1/31/2007

Crying

Posted in Side Topics at 8:00 am by Sam

Here’s an interesting rule of thumb for filmmakers: never show a child crying. I had never heard of the rule until watching some of the documentary content on the DVD for The Sixth Sense, in which M. Night Shyamalan discusses the choices he made when he directed Haley Joel Osment in certain key scenes in the film. He took great care not to have Osment ever giving in to the despair of his predicament with tears.

I thought that was an interesting rule, something I had not thought about, but it wasn’t until years later that I experienced first-hand why that’s a good rule.

For starters, let me clarify. I don’t mean (and I don’t think Shyamalan meant) that you can’t ever show children crying in any fashion. You can show children crying when the audience knows they’re not really suffering. You can show children crying if the tears are from the release of adrenaline as they stay strong in the face of a challenge. What you can’t do is show children crying in surrender to despair. What Shyamalan said in the documentary was that as soon as you do that, you’ve lost the audience. The audience will stay with a film through anything else, but as soon as you cross that line, you’ve lost them.

As I said, I thought that was pretty interesting, because it was a concern of the filmmaking process that I hadn’t thought about before. I tried to remember the scenes of children crying in movies I’d seen, and I was somewhat surprised that I could remember so few. What few I could remember were softened in some way: a child might cry if an adult is actively providing comfort and support. A child might cry for comic effect if he’s not really hurt. The neighborhood bully might cry when he gets his comeuppance as the main kid finally summons the nerve to stand up to him.

For me, the most memorable and moving scene of a child crying is in A Christmas Story, when Ralphie snaps and loses control of himself and starts beating up the neighborhood bully. Here, though, it is not the bully who’s crying so much as Ralphie himself, the moment his mother brings him back to his senses, and Ralphie is so overwhelmed when the adrenaline subsides that he breaks out into tears. We know he’s really ok, so the movie does not lose us, but it is an incredibly moving scene all the same. Not unpleasantly moving — moving in almost a sweet way, because it’s a moment when Ralphie’s childlike view of the world brushes up against the complications of maturity, and we know that he will grow up a little as he grapples to understand it.

But anytime I remembered a scene where children are truly overcome by terror or suffering, they do not actually cry. They scream, they shout, they run, they panic, but they do not cry.

Years later, I saw a film that reminded me of this rule of thumb, and I came to understand it. It was City of God (2002), a film about gangsters in the slums of Rio de Janeiro. It shows how they organize and rule the city, and how children start out admiring them and grow up to become gangsters themselves. It’s every bit as hip and flashy and stylized as Pulp Fiction, but it has an extra bite to it because it paints such a vivid overall picture of the cycle of violence in this place and time.

The film is a masterwork, and I nearly chose it as the best film of 2002 in our recent Best of the Year series on the podcast. My admiration for it is qualified. There is a scene in the middle where a couple of kids rip off a particularly notorious gangster, a guy who killed his way to the top and stays there because no one dares to stand up to him. The kids are caught, casually injured, and the gangster instructs one of his new minions, sort of as a rite of passage, to take a gun, and kill one of the two children. The film lingers on the fear and pain of the children, and they shed tears in surrender to their anguish.

And just like that, the film lost me.

You must understand, until that moment I was 100% with this movie. It was brutal and tough and violent, but it was such a compelling, intelligent story, and so convincing and insightful at illustrating why and how the cycle of gang violence continues and how it affects people’s lives and how people are drawn into that world. But all it took was one scene, a mere few seconds, and I was done with it. I withdrew myself from the film and continued watching from a distance. Eventually, the film won me back, but the whole experience was irrevocably changed.

Ultimately, I think I begrudgingly accepted that scene because the film felt like it was painting an honest picture of something that happens in the real world. Certainly the story is ostensibly based on the real-life story of one of the characters, and the things he saw and heard growing up in the slums of Rio de Janeiro. But if this were a film of escapism, an action flick made purely to entertain, the scene would have been unforgivable. As it is, I admire it, but I do not like it. My feelings for the film as a whole are still of greatly enthusiastic admiration, and I’m glad I’ve seen it, and I hope people see it — but I hesitate to use words that are too personal. I am reluctant to say that I “love” the film, though it overflows with filmmaking that is more than worthy of that kind of passion.

Would the scene have been any less difficult if the kids hadn’t been crying? It’s a valid question. Obviously it still would have been a difficult scene to watch. That was a terrible situation to see unfold, not just because one of the two kids is going to die, but because the young man doing the shooting is going to cross a line that will permanently destroy any chance of his escaping the madness of a violent life.

One can only speculate. But after considerable thought — frankly, more thought than I’d rather have given this heartwrenching moment — I honestly think that if the two kids had not been crying, I wouldn’t have withdrawn from the film so decisively. It still would have been tremendously difficult to watch, but if the two kids had stood and faced the situation with dry eyes, however terrified they might still have been, I’d have stayed with the film through the scene.

I’m open to arguments that it’s still better the way it is. But there are more than just those two ways to play it, too. The film could have cut away sooner, for example. For whatever reason, the director and editor chose to play it with tears, to play it for whatever length of time, to cut between these particular faces, to give each character in the scene whichever percentage of screen time, to mix in those particular sounds at those particular volume levels, and so on and so on and so on. I think the film pushes the audience too far. But who am I to say how far is too far in the portrayal of a great evil in our world?

8 Comments »

  1. Grishny (156) said,

    January 31, 2007 at 10:15 am

    Interesting topic. I’d never heard of that rule either. One thing that I wonder is why showing children crying on film causes this withdrawal from a movie? There must be some sort of psychological reason behind it.

  2. Heather (11) said,

    January 31, 2007 at 11:19 am

    I think something that perhaps tangentially relates to this is the ado over the rape scene in “Hounddog.” It’s not graphic; I haven’t seen the film myself, but I understand that only Dakota Fanning’s face and hand are shown. Yet it’s caused quite an uproar nonetheless, more so than I think a similar scene involving only adults would raise.

    While crying and rape are obviously at very different places on the emotional spectrum, I think they each signify danger/distress–things adults are both hardwired and conditioned to protect children from. And so, as Grishny mentioned, I suspect there’s a psychological foundation to this “rule.” But, alas, that is probably a different podcast.

  3. Dave (130) said,

    January 31, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    I think I’m unsure still what the problem is with showing crying, and how it “loses” you. Is it because you don’t buy it, or because it’s simply too much to deal with emotionally, so you pull back? Does it feel cheap and manipulative, or is it just too gut-wrenching to the point where you just don’t want to deal with the rest of the film?

  4. Sam (405) said,

    January 31, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    The second part of both of those sentences. It’s too much to deal with emotionally, so a general audience will tend to pull back from it. Obviously different people are going to have wildly differing thresholds about what is “too much” to deal with, but the idea is that it’s a guideline for a filmmaker interested in making a general entertainment.

    Grishny/Heather: Yeah, I don’t think there’s too much of a mystery about why children being harmed strikes such a deep chord. Species that don’t have some sort of fundamental drive to protect their young don’t tend to last. Even weird species where one parent or the other has this bizarre instinct to eat their young is fended off by the other parent.

  5. K.T. Slager (55) said,

    January 31, 2007 at 4:34 pm

    Fascinating. I never considered that before. It’s one of those things I’m going to remember forever. Having a *real* child cry in front of you is pretty bad in itself.

  6. ThePhan (128) said,

    February 1, 2007 at 2:41 pm

    Hmm. Interesting. Never thought of that before. I shall have to consider that. Also, I wonder if there’s a difference in reactions between people with close connections to young children and those without?

  7. Sam (405) said,

    February 1, 2007 at 2:55 pm

    TP: Probably. I have a friend that discovered his reactions to seeing children traumatized on the screen were noticeably stronger and more discomforting after he had kids than before. I wish I could remember what movie we were discussing when that came up. But it was over a movie where that sort of reaction hadn’t even occurred to me. It wasn’t like City of God, where anybody with a circulatory system would be disturbed by it.

  8. Ferrick (140) said,

    February 1, 2007 at 4:18 pm

    Having kids would be a major factor. I think there are a lot of things in life that could do the same thing. If a young bride is hurt or killed in a movie, a newly married person would probably have stronger reactions than someone who isn’t married or has been married a long time. What you see on the screen will relate stronger to people depending on where they are at.

    Same thing with humor. Someone who is easily offended by a particular gag probably has some real world connection to what is being mocked.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.