A Filmmaker's Guide: David Gordon Green's 'Halloween' (2018)

(Note: in order to get the most out of this article it is recommended that you watch the film in its entirety at least once. Notes are not required, but are definitely encouraged)

The question really is, is the equation in the subtitle really very effective when it comes to modern horror. And what we're going to explore is how it's done, how effective it really is and why. Halloween (2018) got mixed reviews from audiences and critics alike. Personally I went to see it on the day it came out and it was pretty awesome in my opinion. It is a movie that again, as movies are, open to interpretation—it has all the stops pulled out. The constant harsh music, the dark, foggy atmospheres, the street views with empty blackness fading into the background. But one thing I found quite interesting about the film is that it had one thing that I don't see very often: cinematography creating and adding to claustrophobic scenes. It was interesting to watch and since watching it again on certain nights, I've found it to be based in other films, especially other iconic horror films.

Here's what we're going to have a look at then:

Cinematography > Claustrophobic Scenes > Effective Horror Method (?)

In this order, we're going to explore numerous shots from the film and analyse exactly whether this method, used before in the 70s and 80s, is still effective today. Let's have a look at the film then:

Section 1: The Shots

Shot 1:

Take a look at this shot. What do we notice first?

We notice the character of Michael Meyers who is placed almost directly centre of the shot. We notice the girl who is crammed opposite him with her back to us and finally we notice the physical 'space' in which this takes place. In that order, that is how a viewer notices the shot. It is entirely in a doorway and so, cramming the two characters together rather than having her stepped back, opening the door, creates more intense claustrophobia for the scene involved.

But is it effective?

The answer is yes. It may look a bit crammed but it is effective when it comes to presenting the horror to the audience. When you suddenly see Michael Meyers and he's standing in a field somewhere, it's not as frightening in comparison to if he was standing directly in front of a character, crammed into a shot with her.

Shot 2:

I think the question here was, how do we make something outdoors look claustrophobic? The answer was simple, we make it look like there's lots of 'stuff' in it.

Notice how again, we've got Michael Meyers directly in the centre of the frame and only then do we see the background. Children's toys, trees, a BBQ, the house, the dog kennel, the leaves on the floor. All of this adds to the cramming of the frame without making it look messy. It creates the claustrophobic tension of having a crammed scene that will be eventually replicated and put into even more intensity when we see him go inside the house or inside another.

But is it effective?

For creating tension, yes it definitely is. It has this way of making Michael Meyers stand out but also stand within this background that has lots of things in it that make the frame look more crowded than other, less tense, scenes. The entire point of it would to be to showcase a part of the film in which Michael Meyers has either done something to someone or is about to. And in order to prepare the audience, we have our claustrophobic scene.

Shot 3:

Yes, we're really going through this shot here. The absolute obvious is normally more intensely frightening than the other scenes. Here we have what is normally called the "closet scene" in which Michael Meyers appears when the closet door opens. Notice how he's standing in the doorway and actually isn't standing directly in the closet. The effect of this is because the doorway is smaller than the closet itself and gives more light to the horrific nature of the scene. It makes the scene look smaller than it actually is by having the main character stand in a cramped space.

But is it effective?

Well, in most respects it is. But listen to this. It can cease to be effective if overused. This is a technique which is used so much by horror movies that it has even become parodied. They should have really ended this one with "The Shining" instead of dragging it out to 2018. I think used once in a film it could add to the horror, but if you use it more than that then it's overkill. All of this is only because it has been used over and over again throughout the years of horror movies, starting off with Nosferatu, standing in the doorway in 1922, ready to terrify the daylights out of us all.

Shot 4:

Let's take a look at this scene of Michael Meyers rummaging around in a closet. Notice initially the space and depth. There isn't a lot of space and the depth stops at the only thing in the closet (which is the purpose I assume it is there for). The little lighting throwing shadows on the wall on the left show us exactly how wide the scene is and the zoom we have on to the top half of Michael Meyers' body makes the scene look evermore smaller. Notice as well how we have a slight upward tilt of the camera; this upward crane makes Michael Meyers the focal point of the frame without having him dead centre (it would've been difficult to do the latter if you see the measurements of the scene). This method is something I like to call "enlargement." The scale of the rest of the frame is made to look smaller but because of the upward crane of the shot, it makes the character look bigger than they are and thus, they become the focal point of the frame.

But is it effective?

Yes, very effective in fact. This is one that you probably want to use primarily for the symbolism of space. Making the space smaller and the character look bigger makes the scene claustrophobic especially if you're using a villainous character. The audience are locked in the small space with a villain who is probably going to kill them. Putting this small space into a perspective like this invites the audience into the scene with the character and makes them witness exactly how tense the situation is without directly telling them.

Section 2: Overall Effect

The overall effect of this is to build tension. The tension that you build doesn't always need to have some symbolic meaning. Sometimes, the symbolic meaning helps, but it isn't a requirement. The reason for building tension through small spaces is because when the character is then dropped into a large space, the small spaces and crammed scenes are then associates. The character is therefore associated with uncomfortable situations—being in cramped spaces.

If you were to use this in your own work you'd need to create the small space/crammed space tension before you put the character into a larger space of tension. This will mean that you can establish the tension associated with the character to begin with. The next thing to do would be to make sure the character is associated well with discomfort. The discomfort here is the cramped spaces he's in. When this is all said and done, then you can relax and let the character do the scaring.

Conclusion:

Thank you for reading this article and I hope you've taken away something productive that you can use in your own work. The point of this article was to make you see that you don't need a reason for something to seem claustrophobic. Your movie doesn't need to be centred around small spaces like Quarantine or Human Centipede to have claustrophobic aspects. These aspects can be effective when used in the medium of building tension as well. The best part about it is that it works so effectively that you don't need to do much more work to tense up before the big scare!

Good luck on your next project.