3 Rules for Found Footage Movies

In two previous Countdown to Halloween posts, I wrote about the "found footage" sub-genre.  These movies consist of supposedly real film or video recordings that have been found, usually left behind by the missing or the dead.  I predicted that the subgenre would fade in a couple of years, popping up again when someone thinks they have a fresh approach.  In a USA Today interview yesterday, chief analyst for Exhibitor Relations, Jeff Bock, disagrees by saying, "I don't think we'll see the popularity dying off soon."

Bock probably says that because the interview is part of a promotional feature on the latest entry in the sub-genre, Paranormal Activity 4.  Despite my prediction that the subgenre won't last, I do like a good found footage movie.  But what makes a found footage movie good?  Since they're largely based on a gimmick, that gimmick can quickly wear thin if the movie doesn't offer something else.  Believable characters or interesting stories would be great; however, if the gimmick pays off with some good scares, that's sometimes enough for me.

The first rule for a found footage movie should be that it's realistic in the situation that someone would be carrying a camera and filming the scenes that it shows.  In my favorite found footage movies, this is mostly the case.  Of course, The Blair Witch Project did it best.  The narrative was not smooth, but the footage was so authentic, it didn't matter.  Nearly as good (for me) was Cloverfield.  The Paranormal Activity movies and Chronicle went one step further by including additional sources of found footage, such as multiple cameras and TV news reports.

The found footage movies I like to a lesser extent are ones from which I am pulled out of the action once or twice by the thought, "Wait a minute; why was someone filming that?" or, even worse, "Now who the heck was filming that?"  I've had this issue with Quarantine, The Last Exorcism, Troll Hunter, Apollo 18, REC 3: Genesis and V/H/S.  Filmmakers take liberties all the time, so to keep the narrative flowing, I understand why they'd push the gimmick a little.  But the minute it loses authenticity, the more I'm reminded that none of it is real.

 



The second rule for a found footage movie should be that it has a good ending.  Think about it.  If films or recordings are found from someone who disappeared or died, something horrible probably happened to that person.  That means he or she would have suddenly stopped filming.  So, to satisfy the first rule, the ending almost has to be abrupt.  But then there is the danger that it doesn't satisfy audiences that way a typical narrative might.  Therefore, it absolutely must have a fantastic ending, one that will shock without being silly.
 
That is obviously not always easy to do.  I've stuck with several found footage movies that are entirely ruined by their endings.  Paranormal Activity 3?  Really, witches?  The Last Exorcism?  I don't understand what I was watching.  And The Devil Inside?  It didn't break this rule in that it had a sudden ending completely appropriate for the story; however, it broke the rule for any type of movie, period, by being just plain stupid.

The third rule for a found footage movie should be that it adds something new to the gimmick.  There has to be a reason to use it.  For example, Paranormal Activity?  Good; ghosts (and/or demons).  Cloverfield?  Good; something different, aliens.  Diary of the Dead?  Good; something different, zombies.  Quarantine?  Not so good; zombies again.  The Last Exorcism?  Good; something different, possession.  The Devil Inside?  Not so good; possession again.

The franchise that seems to break this rule without consequence (yet) is Paranormal Activity.  Part two did so by ultimately being a prequel instead of the sequel audiences expected it would be.  It didn't really matter how it ended.  The satisfaction came from the realization that you were fooled by the entire movie.  Part three did so by going back even further and adding a previously-unknown mythology.  I didn't like the specific mythology, but it was still a fresh angle for a story that you didn't think had one left.

I'm writing this and posting on release day for the latest found footage movie, Paranormal Activity 4.  I actually have high hopes for it because the franchise has managed to add something new each time.  But has it run out of tricks?  It won't be enough to simply have apparitions appear and pots and pans fall, even if it does startle us.  We've seen that before.  It needs to follow the three rules I discussed above: be realistic in the situation, have a good ending and add something new.  The first two are probably honored, but it's the third one that worries me.

(To read my complete review of Paranormal Activity 4, please visit Downright Creepy later today.)