Horror is a genre that, as a whole, doesn't get a lot of respect. That seems a little unfair when you consider that the misses in that genre probably aren't significantly greater than the misses in any genre. Maybe the disdain has to do with the fact that slasher films have frequently been less highbrow and less polished efforts, while the respectable successes always get gerrymandered into more highbrow categories. Thus, we get the notion that PSYCHO isn't a horror film, it's a "Hitchcockian thriller." SILENCE OF THE LAMBS isn't a horror film, it's a "psychological thriller."
The success of DON'T BREATHE this past weekend should be a reminder of all the virtues of this much maligned genre. Here, in the waning dog days of summer, a new film opened up with $26.1 million. According to Box Office Mojo, that's up 43.5% from the same weekend last year. That fact alone would probably be reason to celebrate, but it gets even better. It was made for less than $10 million, which means it has a FAR shorter road to travel before its in the black and starts making money. And guess what? All of this was achieved with any big name stars.
That's the thing about horror - it's perhaps the one genre left where it's understood the concept is king. The box office proves that audiences don't need that extra nudge to go see something that looks interesting to them. I've always felt that same philosophy was transferable to other genres, but there remains this conviction that a project needs "marketable" names to earn a green light. (And if any of you have ever dealt with foreign financing, you understand how insane it can often be to try to put together a cast that the money men deem worth their investment.)
When I was still working as a reader, horror was probably one of the more frequent genres I read. Sadly, it was probably also the genre where I detected the most laziness on the part of the writers. Too many were seemingly satisfied with being generic. Perhaps it's that old snobbery at work again, it's "just" horror, so why work to make it good, right? Since DON'T BREATHE is likely to provoke another wave of horror writers, I want to pontificate about what I think makes a great horror film.
I took a look at many of the horror releases of the past several years and when you see the profit margin on the low-budget entries, it might inspire you to see how strong your affinity is for that genre. Blumhouse's success with PARANORMAL ACTIVITY has been talked to death at this point. Of the six films in the series, five of them were made for less than $5 million, and until the penultimate release, THE MARKED ONES, worldwide gross was always well over $100 million. Then again, the final film cost $10 million to make and it only made $18 domestically. ($59 million was taken in overseas.)
When you look at the PA numbers, you can see the first dip happened with PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 4, which is probably not coincidentally the first film in the series where the story really seemed to be treading water. The lack of payoff likely discouraged attendance at the next entry, and by the time the final film rolled around most viewers who had cared were long gone.
Blumhouse's other franchise THE PURGE seems to be holding strong. The first film grossed $64.5 million domestically and each sequel's domestic take has risen. The films keep getting gradually more expensive, but both sequels have taken in over $100 million worldwide. I didn't like the original film at all, but something about this hook really seems to appeal to people.
The INSIDIOUS films are also a huge success with regard to
the budget to box office ratio. The first one cost $1.5 million and
earned $97 million, and it's the lowest grossing of the three.
Lesson: in a franchise, keep finding new angles within the framework of the concept. Making a horror film cheap isn't enough; having an inventive story and scares matters.
So what kind of horror story do you want to tell? My own interests lean more towards the Hitchcockian end of the spectrum. I like character-driven horror stories. For me, it's always more unsettling when the evil is relatable to something in the real world. This is part of the reason that THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT was so effective - getting lost in the woods felt like something any of us could have done and the lack of any on-screen visual effects meant that viewers weren't immediately triggered to feel, "Okay, that's clearly fake so I'm now very aware I'm watching a construct.
Great horror stories start with primal emotions and fears. LIGHTS OUT had a supernatural killer, but the film cleverly reveals that her power is that she is strong in darkness and is invisible in the light. She might not be able to hurt you in the light, but you can't stay out of the dark forever. And when that moment comes, she's ready to kill you. It's a smart primal fear to build off of because studies show that fear of darkness is an evolutionary trait, not a learned one. On a visceral, gut level, the average person is likely incapable of NOT being triggered by this film.
A NIGHTMARE OF ELM STREET uses a variation of this, giving the killer power in his victim's nightmares. Everyone has nightmares and surely there are few people who haven't woken from a terrifying dream at some point. Those emotions are what makes Freddy Krueger such an effective bad guy. It also makes for a strong thematic through-line to hang a feature on. This will have to be a story about the heroine confronting her worst fears and surviving.
You can't neglect theme in horror films. Like the primal fears, these will be the elements that resonate with your audience on more than just a superficial way. LIGHTS OUT plays as an allegory for depression, and perhaps specifically trying to deal with a loved one who suffers from it. Any idiot can write a monster leaping out of the darkness and get a momentary scare from the audience. The REAL scare you want is the kind that lingers for days, that becomes a dull buzz in the viewers head even long after the end credits have rolled. You'll find these factors present in both supernatural and non-supernatural films, so no matter the horror subgenre you're working in, you want to be thinking about these questions.
Lesson: Theme matters, so have one. (And it should probably be in your mind as you're breaking the story, not tacked on after everything else is figured out.)
Let's take a look at some recent horror films that were either standalones, or the first in their series:
Supernatural horror
Insidious - $97M worldwide on a $3 million budget.
Sinister - $77M worldwide on a $3 million budget.
Lights Out - $126M worldwide on a $4.9 million budget.
Ouija - $103.5M worldwide on a $5 million budget.
Unfriended - $64M worldwide on a $1 million budget.
For me, Unfriended is the one of the bunch I wish I wrote because it had the most inventive high concept premise (the entire film is told via laptop screen, through Skype calls and chatrooms.) It's a much smaller story than the others, but it understands how to use its limitations to reveal things about the characters. That said, Sinister's pitch-dark ending is the rare horror finale that really, deeply chilled me. It absolutely earns that visceral punch from everything building up to it.
Non-Supernatural Horror
The Purge - $89M worldwide on a $3 million budget.
The Gift - $58.9M worldwide on a $5 million budget.
The Visit - $98.5M worldwide on a $5 million budget.
THE PURGE goes for a less repeatable concept and casts itself in the near future, where the laws have established The Purge, a yearly free-for-all where all laws are suspended and anything goes, including murder. I didn't particularly like this film, nor did I find the premise credible at all. However, that same hook is what drew people into the theaters, wondering, "How will they pull this off?"
Lesson: Sometimes audiences will go for something wildly original even if it's implausible.
THE VISIT, however, is far better at drawing on real-world fears. There are themes of aging and dementia, even invoking our pity for the elder folks and seemingly kindly grandparents, who seem to be succumbing to senility. Seeing that visited upon adults can be very hard on children, though by this point, it's likely a part of most childhoods. There's a twist near the end that's inventive, but might be too clever for its own good. It's something of a knife to the gut, but it's also the point where the film trades any poignant identification for visceral thrills. To be honest, sometimes that can work. It's like when Spielberg was told that blowing up the shark in JAWS was a ludicrous twist. His reply was some version of: "If I've got them in my hand for two hours, they'll believe anything I show them in the last five minutes."
Lesson: Take an experience that one might find unsettling or uncomfortable and amp it up to its possible worst case scenario. The old folks' deterioration lingers far more than the twist the film pulls in its third act.
It's THE GIFT that casts its spell by being grounded from minute one. Simon and his wife Robyn meet Gorod, an old classmate of Simon's who is instantly a little TOO friendly. Simon remembers him as "Gordo the Weirdo," an awkward kid in high school. It's archetypical enough that every viewer will either identify with Gordo, or think of their own "weirdo" they knew in high school. Simon doesn't like Gordo's efforts at becoming a friend, but Simon's wife is more receptive. It's a neat writing trick that makes Robyn empathetic, gets the audience feeling a little bad for Gordo, and makes us wonder if Simon's just being protective, a jerk, or if he's right to be wary of Gordo.
Every twist in this movie comes from pure character, even as it escalates into a stalker thriller. Having written a stalker thriller, I learned that a key rule is to keep the stalker relate-able. In the case of my script, several people said they found themselves on the stalker's side and were hoping he could just explain himself in the end and make everything okay. I like a movie where it's possible to empathize with the bad guy because it usually means the writer has done a good job of making that person a fleshed-out character.
Lesson: Character is king. A good tip is to plot only the character stuff first on its own and see if it holds together without the scares goosing the excitement every 15 minutes.
With supernatural films, when you're using paranormal creatures to personify abstract ideas or fears, you can sometimes get away with a lighter touch on the character work. If your story takes place in the real world, everything MUST have depth to it. That's what makes Hannibal Lector so scary and fascinating at the same time. It's what draws us into Clarice Starling's crusade to capture Buffalo Bill and be taken seriously as a woman in a man's world. Those are Academy Award-winning roles because so much effort was made to make them more than just "the cop" and "the psychopath." If you're writing a movie like this, your standards must be higher
One of my favorite horror films of all time, SCREAM, would not work if there wasn't recognizable human emotion driving the killers' plan. You can argue that their motivations are taken to a severe extreme - people have killed for revenge and notoriety before, but few have probably gone after as many bystanders just to serve the narrative they plan on selling to the cops. Also, the film plays fair with all of its cheats. Every misdirection is clearly motivated and directed so that it makes sense in hindsight.
SCREAM's other strength is that its heroine is at least as interesting as her adversary. A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET got this right in the first installment, then forgot it for several subsequent entries. Write the kind of role that could stay interesting across several films. The horror films that get a bad rap tend to have weak, barely developed characters.
Lesson: from a character standpoint, there's really no great distinction between writing a horror film and writing any other genre. Characters shouldn't be two-dimension just because they're eventually canon fodder for the slasher or supernatural threat.
This year has seen a lot of strong horror and thrillers, some low-budget, some not. 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE, THE SHALLOWS, and THE INVITATION are three that spring to mind with one thing in common - they're all limited locations. Two of them are confined not just in setting, but in time span too. 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE is the exception, spreading its story out over several months, but that also uses the claustrophobia well, like a pressure cooker for inter-character tension. The situations are more extreme, but the intensity can work as a trigger for the viewers own emotions.
Also, I'm a sucker for these sorts of locked-room or limited location thrillers. If you can come up with an original hook to confine a story to a few sets, you might find yourself with some buzz around your story.
Lesson: containing your locations doesn't just have to be a limitation of budget, but can be an asset in forcing tension to a heightened and extreme level. This can be useful with a more heightened premise that doesn't immediately conform to some of the relatability issues I discussed above.
This obviously isn't everything you need to know about writing horror, but give it some thought when working on your next horror script. Do it right and you'll have created the sort of film that critics will keep finding reasons to label as "elevated genre" or "thriller" or whatever "respectable" term they're using for horror that week.
Showing posts with label Paranormal Activity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paranormal Activity. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Monday, October 22, 2012
What worked and didn't work in Paranormal Activity 4
I saw Paranormal Activity 4 this weekend and found it to be something of a mixed bag. I have to admit, I enjoy these found footage horror films largely from the angle of looking for the seams. I rarely am able to get immerced in the conceit that what we're seeing is "actually happening" but oddly, I really enjoy spotting all the tricks and innovations that the creators use to create that illusion.
But rather than pontificate about found footage, just go read my old post on the matter here.
There was a fair amount I liked about the film. For one thing - casting director Terri Taylor should be commended for finding the young actress who plays the lead, Kathryn Newton. The 15 year-old really has to carry most of the movie and it's clear the wrong actress in that part could have sunk the film. She manages to be the most likable and most sympathetic protagonist in any of the PA films. It helps that she has great chemistry with the actor playing her boyfriend, Matt Shively. Shivley's actually 22, but he manages to play a credible 15 or 16.
It really enhances the film to have teenagers who actually look like teenagers. We're so used to seeing actors in their mid-twenties playing high school students that it almost takes us aback to be reminded how young and vulnerable actual teenagers look. It actually makes terror more vivid because these victims don't look like over-developed adults. Even though these movies always end with the heroes getting killed, I found myself really wanting these kids to come out of this okay.
And yet, when they met their end, I felt cheated in a way that had little to do with the downer nature of the ending. It was a little bit of a surprise, especially since the second film went out of its way to spare its teenage protagonist from the slaughter. Mostly, I felt let down because every previous sequel tried to expand the mythology. The mythology and the backstory deepened, perhaps not completely, but enough that it felt like this chapter needed to be the definitive end.
Over the course of the previous three movies, we learned that the demon haunting Katie in the first film was a demon that had made a pact with a coven led by Katie's grandmother. The pact demanded payment in the form of the first male child born in the family line. This turned out to be Hunter, the infant stolen away in the second film, who resurfaces in Paranormal Activity 4. The events of this film lead to Hunter ending up in the possession of the coven. Unfortunately, his fate after that is ambiguous and it's pretty well hinted that Kathryn's character meets her end trying to save him.
As profitable as these films are, it's probably unrealistic to expect Paramount to produce a definitive conclusion before the box office totally bottoms out. The problem is that three films of build-up demanded a more meaningful climax to the Hunter story. Basically, the film ends right before the true climax should begin, giving the audience a massive case of blue balls.
Other writing issues:
Why do Alex's parents agree to take in Robbie? Alex's mother meets Robbie's mother Katie only once, briefly. How many of you would taken in a strange kid belonging to a neighbor whom you met for only three minutes once.
How the hell did Hunter come to be adopted by the family as Wyatt? There's a big red herring in that we're clearly set up to think that Robbie is actually Hunter, but as it turns out, Wyatt is revealed to be Katie's nephew. This unfortunately leads us to wonder how Hunter ended up going from being in Katie's clutches at the end of the second film, to going into the adoption system. There are some indications that Katie had to wait until Hunter was of age so that the pact could be completed, so that at least explains why he wasn't delivered to the demon immediately. Yet I can't figure out how or why she would have lost custody of the kid without revealing herself to the authorities in the process.
As for Robbie's real identity, I'm presuming that Katie was pregnant when she got possessed and that the boy is her actual son. I'm going to further suppose that since Robbie was the second male child born to that family line that he couldn't be offered up to the demon to fulfill the pact.
Why does Alex stop watching the videos? Alex and her boyfriend are smart enough to rig up a surveilance system that basically turns every laptop in the house into a hidden camera. For about 2/3 of the film, we see them dilligently reviewing the footage and finding evidence of weird stuff. Then, when things become a little less ambiguous (i.e. the knife incident), Alex conveniently stops reviewing the tapes.
The script tries to cover this by showing Alex having trouble logging in, but that's a fix that actually makes the problem worse because it creates an unanswered question about why Alex's password has suddenly been changed. (Maybe you could argue one of the kids did it under the direction of the demon, but then why not just turn off the cameras or trash the laptop altogether?)
Was Katie really in the hospital? If so, what was wrong with her? If not, why was she faking? Robbie ends up with Alex's family because his mom Katie becomes sick under strange circumstances. Not only is her condition never explained beyond this, but Alex points out that Katie doesn't look like someone who was sick. That line seems designed to make us suspect there's more to her illness than meets the eye - but we know that at a minimum, there was an ambulance that took her away. We get zero clue to what she was sick with. It's just a weak plot device designed to isolate Robbie.
The arrival of the coven members also doesn't make much sense. Since Katie obviously knows all of these people, why wouldn't one of them take Robbie in? Are all of these holes supposed to lead us to the conclusion that Katie went to these lengths to plant Robbie in with Alex's family, knowing he'd make contact with Hunter? Surely there had to be easier ways to insinuate oneself with that family. (A good start? Try not acting like a fucking weirdo. Just knock on the door and say "Hi, I'm Katie. My son and I are new to the neighborhood and I thought it'd be good for Robbie to play with boys his own age.")
Those are the biggest issues with regard to the script's internal logic. I have a few others, but they start to enter the realm of nitpicking. Did you guys see it this weekend? What did you think?
But rather than pontificate about found footage, just go read my old post on the matter here.
There was a fair amount I liked about the film. For one thing - casting director Terri Taylor should be commended for finding the young actress who plays the lead, Kathryn Newton. The 15 year-old really has to carry most of the movie and it's clear the wrong actress in that part could have sunk the film. She manages to be the most likable and most sympathetic protagonist in any of the PA films. It helps that she has great chemistry with the actor playing her boyfriend, Matt Shively. Shivley's actually 22, but he manages to play a credible 15 or 16.
It really enhances the film to have teenagers who actually look like teenagers. We're so used to seeing actors in their mid-twenties playing high school students that it almost takes us aback to be reminded how young and vulnerable actual teenagers look. It actually makes terror more vivid because these victims don't look like over-developed adults. Even though these movies always end with the heroes getting killed, I found myself really wanting these kids to come out of this okay.
And yet, when they met their end, I felt cheated in a way that had little to do with the downer nature of the ending. It was a little bit of a surprise, especially since the second film went out of its way to spare its teenage protagonist from the slaughter. Mostly, I felt let down because every previous sequel tried to expand the mythology. The mythology and the backstory deepened, perhaps not completely, but enough that it felt like this chapter needed to be the definitive end.
Over the course of the previous three movies, we learned that the demon haunting Katie in the first film was a demon that had made a pact with a coven led by Katie's grandmother. The pact demanded payment in the form of the first male child born in the family line. This turned out to be Hunter, the infant stolen away in the second film, who resurfaces in Paranormal Activity 4. The events of this film lead to Hunter ending up in the possession of the coven. Unfortunately, his fate after that is ambiguous and it's pretty well hinted that Kathryn's character meets her end trying to save him.
As profitable as these films are, it's probably unrealistic to expect Paramount to produce a definitive conclusion before the box office totally bottoms out. The problem is that three films of build-up demanded a more meaningful climax to the Hunter story. Basically, the film ends right before the true climax should begin, giving the audience a massive case of blue balls.
Other writing issues:
Why do Alex's parents agree to take in Robbie? Alex's mother meets Robbie's mother Katie only once, briefly. How many of you would taken in a strange kid belonging to a neighbor whom you met for only three minutes once.
How the hell did Hunter come to be adopted by the family as Wyatt? There's a big red herring in that we're clearly set up to think that Robbie is actually Hunter, but as it turns out, Wyatt is revealed to be Katie's nephew. This unfortunately leads us to wonder how Hunter ended up going from being in Katie's clutches at the end of the second film, to going into the adoption system. There are some indications that Katie had to wait until Hunter was of age so that the pact could be completed, so that at least explains why he wasn't delivered to the demon immediately. Yet I can't figure out how or why she would have lost custody of the kid without revealing herself to the authorities in the process.
As for Robbie's real identity, I'm presuming that Katie was pregnant when she got possessed and that the boy is her actual son. I'm going to further suppose that since Robbie was the second male child born to that family line that he couldn't be offered up to the demon to fulfill the pact.
Why does Alex stop watching the videos? Alex and her boyfriend are smart enough to rig up a surveilance system that basically turns every laptop in the house into a hidden camera. For about 2/3 of the film, we see them dilligently reviewing the footage and finding evidence of weird stuff. Then, when things become a little less ambiguous (i.e. the knife incident), Alex conveniently stops reviewing the tapes.
The script tries to cover this by showing Alex having trouble logging in, but that's a fix that actually makes the problem worse because it creates an unanswered question about why Alex's password has suddenly been changed. (Maybe you could argue one of the kids did it under the direction of the demon, but then why not just turn off the cameras or trash the laptop altogether?)
Was Katie really in the hospital? If so, what was wrong with her? If not, why was she faking? Robbie ends up with Alex's family because his mom Katie becomes sick under strange circumstances. Not only is her condition never explained beyond this, but Alex points out that Katie doesn't look like someone who was sick. That line seems designed to make us suspect there's more to her illness than meets the eye - but we know that at a minimum, there was an ambulance that took her away. We get zero clue to what she was sick with. It's just a weak plot device designed to isolate Robbie.
The arrival of the coven members also doesn't make much sense. Since Katie obviously knows all of these people, why wouldn't one of them take Robbie in? Are all of these holes supposed to lead us to the conclusion that Katie went to these lengths to plant Robbie in with Alex's family, knowing he'd make contact with Hunter? Surely there had to be easier ways to insinuate oneself with that family. (A good start? Try not acting like a fucking weirdo. Just knock on the door and say "Hi, I'm Katie. My son and I are new to the neighborhood and I thought it'd be good for Robbie to play with boys his own age.")
Those are the biggest issues with regard to the script's internal logic. I have a few others, but they start to enter the realm of nitpicking. Did you guys see it this weekend? What did you think?
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Tuesday Talkback: Do found footage films need to develop their cameraman?
In yesterday's comments about found footage films, this question came up:
And finally, do we even NEED to setup the cameraman as a character for a film like this to work? Is it possible to just not explain why there is a camera rolling or who it is? I watch shows like The Office and Parks and Recreation, and there is an implied camera crew around at all times, but never explained, and I never question it as a viewer.
My feeling - in films it is rather necessary because the movie is documenting a particular moment or incident. Cloverfield wouldn't work if the cameraman was handled in the same way as The Office. On the other hand, Christopher Guest movies rarely make an issue of their cameraman. Of course, there's a reason for that.
The difference is that The Office isn't "found footage." It's presented in edited, documentary form. The conceit isn't that we're seeing things as they happen, which is the case in Paranormal Activity and The Blair Witch Project. There, the idea is "here is this raw footage presented in unedited form, showing this inexplicable event unfold right before your eyes.
But what say you? Does the cameraman need to be a character in the film?
And finally, do we even NEED to setup the cameraman as a character for a film like this to work? Is it possible to just not explain why there is a camera rolling or who it is? I watch shows like The Office and Parks and Recreation, and there is an implied camera crew around at all times, but never explained, and I never question it as a viewer.
My feeling - in films it is rather necessary because the movie is documenting a particular moment or incident. Cloverfield wouldn't work if the cameraman was handled in the same way as The Office. On the other hand, Christopher Guest movies rarely make an issue of their cameraman. Of course, there's a reason for that.
The difference is that The Office isn't "found footage." It's presented in edited, documentary form. The conceit isn't that we're seeing things as they happen, which is the case in Paranormal Activity and The Blair Witch Project. There, the idea is "here is this raw footage presented in unedited form, showing this inexplicable event unfold right before your eyes.
But what say you? Does the cameraman need to be a character in the film?
Monday, February 6, 2012
Finding the secret to found footage films
The first several weeks of 2012 has seen two found footage films at the top of the box office charts, both which look to have substantial returns on their budgets. The Devil Inside cost $1 million to produce and thus far has made $53 million domestically. (It doesn't appear to have been widely released abroad yet.) Even allowing for the fact that marketing that film easily had to cost $35 million, there'll still be a wide profit margin after international and DVD markets. (Don't worry, I'm sure some Paramount accountant is already cooking the books to "prove" this film is still in the red.)
Chronicle opened this week to an impressive $22 million on a $12 million budget. It's already made $12 million abroad, so it's likely to be a healthy performer by the end of its life. When you look at those numbers, it's easy to see the upside. It cost less than $10 million to produce ALL THREE Paranormal Activity films, which grossed over $575 million. That's half a billion dollars on an investment of $10 million.
In other words, expect "found footage" to be beaten into the ground. I wouldn't be surprised if many of you were planning on writing scripts in that genre. Pretty much since the first Paranormal Activity, I've seen an increase in those kinds of submissions, so here are a few things I'd keep in mind as you develop those ideas.
You'll notice that most "found footage" films tend to be negative pickups. This is a term for when the producers foot the bill for the film and then sell it to the studio upon completion. The advantage of this is usually greater creative freedom for the filmmaker. The advantage on the studio end is that they get to see EXACTLY what they are buying. (There are other kinds of negative pickups, but this is the scenario for most of the found footage films you've heard of.) This could be advantageous for the buyer as well, for if you have several studios interested, you can stoke a bidding war and drive up the price. The Sundance Midnight Movie V/H/S is a good example of a found footage film that had three interested buyers vying for the rights.
But I'm drifting... my point is, I don't know how much success you'll have by writing a found footage film on spec and then selling it to a studio as you would a more typical high concept spec. (I know there's at least one such found footage spec sale in the past year, but the specific title escapes me at the moment.) These sort of scripts don't always read well. The "reality" of the finished product comes from the "real" and mundane nature of some scenes, but on the page some of those moments are "dramatic death." (Imagine a transcript of most movies in this genre and meditate on how many scenes would feel lifeless and dead on the page without the texture of being seen through the camera lens.)
I'm just one reader, but the dialogue can be a real dealbreaker in this genre. Too "realistic" and it's a chore to slough through on the page. Too clever, and the events feel scripted and inauthentic. A found footage script is less likely to be a spec you sell than it is to be a spec you actually shoot yourself.
The second big thing to remember - you have to justify EVERY moment the camera is running. The longer this genre's around, the more people are going to become sticklers for this. In the past, audiences might have gone with the conceit that the guy with the camera "just wants to get a record of this incredible event" but suspension of disbelief is critical to this genre. You're trying to pass this story off as "real" so you can't use some of the cheats that a conventional film uses.
Never write a scene if you can't answer the question "Why is the person holding the camera shooting this moment?"
Third rule: Keep it short. 90 minutes or fewer is pretty much the sweet spot for this genre. If your found footage script is 120 pages long, odds are there's a problem. Cloverfield, The Devil Inside, Chronicle, The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity are all under 90 minutes in length.
Fourth rule: Your ending will almost always shape the reaction to your film. For their occasional deficiencies and logic issues, The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity have extremely memorable climaxes. The final scenes are shocking, disturbing and rather unsettling. That emotion stays with the audience as they leave the theater and it's that reaction which defines the buzz. In contrast, The Devil Inside had a terrible ending and made the film the target of a lot of critical and audience vitrol. (Those idiots still lined up to see it, though...)
So if you want to make a name for yourself in found footage, your ending has to be the best thing about your film - and it HAS to stir a reaction in your audience.
If there's a fifth thing to remember, it's that horror - or at least a concept with supernatural elements - is the hot genre for found footage at the moment. The comedy equivalent is the "mockumentary" but there's a clear distinction in the structure of a Christopher Guest film and something like Paranormal Activity. (And there's also the fact that most comedy mockumentaries don't usually go the extra step of using a visual asthetic that deliberately apes low-quality video.)
The breakout hits in found footage all have an element of the fantastic. They're "High Concept, Low Budget." Comedy mockumentaries often find their humor in the mundane. There's nothing wrong with that, but it won't have the box office resonance of something that scares the pants off the audience.
That's the way I see it. Your milage may vary.
Chronicle opened this week to an impressive $22 million on a $12 million budget. It's already made $12 million abroad, so it's likely to be a healthy performer by the end of its life. When you look at those numbers, it's easy to see the upside. It cost less than $10 million to produce ALL THREE Paranormal Activity films, which grossed over $575 million. That's half a billion dollars on an investment of $10 million.
In other words, expect "found footage" to be beaten into the ground. I wouldn't be surprised if many of you were planning on writing scripts in that genre. Pretty much since the first Paranormal Activity, I've seen an increase in those kinds of submissions, so here are a few things I'd keep in mind as you develop those ideas.
You'll notice that most "found footage" films tend to be negative pickups. This is a term for when the producers foot the bill for the film and then sell it to the studio upon completion. The advantage of this is usually greater creative freedom for the filmmaker. The advantage on the studio end is that they get to see EXACTLY what they are buying. (There are other kinds of negative pickups, but this is the scenario for most of the found footage films you've heard of.) This could be advantageous for the buyer as well, for if you have several studios interested, you can stoke a bidding war and drive up the price. The Sundance Midnight Movie V/H/S is a good example of a found footage film that had three interested buyers vying for the rights.
But I'm drifting... my point is, I don't know how much success you'll have by writing a found footage film on spec and then selling it to a studio as you would a more typical high concept spec. (I know there's at least one such found footage spec sale in the past year, but the specific title escapes me at the moment.) These sort of scripts don't always read well. The "reality" of the finished product comes from the "real" and mundane nature of some scenes, but on the page some of those moments are "dramatic death." (Imagine a transcript of most movies in this genre and meditate on how many scenes would feel lifeless and dead on the page without the texture of being seen through the camera lens.)
I'm just one reader, but the dialogue can be a real dealbreaker in this genre. Too "realistic" and it's a chore to slough through on the page. Too clever, and the events feel scripted and inauthentic. A found footage script is less likely to be a spec you sell than it is to be a spec you actually shoot yourself.
The second big thing to remember - you have to justify EVERY moment the camera is running. The longer this genre's around, the more people are going to become sticklers for this. In the past, audiences might have gone with the conceit that the guy with the camera "just wants to get a record of this incredible event" but suspension of disbelief is critical to this genre. You're trying to pass this story off as "real" so you can't use some of the cheats that a conventional film uses.
Never write a scene if you can't answer the question "Why is the person holding the camera shooting this moment?"
Third rule: Keep it short. 90 minutes or fewer is pretty much the sweet spot for this genre. If your found footage script is 120 pages long, odds are there's a problem. Cloverfield, The Devil Inside, Chronicle, The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity are all under 90 minutes in length.
Fourth rule: Your ending will almost always shape the reaction to your film. For their occasional deficiencies and logic issues, The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity have extremely memorable climaxes. The final scenes are shocking, disturbing and rather unsettling. That emotion stays with the audience as they leave the theater and it's that reaction which defines the buzz. In contrast, The Devil Inside had a terrible ending and made the film the target of a lot of critical and audience vitrol. (Those idiots still lined up to see it, though...)
So if you want to make a name for yourself in found footage, your ending has to be the best thing about your film - and it HAS to stir a reaction in your audience.
If there's a fifth thing to remember, it's that horror - or at least a concept with supernatural elements - is the hot genre for found footage at the moment. The comedy equivalent is the "mockumentary" but there's a clear distinction in the structure of a Christopher Guest film and something like Paranormal Activity. (And there's also the fact that most comedy mockumentaries don't usually go the extra step of using a visual asthetic that deliberately apes low-quality video.)
The breakout hits in found footage all have an element of the fantastic. They're "High Concept, Low Budget." Comedy mockumentaries often find their humor in the mundane. There's nothing wrong with that, but it won't have the box office resonance of something that scares the pants off the audience.
That's the way I see it. Your milage may vary.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
A Year at the Movies - Part 2
Continuing where we left off yesterday, here's June's films. As with before, all films in red are ones I saw on DVD, and ratings are out of four stars.
June
The Hangover (***) - The trailers didn't inspire a great deal of faith in this being much more than a low budget one-joke comedy, so I skipped out on seeing it the first weekend, and then never had an opportunity to catch it after the word of mouth spread that this was actually pretty good. Just for bringing back the low-budget, R-rated ensemble raunchy comedy as a viable genre, it deserves high marks. There's a point in the second act where the pace starts to lag a bit, but the film weathers that. The premise of three guys trying to piece together what happened at the bachelor party the night before even as they search for the missing groom proves fertile ground for comedy. Verdict: Should have seen it in theatres.
Year One (*) - Wow. I like Jack Black and Michael Cera, so I assumed that the vastly negative reviews couldn't have been all right. When I finally watched it, I couldn't believe it misfired. If I was brought into save this turkey with a rewrite I would have no idea where to begin. Verdict: Glad I waited for DVD
The Proposal (***) - I have come to detest both green card hijinks and the trope of people racing to the airport at the end of the movie in my romantic comedies, so this should have landed right in my crosshairs. However, Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds elevate this formula romantic comedy with their fun performances and Betty White steals the movie. It's a decent date film, but I don't feel like I missed out by waiting a few extra months. Verdict: Glad I waited.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (no stars) - Worst Movie of the Year. Period. Two and a half hours of Bay-hem. I'm not sure where to begin with this. There's the ludicrous notion of Sam dying and saving Optimus Prime via a pep talk in robot heaven, the completely dropped storyline that is the inexplicable hottie-who-is-really a Decepticon, the fact that one scene perfectly illustrates Bay's Madonna/whore complex to such a degree that I actually feel sorry for Megan Fox, and the overriding issue that never before has two-and-a-half hours of action felt so boring and directionless. It's amazing to me that co-writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci (with an assist from Ehren Kruger) scripted both this and the summer's best movie in Star Trek. Saddest of all, I expected most of this and went because I figured, "If I'm gonna see it, it might as well be on the big screen." From now on, I think I'll be satisfied with my 42-inch plasma. At least I only had to pay half-price for this one. Verdict: Wish I'd waited for DVD.
July
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (***) - It's been about five months since I saw it and little of the film has stuck with me save for the death of a beloved character. I recall walking out satisfied, though. Verdict: Money well spent.
Funny People (**1/2) - I really wanted to like this one. It features what is probably Adam Sandler's best performance in a long time as a comedian facing his own mortality. It even gives Seth Rogan a chance to stretch himself. Unfortunately, this film is really two movies stitched together and the second film isn't nearly as compelling as the first. The problem with Judd Apatow being so successful is that no one has the clout to save him from his own worst instincts. For more on my thoughts about this, check out this entry. Verdict: Should have waited for DVD.
August
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (no stars) - Scholars will spend years debating which of Summer '09's offerings was truly the worst: this, Transformers, or Wolverine. Like those films, this script was clearly a victim of the Writer's Strike. It's so terrible that it almost crosses into "watchably bad" territory, something that Wolverine and Transformers could only dream of. In the end, I pretty much expected this is what I'd get but I went for two reasons: 1) it was family night at the movies and I wasn't paying, and 2) the presence of Rachel Nichols. (Side note: Nichols is also featured in this summer's best movie, Star Trek, as a green cadet whom Kirk romances. Like the TF scribes, she double-dipped in the best and worst.) For more of my venom about this, go here. Verdict: I didn't even pay and I want my money back. Wish I'd waited for DVD.
District 9 (***) - I'm looking forward to viewing this again to see if it holds up. Despite my nitpicking, I did enjoy this film, which starts as a mockumentary about a man sent to relocate aliens to a new ghetto and turns into something much more. Verdict: Money well spent.
September - I saw nothing in theatres and DVD has yet to catch up to the film's I elected to wait on.
October
Zombieland (***1/2) - It's not without its flaws, as I said here, but Zombieland is a fun ride with enough wit and originality to keep you entertained. If you missed it in theatres, catch it on DVD and don't let anyone ruin the cameo for you. Verdict: Money well spent.
Paranormal Activity (***) - I enjoyed PA, but I don't have much to say about it afterwards. It's greatest strength is probably its atmosphere and the natural performances of the actors. This is the sort of film that needs to be seen opening weekend in a crowded theatre, where the suspense feeds off of the tension of an entire crowd holding its breath. I've got issues with the very final seconds of the film, but damn if it wasn't tense in the moments leading up to that. Verdict: Money well spent.
November
The Blind Side (***) - As I've said before, I've got a hunch I'll find this film forgettable in a few years, but it entertained me while I was there. Verdict: Money well spent.
December
Avatar (***) - I'm left with some mixed feelings over this one. There's no denying Cameron's technical achievements. After a few minutes, one completely accepts his CG aliens as three-dimensional characters. Unfortunately one can't always say the same for his human players as it would be generous to say that Giovanni Ribisi's corporate sleaze and Stephen Lang's Col. Shoot-em-up approach two dimensions. One also wishes that that the story was as innovative as the visuals. The first act is burdened with some clunky exposition and the second act is very reminiscent of Dances with Wolves. The third act is the Ewok climax of Return of the Jedi done right. Unlike in Star Wars, here the concept of an indigenous people defending their homeland from a technologically superior force actually gets pulled off in a plausible manner. The story kept moving despite the long length and I was entertained, but I can't help but feel that the film will seem less remarkable as the technology becomes more commonplace, as opposed to earlier Cameron masterworks like Terminator 2 and Aliens. Verdict: Worth the $12 plus the extra fee for 3-D.
Sherlock Holmes (***) - Robert Downey Jr. is the reason to see this reinvention of Sherlock Holmes, as his performance elevates a script that's (understandably, to a degree) overburdened with exposition. The trap one can fall into when writing Holmes is that his long monologues of deductive reasoning very quickly can turn into on-the-nose exposition. In the hands of a lesser actor, two hours of this would have been hard to take. Another weakness is that since obviously the filmmakers aren't going to mix a Holmes movie with a vampire concept, it's clear from the start that the supernatural elements are a feint to be eventually debunked. Had the film taken the approach that Holmes didn't believe a word of this rubbish either, then it might have worked to show the story through his eyes with both him and the audience aware that the real mystery is what the supernatural elements are meant to hide. For me, it wasn't fully successful and also suffers from a rather unwritten role for Rachel McAdams that turns out to be little more than a feature-length tease for the next picture. Still, Downey's on a hot streak and is enough to redeem this film's faults. I wouldn't recommend anyone take any lessons in scripting from this film, but I wouldn't tell you to stay away either. Verdict: Worth the $12
So the tally comes to:
Worth the $12 - 14
Money well saved/Glad I waited for DVD - 9
Wish I waited for DVD - 6
Should have seen in theatres - 2
So I saw 20 films in the theatre and only wanted my money back for just over a quarter of them. On top of that, of the 11 movies I saw on DVD, only 2 of them were good enough that I wished I hadn't waited. That means nearly 80% of the time my instincts were right about what was so bad that it couldn't wait 4 months and save $12. On top of that, most of those movies I saw in the theatre and wanted my money back for were ones I was sure would be bad when I went in.
The long and the short of it is, I think I'm going to be seeing a lot more of 2010's films on DVD than on the big screen, at least so long as the quality of the offerings remains the same. In the meantime, I still have several 2009 movies I'm waiting to grab on DVD. A look at my Netflix queue reveals the following films should be reaching my Blu-Ray player in the next few months:
Inglorious Basterds
Extract
The Hurt Locker
The Final Destination
Terminator Salvation
Coraline
This is It
Jennifer's Body
Sorority Row
The Stepfather
Couples Retreat
The Invention of Lying
The Informant!
The Men Who Stare At Goats
Where the Wild Things Are
2012
500 Days of Summer
The Time Traveler's Wife
I will be stunned if more than two of those earn the "Wish I'd seen it in Theatres" ranking.
June
The Hangover (***) - The trailers didn't inspire a great deal of faith in this being much more than a low budget one-joke comedy, so I skipped out on seeing it the first weekend, and then never had an opportunity to catch it after the word of mouth spread that this was actually pretty good. Just for bringing back the low-budget, R-rated ensemble raunchy comedy as a viable genre, it deserves high marks. There's a point in the second act where the pace starts to lag a bit, but the film weathers that. The premise of three guys trying to piece together what happened at the bachelor party the night before even as they search for the missing groom proves fertile ground for comedy. Verdict: Should have seen it in theatres.
Year One (*) - Wow. I like Jack Black and Michael Cera, so I assumed that the vastly negative reviews couldn't have been all right. When I finally watched it, I couldn't believe it misfired. If I was brought into save this turkey with a rewrite I would have no idea where to begin. Verdict: Glad I waited for DVD
The Proposal (***) - I have come to detest both green card hijinks and the trope of people racing to the airport at the end of the movie in my romantic comedies, so this should have landed right in my crosshairs. However, Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds elevate this formula romantic comedy with their fun performances and Betty White steals the movie. It's a decent date film, but I don't feel like I missed out by waiting a few extra months. Verdict: Glad I waited.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (no stars) - Worst Movie of the Year. Period. Two and a half hours of Bay-hem. I'm not sure where to begin with this. There's the ludicrous notion of Sam dying and saving Optimus Prime via a pep talk in robot heaven, the completely dropped storyline that is the inexplicable hottie-who-is-really a Decepticon, the fact that one scene perfectly illustrates Bay's Madonna/whore complex to such a degree that I actually feel sorry for Megan Fox, and the overriding issue that never before has two-and-a-half hours of action felt so boring and directionless. It's amazing to me that co-writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci (with an assist from Ehren Kruger) scripted both this and the summer's best movie in Star Trek. Saddest of all, I expected most of this and went because I figured, "If I'm gonna see it, it might as well be on the big screen." From now on, I think I'll be satisfied with my 42-inch plasma. At least I only had to pay half-price for this one. Verdict: Wish I'd waited for DVD.
July
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (***) - It's been about five months since I saw it and little of the film has stuck with me save for the death of a beloved character. I recall walking out satisfied, though. Verdict: Money well spent.
Funny People (**1/2) - I really wanted to like this one. It features what is probably Adam Sandler's best performance in a long time as a comedian facing his own mortality. It even gives Seth Rogan a chance to stretch himself. Unfortunately, this film is really two movies stitched together and the second film isn't nearly as compelling as the first. The problem with Judd Apatow being so successful is that no one has the clout to save him from his own worst instincts. For more on my thoughts about this, check out this entry. Verdict: Should have waited for DVD.
August
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (no stars) - Scholars will spend years debating which of Summer '09's offerings was truly the worst: this, Transformers, or Wolverine. Like those films, this script was clearly a victim of the Writer's Strike. It's so terrible that it almost crosses into "watchably bad" territory, something that Wolverine and Transformers could only dream of. In the end, I pretty much expected this is what I'd get but I went for two reasons: 1) it was family night at the movies and I wasn't paying, and 2) the presence of Rachel Nichols. (Side note: Nichols is also featured in this summer's best movie, Star Trek, as a green cadet whom Kirk romances. Like the TF scribes, she double-dipped in the best and worst.) For more of my venom about this, go here. Verdict: I didn't even pay and I want my money back. Wish I'd waited for DVD.
District 9 (***) - I'm looking forward to viewing this again to see if it holds up. Despite my nitpicking, I did enjoy this film, which starts as a mockumentary about a man sent to relocate aliens to a new ghetto and turns into something much more. Verdict: Money well spent.
September - I saw nothing in theatres and DVD has yet to catch up to the film's I elected to wait on.
October
Zombieland (***1/2) - It's not without its flaws, as I said here, but Zombieland is a fun ride with enough wit and originality to keep you entertained. If you missed it in theatres, catch it on DVD and don't let anyone ruin the cameo for you. Verdict: Money well spent.
Paranormal Activity (***) - I enjoyed PA, but I don't have much to say about it afterwards. It's greatest strength is probably its atmosphere and the natural performances of the actors. This is the sort of film that needs to be seen opening weekend in a crowded theatre, where the suspense feeds off of the tension of an entire crowd holding its breath. I've got issues with the very final seconds of the film, but damn if it wasn't tense in the moments leading up to that. Verdict: Money well spent.
November
The Blind Side (***) - As I've said before, I've got a hunch I'll find this film forgettable in a few years, but it entertained me while I was there. Verdict: Money well spent.
December
Avatar (***) - I'm left with some mixed feelings over this one. There's no denying Cameron's technical achievements. After a few minutes, one completely accepts his CG aliens as three-dimensional characters. Unfortunately one can't always say the same for his human players as it would be generous to say that Giovanni Ribisi's corporate sleaze and Stephen Lang's Col. Shoot-em-up approach two dimensions. One also wishes that that the story was as innovative as the visuals. The first act is burdened with some clunky exposition and the second act is very reminiscent of Dances with Wolves. The third act is the Ewok climax of Return of the Jedi done right. Unlike in Star Wars, here the concept of an indigenous people defending their homeland from a technologically superior force actually gets pulled off in a plausible manner. The story kept moving despite the long length and I was entertained, but I can't help but feel that the film will seem less remarkable as the technology becomes more commonplace, as opposed to earlier Cameron masterworks like Terminator 2 and Aliens. Verdict: Worth the $12 plus the extra fee for 3-D.
Sherlock Holmes (***) - Robert Downey Jr. is the reason to see this reinvention of Sherlock Holmes, as his performance elevates a script that's (understandably, to a degree) overburdened with exposition. The trap one can fall into when writing Holmes is that his long monologues of deductive reasoning very quickly can turn into on-the-nose exposition. In the hands of a lesser actor, two hours of this would have been hard to take. Another weakness is that since obviously the filmmakers aren't going to mix a Holmes movie with a vampire concept, it's clear from the start that the supernatural elements are a feint to be eventually debunked. Had the film taken the approach that Holmes didn't believe a word of this rubbish either, then it might have worked to show the story through his eyes with both him and the audience aware that the real mystery is what the supernatural elements are meant to hide. For me, it wasn't fully successful and also suffers from a rather unwritten role for Rachel McAdams that turns out to be little more than a feature-length tease for the next picture. Still, Downey's on a hot streak and is enough to redeem this film's faults. I wouldn't recommend anyone take any lessons in scripting from this film, but I wouldn't tell you to stay away either. Verdict: Worth the $12
So the tally comes to:
Worth the $12 - 14
Money well saved/Glad I waited for DVD - 9
Wish I waited for DVD - 6
Should have seen in theatres - 2
So I saw 20 films in the theatre and only wanted my money back for just over a quarter of them. On top of that, of the 11 movies I saw on DVD, only 2 of them were good enough that I wished I hadn't waited. That means nearly 80% of the time my instincts were right about what was so bad that it couldn't wait 4 months and save $12. On top of that, most of those movies I saw in the theatre and wanted my money back for were ones I was sure would be bad when I went in.
The long and the short of it is, I think I'm going to be seeing a lot more of 2010's films on DVD than on the big screen, at least so long as the quality of the offerings remains the same. In the meantime, I still have several 2009 movies I'm waiting to grab on DVD. A look at my Netflix queue reveals the following films should be reaching my Blu-Ray player in the next few months:
Inglorious Basterds
Extract
The Hurt Locker
The Final Destination
Terminator Salvation
Coraline
This is It
Jennifer's Body
Sorority Row
The Stepfather
Couples Retreat
The Invention of Lying
The Informant!
The Men Who Stare At Goats
Where the Wild Things Are
2012
500 Days of Summer
The Time Traveler's Wife
I will be stunned if more than two of those earn the "Wish I'd seen it in Theatres" ranking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
