Cinema Thougts: Found Footage Films

Found footage movies are ubiquitous in the horror and sci-fi genres these days. If one includes faux documentaries (which I do, since both are using the conceit that what the viewer is watching is real) this is not a new sub-genre; but it is more popular now then ever. I have strong feelings about found footage movies, mostly negative, although there are some that use the visual style and tropes to good effect.

Some of the elements of found footage visual language are:

• Unsteady camera work (i.e., shaky cam) or the use of odd angels to imply handheld or amateur filming; e.g., Evidence in which almost every shot uses a Dutch angle...not unlike the old Batman TV series;
• Film grain or video artifacts, often used to cover-up action or to create the necessary visual break for a subsequent jump scare. On a side note, I've been filming with both tape and digital for years; I've never had any of the visual artifacts you commonly see in found footage films;
• A plot element that explains why a person (or persons) are filming things. For example, Frankenstein’s Army deals with a Soviet film crew during World War Two;
• Muffled or distorted sound;
• Many have a framing device to explain why the footage is being watched (the V/H/S films explain that each stroy segment is a VHS tape begin watched in a framing story);
• Attempts to make the film look like is was filmed by amateurs, including focusing on things other than the central action, loss of camera focus, poorly framed shots, etc. This doesn't always hold true; many faux documentaries have a polished look, mimicking the look of actual documentaries. CSA: The Confederate States of America is a good example of this, mixing "talking head" segments with vintage newsreels, modern-style news reports, advertisements, film clips, and so forth in a variety of styles.

Found footage style movies have a long history. Films like Peter Watkins' The War Game and Punishment Park utilized a documentary style, narration, hand-held cameras and the like to create a visual style that enhanced the story being told. Other movies, like Rob Reiner’s This Is Spinal Tap and the Christopher Guest trilogy (Waiting for Guffman, Best in Show, A Mighty Wind) mimic the documentary style for comedic effect. Woody Allen’s Zelig places the title character in numerous “historical” newsreels and faux-film footage. Rogerdo Donatos' Cannibal Holocaust uses the concept of the found footage in a literal sense, with the gruesome fate of a documentary crew in the Amazon being shown through cans of film recovered by a rescue team. The 1980s saw a number of fake news programs that fit comfortably into the genre including Without Warning (alien attack) and Special Bulletin (nuclear terrorism).

What distinguished these films from less-impressive modern efforts is that the visual tropes were integral to the story. What modern filmmakers have found is that this visual style can be a cost savings measure. The conventions of the genre can be used as excuses not to show much in the way of action or special effects; in short, it is a budget saving measure, not an artistic choice.

A good example of a film that suffers because it uses the found footage format is Cloverfield. There was very little of the titular monster seen, the “cameraman” seems more interested in the worried faces of his vapid companions, the camera bounces and shakes to a nausea-inducing degree, there's a poor decision to intercut the monster attack with previously shot footage or happier times, which makes no sense, given how cameras work; in short, visually it is unsatisfying and as a story-telling device it doesn't work. A conventionally filmed version of the same story could have given us better visuals of the monster, smoother camera work, a nice mix of the epic and personal…in short, Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla. The concept of a completely “street-level” view of a giant monster attack is a good one. But, ultimately, following the tropes of found footage lead to a frustrating viewing experience.

An example of a film series that straddles the line between effective and ineffective use of the visual style are the Paranormal Activity films. The first film had a very low budget. In this case, the limited scope of setting (one house) and the limited effects were enhanced by the verisimilitude brought by shooting on video. The low-key scares (creepy sounds, doors slamming, lights flickering all building up to the kinetic ending) seemed more realistic and acceptable in the context of a found footage film. This is primarily because the decision to shoot in a found footage style was integrated into the story. Subsequent movies in the series become less satisfying as the low-key scares of the original become repetitive and, ultimately boring, while, at the same time, cameras are being used in situations that no normal person would use them in. This brings us the suspension of disbelief, something every genre filmmaker has to be concerned with.

Suspension of disbelief is what allows the viewer to accept things like ghosts, vampires, aliens, space empires. It allows us to look at the unreal and accept it in the context of the story being told. This can also apply to genre conventions, like teen-agers in a slasher flick splitting up when they know a killer is stalking them. In a found footage film, one of the things that needs to be accepted is that a person with a camera would behave in the way presented in the film. It doesn't have to be "real world" realistic; for example, going back to Paranormal Activity not many people would set up cameras all over their house to video a ghost. But, it works given how the characters are presented and even how the scenes are filmed with static cameras documenting day-to-day life instead of someone running around with a handheld.

Going back to Cloverfield, if the cameraman were behaving in a believable fashion in many scenes he would be either focusing on the monster or dropping the camera and running away. Obviously, the latter is unacceptable; if he drops the camera and runs away, there is no movie. So, as a viewer, we can accept that he'll keep filming as a 500-foot-tall creature devastates New York City. However, what he does - focus on something other than the primary point of action (the monster) - eventually breaks the suspension of disbelief agreement; I accept a giant monster and a guy filming it, but I don't accept that he'd be more interested in filming anything other than the monster when he has the opportunity. For an example of a film where this works, there is Peter Watkins’ Punishment Park (1971). Set in a mid-70s America in which political prisoners participate in a frequently lethal law enforcement training exercise, the movie is being filmed by a BBC camera crew. This is an airtight device for explaining why the cameramen are filming, why there is editing, in short, the plot and visual style are mutually supportive.

This all points back to effective storytelling. A good creative team doesn’t choose the found footage format just because it is popular or allows for inexpensive filmmaking. These can be important and reasonable factors, of the course; the latter in particular will appeal to low-budget filmmakers. At the same time, most low-budget filmmakers don’t use this format. So, the decision to use a particular visual style should have something to do with the story being told. If it doesn't, that becomes obvious to the viewer. Given that many modern found footage films don't work on a visual storytelling level, I have the feeling that the decision to use this format is a combination of bandwagonning and laziness. And that makes for an unsatisfying viewing experience.

Here are some good found footage/mockumantary films to check out.

• Punishment Park
• The War Game
• The Bay
• REC
• REC 2
• V/H/S 2
• Europa Report
• Special Bulletin
• This is Spinal Tap
• Best in Show
• CSA: Confederate States of America
• Drop Dead Gorgeous
• The Blair Witch Project