Take the 2-minute tour ×
Movies & TV Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for movie and tv enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Some movies feature child characters put in violent situations. This can range from crude language to extreme horror (e.g. torture, gore, etc.). As an example, Child's Play and its sequel has plenty of those scenes. It looks like a paradox that children can be actors in movies that are definitely not for children.

Do the directors usually try and avoid exposing the very young actors to the violence of such scenes, e.g. by clever dubbing and editing? Are there laws that require them to do so, just like there are ratings that prevent children from seeing some movies?

share|improve this question
    
This isn't an answer but what about sexal references. Like if the movies about a pedo and they need a child as his victim (no sex scenes) or I read a book about a woman that got stuck in a child's body and fell in love with this man, if the movie was mad the kissing bit is too important to cut, what would they do then???? –  user3528 Dec 3 '12 at 12:34

6 Answers 6

up vote 48 down vote accepted

I have worked with children on horror films/thrillers and, having found no official guidelines from SAG other than payment policies such as Coogan's Law, I have usually employed a number of tactics.

Firstly, I'll go over the scene and storyboard very carefully with the child's parents/guardians (although this isn't always constructive as many parents will let their child do anything to get them on screen ;)).

The simplest way I have found is to show the child the effects in play; we look at the props, the make-up, we play with the other actors, and I always use a sweet, edible blood and call it 'juice'.

Sometimes our shooting ratio doubles as we end up having to cut more often when the kids or other actors start giggling during a particularly gruesome effect.

The previous answers, regarding angles, solo shots and clever editing are spot on.

share|improve this answer

A fun example from "The Shining":

Because Danny Lloyd was so young and since it was his first acting job, Stanley Kubrick was highly protective of the child. During the shooting of the movie, Lloyd was under the impression that the film he was making was a drama, not a horror movie. He only realized the truth seven years later, when, aged 13, he was shown a heavily edited version of the film. He didn't see the uncut version of the film until he was 17 - eleven years after he'd made it.

share|improve this answer

The editing, filming techniques, and set attitude can seriously change the perception of what is actually going on. In various horror movie "behind the scenes" (last I can think of is Sam Raimi commentary on Evil Dead), it seems like casts for horror flicks are very upbeat and everybody is having fun. With many horror films it's only once the scenes are cut, music is injected and packaged that it finally becomes scary.

If this is true, then any child exposed to certain situations could perceive what's going on as a "game." A great example could be a scenario from "Child's Play." A director can say, "Hey, I'm going to throw you this doll, let's see if you can catch him."

While I can't speak for all parents, but some would definitely be on set to make sure that the child in question isn't overly exposed to "uncomfortable elements." However I can't speak for Linda Blair on "The Exorcist."

share|improve this answer
    
I'm sure Raimi would say that it is a game as his view on horror does have a great humor to it. –  TylerShads Dec 20 '11 at 20:43
2  
Only in the Evil Dead sequels was comedy deliberately written into the plot. The original however was intended as a full fledged horror flick. –  5StringRyan Dec 20 '11 at 20:58
    
Oh definitely, I remember the first time I saw 2 and wondered why it felt like the same movie. Though, you can say he carried on his 'humor' with Drag Me to Hell. –  TylerShads Dec 20 '11 at 22:20

I have also worked on film sets and I concur with @Nobby. I think a larger point, though, is that situations are generally only “scary” when actors are in character. For example consider Halloween. An adult dressed like a corpse and covered in bruise makeup and fake blood isn’t scary to most children if she’s chatting and laughing and walking around as if nothing was wrong. It’s only when she gets in character, acting as if in pain etc., that it begins to seem scary. Then consider that on a typical film set, the mantra is “hurry up and wait”—the camera isn’t rolling for the majority of the shooting day. Even on the 10% or 20% of the time that the camera is rolling and the actors are in character and so on, there are still constant interruptions (between takes) when everyone resets and breaks character again. If anything, it’s harder to get kids to actually act scared than the other way around, when they’re surrounded by dozens of adults (the crew) who are completely at ease the entire time.

And this only really applies to people. Professional prosthetic makeup these days can be incredible (think Star Trek) and can look completely real even in real life inches away—but monsters and other entirely fake things often look laughably fake in real life. Just think of what a demon mask looks like in a costume store; that’s what movie monsters look like in real life. They only become scary on screen due to lighting and movement and sound effects. And non-computer-generated ones are either very still or operated by puppeteers, which makes them even harder to get scared by.

share|improve this answer
    
Just to support this answer, I once visited the filming of one of he Hellraiser movies and seeing the monsters running around was really silly. Without the post-production atmospheric effects and with all the production equipment it just looked ridiculous. –  KennyPeanuts Oct 9 '13 at 13:52

I'm almost certain it comes down to parent permission and what they are comfortable allowing the child to see when working with the directors. Some are naturally more lenient than others while I'm sure some are only allowed on set to film their scenes and they never get to see what they filmed after post-production because of it being too graphic.

(The rest of this is speculative, take it with a grain of salt)

As far as specific laws, I know there must be some laws that prohibit a parent from explicitly forcing your child from watching disturbing content. Viewing alone or under parent supervision is not against any law that I can think of.

share|improve this answer
1  
Seems like the whole thing was speculative, not just the last bit. –  Kyralessa Jul 28 '12 at 17:38

Base on the symbolic interaction there is a two-way influence between culture and cinema. As Herbert Blumer said: "IT is difficult to determine exactly the extent of this influence".

Mostly during shooting understanding abut specific shot or shots is completely different from what we see in the screen, because the deconstruction of motion and the behind the camera crew normally make actors very far from the Gaze from audiences that watch film in cinema. So, we can give two separate answer to your question, in first part we need to understand about the different between effect of watching film and have a role in film, because all the effect that force lawmaker to make the limitation on the audiences are base on shared cultural structure and shared social structures that guid the their attention to percipient that cause to form a meaning in the audiences mind. So this process is different with filmmaking process, because in its process and actors involving in their role there is not the process of performance cause: percipient cause: meaning.

Blumer did a research on 200 boys under twelve years of age who were asked if they played in things seen in the movies. 75% answered Yes. Of 70 ranging in age from 12 to 14 years, 60% indicated that they played in what was seen in the movies. Among a group of boys between 14 and 16 years, 25% admitted still engaging in plays reflecting the influence of motion pictures. All these three groups consisted of boys living in one of the slum areas in Chicago (Blumer Herbert, 1933).So we can extend this result of interaction to the insider underage actors, and think that only law can not determine the reality of cultural perception. All the human interaction to the film even as actor or as audiences is different from the social limitation that create by the law and it is more related to the norm.(http://archive.org/stream/moviesandconduct00blumrich#page/12/mode/2up)

In other hand and related to the note that i write here from Blumer, the effect of playing or getting a role in such a film that you ask can manipulated the underage audiences, so it make a some social queer appearance on them.

share|improve this answer

This post does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this post by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

2  
[citation needed] Not to mention I'm not entirely sure this answers the question at all. –  TylerShads May 31 '12 at 12:32

protected by Mistu4u Jul 28 '13 at 9:25

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.