DO NOT STOP FILMING: In Defense of Found Footage

Horror fans are a loyal and endlessly hungry bunch, almost to a fault. We are voracious in in our consumption and ruthless in their preferences. Every fan is drawn to the genre for different reasons, but in general there are certain things we can all agree upon: practical effects trump CGI, remakes are often (not always) a waste of time, and we all love Brad Dourif and respect his decisions.

He's an artist. He can do what he wants.

But there is one aspect in recent years that at first divided horror fans, but has over time mutated into the basis for actual prejudice amongst ourselves: Found Footage.

I doubt I need to tell you what found footage is because it has been nearly inescapable for the last ten years. Despite its appropriate rise in the age of iPhones and Skype, the technique is nothing new to the horror industry: Cannibal Holocaust (1980) and The Blair Witch Project (1999) have been essential viewings in many a horror hound's education. There are few that argue with the ingenuity and sheer wonder of those films; to this day, they remain genre game changers on par with The Exorcist. Over time, the technique was used more frequently and with varying degrees of success following Blair Witch, but when Cloverfield hit theaters in 2008, and the rise-of-the-franchise Paranormal Activity following in 2009, the potential of the style exploded.

Before we realized what was happening, our video stores and Netflix queues were suddenly gorged with "shaky cam" cinema. As it's evolved, everything from GoPros to desktop livefeeds have lifted moviemaking to a new weird level of immersion. Found footage was once an occasional novelty treat, something you'd stumble upon and be pleasantly surprised by its unique approach. Since PA, we've gone from one or two movies a year to twenty, most of them straight-to-DVD. It didn't take long for everyone to get really fucking sick of it.

Any cynical fan could tell you that found footage is simply cheaper than making a "real movie," hence an upsurge of low-grade filmmakers are cashing in on a trend. This is based on the idea that found footage movies are barely movies at all; that they rarely tell a narrative, opting instead for disorienting visuals and inconsequential dialogue only to pad the runtime until the scares appear. In this view, found footage requires little to no effort on the part of the filmmakers, and instead appears to leave the movie up to whichever untrained idiot is holding the camera, and how fleetingly they can reveal their low-rent effects work. Given the sheer number of carelessly made shaky-cam movies in the last few years, it's not surprising that it has worn out its welcome.

But not with me! Ever the non-conformist, I personally love found footage. Believe me, I am a snobby cynical hipster dumpster fire on a lot of subjects, but when it comes to found footage, I remain naively optimistic. By all rights, I really shouldn't be. I get burned by it all the time simply because I watch a lot of it, and yet I still get excited when a new one pops up on my radar. Why? Why do I keep punishing myself with dizzying camerawork and wooden acting?

Here's the best I can describe the sensation. Picture it: you're on Youtube late at night, and you stumble upon a video that claims to show surveillance footage of a ghost. The video has a 16-minute time stamp, but damn if you're not curious to see that ghost. So you watch the whole thing, waiting on the edge of your seat for something, in the end only spotting a vaguely suspicious shadow in the very back corner. Disappointing, yes, but--oh, look, another link takes you to more footage to decipher. A waste of time, perhaps, but the adrenaline rush of maybe, just maybe, you'll see something you can never come back from.

You may go through a hundred of those videos and be let down time and again by doctored footage or a tuft of dust floating by the camera. Millions of tantalizing links, thousands of lackluster videos, and then...oh, then...you run across the Elisa Lam video. You can't quite explain why, but you'll leave a light on before you go to sleep tonight.

That's the effect of my ideal found footage experience, the idea of mining through hours of shit to finally emerge with a gleaming hunk of gold. What do I consider gold? Well I've broken it down into a few aspects that I particularly enjoy and actively look for in found footage specifically. These aren't necessarily rules, just bullet points that, if done correctly, can come together for a great movie.

ATMOSPHERE:
There is something that feels profoundly unsafe about watching footage that is supposedly real: home movies, security cameras, even recently with Youtube and Vine. Despite our constantly oversharing world, there are still some things that are sacred and should be kept to ourselves. The right kind of found footage gives the feeling that we shouldn't be watching them, either because they are too personal, or too bizarre. We can't tear our eyes away for fear of missing something, but we're also a little afraid of what we might see. (The best don't let you see a damn thing, except for one or two choice moments that you'll never forget.)

The nature of "documenting" something is to give whatever it is absolute legitimacy. And, by its very nature, the "found" tape will be unedited, leaving lots of open space before we get to the good stuff. This means that it might be a slow watch, but it also means that shit could hit the fan at any moment. Combine this voyeurism with the vulnerability of first-person point-of-view, and we get the delightful experience of "being there." That's the basic conceit of most found footage movies, but not all of them succeed in the same way.

For its flaws, Blair Witch Project really impressed the isolation of its characters upon its audience. Even all these years later, sitting safe and sound in my bedroom, I can still watch that movie and feel the utter helplessness of stumbling around in the woods, the vulnerability of being hunted by an unseen evil in an endless, open darkness.

Another movie that "takes you there," though not nearly as memorably, is The Houses October Built, supposedly the last known footage of an RV full of college kids who took a spooky roadtrip in search of the most extreme haunted attraction. The movie as a whole is pretty disappointing, despite it's badass trailer. Any scenes in the RV getting to know the kids are absolutely flavorless, and admittedly the action doesn't get much better even when they get to the haunts. But I have to give it praise for really simulating the experience of going through a haunted attraction: pitch darkness and heavy breathing followed by sudden loud noises and occasional bright flashes of light that may or may not briefly reveal a monster, all with a generous helping of complete disorientation and lots of screaming. I may not remember a single character's name but I do remember the claustrophobic darkness, the distinct flavor of Halloween throughout, and that one super creepy Doll Girl. Its inescapable atmosphere nearly saves the whole thing.

See you in your dreams.

CHARACTERS:
Going all the way back to where it began with Cannibal Holocaust, the trend within found footage has been to use unknown actors, often to lend the film more credibility if it's supposedly based on true events. Because of this, criticism is often brutal to the cast of a found footage movie: either they're too inexperienced to carry a film, or simply too grating for the audience to lend their sympathies. But that's not exactly fair.
 
The point of found footage is to put us in a moment, to get knee deep in an experience, but most of all we are meant to believe that it all actually happened. Unfortunately, things that actually happen are way more exciting with the benefit of things like editing and music. The reality of filming a camping trip with your friends is probably way more boring than you would hope, despite how funny and interesting all your friends probably are. We can only see as far as the camera does, so we really have to take any and everyone at face value and build from there. We don't have the luxury of flashbacks or internal monologue or whatnot, so character building is limited to what we see them do while the camera is watching (or in some unfortunate cases, out-loud exposition). We actually have to get to know them organically.

The Last Exorcism spends a great deal of its runtime familiarizing us with its cast. Rev. Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian), a longtime preacher and renowned exorcist, has commissioned a group of film students to make a documentary that will expose the practice of exorcism as a fraud. Throughout the film, he reveals his bag of tricks--everything from the power of a shallow yet fiery sermon, to rigging his crucifix to spew smoke when it is "possessed" by the demon--and not once does he come off as a charlatan. Cotton has all the charisma and sincerity of a Southern Baptist preacher, but with twice the integrity. He is candidly upfront about his beginnings as a child groomed for priesthood and eventual loss of faith. After learning about the death of a supposedly possessed autistic boy, he wants to bring down the business of exorcism so no more misdiagnosed children have to suffer at the hands of misguided religion. For all his "swindling," he's a pretty great guy.

Cotton picks a letter from his pile of requests and sets out to Louisiana to the Sweetzer farm to demonstrate his exorcism game on the allegedly possessed teenage daughter, Nell. The Sweetzers are a fascinating family. Widowed father Louis (Louis Herthum) has an intense vulnerability behind his icy eyes and set jaw, as if at any moment he could either start weeping or pull out his shotgun. Caleb (Caleb Landry Jones) is magnetic as Nell's protective brother, looming just outside of the action but constantly projecting a dark cloud over the shoot. He projects this intense hostility under a soft-spoken demeanor that is absolutely mesmerizing. Finally, sweet Nell (Ashley Bell) is an absolute angel, a sheltered girl who paints and plays the recorder, and has apparently been slaughtering farm animals at night. She looks as if she's seen terrible things, or stayed up crying many nights, but whenever she smiles, she transforms that haunted, hollow face into that of a gleeful little girl. She is truly heartbreaking to watch, especially as she regresses into a hissing, bone-cracking monster.

All the awards.

Much like found footage, we have collectively gotten over exorcism films in the last few years, and while The Last Exorcism is not perfect (the last ten minutes really go off the rails compared to its previously steady build), it is definitely a gem among its contemporaries. The use of found footage is perfectly executed as a documentary expose, which smoothly transitions to the adrenaline rush of shaky cam action. But the film lives and dies with its great characters and stellar performances. Despite brief moments of cheesiness and somewhat hamfisted motivations, the characters feel so real and compelling that we like them. We are sad to see their fates, no matter how ridiculous that ending is.

REALISM: 
When I say realism in reference to horror, I have no concrete definition. I think it really comes down to the stakes/rules of the situation, the delivery of the special effects, and the victims' reactions to both...not necessarily whether or not "it could really happen."

Found footage has the tricky task of selling the plausibility of fantastical things, whether they be ghosts, aliens or a giant monster attacking New York. But it's still a movie, so the monster can't just come out of nowhere. Reality rarely follows narrative beats, so found footage makes up for this by dispensing little warnings of what is to come before we see the monster, and the effectiveness lies in putting these warnings not only in a real-world context, but also be commonplace enough that the characters wouldn't notice them. The most realistic found footage will either take something real and spice it up to make it scary, or take something fantastical and rationalize it to fit our world. 

The Bay presents itself as a collection of confiscated footage to reveal the "true events" of one small town's Fourth of July celebration turned tragic by a sudden disease outbreak. The movie jumps between so many hands throughout its runtime, from news crews to police dash cams to iPhones to a camera found on the beach. I'd rather not give anything away, since this movie is such a perfect build-up of tension before spiraling out of control, and I would hate to ruin the ride for you. Suffice it to say that it is one of the more terrifying movies I've ever seen, all the more so because its presentation leaves you convinced it could totally, definitely happen. (Spoilers: it's this. I'm sorry.)

On the other hand, we have Troll Hunter, a delightful little gem from Norway. It works similarly to The Last Exorcism, in that a man in a fantastical line of work enlists a young film crew to record his exploits in order to reveal the truth to the world. Hans (Otto Jespersen) is employed by the government to exterminate trolls--literal fairytale trolls, lurking in the woods, hiding under bridges, eating people... the usual troll stuff. Hans is tired of his job and wants to expose the great lengths the government is going to in order to keep the country's troll problem out of the public knowledge. Over the course of the film, we get fascinating morsels of troll trivia, springboarding off storybook lore and given real-world context. They also reference several manmade points in the Norwegian landscape that appear to be bridges and power grids but are in fact secret troll deterrents. It's all very clever, yet quite cavalier about its whistle-blowing theme, not getting too bogged down in its own conspiracy that we forget we're talking about trolls here. The trolls themselves are a marvel to look at. CGI mixed with strategic lighting makes them massive, grimy beasts. Once the science(!!) behind them is introduced, they're just as fascinating as they are scary. Plus it's wicked awesome watching them get turned to stone..


RE-WATCHABILITY:
I watch movies repeatedly, some of them to an obsessive point (re American Psycho). It's a lot to ask of a movie to be fresh every time you watch it--there's only one Edgar Wright--so it is something special when a movie can still surprise you on the second, fifth, and tenth viewing. This is especially true with found footage, since the novelty factor can wear itself out rather quickly if there's nothing to back it up. The right kind of found footage can unnerve or engage you in new ways with repeated viewings, either with a flicker of movement in the background that you didn't notice before, or a foreboding line of dialogue that now has new weight. At the very least, the monster has to be so badass and compelling that you'd sit through the whole mess a dozen more times just for a few more brief glimpses of its glory (re Cloverfield).

I was thrilled when I heard M. Night Shayamalan was making a found footage film, and even more thrilled when it actually got good reviews. I'm one of the few refugees out there that still believes in M. Night, despite everything, and I was interested to see what he would do with the mockumentary technique (he's had a some experience, after all). The Visit did not disappoint.

Presented as a documentary being made by two kids hoping to reconnect with their estranged grandparents, it's unnerving, engaging, and unpredictable as hell. It's hard to describe the plot without giving too much away, but suffice it to say that Nana and Poppop are a little kooky--the question is, is it just the result of their old age, or something more sinister? When the truth is revealed, it's both a gutpunch and a punchline, horrifying one moment and helplessly funny the next. Upon second viewing, the entire movie was new again, offering plenty of subtle clues to the big reveal without ever giving itself away. It's even funnier the second time, which is really confusing for your movie-buddy if they haven't seen it before.

YAHTZEE!

So I've given plenty of examples of movies that offer the strengths of found footage and use it to its best advantage while also being enjoyable films, but is there any one movie that successfully combines all of these elements? Is there a perfect found footage film? I believe there is.

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon is, for lack of a better word, flawless. Despite its mouthful of a title and low budget, this is one of the finest slasher movies ever made. This was one of those unsuspecting video store finds that changed me forever, and to this day I'm disappointed that more people haven't heard of it. But certainly more people now have heard of it than back in 2006, and it is finally getting its due on various "hidden gem" horror articles. About fucking time!

Presented as a film school project, three students set out to interview a self-made slasher named Leslie Vernon (Nathan Baesel) and learn his process for strategically killing teenagers. In this world, guys like Michael Myers and Freddy Krueger are real, established killers and respected professionals within their field, and Leslie is emulating them while attempting to build his own unique mythology. It's a serious job with a longstanding tradition and it has to adhere to certain rules (your main girl must be a virgin, you must give your victim a way to defend herself, you must give chase but never look like you're running, etc). If Leslie can orchestrate his big debut to perfection, he will be an established slasher villain.

What follows is a lighthearted meta-fiction mockumentary that both satirizes and enlightens nearly every aspect of your typical slasher film. If you're thinking that sounds like Scream all over again, shut up because no it's not. Leslie reveals the many moving pieces within his plan, as well as their psychological impact. He attaches industry terms (red herring, survivor girl, Ahab, etc) to familiar tropes and reveals aspects of elements we have perhaps only noticed in our subconscious. This movie introduced me to the concept of phallic and yonic imagery. It goes that deep. Jamie Kennedy couldn't spew this shit.

So, you can already see I'm a fan of the movie, but does it hold up to my self-imposed criteria?

Atmosphere: Portland, Oregon stands in for the sleepy town of Glen Echo and this is one of those perfect movie towns with woods all around and an ever-present chill in the air. It's a town that you can see going all-out for Halloween. It's constantly overcast and foggy, but the rich greens and reds everywhere lend so much color to the landscape. The place feels familiar and unthreatening, even though we're on the road with an aspiring murderer. Even hanging out and talking murder shop with Leslie's mentor, a retired slasher named Eugene (Scott Wilson), feels like sharing a few beers with your favorite uncle. There's a persistent friendliness to the whole movie, allowing the audience to really let their guard down and get to know Leslie and what he's about. However, when the twist appears, it turns the whole tone of the movie on its head and changes into something far more menacing, and just as effective.

Characters: It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that I love Leslie. How can you not? He's funny, smart, intuitive and full of surprises, plus he really loves his job. He approaches his work with great seriousness without losing his humor, but when he's on the job, he is stone cold focused. It's a pretty chilling turnaround.

Meanwhile, our film crew consists of reporter and face of the project Taylor (Angela Goethals) and two largely unseen guys, Doug and Todd. Taylor is pretty ballsy for doing this project at all, let alone being the one who has to interview the self-proclaimed killer. Despite her obvious nervousness going in, she proves herself to be totally professional and capable, keeping a cool head even when Leslie is preaching his demented philosophy. She never once resorts to the usual tropes of the defenseless girl in the slasher movie (I don't even think you hear her scream) but we can still sense her incredible vulnerability.  I can't get too deep into how great Taylor actually is without spoiling anything, but I think she'll be remembered as one of the more human slasher heroes in years to come.

Also, Robert Englund!

Realism: As soon as you accept the idea that familiar horror movie villains walk among us, everything else is pretty easy to swallow.

Re-watchability: I've watched this movie countless times, and it hasn't lost a single shred of its charm for me. It's endlessly interesting to examine and dissect movies through other movies, especially when such a great character is guiding you through the whole journey. The rules within the slasher agenda are clearly stated with acknowledgement of old tropes and also connects them to literary tradition and psychology. Plus it's fraught with references to its successors. It's a literature student/horror hound's wet dream!

If there can be a perfect found footage film, or a perfect horror film for that matter, my money is on Leslie.

Who could resist this face?

So! That is my long-winded defense in this court of public opinion. I doubt found footage really needs my help, since the industry seems to be chugging along just fine regardless of anyone's feelings about it. Sure, there's plenty of low-budget shaky-cam crap out there, but there is plenty of beautifully-filmed, tightly-written, professionally-acted crap out there too. That shouldn't necessarily give cause to write off an entire area of film just because some are pretty bad. Think where the horror genre would be if there weren't some brave souls out there willing to mine for diamonds.