Death in Movies and TV?

[Lord of Denial]

Ok, I was watching a movie and in a scene and they made it seem like an infant was going to be attacked by a snake and I thought to myself that if they do that I am walking out of the movie and will never watch it as I feel that is totally crossing the line.

But then I got to thinking about it and realized that in the thousands of movies I have seen I have never seen the on-screen death of a child in any movie or tv show.

So my question is

Is it just that Hollywood feels as I do and that it is something that should never be shown?

Or is it an actual law that prevents it from being shown in TV or in movies?

Either way I agree with it 100%!

[thehod]

If the story called for it, I would have no issue over the on screen death of a child.

A person is person whether they be five or fifty, so I don't see why one should be subjected to special privaledges in this situation, when dealing with a work of fiction.

[KenK]

This is one of the things I loved about The movie Feast. Nothing brought me more joy than the scene in which a character's 10 year-old son is eaten by one of the monsters!!

[malephoenix]

Ok, I was watching a movie and in a scene and they made it seem like an infant was going to be attacked by a snake and I thought to myself that if they do that I am walking out of the movie and will never watch it as I feel that is totally crossing the line.

But then I got to thinking about it and realized that in the thousands of movies I have seen I have never seen the on-screen death of a child in any movie or tv show.

So my question is

Is it just that Hollywood feels as I do and that it is something that should never be shown?

Or is it an actual law that prevents it from being shown in TV or in movies?

Either way I agree with it 100%!

Yeah; I don't know how most of the country (or world) determines what is "crossing the line." I would be disgusted with creators that show the death of a minor. (The aforementioned Feast is clearly something I should stay away from.) I've always been fascinated by the idea of how do you determine how far is too far? People look at the strict rules of TV & movies from the 60s as idiotic and anciently conservative. Are people in another few decades going to look back on us the same way because we didn't show little boys being raped by dirty old men or babies being torn apart by the movie monsters? How do we actually *tell* when we've crossed the line?


Maybe it's just the mood I'm in, but great post. Good food for thought - I hadn't pondered this in a while. Thanks.

[Buzz Dixon]

JAWSfiller

[Ontir]

What I liked about From Dusk 'til Dawn was that the kids WEREN'T safe, as they usually are in films like this. If there's no real danger, there's no element of suspense.

[cadmium_blimp]

Yeah; I don't know how most of the country (or world) determines what is "crossing the line." I would be disgusted with creators that show the death of a minor. (The aforementioned Feast is clearly something I should stay away from.) I've always been fascinated by the idea of how do you determine how far is too far? People look at the strict rules of TV & movies from the 60s as idiotic and anciently conservative. Are people in another few decades going to look back on us the same way because we didn't show little boys being raped by dirty old men or babies being torn apart by the movie monsters? How do we actually *tell* when we've crossed the line?


Maybe it's just the mood I'm in, but great post. Good food for thought - I hadn't pondered this in a while. Thanks.
I'd say there is no line to cross as long as there is a reason for whatever it is that is being shown. If you're going to make something provacative, make it provoke thought, too. Disgust can serve many purposes.

[hoffmandu]

Infants in danger is very scary, even in a work of fiction. Seems like a good way to well up that type of emotion in the audience. And it's not like it's overused.

[Lord of Denial]

Maybe I just don't like it because I have a young son and a baby on the way and it just really unnerves me to think about anything happening to them in such a manner.

[Cyke]

it just really unnerves me to think about anything happening to them in such a manner.

But that's the point in seeing any sympathetic character get killed in a movie. Friends, grandparents, ourselves, etc. etc.

[Lord of Denial]

But that's the point in seeing any sympathetic character get killed in a movie. Friends, grandparents, ourselves, etc. etc.


But it's different when that person is defenseless and has not experienced life yet.

[BoosterBronze]

I thought it was interesting, that in the unblinkingly horrifc Schindler's List, they had Ralph Fienes' character sniper kill the kid off screen.

Maybe somethings arejust too visceral.

[Silliw 2]

But it's different when that person is defenseless and has not experienced life yet.

No it's not. Those are the exact reasons that would rally you against the antagonist/ monster/ snake/ whatever.

Anything can be done in bad taste, but babies being killed, however horrible it is (even in fiction) can be done well. Lol, that sounds terrible, but hopefully you know what I mean.

[Subotai]

Saw a brutal (in a good way) Iranian movie recently named Blackboards - about nomadic Kurdish teachers. At one point, near the Iraqi border, a group of pack-mule kids carrying some unknown items comes under fire from border guards. One of the kids gets shot and goes down hard. Awful tough to watch.

[DonC]

Most kids are killed off screen or hidden from view. On Buffy the Vampire Slayer they killed the same kid twice. First he was in a bus crash and lunch for a vampire, then he came back to life as the vampire's annointed one. Then they killed him again.

[cadmium_blimp]

Buffy was also regulated by the FCC, I do believe. I think the FCC has something against killing kids. (Note: it should not be taken that I condone kid killing.)

[Buzz Dixon]

I don't think there are any hard and fast rules with the FCC about what can/can't be shown on TV; it all depends on the context. Years ago for the mini-series WINDS OF WAR/WAR AND REMEMBRANCE they showed full frontal views of naked people, including children, being marched into gas chambers, the gas being dropped, and the bodies hauled out the back. That one was approved because it was in the context of a historical drama that laid out the entirity of WWII.

The FCC does not have the power to prevent anyone from airing a program, but they can administer fines and yank licenses to people who overstep the bounds of propriety. If there are rules against killing kids onscreen, they are generated by the networks, not the FCC.

[kmeyers]

Most kids are killed off screen or hidden from view. On Buffy the Vampire Slayer they killed the same kid twice. First he was in a bus crash and lunch for a vampire, then he came back to life as the vampire's annointed one. Then they killed him again.
Episode III when Anakin killed all of the Younglings was off screen too, but you definitely know he killed them.

I know a lot of people who thought that was pretty hardcore, and upsetting, but it was supposed to be.

[Black Atom]

Episode III when Anakin killed all of the Younglings was off screen too, but you definitely know he killed them.

I know a lot of people who thought that was pretty hardcore, and upsetting, but it was supposed to be.

Luckily, they robbed the situation of its gravity by calling them "younglings" instead of what they were (children)

[Subotai]

I also remember the American Gothic pilot - where Gary Cole kicks down a door and snaps a girl's neck. CBS took some heat for that. Great show, though.

[kmeyers]

Luckily, they robbed the situation of its gravity by calling them "younglings" instead of what they were (children)
Not really. that was just the class they were assigned, like Paduwan, Jedi, etc...

They were clearly children to anyone with working eyes.

[Cyke]

But it's different when that person is defenseless and has not experienced life yet.

As was said earlier, it's not different, if the original goal of the scene is to rattle the viewer and drive home how terrible and vicious the murderer is. The death of a child or a baby would certainly do that in spades. If anything, it's not different, but the same thing amplified even more.

[Black Atom]

Not really. that was just the class they were assigned, like Paduwan, Jedi, etc...

They were clearly children to anyone with working eyes.

It's still silly. If my best friend slaughtered a group of girl scouts and showed me a tape of it I wouldn't say "That's Jake. And he's...he's killing Brownies..." because that would be stupid. And probably funny to anyone who overheard it.

I'd say "he's killing children." Because that wouldn't make anyone laugh. Because it's not a stupid word. Like "younglings".

[kmeyers]

It's still silly. If my best friend slaughtered a group of girl scouts and showed me a tape of it I wouldn't say "That's Jake. And he's...he's killing Brownies..." because that would be stupid. And probably funny to anyone who overheard it.

I'd say "he's killing children." Because that wouldn't make anyone laugh. Because it's not a stupid word. Like "younglings".
But you're talking about a movie like Star Wars, where the dialogue is like that. Everything and everyone has unusual names, galaxy far far away and all...

I may be mistaken, but I think somebody mentions that he killed children. Possibly Obi Wan, when he tells Padme what Anakin did.

[Lord of Denial]

As was said earlier, it's not different, if the original goal of the scene is to rattle the viewer and drive home how terrible and vicious the murderer is. The death of a child or a baby would certainly do that in spades. If anything, it's not different, but the same thing amplified even more.


If you can't find a way to do that without killing a child onscreen then you as a writer have no talent and are going for a cheap way to get the same effect a more talented writer can achieve without doing so.

[Michael P]

Is this thread making anyone else think of Nextwave?

[Lord of Denial]

Is this thread making anyone else think of Nextwave?


If I knew what Nextwave was maybe.

Info?

[DLFerguson]

In the movie version of PET SEMATARY didn't they show the kid getting run over by an eighteen wheeler?

[Michael P]

In the movie version of PET SEMATARY didn't they show the kid getting run over by an eighteen wheeler?
As I recall, they showed everything but. A *long* sequence of cuts between happy family, kid toddling towards the road, and semi approaching, then a final shot of the semi with a honking horn and the mother screaming.

[Silliw 2]

If you can't find a way to do that without killing a child onscreen then you as a writer have no talent and are going for a cheap way to get the same effect a more talented writer can achieve without doing so.

That's a terrible view.

Take the above "Pet Cemetary" scene. So you think the writer had no talent for killing the kid?

Death should have an age limit? Way to rob any feelings of suspense from a film. I can't understand how anyone living in our world can find the fictional death of children disturbing.

Now, again, there are cases of on-screen slaughter just for the sake of violence. In those cases, I agree.

[Gavin Higginbotham, BotF]

Isn't a little boy eaten by the shark in JAWS?

You kinda see Sean Archer (John Travolta)'s son get shot and killed in FACE/OFF.

[Ontir]

If you can't find a way to do that without killing a child onscreen then you as a writer have no talent and are going for a cheap way to get the same effect a more talented writer can achieve without doing so.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. There are times, when the loss of a child is integral to the story, say the loss of Matt Damon & Amanda Peet's son in Syriana, not to mention the family of the Prince., without which there would be nothing moving the character. One of the rules of writing, is that you have to kill your darlings. That can be a line, a passage, a chapter, or a character. All of them are in service to the story, and if the death of a character affects you strongly, it's an example of the writer's ability to move you. HOW it's done, is another matter. That can be extremely cheesy at times, like when Spielberg has the child, chin-deep in human sewage, with light streaming on his cherubic face through the toilet seat, in Schindler's List - PURE CHEESE! Of course, Spielberg gets points for the aforementioned consumption of the child on the raft, in Jaws.

[Buzz Dixon]

In the second scene in the movie ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, Henry Fonda (!) shoots two teenagers and their father, then shoots an 8 year old boy in the face at point blank range.

Also, going w-a-a-a-a-y back for this one, a little boy gets trampled by horses ala BEN-HUR in DODGE CITY.

And kids die of lingering, cinematic diseases all the time in movies.

[Lord of Denial]

I couldn't disagree more strongly. There are times, when the loss of a child is integral to the story, say the loss of Matt Damon & Amanda Peet's son in Syriana, not to mention the family of the Prince., without which there would be nothing moving the character. One of the rules of writing, is that you have to kill your darlings. That can be a line, a passage, a chapter, or a character. All of them are in service to the story, and if the death of a character affects you strongly, it's an example of the writer's ability to move you. HOW it's done, is another matter. That can be extremely cheesy at times, like when Spielberg has the child, chin-deep in human sewage, with light streaming on his cherubic face through the toilet seat, in Schindler's List - PURE CHEESE! Of course, Spielberg gets points for the aforementioned consumption of the child on the raft, in Jaws.


It can always be implied that the child was killed and if it is shown onscreen it is more a writer going for shock value more then gripping story telling. To know the characters child has died gives him the same motivation as if we saw it with our own two eyes.

If it is needed why to we not see it much more often in Hollywood?

But 99% percent of the time we see the child in danger and then the camera pans away or goes to an exterior shot and we hear the action and then the camera pans back to the aftermath.

[cadmium_blimp]

Hollywood isn't in the business of taking risks.

I disagree that knowing that the kid dies has the same impact as seeing the kid die. When you make a movie, whenever something makes an impact on a character, you also want it to make an impact on the viewer.

[Cyke]

If you can't find a way to do that without killing a child onscreen then you as a writer have no talent and are going for a cheap way to get the same effect a more talented writer can achieve without doing so.

I'm gonna go into high-and-mighty patriotic mode for this one, only because it's the closest and simplest analogy I can think of:

-When you hear on the news that 15 people die in a tragic plane crash, are you moved? Sure.
-When you actually *see* a loved one die right in front of your eyes, one who you know extensively about, are you moved even more? If so, why is that?

Hearing something has a much different impact than actually seeing something. What drives it even more for a child dying in the movie is that we can relate to his innocence and lack of experience. We know what it's like to be a child, whereas for the most part, we really don't know what it's like to live the life of another human being. We can relate on some aspects, sure, but we remember our childhood with a lot more fondness, and being terrified as a child is a lot stronger emotion than being terrified as an adult. THAT is what rattles people: the sympathy for a child.

Now, the execution of the scene is something else entirely (And I think you're equating execution as something of a blanket notion). A lazy writer would just show the kid getting killed, without any character development scenes to make the death justifiably sad. A talented writer can show the kid getting killed, but will also show some of his background and how his death will affect the story as a major plot point.

*****

I remember this one scene in "City of God" in which kids are shot in the foot by a bully who's no more than five years older than them. The kids are really bawling their eyes out in fear and in pain, and the viewer either cries with them, or flinches at the sheer brutality of the scene. But it's essential to show that scene to show how deadly it is to live in that part of Brazil, to show how evil and ignorant a lot of the antagonists (most of them teenagers) in the film are, and how tragic it is to grow up in such an environment. After watching that scene, almost anyone would either be tearing up or would be asking, "How can it be this bad?" But if you're not moved by that scene, you're not human. But the scene especially works when you realize that it's not a real story per se, but just a character study in the life of this neighborhood.

[Lord of Denial]

I'm gonna go into high-and-mighty patriotic mode for this one, only because it's the closest and simplest analogy I can think of:

-When you hear on the news that 15 people die in a tragic plane crash, are you moved? Sure.
-When you actually *see* a loved one die right in front of your eyes, one who you know extensively about, are you moved even more? If so, why is that?

Hearing something has a much different impact than actually seeing something. What drives it even more for a child dying in the movie is that we can relate to his innocence and lack of experience. We know what it's like to be a child, whereas for the most part, we really don't know what it's like to live the life of another human being. We can relate on some aspects, sure, but we remember our childhood with a lot more fondness, and being terrified as a child is a lot stronger emotion than being terrified as an adult. THAT is what rattles people: the sympathy for a child.

Now, the execution of the scene is something else entirely (And I think you're equating execution as something of a blanket notion). A lazy writer would just show the kid getting killed, without any character development scenes to make the death justifiably sad. A talented writer can show the kid getting killed, but will also show some of his background and how his death will affect the story as a major plot point.

*****

I remember this one scene in "City of God" in which kids are shot in the foot by a bully who's no more than five years older than them. The kids are really bawling their eyes out in fear and in pain, and the viewer either cries with them, or flinches at the sheer brutality of the scene. But it's essential to show that scene to show how deadly it is to live in that part of Brazil, to show how evil and ignorant a lot of the antagonists (most of them teenagers) in the film are, and how tragic it is to grow up in such an environment. After watching that scene, almost anyone would either be tearing up or would be asking, "How can it be this bad?" But if you're not moved by that scene, you're not human. But the scene especially works when you realize that it's not a real story per se, but just a character study in the life of this neighborhood.


I think in the context of a historical movie that is showing the violence of war and the effect such wars have on people and to impress upon them the horror and evil that is present in that situation a childs onscreen death could be a powerful tool and could be used for the emotional impact if that is what truly happened.

But in a work of fiction there are so many ways to impart that same emotional response and the writer is not bound by any historical need for accuracy it seems like a shock value tactic more then the need for it in the story. With fictional work you can impart that same emotion and gravity in a nearly infinite number of ways without resorting to that.

[Lord of Denial]

Hollywood isn't in the business of taking risks.

I disagree that knowing that the kid dies has the same impact as seeing the kid die. When you make a movie, whenever something makes an impact on a character, you also want it to make an impact on the viewer.


Sure they are they still make Kevin Costner movies.:)

Shit, He hasn't had a decent box office return in years.

[cadmium_blimp]

What was the last Kevin Costner movie?

[Dan Apodaca]

Those poor fictional children, getting killed before they had a chance to experience their fictional lives.

[Buzz Dixon]

DUCK, YOU SUCKER a.k.a. A FISTFULL OF DYNAMITE has large numbers of people being executed in it, include Rod Steiger's brood of teens and children.

CALIGULA has his toddler daughter getting her head split open when the emperor is assassinated.

Kids getting killed on camera isn't common, but it isn't unheard of, either.

[StoneGold]

That's why it's all about Troma.


Remember in Toxic Avenger, when they ran over that kid with the car, then ran over his head to finish the job?

[Cyke]

I think in the context of a historical movie that is showing the violence of war and the effect such wars have on people and to impress upon them the horror and evil that is present in that situation a childs onscreen death could be a powerful tool and could be used for the emotional impact if that is what truly happened.

But in a work of fiction there are so many ways to impart that same emotional response and the writer is not bound by any historical need for accuracy it seems like a shock value tactic more then the need for it in the story. With fictional work you can impart that same emotion and gravity in a nearly infinite number of ways without resorting to that.

If it were a gory D-flick with slashing zombies or psychopathic gunfights, I'd agree with you there. But in actual period pieces or character-driven stories, showing the death of a child onscreen can hardly be called a shock value, if the scene itself drives the story and explains a good chunk of the story itself.

Now, I'm not arguing that showing a child's death is NECESSARY. Of course it's not. But for well-written or critically acclaimed movies, you do have to ask yourself, WHY is this scene shown? It depends on the circumstance and execution, and there can't be a blanket reason for any method used in storytelling. The aforementioned City of God was critically acclaimed primarily on the strength of its writing, that the kid-gloves were off and that there was a true message to be sent through the film about crime and poverty. Oftentimes, it's scenes like the one mentioned above that are the difference between a viewer's apathy and heartbreak. Are these movies meant for children to see? For the vast majority, heck no. But if a movie in question isn't written for the lowest-common denominator, has quality writing, and shows a child's death, then obviously it must not be intended for children. Scenes of children dying can't all be superfluous.

(Come to think of it, why aren't we complaining about books that go into detail of children experimenting with drug use, underground fighting, and burgeoning promiscuity? Because most of those books are aimed at mature readers.)

I watched the latest Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and I realized something: why do people close their eyes when there's a really bloody scene, or even a really gross comedic scene? To protect themselves from any sort of unbearable fear. Do you feel it a lot more if you kept your eyes open? Of course you do. But in cutting the camera away from the scene, doesn't that add the same cushioning effect (and therefore robbing the scene of vital impact) as closing your eyes during a crucial scene?

There's also "The Door in the Floor" with Kim Basinger and Jeff Bridges. I won't go into detail there, but there's a scene of a teenager in a car crash late in the film, told in flashback, that explains A LOT of the characters' motives up to that point, and with which Basinger's character starts to realize that she could be doing something almost as horrific as seeing her son die in the crash. The brutality of the crash that we see reflects the emotionally harmful and unethical road that Basinger and Bridges take in the movie, and it's not till Basinger puts 2 and 2 together that she realizes she needs to stop. (and it's an indie drama, not a cheap thriller or horror flick. In fact, that's one of two scenes with blood in the entire movie. The other scene is a bloody nose from a single sucker punch).