The Blair Witch Project (1999) is the most likely starting point for the “found footage” sub-genre of horror. If you want to nit-pick, the first film to use the found footage concept was the Italian sleazefest Cannibal Holocaust (1980). But the film never pretended that the found footage (filmed by a “lost” documentary crew) was real in our world. Instead, the documentary footage was contained within a narrative that was clearly fictional. The Blair Witch Project, on the other hand, never stopped pretending. Even the marketing campaign (which included a fake documentary on the “legend” of the Blair Witch) passed the film off as real footage of the filmmakers’ last days.
Since Blair Witch there’s been a steady trickle of these films. They are not a new genre so much as a hybrid genre that steals ideas from older horror movies, and combines them with the conceit that the film depicts real events, or at least that the film was produced by individuals who are actually present within the story (usually amateur filmmakers). This means poor lighting, shaky camera-work, and unknown actors who can pass as normal people. But the films still contain the tropes that moviegoers expect from mainstream horror. After The Blair Witch Project (killer in the woods genre) came [REC] and its inferior American remake Quarantine (pseudo-zombie genre), Diary of the Dead (zombie apocalypse genre), Cloverfield (giant monster genre), Apollo 18 (alien genre), and Paranormal Activity (haunted house genre).
But how real is found footage? If I were being stalked by a ghost/slasher/zombie/serial killer/tropical cannibal, the last thing I would do is record my demise for posterity. No offense to my tiny audience, but I don’t give a flying fuck about entertaining you in my final moments. And who in their right mind would waste time recording the ghost or giant monster that’s trying to kill them (as well as the touching romantic sub-plot during the lulls in the violence)? The common defense of the genre is that we live in the Youtube and cellphone camera age, and the genre simply reflects the fact that we are saturated with amateur video. But amateur footage of protests, crimes, terrorist attacks, etc. tends to be brief, incompetently filmed, and rarely has anything resembling likable characters or a plot. In other words, actual amateur video bares no resemblance to the professionally crafted narratives that lurk underneath the “found footage” concept. And there’s the little fact that it’s impossible to record video of ghosts, zombies, or giant monsters because those creatures don’t exist.
And yet audiences eat this shit up, and I’m right there with them. My favorite set of films in the genre is the Paranormal Activity franchise. The first Paranormal Activity is not particularly innovative. It’s cut from the exact same cloth as a thousand other haunted house movies, and it’s at least as campy as anything starring Vincent Price. But I found it scarier and far more entertaining than The Haunting, Amityville Horror, The Others, or any other haunted house movie that exists in a fictional universe. Paranormal Activity 3 is the perfect example of the genre. The entire premise is ridiculous: a demon is terrorizing a family in 1988, and the dad just happens to be an audio/video expert who rigs his house with video cameras and always walks around with a massive camcorder. The film is unabashedly cheesy, and even includes the old ghost-under-the-sheet gag. But it’s great! The simple plot sucks you in and the old-fashioned scares still work. The viewer quickly forgives the implausibility of a man walking around with a camcorder all the time, because how else would there even be a movie?
It’s not the phony realism that matters, but how that realism connects the audience with a familiar narrative. To put it another way, found footage works not because we belong to the Youtube generation, but because we belong to the Real World generation (youngsters can replace Real World with Survivor or Real Housewives of Who Cares or whatever reality TV series floats your boat). So-called reality TV is quite fake. Real people are encouraged to behave in unnatural ways for the sake of our entertainment. They are less inhibited, more reckless, and generally stupider when in front of the camera. Then a team of professional editors and writers crafts an artificial narrative from countless hours of random shit caught on tape. Through this process reality TV creates the ultimate illusion – that normal people are actually interesting to watch. Normal people can have exciting singing careers, or scheme to win a million dollars, or have lives filled with catfights, hot tub sex, and soap opera drama.
The found footage genre works in much the same way. The pretense that the film is real isn’t so much about fooling people but in bringing the audience further into familiar narratives that they love. The shaky camera and unknown actors create an illusion of reality. Scary and exciting things don’t just happen to movie stars. They can happen to normal people, just like you or me! But this illusion of reality is plastered over a conventional genre film. So the scares are structured in a narrative format that we instantly recognized and appreciate. In movies and in “real life,” a ghost wouldn’t reveal itself right away, but would instead spends several days doing little things to build up the suspense. It would be a disappointment if the “real” haunted house experience lacked the requisite tension and cheap thrills. After all, what’s the point of being haunted by a demon if he doesn’t even do it right?
I really liked the footage in the first P-A of the protagonist just standing, “asleep”, at the end of the bed, for long periods of time. It creeped me out far more than anything else in the film, probably precisely because there’s nothing supernatural about it. Sleep-walking etc. is creepy; sleep-talking in particular.
In the “real world” the PA footage would have been dubbed by some wag with, I don’t know, the theme music for that My Little Pony Friendship thing, and gone massively “viral”.
I never really found sleep-walking creepy, though I’ve never actually known a sleepwalker in real life. But someone standing next to my bed and watching me sleep is a very creepy thought.
What I find especially fascinating about sleepwalking is how in some cases, people who didn’t know how to drive when awake, “sleepdrove” somewhere, woke up, and then had to call for someone to drive them home!
Don’t find sleepwalking creepy? Read on…
—————————-
…Most recorded cases of sleepwalking chronicle the subject as having performed routine actions such as simply walking around, going to the bathroom, doing chores around the house, and eating. Some sleepwalkers may perform odd actions that they would not normally do while awake, such as climb out of windows, run around shouting, urinate in odd places and rearrange furniture. Very rare cases have seen sleepwalkers drive cars, have sexual intercourse with strangers and even commit murder, for which the sleepwalker in question was acquitted of the charges due to his state.
Sleepwalkers eyes are usually open, with a glassy look to them, which can be discomforting to someone witnessing their actions. It is extremely difficult to wake sleepwalkers from their state, and has been advised against, as it could cause the sleepwalker to irrationally and unconsciously lash out at the person attempting to wake them.
—————————-
http://www.sleepassociation.org/index.php?p=sleepwalking
—————————-
Homicidal sleepwalking, also known as homicidal somnambulism or sleepwalking murder (this is not a correct term, sleepwalking and murder being mutually exclusive in the law), is the act of killing someone during an episode of sleepwalking. Occasionally, sleepwalkers kill people, usually a family member, during their sleepwalking act. There have been several rare cases in which an alleged act of homicide has occurred, and the prime suspect may have committed the act while sleepwalking. About 68 cases to date have been known…
—————————–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicidal_sleepwalking
I really like the connection between found footage and reality television. That’s a good call.
Mike – I think my brother can sleep drive. Or at least he has a bad habit of driving while half-asleep.
Noah – thanks. I used to watch way too much reality TV in college. I think I’m burned out on the genre, but I’m familiar with the tropes.
The heck with the fake movie stuff.
My wife and I spent a couple of nights in a haunted castle in Scotland for our 25th wedding anniversary (Castle Stuart — Google it). Since we were there during the off season, we were the only occupants during our stay, and, since the castle staff went home at night, in the evening, we were the only occupants, period. And because it was off-season, we got our pick of the place and opted to stay in the three-turreted bedroom in the East Tower, which is supposed to be the most haunted part of the castle.
But, while it was creepy and the whole experience was cool beyond words, I saw no headless ghosts, no apparitions and heard no unearthly sounds.
There was only one point during our stay where I had a WTF moment. It was around midnight in the main bedroom on the first night. My wife was asleep and I was watching BBC. Suddenly, the gas fireplace started to sputter loudly and flicker, and then the flame went out. For about two seconds I was, shall we say, alarmed. Then I realized the fireplace was on a timer — not uncommon in the UK.
Needless to say, it still took me a little while to fall asleep after that, and that’s why, I suppose, stuff like “Blair Witch” is so successful. You never really see anything, but just the thought of something being there gets your adreneline going.
“But someone standing next to my bed and watching me sleep is a very creepy thought”
Isn’t there a thing in Twilight where the vampire boy is all like “oh yeah, I’ve totally been watching you in your sleep. but it’s for your uh protection; we’re cool”? I watched the first movie a while back…
Yep. The stalker elements are why a lot of people really dislike Twilight.
Russ – that is a very cool way to spend an anniversary.
Jones – I’m fairly sure that stalking is acceptable if the stalker is cute and dreamy.
The thing that sort of mitigates it for me in twilight is that the stalking is not exactly acceptable. She eventually pushes back at his weird efforts to control her, and he has to back off.
But yes, his being cute and dreamy is definitely supposed to make it less creepy as well….
Richard — Yeah. I wanted to do something special for our 25th, and since my wife likes scary movies (like “Paramormal Activity” and “Blair Witch Project” — which I only saw because she wanted to see it), I figured staying in a haunted hotel or somesuch would be cool. After some Googling I found Castle Stuart, and everything fell into place. I was stationed in the UK from 1979-1982, and one of our vacations back then entailed driving up the east side of England to Scotland, then down the lochs to Glasgow, and back to our starting point in Suffolk. We sort of re-created that vacation for our 25th anniversary, except our starting point was London, and while we drove up to Scotland as before, we took the train back.
But, yeah. How many people can say they spent a couple of nights in a haunted castle?
Russ – the haunted castle reminds me of an old show on MTV called “Fear.” It was a reality TV series where they’d gather some college kids and have them wander around a “haunted” location with a video camera. Basically, it was as always an abandoned building with lots of debris and rodents, and the kids they chose were very gullible.
It was almost a fusion of reality TV and “found footage” horror. It was very amusing, but didn’t last more than a season.
If you watch the paranormal TV shows, the formula is pretty much the same. Lots of build-up; Lots of filming in the dark (with or without the grainy green night vision goggle imagery); lots of “What was that sound??? Did you hear it???”; and lots of fearful banter (punctuated with occasions gasps or screams) while going from one part of the allegedly haunted area to another.
Bottom line? Never any concrete ghost images or clear ghost audio.
Me, I wanna see the no foolin’ real deal. Otherwise, it’s just all theatrics.
Speaking of haunted places, I’m 0-for-2 in that department.
Not only did I see no ghosts at Castle Stuart, I also saw no ghosts while twice exploring “the most haunted place in the USA” (according the folks running the place): Fort Mifflin, Philadelphia.
But, while I saw no ghosts there, I highly recommend a visit to the fort if any of you are near the Philly airport and have a few hours to kill. This Revolutionary War fort is literally right next to the airport, but off the beaten path, so it is not crowded. The setting is peaceful and serene, and it was fun exploring the darkened tunnels and passageways, powder storage bunkers, ramparts, and other structures. Admission is something like five bucks, as I recall.