Hey, so you know the hollywood movies' now written rule: "Don't kill the dog". You can do whatever to a person but not an animal(well not unless it's a rat or something equally less *endearing*  ::) ).
So my question is this; what about small children? Do they fall in the "person" categary, therefore anything goes?
I'm thinking of writing a script that has a child dying suddenly due to a care-giver's neglect. Think it'll fly?

I recall children being killed in the recent 'The Amityville Horror'. The truly shocking child death - only time I have truly been shocked - in 'City of God' is another example that springs to mind.

Personally - as an avid movie watcher - I would advocate it, if it benefits your story.

I am no authority on this matter, however!

Andrew

How many children did Anakin kill in Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith?  There was no uproar whatsoever from that.  Lucas just showed them lying there dead, no blood.

I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that a lot of agent/producers/professional readers will put down a script if the villain rapes a woman or kills a dog.  The reason behind this is because amateur writers need to show us that the villain is evil by performing such a dastardly deed.

Your mileage may vary.


Phil

I'm not a horror fan so I can't imagine the scene. Maybe such shocking images go with the genre generally, but drama?

Isn't Star Wars in the fantasy genre? I've never watched it, but it's so popular that even without seeing it I would've been aware of an uproar. I guess it's ok then.

It's sad that it's acceptable (to kill a child on film) than to shoot a dog. But maybe it's not an entirely bad idea to have the audience emote...

One of the most shocking deaths I've ever seen of a child in a movie was in 1900 by Bernardo Bertolucci. If you ever get a chance to see it and have the patience it's well worth the four hours.

Quoted from dogglebe I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that a lot of agent/producers/professional readers will put down a script if the villain rapes a woman or kills a dog.  The reason behind this is because amateur writers need to show us that the villain is evil by performing such a dastardly deed.

They actually satirized this in "What Just Happened" with Robert Deniro.

Quoted from dogglebe I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that a lot of agent/producers/professional readers will put down a script if the villain rapes a woman or kills a dog.  The reason behind this is because amateur writers need to show us that the villain is evil by performing such a dastardly deed. Your mileage may vary. Phil

ah, so this applies only for the newbie writer then?

I have thought of other ways to show certain consequences but I thought this might make the audience feel more... hmmm

Yeah, I saw the Dinero spoof. That's why I wondered about this.

What if it's graphic neglect, like a child locked in a place where he suffocates?

Quoted from JamminGirl ah, so this applies only for the newbie writer then? I have thought of other ways to show certain consequences but I thought this might make the audience feel more... hmmm

I think Phil means that from a "newbie" it's usually gratuitous or to show how "hardcore" you are by rebelling against Hollywood norms.  

I personally don't think anything is out-of-bounds as long as it's necessary.  "City of God" (mentioned earlier) is a perfect example of when it's necessary.

Hmmm... another one here. With the popularilty of films like MILK  and Brokeback Mountain winning oscars  how do you think hollywood might react with a homosexual antagonist specifically?  

Quoted from JamminGirl a homosexual antagonist specifically?

A homosexual antagonist killing children?

Quoted from dresseme A homosexual antagonist killing children?

not children, but a child. His. Through neglect.

*tumbling weed*

Quoted from JamminGirl not children, but a child. His. Through neglect.

I say "go for it".  If it's well written, it's well written.

Quoted from JamminGirl Hmmm... another one here. With the popularilty of films like MILK  and Brokeback Mountain winning oscars  how do you think hollywood might react with a homosexual antagonist specifically?

There were problems with Basic Instinct.  Members of the gay community were angry that Hollywood showed a lesbian (bisexual, actually) in a negative light.  But that was a long time ago.

If you have to introduce your villain in a story by raping a woman, or killing a puppy, then you're not really trying.


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe There were problems with Basic Instinct.  Members of the gay community were angry that Hollywood showed a lesbian (bisexual, actually) in a negative light.  But that was a long time ago. If you have to introduce your villain in a story by raping a woman, or killing a puppy, then you're not really trying. Phil

I haven't seen basic instincts either ( I tend to avoid overly hyped films like titanic, basic instincts etc) but if they had an uproar then...

It's not an intro. I'm thinking that I want to end the story in that tone. And not to use explicit death images either.

Who's killing the child?

Protag or antag?

Protag?  Then he has to suffer severely in some way and redeem himself/herself. I don't think it'll work otherwise.

Basic Instinct was good btw.

I think it'd be worse if the child was killed on screen rather than off. People just don't like seeing that, really. Children, animals, elderly people, mentally challenged people...they're all sitting ducks, really. They can't defend themselves the way people who are prepared for a beating can.

So I think that it depends on how you write it. You can make it to where the viewers (or readers) are actually witnessing the events unfold of a child being killed. Or you can make it to where you can hear the noises off-screen, or just have another character walk in and see the child dead.


Either way, I always feel more sympathy for the animal (especially dogs :)).

Sean

well noone "kills" the child. well not on purpose anyway. It would be an accidental death, but via neglect. So it wouldn't really be a sitting duck scenario.

I would have the antagonist perpetuate the neglect. I just wondered how a turn of events like that may affect an audience so, you are my 'pre-springboard' audience. I guess for now there is no consensus...

Alfred Hitchcok said that one of his greatest mistakes in a film was to have a kid killed by a bomb in "Sabotage" (1936) and that he would never do it again. I do think he's right. Killing a child in a script is an accomodativeness. An easy way to pity or shock the audience. Especially when that's done by a villain.

Quoted from Zombie Sean Either way, I always feel more sympathy for the animal (especially dogs :). Sean

See "Independance Day" or "Dante's Peak"  ;)

yeah, maybe you're right there... I'll see...

Quoted from michel Killing a child in a script is an accomodativeness. An easy way to pity or shock the audience.

I don't think this is true. 'City of God' is a perfect riposte to this sweeping generalisation.

I think it really depends on the story. If you are going to kill a child, then you damn sure need a reason why.

Neglect, and systematic abuse is an interesting subject - here in Britain, we had a recent case that may be relevant for your script, JamminGirl - Baby P.

Andrew

So according to what's acceptable you can harm a child as much as you want as seen on TV and in Films but killing them is bad?

In Spiderman 3, Sandman hits a dog and in Resident Evil as well she kills dogs and nobody had any problem and both are true Hollywood films.

I saw a movie where a child was doing simulated sex with a naked woman. The kid looked about 10. Her bits and parts were in his face and no camera trick or CGI could make that okay.

Of course there are examples of kids, elderly, animals getting killed, but it's rather rare.  It definitely has a strong affect on the audience, and if that's what you're going for, then go for it.

I personally do not agree that it's an easy way out when you do this.  I feel it does take balls to want to show it, or even have it in your script.  Brutal rape works the same way...everyone will hate whoever is responsible for it, and want tehm to pay for what they did.  If this is what you're after, I feel it works very well then.

As Pia said, if it's not the antag involved with this death, you're in trouble, cause no one is going to be on the protags side if they were responsible in any way with the death of a child.

Ironically, I'm not looking for a visceral hatred for the villain. I'm going for tragedy. The protagonist loses. although this might affect commercial viability...

If I leave the child alive, it's a different story. I'll have to think this one out very very well.

Quoted from Andrew Neglect, and systematic abuse is an interesting subject - here in Britain, we had a recent case that may be relevant for your script, JamminGirl - Baby P. Andrew

Wow. That's just evil.

You have to see then Fritz Lang's "M". Peter Lorre is a child killer, and, in the end, audience pities him.

In Bruges had Colin Farrel shooting dead a kid in the church. By the end of the movie I think that Martin McDonough had done a decent enough job of showing us Farrel's remorse.

I think that is the most important part, it is fine to kill a kid as long as who ever did it pays for it in the end. Be it being killed in a revenge attack or more preferably being so tormented by grief and regret that they either turn their life around and do something worthy of forgiveness or kill themselves, or better yet both.


* edited this post as I mad it seem that killing a dog was the same as killing a kid. Of course that is ridiculous, it is much worse! ;-)

No really, but I would loved for someone to have killed Marley in the first five minutes of that goddam awful film.

Quoted from michel You have to see then Fritz Lang's "M". Peter Lorre is a child killer, and, in the end, audience pities him.

I'm going to check that out - sounds very intriguing.

Cheers, michel.

Andrew

http://www.teako170.com/faq2.html

Here's something that might help, but really alll rules have exceptions.

Gary

Horror and Thriller Don't's

Don't kill an animal on screen. It just isn't done, not by good directors. It's a cheap and repulsive way to get an emotional effect. I will generally stop reading a screenplay where this happens.

While it is perfectly all right to have an undead creature strangle the department store Santa to death under the neon lights, less cartoonish violence, especially when directed against the weak (women, children, pets) often throws the reader and the audience out of the movie. So, for example, if you have a physically abusive husband who's going to get his just desserts later on, you should not show him beating his wife on screen. You don't show a rape on screen. You never show someone hurting (as opposed to frightening) a child on screen. It is classier and more effective to show the aftermath of extreme violence than the violence itself.

You can, if you must, kill your animals off screen, but personally, I prefer a movie in which the pets have the sense to snarl at the vampire and run away.

The reason audience pities him is he's a sick man. For his defense, he just says "I can't help it! I can't help it!" Peter Lorre plays his part so perfectly than you have to be moved by his confession.

Furthermore, in that movie, the killing are not showed, but suggerated. And audience knows in advance when they're gonna happen. Each time, M (stands for Mureder) is killing a child, he whistles "Peer Gynt". That's our warning. About the murder, M gives a little girl balloons. You do understand what happened as soon as you see those ballons flying away. That film, like "Citizen Kane" are really Cinematographers' lessons of cinema

Another one is last years "Boy A", which was a brilliant character study of someone who had committed a horrific murder of a child, when he was a teenager, and his life when released from prison with a new identity. The writer really had you feeling compassion for this guy, despite of what he has done.

It was actually really well written, you never actually find out what he did until later in the film, although it is heavily hinted at. And thus you get to form opinions and form an affection for him before you realise the full picture. The ending was handled really well and I doubt many people would have finished that movie thinking that he never suffered for his crime.

Quoted from Murphy Another one is last years "Boy A", which was a brilliant character study of someone who had committed a horrific murder of a child, when he was a teenager, and his life when released from prison with a new identity. The writer really had you feeling compassion for this guy, despite of what he has done. It was actually really well written, you never actually find out what he did until later in the film, although it is heavily hinted at. And thus you get to form opinions and form an affection for him before you realise the full picture. The ending was handled really well and I doubt many people would have finished that movie thinking that he never suffered for his crime.

I agree. 'Boy A' was a good film with some excellent performances.

It was largely based - I understand - on this case - Jamie Bulger.

But has the murder been shwon on screen? And he was a kid himself when he did it.

Quoted from Andrew I agree. 'Boy A' was a good film with some excellent performances. It was largely based - I understand - on this case - Jamie Bulger.

I thought that might have been the case, it did remind me of that in some ways.

I forgot to mention that the writer of Boy A did something great in that movie in that he had our protagonist actually save a child's life in a scene that may sound a little corny but was actually quite neatly done.

So maybe it is fine to kill a kid if you killer then goes on to not just show remorse but also redeem himself as well.

Quoted from michel But has the murder been shwon on screen? And he was a kid himself when he did it.

The actuall death was not shown, no. But the events leading up to it were, and that was very uncomfortable viewing. They disappeared under a bridge to actually do the deed.

But yes, he was a kid at the time.

The In Bruges example though showed it clearly, even the smoking bullet hole in the kids head (or did I imagine that?)

Quoted from grademan http://www.teako170.com/faq2.html Here's something that might help, but really alll rules have exceptions. Gary Horror and Thriller Don't's Don't kill an animal on screen. It just isn't done, not by good directors. It's a cheap and repulsive way to get an emotional effect. I will generally stop reading a screenplay where this happens. While it is perfectly all right to have an undead creature strangle the department store Santa to death under the neon lights, less cartoonish violence, especially when directed against the weak (women, children, pets) often throws the reader and the audience out of the movie. So, for example, if you have a physically abusive husband who's going to get his just desserts later on, you should not show him beating his wife on screen. You don't show a rape on screen. You never show someone hurting (as opposed to frightening) a child on screen. It is classier and more effective to show the aftermath of extreme violence than the violence itself. You can, if you must, kill your animals off screen, but personally, I prefer a movie in which the pets have the sense to snarl at the vampire and run away.

See, it's these "wrath of ___" rules that bother me.

I saw "Dolores Claiborne" recently and in that story her husband, out of nowhere, slammed her in the back for giggling(at him). It worked for the piece, I felt.  It didn't feel like gratuitous violence. It explained his callousness in a way that the verbal abuse alone didn't.

I agree with Michel that you can get an audience to side with a character that even killed a child. The human mind is more accomodating than ever. Look at a tv show like "Dexter". Who would've thought a serial killer would be the lead?

But I want to use the situation in a different way...

And what about Eden Lake?  An awesome movie!

What's your average age when you're talking about children?

I remember that case where the two boys killed the baby. I think I may have been two or so years older than the perpetuators and thinking "those murderous children!"

Have ever watch that Spanish movie called "¿Quién puede matar a un niño?". The Englsih title was (badly) "Island of the damned" but the spanish translition says it all "Who could kill a kid?" Here the  plot summuary from IMDB :

"A couple of English tourists rent a boat to visit the fictitious island of Almanzora, just off the southern Spanish coast. When they arrive, they find the town deserted of adults, there's only children who don't speak but stare at them with eerie smiles. They soon discover that all the children of the island have been posessed by a mysterious force or madness which they can pass from one to another, and which makes them attack and murder their elders, who can't defend themselves because nobody dares to kill a child..."

Quoted from Old Time Wesley In Spiderman 3, Sandman hits a dog and in Resident Evil as well she kills dogs and nobody had any problem and both are true Hollywood films.

The only time I laugh killing dogs (I'm so ashamed) was while watching "A Fish Called Wanda" with the elder lady's yorkshires. But it was clearly a comedy

Just do it. Follow your heart. Write a script which challenges you and us. You can always run it by the gang here. Rah!

Quoted from michel The only time I laugh killing dogs (I'm so ashamed) was while watching "A Fish Called Wanda" with the elder lady's yorkshires. But it was clearly a comedy

If mainstream movies can do it...

The movie I mentioned with the kids and the naked woman has a mainstream actress in it. It also has kids dying in it.

CSI and other shows like that has kids dying in it all the time.

Personally I have no problem with films and television killing animals and children because it is not real. Like Ben Affleck said in JSBSB "They're fictional characters"

Quoted from michel Have ever watch that Spanish movie called "¿Quién puede matar a un niño?". The Englsih title was (badly) "Island of the damned" but the spanish translition says it all "Who could kill a kid?" Here the  plot summuary from IMDB : "A couple of English tourists rent a boat to visit the fictitious island of Almanzora, just off the southern Spanish coast. When they arrive, they find the town deserted of adults, there's only children who don't speak but stare at them with eerie smiles. They soon discover that all the children of the island have been posessed by a mysterious force or madness which they can pass from one to another, and which makes them attack and murder their elders, who can't defend themselves because nobody dares to kill a child..."

That sounds like a Spanish rip-off of Village of the Damned.

best child kill in a movie

Yeah, I remember that.  I was pretty surprised, cause it was a long time ago.  John Carpenter's first flick?

I don't believe in any of these rules. The only crime is bad writing. If the story is supposed to have a child dying then the child should die.

By the sounds of it, you are going for a serious drama, there's nothing you can't do in serious drama as long as you have respect for the subjects you are dealing with.

You can be deliberately offensive and inflammatory if you want. That's your privilege as a writer.

Will it affect your chances with a studio? Almost certainly. Children dying in a closet hardly sounds like the summer blockbsuter does it?

Does that mean it couldn't be turned into a hard hitting low budget film that performs well on the festival circuit and gets you noticed or simply be good enough to move agents to sign you up?  No, definitely not.

Quoted from Dreamscale And what about Eden Lake?  An awesome movie!

Oh yes. A great little film. Michael Fassbender showing his range. The child on child killing was especially chilling. It was racially charged, and his England football jersey made it all the more upsetting - a simple, yet very effective summary of some of England's unfortunate race issues.

Andrew

Chilren killing other children, adults killing the killer children, and then the parents of the killer children, killing teh adult who killed the killer children!  Lots of killing.

I thought this was a fantastic movie.  One of the more powerful andviscous flicks I've seen in awhile.  LOVED IT!!!!

Quoted from Dreamscale Chilren killing other children, adults killing the killer children, and then the parents of the killer children, killing teh adult who killed the killer children!  Lots of killing. I thought this was a fantastic movie.  One of the more powerful andviscous flicks I've seen in awhile.  LOVED IT!!!!

Haha!

The ending is perfect for the film, too. Such a good film - truly deserves a wider audience.

I may just go and watch it with all this talk!

I dunno... everyone killing everyone... I'd avoid it. *eek*

Children were pretty much all that were killed in "Don't Torture A Duckling" ... Strange movie. Not one of Fulci's best, but decent none the less. There is also a disturbing scene where an older woman is on the verge of molesting a young boy in it too.  Very crazy flick. "City of the living Dead" Couple kids die in it.  Another fulci movie, as do we see a child lay with its guts strewn about and mutilated in the basement of the Freudstien house in another Fulci classic "House by the cemetery"

So, yeah... in horror I think it's alright.

Quoted from Baltis. So, yeah... in horror I think it's alright.

As most of today's horror is simply gore and shock, the creators must raise their bar to ridiculous levels.


Phil

Kids die a lot of times in movies. I think the question was "can the protagonist kill a child even if by accident and the audience still relate to him/her"?.

Unless, I misunderstood...

Quoted from me (pia) I think the question was "can the protagonist kill a child even if by accident and the audience still relate to him/her"?.

Two simple words:  Keyser Soze

Well, maybe not simple words as it's a pretty foreign name, and it's supposed to have those little dots above the 'o' in 'Soze', but it's Kevin Spacey's role in 'The Usual Suspects'.

He shoots his own children and wife (on film, mind you).  But by the end, the audience (and people I've seen the film with since) cheered when he walked out of the police station and lost his limp and got away.  He killed his own kids and still got sympathy and cheers from the audience at the end of the film, eventhough he still remained a criminal.

Quoted from grademan Follow your heart. Write a script which challenges you and us.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films If the story is supposed to have a child dying then the child should die. By the sounds of it, you are going for a serious drama, there's nothing you can't do in serious drama as long as you have respect for the subjects you are dealing with. You can be deliberately offensive and inflammatory if you want. That's your privilege as a writer.

I think they're hitting the nail on the head.  It's your story.  If you feel it's necessary, then you do what you have to do to get it on paper.  People will like it and people will despise it.  Be prepared for that.  Overall...  tell the story you want to tell.

- Mark

That's true about Soze, however I think people cheered him on because we had sort of thought of him as an underdog throughout the film. When it's revealed he master minded the whole thing, I don't think the killing of his kids popped up as a moral question of his character. It didn't to me at least.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films The only crime is bad writing.

That sounds about right. There's been a handful of films mentioned here that are generally well respected and recognized for being good and not for killing kids (namely 1900 and The Usual Suspects). I'll also throw in A History of Violence. A little girl gets shot within the first ten minutes. It seems senseless taken completely at face value but the film goes on to ask a lot of questions about violence and I think the scene is neccesary to set up for the way the viewer takes in later scenes.

Bottom line, if killing a child or animal is done for the sake of shock value alone, the audience can usually see through it. If it's done for more, they accept it. I think anyone writing this sorta thing just needs to consider their motives before they put anything on paper.