Patrick Brailard’s (A&D) notes on Icons

[pumpkinbot343]

History Lesson- Themes and Icons

It is ironic that during the “early days” of HHN, the event did not prescribe itself with the authenticity to licensors that it now does. It was quite possible during the first years of the event to be attacked by near identical replicas to very well known figures/villains within the horror genre with little regard to licensing. „Chainsaw Maniac‟ (Leatherface from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) and „Hockey Face Killer‟ (Jason Vorhees from the famed Friday the 13th saga) both made appearances before the shift towards collaboration and adherence began.

I can only speculate as to the legal reasons behind this change in the event‟s approach. In fact, one of the major reasons that the event has transitioned to such a stringent adherence to the authentic application of intellectual properties may have less to do, however, with the legal challenges that the event may face. This change may actually have more to do with the need for the event to be as viscerally connected to story, character, and most importantly an over-riding theme that can be told to the participants in order to grow beyond what is found in other, more common haunts.

Initially, out of context, all of the figures/villains from the various horror films that were used during these years are/were scary. Put together in a random pastiche of characters and they became a force against the guests. But for how long could this impact be expected to continue before the guests became bored with the same characters year in and year out? Without a story-line to directly relate the backgrounds of all of the various characters that the guests are encountering in the immediate area, how are the characters able to retain their strength of purpose? If nothing binds them together or establishes why their presence matters to the participants, how long will the participants be expected to remain

terrified.
 

This formulaic approach to placing the same (albeit well known to horror fans) characters in the event does not allow for the event to grow. The participants to this event demanded more, and eventually they got what they wanted. Original content pieces began to appear. Single story-line driven thematics were established. Overall themes to the event became the norm.
 

And then, the Icons arrived. 
In 2000, for the tenth anniversary of the event, the most memorable single character in Horror Nights‟ long history was created to unify the event. Jack Schmidt; a child-killing circus clown who, with a detailed backstory was taking over the event and using the entertainment options inside of it as his personal playthings. (horrornightnightmares.com) Instead of the guests coming to enjoy the celebration of Halloween with walking through a couple of mazes, this was something brand new that hadn‟t been seen before. Jack took control and unified the event. The guests were no longer simply guests, they were simultaneously a participant and a victim. The guests were going to pay a price for coming to the event. Jack threatened their safety. Jack established a social contract with the guests- That their attendance to the event justified him doing anything to the guests that he wanted. This social contract is established with the purchase of a ticket.

 

Unlike traditional theatre, however, Visceral theatre's social contract must enlist the audience/participant into the ranks of the performers and collaborators If the event is to reach its full potential and impact.
 

Jack‟s creation changed the entire path of the event. Jack was the first Icon. The first character developed that had enough strength via marketing and resonance through appearance to impact the entire event. Jack was the catalyst for most, if not all of the Icons that would follow from this anniversary through 2010. Within this ten year time period other Icons would follow, yet none would attain the status of this first monster. This character also re-defined what it meant to attend the event as a participant. Jack, a seemingly harmless, centuries old archetype that should not be scary in the least became a terrifying idea unto himself.

 

The Icon serves as just that, an Icon. A visual, auditory, (and marketing depending on the character involved) foothold that any participant upon their arrival to the event will be able to quickly digest and understand what it is they should fear. A single focal point that the entire event could be developed from. The thematics across the entire event do not need to line up perfectly with the Icon in order for it to be cohesive nor does the Icon need to register fear-wise with all attendees. An Icon is developed to cast a wide net viscerally, and create an environment that fosters a heightened experience for the participant, not be everything to everyone.

Extracted from here: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5649&context=etd

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by pumpkinbot343
Fixed some errors