion.
The HOS crew, as well as a number of my movie-loving friends resent the incursion
of dumb jokes and toss-off humor in modern day horror, and some refuse to attend
such flicks as 'Scream' for that reason. The argument is that it breaks the
_mood_ they are after. Therefore, House of Shock will not use Jason, Freddie,
or other icons that have appeared in humor-infused horror outings.
Now, technically, this is the same mood the old dark rides foster - suspense,
followed by in-your-face boos, repeatedly. If anything is iconographically 'humorous'
in such a ride, it still scares by virtue of its presentation. The 'Laffs' are
what the _patron_ brings in response to the shock, and the props don't tend
to yuk-yuk. Patron laughter is a form of bravery, and is a defense mechanism.
I see LOTS of Laffing in HOS _patrons_, along with their screams. To me, this
is an indication that the goods are being delivered. We _do_ use a lot of theater,
and therefore, we do subscribe to the entertainment dictum, and we know our
roots. Our little possessed bayou town's a stage, and we do our best to strut
and fret on it for a few hours each operational night.
As to humor, in a haunt staged for adults, I say it stays mostly in the domain
of the audience, and this is good. Let them Laff at each other's reactions,
because they know it's fantasy. Personally, I don't mind giving a nod, a wink,
or even a smirk upon occasion, but I think adults appreciate intensity. (If
you've been to my download page and have seen my 'butler' character, you might
note that he's smirking a bit...)
Cliffy continues:
> Can we (or to a larger sense, should we) endeavor to
> frighten, and as we climb the fear ladder, startle, scare,
> frighten, terrorize, paralyze our audience? Startle is easy
> and is mainstream 'fright entertainment' - but the
> increasing levels get more difficult to accomplish,
> especially to a wide audience.. and, I wonder, are they
> really 1) necessary and 2) achievable...
Where is it possible (or appropriate) to take the experience? Do we want to
'Blair' our patrons - to make them think that an unintended disaster is happening
only to their little tour group, and induce trauma by bring the world crashing
down around them? Is this possible to achieve, and if so, is it ethical... or
desirable?
Good questions!
I will give you my thinking on these points. Yes, I believe that with sufficient
effort, it is very possible to absolutely traumatize the public in small numbers.
Personally, this is not my cup of meat. Sending people home to repeating nightmares
and potentially chronic mental trauma, to this haunter is unethical. What is
and appropriate short of this?
The answer, for me, is rather simple. It has to do with context. Although the
audience is in a horror setting, the majority of haunts make clear that it is
theater by simple context, and need little extra framing. Patrons stand in line,
buy concessions and souvenirs, and that about spells it out to the good old
American unconscious: It's a show, for gosh sakes! You can whack 'em with colored
sugar-water gore, show severed limbs and screaming victims all you like, but
it's still the circus side-show. They know this instinctively, even though they
may have a nightmare or two.
To take it to the other extreme would require a radical change in context; for
example, offering a straight historic tour and turning it into a frenzy of terror
and staged homicide, (for example, by showing the gory death of their guide
in the most convincing manner, and then, by using planted ringers in the party,
show the simulated mutilation of members of the public) Of course, at some point,
you have to wring down the curtain and debrief the poor schmucks, but they will
never be the same. Trust is horribly eroded by such an exercise, but this sort
of deception is necessary to produce the extremes of terror. As Doug Higley
has suggested, to simulate real life destroying horror with no framing at all
is not what we're about.
These, then, are the poles as I see them. I like to keep my ghosts and ghouls
on the stage, and let the guests provide the Laffs as the actors look on from
the proscenium.
In other words, I like to watch. :-)-Doug F.
From: Doug Ferguson
Who'da thunk? Well, you're deceiving to entertain, and not to convert to a philosophical
stance - least I suppose. We all love tall tales. (I'm involved in the local
magic community, and do tricks on at least two stage shows per year, so I know
the attitude of magicians.)
Here's more stuff for thought, and a possible thread. (Yes, I realize what I
am risking with this, but it beats talking about e-mail clients, free phone
service and... heh heh heh; ducking and covering. ;-) )
Haunting a dark attraction might seem to some an attempt to 'convert' - just
ask some of our more high-strung religious bretheren if what we do is acceptable
to them. I imagineer for a haunt with very strong Judeo-Christian context demonic
characters presented in confrontative scenes. We push the envelope in some places,
and really put the stuff in their faces. My thinking on this is that we're a
'thought piece' - he who never thinks about the tenets of his/her faith is stagnant.
If a staunch believer wanders into the desacrated church in our haunt's swamp
town, and is faced with an actor playing up a quite earnest sounding attempt
to convert them away from their faith, it sets off an inner turmoil that forces
thought. For a believer, this seldom results in a weakening of faith; but sometimes
it results in an increase in the quality of that faith.
I have jokingly - yet earnestly - put it this way: If anyone really wanted to
join forces with the sort of comic book, over-the-top evil we portray on stage
in a couple of scenes, the poor sap would truly have to be around the bend.
Those who know anything about LaVey's latter-day version of Satanism realize
that it is nothing like what you see in the movies - or in the House of Shock.
There have been those who criticized H.O.S. for doing harm to the image of Halloween,
and I can understand their criticisms. Nevertheless, the controversy that surrounded
the haunt in the early days has gone, largely due to the fact that most people
in the community know it's a show. We're the Exorcist and Omen of the haunt
community... well, actually, we'd more accurately deserve comparison to the
B-movies that deal with those same themes. We are R-rated, and people know it.
And, immodestly, we feel we're the best at what we do.
One final word on H.O.S.: we're not mindless fluff. We don't just put out people
in funny masks who yell 'boo.' We tell a story, showing what might happen if
Mythical Evil were actually able to force itself on an unfortunate Louisiana
bayou village. The results are not pretty pictures, but on the other hand, few
people can say they haven't been entertained. After all, how many average people
can say they walked into Hell and escaped unscathed? Sure, fundamentalist churches
run 'Hell Houses' at Halloween to show the evils of vice and careless living,
but they come off as being simpleminded and manipulative commercials for the
faith. We believe that we do the same deal better than they do, because it's
more convincing, and _apparently_ has no agenda whatever beyond entertainment.
Kinda like a really good B-movie.
Now, if this doesn't bring the list to life, I'll have to do something really
controversial. And don't think I won't! ;-) -Doug F.
From: Doug Higley
Attitudes of most magicians run from ME through MINE..but I get your drift.
Having been an Escape Artist/Illusionist, been around that block a few times.
And yes the Museum routine is the same hoped for outcome..mystify to entertain..decieve
to amuse..etc. etc. And you had to pick a morning when I'm to be stuck for over
an hour on a long distance conference call to ask a question I could take on
with relish.
One quick aside before I go..and I'll be back to pick up that thread..I knew
Anton LeVay..have some funny stories..well amusing anyway if you interested.
As to the church Hell Houses being 'simple minded' Uh.....duh? I don't believe
for a second in a real Hell..but...it's portrayal in a dramatic fantasy form
is cathartic to say the least..and fun! It's a good story! And if done like
I hear you do it..brings home more than entertainment or some nonsense religious
concept but slams the realities of being on a killing ground..whether it's from
Cambodia or Jeff Dahmers bedroom..Hell is a cleaned up concept..untill your
in it. Hell is not after life..though ghosts and Zombies stand in for the concept..Hell
is in the streets..and in Clintons brain...and the truth of hell has been cleaned
up and packaged to be acceptable as some distant realm. Horse shit. In the old
westerns when some one laid down to die spouting "Tell mamma..I'll be there
soon"..with a spot of blood on their shirt..was horse shit. The hell is
that when folks are shot and and murder is performed it is HELL beyond comprehension.
Heads fly..bodies are torn apart and the amount of blood and stench is beyond
belief. Hell is not seeing the dopey ass Devil nor is the abrogation' seeing
some fruity dude with a halo and wings.. Keep on keepin' on Bloody Ferg..and
tear the Hell out of the poor bastards..if they happen to be very religious..that's
their problem..they are on your ground..they came to your church. I gots to
go..will pick up later.l DOUG H
From: Doug Higley
Finally got you read your dissertation on scary stuff and I agree to the nth.
My daughter would consider you guys Gods with your anti joke spookishness..horror
is horror is horror and tha audience provides the nervous laughter..on point.
One exception personally..A/C Meet Frankenstein..at least for a late 1940's
early '50's audience it was effective on both levels. I will tell you from experience..back
then everything was effective! Especially once the BOMB made its appearence..we
were all scared alot of the time. At least in the cities..and this made for
humor to be desired..we were anxious enough.
But in the context of Doug. F's HOS..it IS theater..Grand Guignol (or how ever
the hell you spell that). Problem..the audience is too damn lame to get it for
the most part..that line outside is full of idiots who don't care about anything
real much less created. So from the standpoint of having your work appreciated..you
must accept the mob..but shoot for the ones who 'get it'. Like Haunted Hotel
in Myrtle...it's a cool show..but it gets trashed often by the beer guzzling
college slobs who appreciate ONLY some bimbo exposing her breasts on the sidewalk.
Them, I dissmiss and ignore..who cares what they think..it's the ones that come
to see a show and be entertained and 'scared' and appreciate effort...and with
those..it doesnt matter WHAT you DO or HOW you do it..just do it the best you
can and please yourself. You'll reach the ones who are reachable..and the rest...I
suggest the words of Bobby Reynolds..the greatest living sideshowman..who when
confronted by a large group of 'CRIPS' at a show in L.A...who were being obnoxious
and belligerent ...one came up to him..got close and said.."This shit ain't
real man..." and Bobby got real close as well and said.."Fuck You..I
got yer fifty cents". Doug Higley
From: Doug Higley
Here's the qoute from my book that should answer this.. from my standpoint any
way...
" ....Want to get really scared?
We all know what is scary right? What do you think of right off the bat? It's
very possible that every one you has a different answer. Great horror writers
like Stephen King try to plumb those depths and attempt to hit every one of
those tenuous chords. Now, are we talking REALLY scared? Like if your town is
invadedby a foriegn enemy or we are on the brink of a nuclear war? What level
are we talking here? Being really scared is being a Jew in Nazi Germany in 1942...or
an American pilot, being hauled through the streets of Iran by a rope. Are we
talking sheer terror when we say something is scary or do we really mean something
a bit less, when it's stated, 'people love to be scared'. To know true unadulterated
fear and horror is not something one would look forward to experiencing twice.
So, what is scary? And what is it that we pay for when we go to a movie or even
on a dark ride? I don't think we pay to suffer real fear do we? I think just
getting the creeps is about all we really want out of something 'scary'."
Etc. Etc. There is much more to it..but that's the basics.
Speaking of my book..there are exactly 28 copies left of the first edition
configuration.
A couple of insignificantt changes may be made in the next printing to ease
our
assembly tasks..if you want one of the originals..speak up. Just E me on the
private
address.
Thanks..Doug higley