Nigh Journal

Friday, May 21st, 2010

What’s next for ‘Found Footage’ Movies?

Attending a double-bill of Spanish horrors [REC] and [REC]2 last night, three hours of ’shaky-cam’ can’t help but make me think about the pros and cons of the ‘found footage’ genre. Following two fire-men on a routine call, a two-person news crew quickly find themselves quarantined in an apartment building with the bewildered and increasingly bitey tennants. And it works. Mostly.

But is there anywhere left for this genre to go? By denying themselves numerous film-making techniques by making the cameraperson a character, are film-makers actually forced to be more creative in telling their stories? For horror, I find that the lack of classically-centered shots or cooky angles sign-posting a scary bit actually made films like [REC] or Blair Witch far scarier. I didn’t know when or where some beastie might spring out and clever sound design means I’m always worried the monster is actually behind the camera/’me’.

And while none of the films so far have convinced me 100% that the characters would keep filming, I’ve been very impressed by smart techniques such as the events of Cloverfield’s monster invasion being taped over a previous perfect day of its two leads, effectively providing us with flashbacks and character context. 

But while Cloverfield, [REC] and its ilk provide exhilarating, rollercoaster/ghost train-style experiences, possibly the biggest criticism against this style of movie is in their characterisation. Personally, I thought Blair Witch’s Heather was a really interesting lead. Not overly-likeable and certainly not rich in backstory, but was that important? These movies allow opportunity to really see characterisation through action. In Heather’s case, her almost-dismissive attitude when interviewing the locals in Blair Witch’s opening salvo not only told us what we needed but also snuck in the set-up for the film’s climax as well as Heather’s final monologue to camera.

Similarly, a lot of flak is also aimed at Cloverfield’s mostly-white, middle-class, ‘priviliged’ core characters. I don’t think the makers did this accidentally. A group of people who don’t think the warnings to evacuate the city apply to them and a party who instantly produce their mobile phone cameras rather than taking in the horror around them is as central to the film as the monster. In my opinion, whilst subtle, the 9-11 imagery wasn’t restricted to the destruction of buildings.

But where do we go from here? To some extent the recent trailer for JJ Abrams and Steven Spielberg’s SUPER 8 makes me feel that their film will prove whether this sub-genre will either continue to be innovative or just repetitive. 

What interests me is that a number of these films offer an ‘expanded experience’ online, with the film itself just being one aspect of a bigger story world. But that shouldn’t excuse films from being stand-alone entertainment. With fears of surveillance, increased technology and self-publishing online, if anything, these films are very much ‘of their time’. Great thrill-rides while you’re in the cinema but then you’re done with them. But isn’t that a lot of ‘normal’ films these days too?

But why only horror in this style so far? I honestly think there’s an innovative rom-com to be had in this genre. Has the ‘handheld’ movie run its course? Was it a blip to begin with? Or is this just the beginning?