Found footage, especially of the horror and sci-fi varieties, has only become more prevalent as tech advancements have put cameras in everyone's pockets. Assuming that the trend won't be reversing anytime soon, what then are becoming the tropes, the customs, the standard structures of found footage narratives? What are some of the questions engendered by the form? For instance, how is the viewer cast in the narrative? In what way is that narrative built to intersect with material reality? Given the nature of the story, what other narrative hands must be at work to get it to us? What sets found footage apart from forms like mockumentary or fictional news broadcast? What elements unify all these types?
Some common tropes and standard structures are definitely the whole "we have a paranormal entity/monster/scary old person" who is "haunting us/stalking us/acting scary" so lets "record the house, us while we sleep".
Which, I guess is a structure that makes sense for the basis of what these movies are. But I do like the subversions such as with the "documentary film gone wrong".
In regards to how the viewer is cast in the narrative is perfectly see in the first solid chunk of 'Cloverfield' where we barely ever see the camera man. This gives us a good portion of the movie where we very much feel like bearded camera man guy. This of course is in contrast to any Paranormal Activity film where the camera people can't stop showing their face, distancing the audience.
– ZacharyP429 years ago
This may be a little off-topic but one specific episode of the tv show Supernatural could help someone narrow down the stereotypical expectations of the found-footage genre. Supernatural often does episodes which parody different kinds of horror/mystery/etc. films, and often return to random episodes presented not from the main characters' perspective but from video recordings of people they are interacting with and the adventures those side characters experience. They are parodies, in a way, and by looking at parodies it can be easier to pin-point the expectations of a genre through what the show deems worthy of keeping intact. – Slaidey9 years ago
I think that found footage often results in a more immersive experience for the view than a mockumentary or even a news broadcast - the found footage supposedly comes from a regular person, just like the viewer, and often uses first person camera work (made even more intimate by using camera phones or other such 'amateur' devices). This is a great topic! – Winterling9 years ago
I agree with Winterling that the immersion perspective is important, i.e. the handheld camera, the entire basis of taking "amateur" footage that has likely not gone through editing. It creates a sort of realism and, when done right, there's an intimacy between the well-constructed characters and the viewer. That's why, in my opinion, it is distracting when a found footage movie inserts stinger music or looks too professionally handled, though the latter can still go over well. Also, the setup as to why the characters need to be wielding cameras usually needs to be believable. I personally liked movies like The Taking of Deborah Logan and The Sacrament. The Visit would be interesting to explore, though I have not seen it. – emilydeibler9 years ago
I know these game types have gone down in popularity however I think with re-branding and re-marketing these games would open up the market once more. If for example Rock Band decided to release Country Star or Pop World they would integrate a new generation of fans. They likely would be able to redesign the same hardware and sell it for higher prices as "limited edition" pieces. The game just needs to revive itself. I used to be an avid player. Things could change again. – alexpaulsen9 years ago
Is there a link between pieces of popular culture which feature cannibalism and commentary on our economic system? There are several angles from which to approach this metaphor: first in choosing a film or films to compare and contrast (Cloud Atlas, Sweeney Todd, or any zombie film. I would keep the study recent.
Make sure you fix the grammar. You forgot to put in the other parentheses sign after "film." – Diego Santoyo9 years ago
I like the idea! Cannibalism in general always has interesting allegories for different societal issues. – emilydeibler9 years ago
The sentence "first in choosing a film or films to compare and contrast" is a little awkward when it stands alone. You should add more after this sentence or take out the "First in" part and replacing it with by or something along those lines. – Kandice179 years ago
This connection reminds of bell hook's famous essay "Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance." It might be helpful to think about how the trope of "cannibalism" may also include notions of race, and how that is linked to the commercialization of "Otherness." – kooji9 years ago
What constitutes a successful film in modern time? There appears to be, more or less, a pattern: a very "safe" story (nothing too abstract or of a minority complex), boring "filler" dialogue, un-original and one-dimensional characters, soulless (in content) to some degree, and harboring hollow thematic elements.
For example, Colin Trevorrow's catastrophe and embarrassment Jurassic World. It's not that the box-office record setter didn't have a plot, it just had a plot that was so full of holes it had no structure. There are countless holes and problems with the concept and story of the latest installment. Frankly, there were no characters, there were only low-caliber actors reading a script with absolutely no heart. The movie was layered with gross product-placement worse than perhaps any other movie in recent memory.
On the other hand, take a look at Paul Thomas Anderson's masterpiece The Master. The Master is a culmination of tremendous writing and execution thereof in film. Arguably one of the most original and transformative drama's seen this decade, The Master was a true achievement from one of the great living auteur filmmakers. Beautifully portrayed by wonderful actors all around, complimented with a mesmerizing score, and shot in astonishing 65mm film, The Master is the epitome of modern art film.
Now, looking at the audience's reaction to both these films reveals a great about what they look for in cinema. While The Master was hated by many average movie-watchers (considered too complex for general audiences) Jurassic World broke box office record history making almost 2 billion worldwide. Jurassic World was mindless entertainment delivered through over-stimulating CGI and explosions. The Master was a film that demanded patience, and an appreciation for cinematography; the poetry of film. By looking at the general opinion and results from public audience's, is it clear what is expected and desired from cinema by the general public?
This topic reads like an Film101 analysis. There has always been an audience for avant-garde cinema as well as populist blockbusters and you could honestly write many, many books (as many already exist) about narrative style and rhythm in both blockbusters and art-film. But it seems like it'd be incredibly hard to do this in the context of a single article without it resulting to the sort huge overgeneralizations (like "most American families") that this pitch is riddled with. Of course producers are making movies they know people will pay for. I'd suggest refining the topic into a more critique of either style, or possibly write about a couple directors that are conflating pop and avant-garde cinematic techniques to challenge assumptions of both styles. I'd say some Harmony Korine or Paul Thomas Anderson films might be a good place to start. – robarcand9 years ago
The idea of escaping reality through movies and theatre is not a modern trend I'm afraid. Since the 1950s when studios produced big entertaining films that could boost their ticket sales, they wanted to sell dream to people and played on that idea of 'escaping your home and work life for a few hours'. Do some research in film history you'll find a lot of information! Nowadays people go less often to the movies than before - that's a reality. They watch new content on TV, on their laptops, on Netflix... It has become part of the home life. Does that idea of escapism still work here then? – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun9 years ago
Similar to robarcand and Rachel, I suggest reframing the topic. My own interests are in a more nuanced approach to your heavy implication that Americans lack intelligence. I agree with robarcand, and suggest that if your position is one more about culture than film, then you might work at gathering some empirical evidence to support a more representative and less inflammatory claim about cultural expectations relative to the movie industry. There are some fascinating historical studies and narratives, for instance, about how the Catholic Church and the movie "Code" have deeply shaped the structure and content of the movies made for mass consumption. That dissatisfaction with ambiguity you note strikes me as unrelated in any meaningful way to intelligence. After all, appreciating and curating high art, or limited-release art films, is not something at any point in human history that we've understood mass humanity to be capable of completing (let alone caring about). Good luck. – pacrutcher9 years ago
You open by asking 'What constitutes a successful film in modern time? There appears to be, more or less, a pattern...' In response, I would ask what you're defining as success. You cite box office earnings, and ticket sales have a long history of being used as markers of a studio film's success. However, if that's the route you're going, that means that you're largely confining your own observations to the products of the very studios--many very old studios--which, throughout the decades, have boiled their products down to so many narrative equations: add A, add B, make money. That's not to say that such practices are bad: the narratives they produce must have some value, as we're willing to watch them reconstituted over and over, especially if we get twists on their themes. But, again, with the studio you're going to get structure, yet your question indicates that you personally value iconoclasm by comparison. So, I also question your implication of product placement as an indicator of low quality. In citing Jurassic World (which I've not seen), you're dealing with a human future where commercialization has gotten so far as to make possible a dinosaur-based theme park with REAL dinosaurs; almost regardless of what sort of product placement is included in the film, doesn't it all seem realistic given the circumstances? You, on the other hand, imply that we're meant to take an amount of commercialism beyond 'X' as compromising the 'art' of the piece; but what is an acceptable definition of 'art' in that equation, and, more to the point, what defines 'X'? Finally, it seems like you're looking for support of a particular set of aesthetic values. Okay, but how can we get to what those values are ultimately informed by? Can we plainly get at what you consider to be good and how such parameters might contribute to larger discussions of film? – Joe Anderson9 years ago
For all of two hours, our job is to suspend disbelief and take in a story unfolding before us that portrays the dead walking the earth once more in an apocalyptic scenario. At the same time, we are supposed to believe these characters on the screen are falling in love, spiraling into hatred, and developing these complex emotions and stories while zombies try to eat them. Should zombies (and apocalyptic settings in general) continue to be used as a framing device, or otherwise sidelined in favor of focusing on the human experience? Or should zombie flicks focus on the main attraction – the guts, the gore, the death and destruction? Perhaps examine the reception of movies that are clearly placed in one category or the other.
Hm. Really depends on what subgenre of 'zombie flick' we're looking at here. I don't think I've ever seen a film where zombies are the MAIN attraction except for that wonderful recent oddity of a rom-com 'Warm Bodies'. Which of course is far from the usual norm. But yeah, from the Romeros to 'I Am Legend', to 'The Walking Dead' to 'Shaun of the Dead' the human quantity has always been most crucial. Maybe you could explore how filmmakers could possible film something from the POV of the zombie's themselves, I'm thinking kind of like the opening of 2001: A Space Odyssey, wordless and primal. – CalvinLaw9 years ago
I think using "zombies" to force a setting that then focuses on the human experience is a way to reach wider audiences. For example, there are probably a lot of people out there that would not have started watching the walking dead if the plot was more like 'watch these people in no danger have a bunch of drama.' There are plenty of people who would watch that, but I think adding zombies attracts other people that may not have watched this otherwise.
Another issue is that the people need SOME sort of issue that puts them in this predicament to give them a reason for their interactions. So shipwreck? Well we've done that one too already... so might as well use zombies. – Tatijana9 years ago
See this is a really interesting idea, but I definitely think that zombies should and could be more than just gore and more gore and unrelenting gore. Zombies actually have a rich history in ancient religions, plays and poems, and I really think that someone could reinvent the way we look at the dead. Take the movie "The Book Of Life" an animated film about the day of the dead in Mexico. Obviously this is a cultural take on the living dead or zombification, but I think a movie could really come out with zombies, but instead of focusing on the whole "I'm going to eat you thing" maybe making their existence more a philosophical question or an existentialist crisis. Of course that is just my two cents from philosophical perspective – alexhim9 years ago
It might depend on what type of zombie. Old school zombies move slow and probably have less to do with guts. All the new age modern zombies can run and actually look more likely to shred something. – Nori9 years ago
Watching the recent excellent feature film 'The Martian' made me think a great deal about what exactly makes and breaks films that effectively hinge upon a single actor to carry most, even all, of the dramatic beats of a film. 'The Martian', 'Cast Away', 'Gravity', 'Moon', 'Locke', 'Secret Honor' etc.
I am Legend! Although Will Smith is amazing so. – Tatijana9 years ago
There could be a few ways to discuss how actors can make or break a film if they are the only focus of the narrative. I think one way could be to focus on films on both ends of the critical spectrum. If a focus of your idea is the acting, why not compare how one actor successfully headed a narrative and how another fell short; compare and contrast the acting methods. – C N Williamson9 years ago
'I Am Legend' is another good shout! The contrast thing is good; I think a particularly effective one would be 'Locke' and the Ryan Reynolds starring 'Buried'. Both are performances technically speaking confined and restrained by the nature of their character's setting/actions, but whereas Tom Hardy gives a magnificent performance and really disappears into the role, I did not really see that with Reynolds. – CalvinLaw9 years ago
There is also the TV show Last Man On Earth that is solely one actor and it is a comedic representation of the "one-man show." – mckinleyebert9 years ago
Aren't 'excellent' and 'effectively' subjective measurements? – T. Palomino2 years ago
How are all these films "hinged upon a single actor"? I mean, there is a protagonist, but there are also other actors... – T. Palomino2 years ago
Analyze the relationship between Spy (2015) featuring Melissa McCarthy and the James Bond film series. In what ways has the comedy evolved? How has the woman's role changed? How has the man's role changed? Is Spy a parody of James Bond, or does it simply share motifs? Do you enjoy one more than the other? Why?
I think most of the humor in Spy comes from parodying the tropes of James Bond movies and other action films. Jason Statham's character in Spy is a parody of the characters he plays in most of his other films. I would also be interesting to look at Knight and Day, which seems to linger on the border of serious action movie and parody. – JLaurenceCohen9 years ago
Would you consider the character played by Melissa McCarthy a new type of the feminist heroine? True to say, her portrayal of the heroine in Spy is somewhat satirical, but it does give the whole picture a breath of fresh air. – Helga1018 years ago
Analyzing the French movie "Amour" is possible to interpret it as a tale about death and love. Or, what makes us being loved or able to love. My suggestion is an experiment on write about the movie "Amour" focusing in his title and going deep in the issue of death, living, and love trying to ask "what is love?" in a specific horizon that the movie is revealing to us.
I think this movie has more than enough to go on regarding this topic; it's excellent! Although conversely you could do a head-to-head comparison of it with 'Intouchables', another French film which discusses disability but with a decidedly more positive spin on things. – CalvinLaw9 years ago
Calvin, this sounds awesome! Two movies so deep in feelings and interpretations. Great idea! – laricouto9 years ago
When analyzing the French movie "Amour" it is possible to interpret it as a tale about death and love. Or, what makes us being loved or able to love. My suggestion is to focus in an experiment on writing about the movie "Amour" focusing in his title and going deep in the issue of death, life, and love, trying to ask "what is love?" in a specific moment that the movie is revealing to us. – larissacouto9 years ago
Stars of young adult book adaptions often become cast in later work as similar roles. Depending on the quality of their work at the time, these actors can sometimes get a bad reputation. Take a look at high quality films with these actors/actresses – like those who were part of the Harry Potter Franchise, the Hunger Games, Twilight and Divergent. For example, Camp X-Ray with Kristen Stewart and Silver Linings Playbook with Jennifer Lawrence have been well received by critics.
Very good idea. In particular, focusing on the likes on Radcliffe and Watson edging out into more adult but still relatively commercial fare, comparing it to the more 'edgier' approach of Grint. Also looking on whether they've transitioned into supporting roles or kept doing lead roles would be interesting. Kristen Stewart's given some good sterling work in the likes of The Clouds of Sils Maria and Still Alice in supporting roles, so that'd be interesting to look into. Jennifer Lawrence I think you could also explore how she was already an established up-and-comer before The Hunger Games, with an Oscar nomination under her belt and a role in 'X-Men First Class' – CalvinLaw9 years ago
Thank you, Calvin Law. I was worried the title may not have reflected the subject matter clearly enough but it sounds like you don't see any problems with it? – Jordan9 years ago
I think that this would be a very interesting topic. However, I feel as though most of the Young Adult Film Franchise Stars that you are referring to are really still very popular in the media, and most people already know where they are now. For instance, Jennifer Lawrence is everywhere and is currently starring in the Hunger Games fourth movie along with the rest of the Hunger Games cast; so I think it is a bit too soon for a "Where are They Now" for the Hunger Games. Twilight star Kristen Stewart is also everywhere. She is starring in a bunch of movies this year, and tabloids all still comment on Robert Pattinson, Rupert Grint, Daniel Radcliffe, and of course Emma Watson. I think maybe if you focused on a "Where are They Now" for older movie franchises such as Die Hard, The Matrix, The Chronicles of Narnia, Star Trek, Star Wars, Indiana Jones,etc. or maybe change from movie franchises to TV shows ( I think that would draw a great deal of attention) then your topic would have a lot more success. – GretaCordova9 years ago
That's a good point! I guess it would be up to the author as to which franchises to focus on. – Jordan9 years ago
