The Off-Screen Kill: Tired Trope or True Terror?
I've found that when new horror movies come out and I end up discussing them with my fellow horror fans, one trope seems to always carry a slightly negative aura with it. No matter what sub-genre or style, I will always hear at least one person mention this trope with a shrug and a sigh. It usually goes something like this:
"Yeah, but they were killed off-screen."
Normally, it didn't really register with much but after hearing it a bit more I started to think on it. We are living in such a great era of horror. There are so many different avenues in which we can find new horror, and the genre as a whole is in a bit of a high with studios also producing top tier content. With horror being in such a good state, many movies are getting decent budgets, creating these cinematic treasures more frequently.
But, as we are the horror community, we always end up in discussion about the usual suspects; the villain, the score, the setting, and the cast are all big topics, but it usually always filters down to the kills. We will find ourselves discussing how creative some were executed, how graphic each one was, or how we could tell it was just bad CG. The kills always are a point of emphasis when talking about a horror film.
Now, in this high point of horror, it seems that the old tried and true “off-screen kill” is becoming scoffed at. In an era where the special effects, whether practical or digital, have been built up from the high standards of the pillars of the past some fans seem to expect a gnarly and robust take on every victim within a film.
This just doesn't sit right with me, and I decided to go to bat for the old school off-screen kill.
If you go back and watch old horror films, some of the true classics from the ‘50s and ‘60s, you can find off-screen kills are quite frequent. This had to do with cinema ratings, the limits of the effects, and the budgets for the most part. However, the way they were used could often be just as scary as the kills that did make it on-screen, and that can really be attributed to the difference between horror and terror.
Terror is the fear and distress at the possibility of something frightening, whereas horror is the actual experience or sight of the frightful occurrence. The off-screen kill in itself is a work of terror, while the on-screen kill is the definition of horror. I feel our current state of horror has forgotten how great terror can actually be.
This can be due to the changing of the cinema and its relation to reality. When Jaws came out, the world turned against sharks and people began to fear the water. It's hard pressed to see movies come out now that have that sort of impact, and it’s due to the way the audience understands the films now. That has also impacted that sense of terror in watching films, but I still believe is a reason it can thrive.
The best thing about an off-screen kill is the mystery. You don't see it happen. You might hear it, or have some clues on what happened, but the details are left out. It's your own imagination that has to fill in the blanks, and sometimes that can be the scariest thing of all. when an off-screen kill is revealed, and you see a mangled body, you have to piece together the crime in your own head, and they makes it a personal point of terror that you get experience.
I often recall some great kills that have happened off-screen. One of my most memorable ones was the neighbor that was found with his eyes pecked out in The Birds. The shock of seeing the body was an immediate jolt of horror, but then having to envision the birds breaking through the window, swarming over him and pecking his eyes was something that stuck with me for sure.
The off-screen kill can still be a useful tool in horror. The best way to experience it is to really suspend your disbelief and let your imagination run wild. Enjoy the terror, because it can only make the horror better.
