In 1992, Ghostwatch aired and very quickly became very controversial. Put on by the BBC, the programme showed the UK a chilling and seemingly real series of supernatural events.
Theres a lot to talk about here, its a long one...
Theres a lot to talk about here, its a long one...
Despite having been prerecorded, Ghostwatch was presented as a live, unedited broadcast, and contained all the elements of one. It included a full cast acting out roles as camera men, sound crews and more. Most importantly though, it used genuine, well known and trusted presenters. The Youtube video above shows the full length original.
Aside from the trusted presenters, many factors brought the show to life. Technology was used to strong effect, using the best on offer at the time, such as motion sensors, temperature sensors and CCTV style cameras throughout the house. The benefits of these were explained too. For example the temperature sensors were used to track ghosts by picking up on the sudden cold air that would follow them.
A big feature was the use of an actual thermal imaging camera. Although 1992 special effects were believable at the time, there was nothing better to make a program feel real than using genuine props. The thermal imaging camera was not used much, but when it was used it added to the realism and it helped add to the 'live broadcast' idea.
A big feature was the use of an actual thermal imaging camera. Although 1992 special effects were believable at the time, there was nothing better to make a program feel real than using genuine props. The thermal imaging camera was not used much, but when it was used it added to the realism and it helped add to the 'live broadcast' idea.
It was the lack of bold special effects which I feel helped to amplify the power of Ghostwatch's believability. The editors stuck to the live theme the whole way through. They included straight cuts and applied no real soundtrack or green screens, they included nothing which would break the suspension of disbelief. Even the occasional rippling of video as the live feed gets distorted was added in. It was very finely made.
But the really clever stuff happens with the ghost. Anything too obvious and the illusion would be over. The editors knew this and instead opted to play on a different angle, forging subtle 'illusions' to make you doubt your eyes.
But the really clever stuff happens with the ghost. Anything too obvious and the illusion would be over. The editors knew this and instead opted to play on a different angle, forging subtle 'illusions' to make you doubt your eyes.
It is important at this stage to remember that 1992 was comfortably before we could simply rewind the tv to double check something we'd missed. So subtlety became a game. Take the image above as an example. It is a video of the two young girls in their bedroom trying to sleep. But look at the curtains...
Ideas like this play on those little fears we all get, like seeing figures in the dark. This was the first time the ghost was introduced visually in the show and incase anyone had missed it, it was reinforced. Because this was a 'live broadcast', people could 'phone in', and they did. One (pre-recorded) caller told the studio that they had spotted the ghost by the curtain, and so they pulled the tape back up and reexamined it.
The conclusion simply stated that the way the light was hitting the curtain had been creating an illusion, just as it does all the time, in your own home. And there lies the first seed. The programme set the audience up into thinking that those little figures in the dark were being rationalised by a professional in the same way that we do. But as the show goes on, things get progressively out of control.
So the fear then becomes that if the initial 'shadow' by the curtain was nothing, then what is causing all of that? Subsequently, whats stopping every shape that we see in the dark of our own bedrooms from doing the same?! If a professional can be wrong, so can we!
But the element of doubt was never going to be enough on its own. To truly cast fear, the show had to give something less subtle. Enter one of the more controversial parts of the show...
Ideas like this play on those little fears we all get, like seeing figures in the dark. This was the first time the ghost was introduced visually in the show and incase anyone had missed it, it was reinforced. Because this was a 'live broadcast', people could 'phone in', and they did. One (pre-recorded) caller told the studio that they had spotted the ghost by the curtain, and so they pulled the tape back up and reexamined it.
The conclusion simply stated that the way the light was hitting the curtain had been creating an illusion, just as it does all the time, in your own home. And there lies the first seed. The programme set the audience up into thinking that those little figures in the dark were being rationalised by a professional in the same way that we do. But as the show goes on, things get progressively out of control.
So the fear then becomes that if the initial 'shadow' by the curtain was nothing, then what is causing all of that? Subsequently, whats stopping every shape that we see in the dark of our own bedrooms from doing the same?! If a professional can be wrong, so can we!
But the element of doubt was never going to be enough on its own. To truly cast fear, the show had to give something less subtle. Enter one of the more controversial parts of the show...
This photo is one of a few that we are shown, it is the older sister from the family. The scratches are said to be the result of the ghost and as things get worse later on, we see more appear on the girls face.
The way that the show builds to this kind of thing is interesting. It becomes apparent that everything is getting progressively worse in the house as the night goes on. The mix of reality and convincing subtlety mixed with tangible evidence is gripping, but disturbing. The backstory of the ghost begins to unravel through the use of the callers to the show, and each time it does, something else gets worse.
The way that the show builds to this kind of thing is interesting. It becomes apparent that everything is getting progressively worse in the house as the night goes on. The mix of reality and convincing subtlety mixed with tangible evidence is gripping, but disturbing. The backstory of the ghost begins to unravel through the use of the callers to the show, and each time it does, something else gets worse.
There are many elements in this show which bring a chilling sense of haunted reality to life. It plays on fears that are set in your own home and purposely makes you uncomfortable. Unfortunately it did so too much, fully convincing some people that it was real and even having psychological effects. Controversy ensued from it, bringing to light amongst other things that the use of children's presenters in the program had created a false sense of security for adults and children alike, despite it being post watershed.
Even so, it is hard to deny the genius of the show. It played the ghost game on a psychological level, instead of the conventional models, such as jump scares. It forged a reality, a believable story and clever way of drawing people into that story. The suspension of disbelief model was forced across a whole nation and it worked.
In some ways, Ghostwatch is the smartest use of architecture in film I have witnessed. I say this because it took a normal home and converted it into a horror scene. It picked up on all the little things that creep us out about our homes and emphasised them. Ghostwatch managed to connect to thousands of people and use their own homes against them. The very architecture which they used to feel safe in now felt haunted. That is the true power of architecture in film, and equally so of how film can change architecture.
Even so, it is hard to deny the genius of the show. It played the ghost game on a psychological level, instead of the conventional models, such as jump scares. It forged a reality, a believable story and clever way of drawing people into that story. The suspension of disbelief model was forced across a whole nation and it worked.
In some ways, Ghostwatch is the smartest use of architecture in film I have witnessed. I say this because it took a normal home and converted it into a horror scene. It picked up on all the little things that creep us out about our homes and emphasised them. Ghostwatch managed to connect to thousands of people and use their own homes against them. The very architecture which they used to feel safe in now felt haunted. That is the true power of architecture in film, and equally so of how film can change architecture.
It is hard to know how well Ghostwatch would do among the masses now, but it definitely still possesses a chill factor. There is much I wish to emulate in my work as a result of this show. The subtlety, the realism, the unnerving sounds. It is an inspirational piece to look at and, 23 years later, is still well worth a watch.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfy9UHAIwgQ