Shock! A New Horror

I hope that On with the Prancing is able to engage its audiences through its uniqueness in plot and character. True to the diversified nature of post-horror, it blended absurdity, normality and suspense in such a short piece. I believe that the final product was able to be effectively unique, and was successfully able to create an atmosphere that feels both familiar and unsettling. The final product is individual in its portrayal, using the setting as a standard backdrop while juxtaposing it with a narrative that is bizarre and absurd. The characters also contribute to this contrast, embodying traits that challenge conventional expectations in a way that keeps viewers engaged. David Church describes that “Post-horror’s difference from more conventional horror films is primarily one of tone” (2021, p.11) and as is clear, our piece was far from akin to traditional horror films.

In leading up to the studio exhibition, we had expressed concerns within our group that the audience may not recognise the purposeful ridiculousness, but luckily they engaged how we hoped when watching. 

The singular most successful aspect of On with the Prancing was in the pacing and structure. Though it was the longest of our whole class, I didn’t feel like it dragged on, or had any unnecessary moments. The narrative begins at a slow but deliberate pace, allowing for a gradual build-up of tension and stakes, which I think made it more intriguing. It is initially confusing and unclear, but as the story unfolds, the audience is able to realise what was meant. We had a detailed and long script to work with, with some charges to the storyline being made in post-production, which ultimately improved the flow of the project. This structure may not appeal to the taste of everyone, as in short films it is often preferred to begin with some sort of action for immediate engagement, however I felt that it was very well suited to the story to present it in this way, as it is legitimate to the experiences of the protagonist.  

I personally felt that the most problematic aspect of the finalised version of On with the Prancing was in its overall communication of the idea/story. Partially due to the fact we weren’t able to be completely loyal to the original script and plan – having to cut some moments to minimise the length of the project, I did feel as though some understanding was lost. While I had a good understanding of the narrative, it was inherent due to the time spent working on the project, whereas I saw that after the exhibition, the one piece of criticism people I spoke to had was that they didn’t really get it without an explanation. I think it can be difficult when an idea makes sense to you to be able to recognise where the story might be unclear to an audience who is uninformed about the elaborate details (as any audience is). 

If I were to continue working on this film, or to redo something relevant to my specific role as Production Designer, I would place a heavier focus on creating the car interior setting. On our shooting days I did actually dedicate time working on the set, so more accurately I would want to have it more represented in the film. In the finished product, I felt as though the idea that the protagonist was living in his car and was in a desperate position doesn’t really come across visually, and so I felt like my work was neglected in this aspect of the production. When I am viewing media, I find the intricate Mise-en-scène details to be striking, and demonstrate the difference between good and excellent pieces. “Mise en scène is the unspoken language of your film.” (BACKSTAGE, 2023, subsection 2) Although it can be more difficult to involve setting shots in short films, as the limited timeframe means there is less time to waste, I do think it would have enhanced the final product and made some narrative elements more clear.  

My experience in this studio has shown me the significance of going outside of your comfort zone/trying new things, especially as someone still developing in my identity as an artist. As it was, I had limited experience working in the horror genre, so by choosing this studio, I wanted to challenge myself. Although writing is my favourite and most experienced aspect of any production, it felt completely new and much more challenging for me. Despite its dissimilarity to the things I usually create, I have really enjoyed the studio and working on the major project. My experience here has really shown me the need to extend myself, which is something I will remind myself of in my future.

One key takeaway about working collaboratively is in its inherent nature, the importance of compromise. This was one of my first times getting to work on a major project in a group rather than on my own, and there were a lot of benefits, but also some negatives. Working in this setting was really well suited to me, as in the entire production process there are many tasks I am not interested in, nor good at – so this meant I got to focus on the things that I do enjoy. Having a group made up of people with different experiences and abilities made the process unique to those I’ve done in the past. However, I am someone who always has a strong stylistic vision, which I am usually able to completely indulge in, so it was interesting in this instance to make compromises/agree with things I wouldn’t typically choose. But I do think, ultimately, that this is what benefits collaborative projects – it is not the vision of one person, but the combination of everyone. 

REFERENCES:

Church, D. (2021). Apprehension Engines: Defining a New Wave of Art-Horror Cinema. Post-Horror: Art, Genre and Cultural Elevation, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, p. 1-26 

Lutes, A. (2023), BACKSTAGE, What is Mise en Scène? A Guide to Impactful Visual Storytelling

https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/mise-en-scene-definition-examples-75967/#section1