Dead or Alive? The Horror of the Horror Genre

What scares you? This is the question that the horror genre has been trying desperately to answer and exploit since the 20s (and many would argue before). In the last twenty years alone, the average horror grossed $19,048,963 which is around two and a half times the amount of the average drama - the genre with the most films produced each year.1 So, considering that on average horrors earn more than dramas, comedies, and rom-coms, why is the horror genre victim to constant sequels, spin offs, and re-makes?  Looking back over the last twenty years again,  of the top grossing horror films each year, eleven are sequels or prequels, two are spin offs, and two are English language remakes.  Apart from the Twilight franchise, the drama genre has none of the above. Is there no originality left in horror? Do people only want to see Freddy invade more dreams, or more paranormal activity? What makes a good horror film and is that different to a successful one?

The Paranormal Activity films held the top spot of the
 horror box office for four years from 2009 until 2012

A while ago I examined a similar question focusing on the comedy genre, begging the argument between comedy and quality. Like that debate, with horror, not only is there a question of quality and 'scariness', but also of box office success. Paranormal Activity 4, for example, topped the horror box office, just like its three predecessors,  but was a critical failure. And, unlike the third and first instalments of the franchise, was lacking in a scare factor.2 A quick Google search for 'Best Horror Films' will immediately treat you to the 'Best' horror films, the 'Scariest' horror films, and the 'Creepiest' horror films. What's the difference, if there is one? Is the best horror film the scariest, the one that does best at the box office, the one the critics love the most, or the creepiest? The answer seems to be none of them.

Like comedy, fear is subjective. George A. Romero, father of the zombie genre and all round horror genius, says: ‘I don’t know why we love these movies so much. It must be an involuntary response. Why does a joke make you laugh? It’s the same thing with a scare.’3 Returning to the original question of this article, horror aims to scare you. What scares you is different to what scares me; what scares this generation is different to what scared the last. Look at the trends in horror films over the decades: nuclear and cold war fears in the 50s and 60s, 'Hyperpostmodernism'4 in the current age. Horror tries to capture the current anxieties of the time, but without a single universal fear today - as Tyler Durden so brilliantly put it 'We have no great war. No great depression'5 - the horror genre has to try grab any zeitgeist it can get its hands on.

Saw's success saw its sequels top the
horror box office in 2005, 2006, and 2008.

Without a universal fear to capitalise on, the most successful horrors of the 21st century have been those that will still manage to scare the majority. The Paranormal Activity films show things going bump in the night, using unexpected jump scares to keep its audience on edge, whilst the Saw franchise simply made their sequels so bloody that most movie-goers would have to watch through their fingers. But are these just cheap thrills designed to appeal to the sofa-dwelling adrenaline junkie? As Ben Wheatley (director of the fantastic A Field in England) says 'With horror you want to feel afraid, because you can do it without consequences.'6  Do these films actually make us afraid, or do they just make us jump and feel squeamish? Is there no more building suspense to an exasperating climax, no more looming dread? Just think, how many jump scares did 'King of Horror' Alfred Hitchcock use per film?

Hitchcock describes it better than I can; tension causes the audience to engage emotionally whilst jump scares cause a brief rush of adrenaline. Often, and this is particularly evident in the Paranormal Activity sequels, the innovation of jump scares takes priority over creating a solid narrative for a film which leaves the audience little to connect with. Perhaps this is where horror has fallen down; it sacrifices structure for scares. Even in Ancient Greece, Aristotle's Poetics lists plot and character as the most important aspects of tragic storytelling, yet rates spectacle as the least important. In horror, isolated moments of fear followed by dialogue-heavy stretches with undeveloped characters may make us scream embarrassingly loudly in the cinema, but how often do we leave appreciating the whole film rather than the spectacular moment? Or is this the 'Post-Human Era' of film that Richard Corliss spoke about where the set pieces matter more than the script?7

Oculus entered the box-office at number 3 but
dropped out of the top 10 in under two weeks.

But this box-office topping era of Post-Humanist film making has not taken its toll on all films in the genre. Every year hosts of narrative and character driven horrors are released but are often independently funded, meaning they get a limited release. Without a star or gimmick (i.e. 'Based on a true story') to attach to their marketing, the films go undetected by the masses. See, for example, the recent films The Babadook or It Follows which have received critical acclaim and high recommendation. Of course, that recommendation is only good if you are lucky enough to find somewhere showing it. But even the mainstream suffers from lack of exposure. Look at 2013's Oculus, which managed to have Karen Gillan (pre-Guardians of the Galaxy) as the lead. But despite the film's strong psychological fear factor and positive reviews, the film was forgotten about almost instantly. Perhaps a Doctor Who star does not a Hollywood star make. With no star to advertise with, the film had trouble filling the seats of the cinema. Is a horror's success based on how marketable it is? In which case we come back to money.

Australian horror The Babadook took the critics by storm.

The Babadook grossed less than $5,000,0008 worldwide and yet has racked up a 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and a fantastic 86 on Metacritic. To compare, we can look at some of the better marketed films which turned into box office success. For example, James Wan's films Insidious, Insidious: Chapter 2, (both produced by Oren Peli of Paranormal Activity) and The Conjuring all use his success with Saw in their marketing. Insidious can even claim to be by the creators of Saw and Paranormal Activity while The Conjuring can use Insidious' success too. Not to mention that all of these films had star leads (like the Oscar nominated Vera Farmiga and Barbara Hershey, as well as Golden Globe nominee Patrick Wilson). The difference between Babadook and Conjuring? Somewhere in the region of $310,000,0009 in worldwide grossing.

Of course, The Conjuring was a genuinely good film (as was the first act of Insidious before it drifted into a strange limbo-type realm) and deserved its financial gain. Its success promoted its critically slammed spin-off, Annabelle to the top of 2014's horror box office. So if marketing can explain the box-office trends, we have finally gathered evidence to prove something. That you need to spend money to make money. And that is what these countless sequels have: money. Whilst The Babadook is a better film than both The Conjuring and Insidious, you probably just never got the chance to see it. So has the horror genre lost its variety and quality? Is it doomed to forever be subject to sequels, remakes, and spin-offs? No, that is just what makes money. The horror genre is still alive and well and as varied as ever. For every blockbuster horror hit that gains a list of sequels, there will be several original and excellent pieces of horror cinema out there to scare yourself with.

From Saw to The Conjuring, James Wan's
creations continue to dominate the horror box office.

If a successful horror is to do with subjective fear, then this ultimate question of 'What makes a good horror?' cannot be answered. But rather than despair at the state of the horror genre, film fans should become pro-active in finding films that scare them. To bring back what Wheatley said, horror allows us to be scared free of consequence. If it is blood and gore that scares you, perhaps try Martyrs over Saw V. If you like psychological horror or films that play with your mind, maybe A Field in England would suit you. Or do you like satire? If so, you have Cabin in the Woods, You're Next, or the hilarious Tucker and Dale vs Evil. Maybe you prefer an even more niche market and you want found-footage satire with genuine scares. Try Grave Encounters. All of these films are from the last five years and are a small selection of what is out there.

But what scares you? Are you still in despair over horror films? Or do you just want a recommendation that will suit your particular set of phobias and fears. Leave a comment below and, in the words of Mike Enslin, 'Stay scared!'10


Some references:

1: Statistics from: http://www.the-numbers.com/market/genres
2: Read what I thought here: http://philspointlessblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/paranormal-actrilogy.html
3: Quoted in: http://www.timeout.com/london/film/why-do-we-love-scary-movies?package_page=44205
4: Wee, V (2005) ‘The Scream Trilogy, "Hyperpostmodernism," and the Late-Nineties Teen Slasher Film.’ Journal of Film and Video Volume 57 (Issue 3): Pages 44-61
5: Fight Club (1999) Directed by: David Fincher
6: Quoted in: http://www.timeout.com/london/film/why-do-we-love-scary-movies?package_page=44205
7: Corliss, R (2011) http://time.com/3833900/fast-five-movie-review/
8: Statistics from: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=babadook.htm
9: Statistics from: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=conjuring.htm
10: 1408 (2007) Directed by: Mikael Håfström

Follow Phil on Twitter: https://twitter.com/philrowlandson

Paranormal Actrilogy

Horror movies have a habit of spinning out of control when the term 'franchise' is mentioned. I mean, look at Saw, Friday The 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street. They all have seven movies or more and the sad truth of the matter is that most people will not want to watch past the fourth or fifth one. I mean has anyone seen Jason X? There is little parallel to the fear that reaches deep inside any horror fanatic when it is announced that there will be a series of films following a successful horror. Today, we look at one example of this in recent years: The Paranormal Activity franchise.

What follows are three reviews, one of each of the current Paranormal Activity films, and they will be chucked full of spoilers, so if you want to know nothing about the plot or, more importantly, the scares, just scroll to the end for spoiler free reviews. Right, let's get started.

Paranormal Activity


The film that started it all. Released originally on a tiny budget in 2007 and was almost unheard of until 2009 when Paramount picked it up for general release and it exploded. Oren Peli, who shot the film in ten days in his own home, could never have predicted the success and profit that his small, handheld horror would have. With enough actors to count on one hand, there had to be some secret to the success...

Bonus points for the first movie because
Katie Featherston is beautiful

One could argue that it is simplicity that slay the industrial beast of cinema. With only two actors for the majority of the film and a plot, if it can so be called, that a five year old could follow, the film appeals to a wide audience, horror fan or not. What does the demon want? Katie. That's all. Micah and Katie don't try any whichcraft or exorcism, they just get terrorised. And then the hauntings. Playing with the unknown is possible the simplest, yet hardest, horror technique. How do you make someone scared of something that isn't there without being too explicit about it? Magically appearing footprints are a good start, along with other things that appear out of the corner of your eye. The audience question what they're seeing and, in doing so, get sucked into Micah and Katie's world and experience the same scares.

Or perhaps it's the avoidance of over used horror clichés. Hauntings in the day time and genuine human emotion rather than rash, night time decisions provide something fresh on the screen. And it is not all down hearted like a lot of horrors; even when things get more intense, Micah provides comic relief. While it does suffer from being slow and losing tension in the majority of the day time footage, the fresh and simple perspective on ghosts is something that  cinema was craving. Horror fans went crazy for it and horror 'haters' went to see it in order to say, 'Well, it wasn't really a good movie...' But the biggest shock to all movie fans is that this was a good movie as well as a good horror. It ticked the boxes for both categories. The real question is: did the sequels?

Paranormal Activity 2


The first sequel is a lot bigger in every sense than its predecessor. It delves into the life of Katie's sister, Kristi, and her family after the birth of her first son, Hunter, and happens only weeks before the events of the first movie. Jumping straight into the reviewing, this film is no where near the first one in terms of quality. In fact, it is pretty awful. Think back to what worked about the first one: the simple plot, the combination of subtle hauntings and explicit demonic activity. Evidently, the writers of this instalment threw those out of the window and decided on a far too complicated plot and next to no hauntings at all. 

Looks like I wasn't the only one to doze off...

Well, I say too complicated a plot, but really it is a very satisfactory plot. One that explains more of the demons intentions and why the events in the first movie happen. And yes, it is completely needless. However, its biggest flaw is the terrible timing. Nothing even remotely important is mentioned until half an hour in (and even that is more important for the third movies plot) and nothing particularly scary happens until about 50 minutes into the movie. That scare, a shadow moving over Ali while she sleeps, is followed by nothingness for a bit, unless you count terrible writing and horrid characters as 'something'. Ali leaves the house, while baby sitting, and the door slams behind her. Rather than doing anything logical, she wanders off until her parents get home. And this still isn't the most annoying her character gets. Her disobedience, rudeness and laughing at others will encourage nothing but the hope that the demon kills her.

 
In fact, the only character worth a damn (minus the dog) is the dad, but even he is completely blind to the events happening around him and doesn't trust his family. The other major flaw with the plot is that the main point -that there's a curse from the grandmother on the first born male in her family, Hunter - is so irrationally jumped to after an hour or so on Google. No one even suspects that there's another explanation. And after all this, the family is safe. Good. A nice wholesome ending. Wait... Nevermind. The entire point of being able to transfer the curse is pointless because, as well as killing your sister in law, you also kill your own family. Smooth. Not scary, badly written, and completely unsatisfactory.

Paranormal Activity 3


A prequel that shoots back much further than a few weeks. We're now in Kristi and Katie's childhood. This time the writers have remembered what made the first film work and used it and built on it. Something that is completely understandable with a bigger budget and an ability to use larger special effects. So it turns out that Katie and Kristi, their mother, Julie, and their step-father, Dennis, were haunted, rather violently, as kids. They never talk about it though, even when it comes back in the other two movies. The glaring issue with this film, and the second, is everyone's ignorance of the issues. Everyone has cameras, but only Micah in the first movie really checks it. Well, that's not true. Dennis checks his footage daily. But whenever he tries to show it to Julie, she ignores him. Then she dies. And he dies. Well played, Julie. Four for you. 

The ghost normally stops being scary by the third movie...
But this is a new low.

But don't get me wrong, the third instalment is a massive step up on the second. The plot is simpler, the scares are both bigger but some are more subtle, and stuff actually happens. The basic plot, is there's a ghost or a demon. Kristi talks to it and calls it Toby. Scary stuff happens. Easy right? Well, until they throw in the side plot to tie the films together. Something about a covenant of woman who marry girls to demons who take the first born male. (See the link now?) This side plot is actually the beginning of a downfall for the otherwise fantastic ending. After Julie goes to check on her mother and doesn't return, Dennis goes investigating and finds an empty house. A shadow in the window when there turns out to be no one there gets you to the edge of your seat. And then he opens a door and there's a load of crazy old ladies who chase him. Honestly, it seemed like it was plucked from another movie completely. Then Julie's body is floating, dead. Then Kristi shows up and they hide in a cupboard, then Katie scares the pants off of you. Then Julie's mum turns up, Dennis gets broken, and Julie's mum walks off with Kristi, Katie, and, apparently, Toby.


Yes, that was a massive spoiler, but I needed to point out how ridiculous the ending became after such a tense promising start. The best thing about Paranormal Activity 3 is the ghost activity. Some of it is fantastic. There's a sheet, like a child dressed as a ghost, which suddenly collapses. The entire kitchen lifts into the ceiling while off camera only to slam down with perfect timing (something the second film REALLY lacked) and a mysterious figure appears behind Dennis but only briefly. And those are just the more obvious ones. There's the fast shadow that shoots past doors and Katie skipping down the corridor at night. And there's something great in the build up. Kristi talking to the ghost and playing with him creates some kind of suspense that is difficult to create. Though 'Toby' seems very fickle. He attacks Katie and protects Kristi and then later it switches without any real reason. That's too simple a plot. Elaborate, please. 


Spoiler Free Below:

A quick word about all three movies. The camera work is a big thing with this series, obviously, being shot from handheld cameras. The first movie had a single camera which caught just enough to intrigue the audience, but not enough to scare them silly. The second one caught far too much. Most night time scenes were five minutes of nothing but different views of the house. It was like watching Big Brother at three in the morning. The third one got the cameras right. It gave purpose to having the handheld, unlike the second, and he developed his filming as the hauntings progressed. He started with one camera, switched to two, and then ended with three, the last on a neat swivel so that it could catch a panoramic view, and also created large blind spots for a few seconds. This captured just the right amount of ghost activity. It's a pity that the story wasn't better. Will the fourth one get it right? And let me know your opinions on anything Paranormal Activity related and especially what you think of the upcoming one.


Paranormal Activity 1: For the best storyline, a fresh look at horrors, the best characters, and actually being scary, I reward you with:

Paranormal Activity 2: For terrible in almost every sense, but still managing to make me care about the dog, take this petty prize:

Paranormal Activity 3: For best special effects, camera work, and ghost activity, you should be the best. However, your plot lost its way too often and you ruined a great ending. Take this: