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.)

The Current State of Horror: The 2010s

"We have a lot of reason to be fearful in the world," Frank Farley, Temple University

One of the common theories used to explain the horror paradox is that people watch horror movies as a way of coping with actual fears or violence. Since one source of our fears in undoubtedly the world in which we live, I thought it would be interesting to look at the popular horror movies of different decades to see how they reflect the general fears and uncertainties of the times.

The 2010s

Before we predict horror trends for the rest of the decade, let's look at what we have so far.  The first three years of the 2010s have given us... more of the same.  We've already seen 17 sequels, 11 remakes, 9 torture porn/over-the-top blood and gore movies and 5 found footage movies.  But which of these have been successful?  That is likely the determining factor for whether these trends will continue rising or will being tapering off.

Sequels are never going to go away; they've been with us since the 1930s, the decade with which I started this series of posts.  Just as one franchise dies down (Saw 3D, Hostel: Part III), another gears up (The Human Centipede 2, Paranormal Activity 4), an old one is revived (Scream 4, Prometheus) or a standard keeps plugging along (Underworld: Awakening, Resident Evil: Afterlife).  I expect the life cycle of sequels to continue in perpetuity.

You can't keep a mediocre franchise down:  Underworld: Awakening, Resident Evil: Afterlife, Paranormal Activity 4.

Remakes will probably always be with us, as well; however, I expect the number to decrease.  The 2000s brought remakes of most of the big horror franchises of previous decades, so what we've gotten in the 2010s are remakes of lesser-classics (Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, Piranha 3D, I Spit on Your Grave, Fright Night and The Crazies) and remakes of foreign movies (Let Me In and Silent House).  As if they were at the bottom of the remake popularity list, the remakes of remaining big-name classics (A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Wolfman, The Thing and Dark Shadows) have fizzled at the box office.

Torture porn seems to be going the route of the over-the-top blood and gore movies of the 80s.  The late-2000s and early-2010s saw a couple of serious attempts (Bereavement and The Woman), but then became more outrageous (Saw 3D, Hostel: Part III and The Human Centipede).  What was touted as realism a decade ago is once again turning into humorous gross-out.  I expect (hope) that the subgenre will completely disappear by the end of the decade.

The end of torture porn?  Saw 3D, Hostel Part III and The Human Centipede 2.

Just as audiences seem to be tiring of found footage movies, another one appears.  The thing is, although some of the concepts are repeated, every once in a while there is still one that seems fresh.  (The phenomenon has also spread to other genres, such as the Oscar-buzz-worthy End of Watch.)  In my opinion, the tired ideas came from movies like Paranormal Activity 4, but found interesting approaches in The Chernobyl Diaries, Apollo 18 and V/H/S.  One was even interesting (The Last Exorcism) then turned tired a few months later (The Devil Inside).  This subgenre will likely fade by the middle of the decade, but pop up again every couple of years.

What are the monsters of the 2010s likely to be?  Right now, they are ghosts and zombies.  And they're not only going strong in movies (Ghosts:  Paranormal Activity, The Innkeepers and The Woman in Black; Zombies:  The Crazies, Resident Evil and REC), but now also on TV (Ghosts: American Horror Story; Zombies: The Walking Dead).  Vampires seem to be waning in movies (Let Me In and Fright Night) and on TV as two popular series are getting a little (pun intended) long in the tooth (The Vampire Diaries and True Blood).

Horror on the small screen: American Horror Story, The Walking Dead and True Blood.

There will always be representation of the other monsters, but I think two new types will emerge in the 2010s.  The first is the "ethnic monster".  In The Possession, Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Kyra Sedgwick battled a spirit from Jewish mysticism.  To my knowledge, this was the first specifically Jewish monster since The Golem, many decades ago.  The second is even more obscure and I don't know what to name it yet.  Both Insidious and Sinister dealt with very obscure horror legends, as well as offered one word adjectives as their titles.  I expect other corners of the horror universe to be explored in coming years as one of the only sources of original ideas in horror.

How about monsters behind the scenes, the horror creators?  Who are going to be the John Carpenters, Stephen Kings, Ridley Scotts and Wes Cravens of the 2010s?  I don't believe they will be John Carpenter (The Ward), Stephen King (Bag of Bones), Ridley Scott (Prometheus) or Wes Craven (My Soul to Take).  It's time to tout some new candidates, perhaps Adam Green (Frozen and Hatchet), Paco Plaza (REC) or Ti West (The Innkeepers, V/H/S).  More mainstream, it may also be someone from the JJ Abrams graduating class, Drew Goddard (The Cabin in the Woods) or Matt Reeves (Let Me In).  Regardless of who steps up, I expect a name to watch will be Gareth Edwards who gave us 2010s Monsters and is helming the next big-screen reboot of Godzilla.

The future of horror?  Ti West's The Innkeepers and Gareth Edwards's Monsters and Godzilla.

There are two final trends I've failed to mention in any of my Countdown to Halloween posts.  I wish I didn't have to, but there's no doubt that both teen fiction and 3D have influenced horror in the last several years.  Love it or hate it, the Twilight saga was a phenomenon.  While it's thankfully concluding this year, there is already talk of a reboot (may I suggest using actors this time around?) and I have no doubt studios are frantically searching for a new franchise for the demographic.

And, love it or hate it, 3D seems here to stay.  I personally believe it's a largely unnecessary means for Hollywood to raise prices and enjoy higher profits.  3D rarely adds anything special to a movie unless it's used to make things jump off the screen at you.  Yet so many are converted to 3D that don't even take advantage of the effect.  I've said before, my favorite 3D movie of the modern generation was one of the first: 2009's My Bloody Valentine.  3D was used just the way it should be, as scary, silly fun.

What have we learned in our two-week study of the horror films of individual decades?  Patterns emerged, cycles repeated, yet the genre evolved.  But as much as things change, they really stay the same.  Does it paint a bigger picture when you look at nine decades at the same time?  That's one last angle left to explore...

What we're afraid of (so far) in the 2010s:

Global financial crisis
Arab spring
Unemployment
Constitutionality of same-sex marriage
Health care reform
Presidential election

Milestones of the 2010s (so far):

2010.  BP's Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig exploded off the coast of Louisiana.
2011.  U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords shot at a supermarket near Tuscon.
2011.  Osama bin Laden located and killed.
2011.  Hundreds of protestors occupied Wall Street.

The Decade in Horror: The 2000s

"We have a lot of reason to be fearful in the world," Frank Farley, Temple University

One of the common theories used to explain the horror paradox is that people watch horror movies as a way of coping with actual fears or violence. Since one source of our fears in undoubtedly the world in which we live, I thought it would be interesting to look at the popular horror movies of different decades to see how they reflect the general fears and uncertainties of the times.

The 2000s

Horror in the 2000s began in the same dismal state in which it ended in the 1990s.  Then, on September 11, 2001, filmmakers had to take momentary pause to reconsider what was acceptable in the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.  I say momentary because, by 2005, horror movies were more plentiful than ever.  Many weeks, horror movies topped the box office charts as audiences were hungry for escape, just as they were in the post-Depression/pre-World War II 1940s.

And the home video market exploded once again as DVDs replaced VHS as the standard and digital technology became popular with filmmakers.  Almost anyone could now make a movie and release it straight-to-DVD.  For me, the difference was that, unlike many straight-to-VHS releases in the 80s and 90s, some of their DVD counterparts were actually good movies that I'd seek out on Tuesday new release days.

While blood and gore in the 80s was excessive and, at times, comical, the "torture porn" movies of the 00s were extremely realistic.  Influenced in part by the global War on Terror and controversy at Guantanmo Bay, movies like Saw, Hostel, The Devil's Rejects and Captivity were not necessarily innovative, but did share something most 80s gorefests didn't: they had mainstream distribution. Further influenced by ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, horror movies like 28 Days Later and Dog Soldiers featured a military presence.

The new realism of horror in the 2000s:  Hostel, 28 Days Later, Dog Soldiers and Saw.

Because of their new point of view, the torture porn movies seemed more original than most of what came out of the 90s.  But we also looked to Asia for fresh ideas, not only with their movies, but with our attempts to remake them.  Dark Water, The Eye, The Ring, The Grudge, One Missed Call, Pulse and Shutter all had foreign versions (and sequels) as well as American remakes (and sequels).  The problem was that, in most cases, "J-Horror" was more about style than making sense, so they were not as effective when remade for a different audience.

J-Horror classics and their American remakes:  The Eye and The Ring.

The other horror subgenre of the 00s that kicked off in 1999 with the release of the unbelievably successful The Blair Witch Project was that of the "found footage" film.  These movies consisted of supposedly real film or video recordings that were found, usually left behind by the missing or the dead.  What might seem like a passing fancy, found footage films showed no signs of ending at any time during the 00s and included movies like REC, Cloverfield, Diary of the Dead, Quarantine and the powerhouse franchise that keeps the subgenre going, Paranormal Activity.

Found footage movies of the 00s:  Quarantine, Paranormal Activity and Cloverfield.

Nearly a subgenre in itself, the 00s also gave us a lot of remakes of horror movies from previous decades.  Victims of modernization included true classics like Thirteen Ghosts, House of Wax and The Last Man on Earth (I Am Legend), as well as more recent classics like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dawn of the Dead, The Amityville Horror, The Hills Have Eyes, Halloween and Friday the 13th, to name (sadly) only a few.  Most of the time, the purpose of these remakes was questionable; however, several of them did stand on their own as legitimate horror entries.  It's a topic of debate and one that I write about frequently in my column on Downright Creepy called Remake Rewind.

I'm not convinced that the horror movies of the 2000s were truly original, but they were certainly being told in an original way.  Not only did the realism of torture porn, the Asian influence of J-Horror, the shaky handheld images of found footage and the new interpretations of horror classics seem somewhat fresh in the decade, but CGI (computer generated imagery) became widespread, making movies look physically different, whether you liked that development in technology or not.  That almost brings us to today.  Are there any new subgenres brewing?  Are we repeating any cycles?  Who or what are the monsters of the 2010s?  Check back tomorrow to find out...

Other 2000s milestones:

2000.  George W. Bush won a hotly contested election for President of the United States.
2003.  The United States ends the regime of Sadaam Hussein in Iraq.
2004.  The strongest earthquake in 40 years hits Southeast Asia, resulting in tsunami.
2005.  Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.
2006.  North Korea successfully performs nuclear test.  (Also in 2009.)
2008.  Barack Obama won election for President of the United States.
2009.  The H1N1 pandemic is declared a national emergency.

Sources:

Horror Film History: Horror Films in the 2000s