Below you’ll see 2 brief videos…
The first video is just a brief explanation of what you should expect from the video reviews here at Franchised Fears…
Video Reviews from Calhoun Kersten on Vimeo.
The second video is the actual review itself. The first in the video review series is 2003′s “so bad it’s good” Final Destination 2.
Check it out!
Although it wasn’t always so, film has come to be a celebrated medium. People look to film to make them laugh, to make them cry, to inform them, and for so many other reasons. However, the recent wave of DIY filmmakers, the likes of which populate sites like YouTube and Vimeo, has complicated feelings on the matter. The duality of the digital revolution is a major talking point for Ling and Donner in their book, Mobile Communication.
Some people see it as a democratization of the medium, making it something tangible for those who don’t have the means to make it in the world of movies or explore their interests with high-tech equipment. Others see it as cheapening the method that people have worked tirelessly to legitimize for years. Regardless of personal feelings on the situation, it has become abundantly clear that film is no longer a rich man’s game. This is the “new participation” that Tapscott and Williams are trying to make sense of in their piece on Wikinomics. Videos have become an everyman (and woman’s) game that has given way to hours of entertainment as well as a unique form of learning. Yes, it has certainly become clear that the landscape for video, transferring from celluloid film to the increasingly digital world, in addition to the shift from Hollywood to “in-your-own-home” filmmaking, has changed the face of videos forever. However, as with most changes, the change is gradual. It could even be argued that it is still taking place. After all, there are still a lot of strides that must be made in this digital video revolution.
One of the areas that is still being fleshed out is, surprisingly enough, film on film. The Internet is rich with possibilities for videos about film, but it almost feels as if there are too many directions that the internet video can take. Considering Franchised Fears deals with horror film franchises, this was one of the first issues necessary to negotiate. The stipulations of the project made it somewhat easier, but I would be remiss to ignore the impact and importance of fanwork in the area of film on film. Fan’s use of the “free” clips that populate sites like YouTube has led to a number of interesting, if somewhat unorthodox, celebrations of the original texts. Particularly when examining something as specific as horror, there are a number of examples of the video-making practices that everyday contributors are using to express their love and/or hate of a particular movie and/or villain. Jenkins explored this idea in his book Textual Poachers in which he says that the fan video creating process allows users to “rearrange the text to privilege secondary characters or subplots” (Jenkins 1992, 236). Although Michael Myers and Freddy Krueger are hardly secondary, the ability to accentuate certain elements remains the same.
Luckily, the directions for the project made it almost painfully clear the tactic that I should use in my video-making process. The syllabus itself states that these videos should “comment on, critique, contribute to, or complicate your project.” When dealing with film, as well as the practical limitations, such as short time frame and little to no budget, it seemed only natural that the video portion of my project would be dedicated to reviewing and/or deconstructing a particular horror film. Although most members of the class may not have taken such a direct approach to the task, the directions, both coincidentally and fortunately, fell into line with some of my personal interests as it relates to the world of horror films.
Furthermore, in looking at the rest of my site, it seemed difficult to come up with any real alternatives. While options like making my own horror franchise were certainly appealing, once again time and money limitations stopped me. In retrospect, it seems difficult to find a place for them on my website as well. Most of the content that I have generated for this project (blog posts, polls, tweets, etc.) have been aimed at a certain understanding of horror. Much of it relates to my personal opinions on these individual horror franchises as it is, so creating a video review felt like a natural next step. After selecting the more minor details, such as which film to review, it was merely a matter of filming it and piecing it together.
One of the most important elements to address when looking at the video review itself is that it was born out of necessity. Not only in the sense that it needed to be done in order to receive a grade, but the manner in which it is presented. I am not saying this in defense of my project, but merely as an element that led to its creation. Both my unfamiliarity with filming and the short time in which I had to complete the project are undeniable elements in the creation of this video review. While this could easily be seen as a drawback, I sincerely feel that it is just as much a positive part of the video review. The choice of location (my apartment) was not only convenient for filming, but it speaks to one of the more enjoyable parts of this DIY video revolution. I feel that makes it me much more approachable by welcoming viewers into my environment. It also helps to put me at ease, so it serves both the audience as well as myself. This is something that is not entirely uncommon with Internet videos. In fact, a majority of them seem to be of someone sitting at his/her computer desk, simply talking into the camera. While my choice to follow in the footsteps of the majority may not set me apart, there are other elements that work in my favor with this video.
One of the other choices that was made in the editing process that works well for my video, as well as my website, is the format. I chose to do a video review for several reasons, but one of the most important was that I feel like I know my audience, or at least internet users. While my written reviews may accomplish the same end goal, there is something that some people find distracting about the written word. For my blog posts, I attempted to compensate for that by adding pictures to break up the blocks of written text. Naturally, removing the written word and replacing it with images and the spoken word is one solution, but even there, the problem of people’s attention span remains. How does one fix this? In layman’s terms, keep it short and sweet. I even used two videos in order to meet the three-minute minimum.
As a YouTube user, I personally have seen the overly long video all too frequently. More often than these are the types of videos that get skimmed once or twice for the meat of the information before being completely forgotten (Shander 2011). Even in my longer video, the actual video review itself, the review is broken up into three pieces; the story, the stars, and the scares. Each subsection is given a little over 45 seconds which, surprisingly enough, is ample to time to address most of the ideas that I would like to include in my review. The key was to find that comfortable median between the audience’s attention span and the information that had to be presented in order to make the video clip a legitimate review. Fortunately, I feel like that middle ground was found in the introduction clip and the brief video review.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the video review was a natural progression because it builds on the blog reviews in a way that I would not be able to do with the written word. As we discussed in class with the Netflix blog post example, writing loses it sense of ownership in cyberspace. It is subject to the reader’s own interpretation and/or feelings on the matter. What is present in the video review, as opposed to the written ones, is, for lack of a better word, me. By providing my physical appearance, intonation, and word choice, viewers get a better idea of the creator. They can hear sarcasm, where they might not be able to read it. Although it may sound like a small consolation, it is a huge part of the video-making and video-viewing experience (Paterson 2008). By putting myself in the video, it provides context for viewers. There is certainly an authorial voice when it comes to writing, but even that is subject to the reader. It cannot compare to the physical voice and facial expressions that a video has to offer.
Although born out of necessity, it has become clear to me in the process of making a video, just what video has to offer. Despite technical limitations, such as lack of equipment or experience, video-making has become something truly remarkable. Born out of humble beginnings, before giving way to Hollywood glamour, videos have returned to their humble yet honest origins in a new capacity. They now belong to the people. Besides the universality of video-making, it has had a surprisingly profound impact on my personal endeavors. Despite little to no technical proficiency in the creative process, I was able to piece together my own video. Taking the lack of familiarity into account and the video review’s technical and temporal limitations, Franchised Fears has been greatly improved by the addition of the video review. Not only does it grab internet users who may be hesitant to read too much, but it caters to the attention span of the digital generation. Furthermore, it has helped to make my voice real in a way that I was unable to do in just writing.
Paranormal Activity 3 transports the audience back to 1988, to the beginning of the terror. Kristi and Katie are both young girls living a simple life with their mother and her live-in boyfriend, Dennis. When Kristi begins talk to an imaginary friend, Toby, and unexplainable things start happening around the house, Dennis uses his camera equipment from his job as a wedding photographer, to survey the house to try to find the origin of these bizarre circumstances.
Third films in a franchise are always burdened with making sense of the previous films in a way that is somehow more inventive than the sequel. It’s a difficult task. Luckily, filmmakers Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost prove that they are up to the challenge with Paranormal Activity 3. With a simultaneously definitive and ambiguous ending to the first two films, there was no other choice but to focus on a different paranormal entity or further expand on the supernatural universe of the first two films. Thankfully, the two directors made the right choice of exploring Kristi and Katie’s past in an attempt to provide some answers to the questions posed in the earlier films.
Truth be told, the most tiresome part of this third installment is a number of its scare tactics. For instance, in one scene, Katie is antagonizing her younger sister for talking to an invisible friend. In true horror film fashion, Katie goes to explore Toby’s “home”, which is a crawl space in the girls’ bedroom. It is only a matter of seconds before the door slams shut and Katie begins to cry for help. There are a number of other moments that use “gotcha” scares that startle in the moment, but their terror fails to live on past the closing credits. However, the film isn’t entirely made up of moments such as this. Unlike its predecessors, Paranormal Activity 3 doesn’t use loud noises or sudden movements to unsettle its audience. It’s the moments where the film is clearly content to be quietly creepy that make this film such a refreshing departure from the previous entries in the series.
Fortunately, while some of the scares have grown tired, Paranormal Activity 3 doesn’t reduce itself to the sum of its scares. It tasks itself with the much bigger picture.Taking the fragmented pieces of information from the first two films, Paranormal Activity 3 tries to build a sensible storyline out of it. The danger there is that, if the directors aren’t careful, the final product ends up being a film of almost entirely exposition. Although the film starts out teetering on the brink of exhilarating and exhausting for the first act, it soon commits to being a white-knuckle thrill ride that fits nicely into the Paranormal Activity chronology.
While Paranormal Activity 3 tries to piece some of it together, it knows when to answer questions and when to ask more. Most of Paranormal Activity 3 is a slow burn, but in its final act, it makes some questionable leaps in order to connect the dots. However, there is still a fair amount that is left in the dark or left up to the audience. It seems unclear at this point, but with the breakaway success of the third film in the franchise, it seems almost certain that a fourth installment should be expected next year. Hopefully it will lead viewers closer to the truth about the demon that has plagued Katie and Kristi both their lives and resolve some of the more preposterous elements of it’s still highly enjoyable, if not slightly problematic, third act.
Paranormal Activity 2 follows the exploits of Katie’s sister, Kristi. Wife of Daniel, new mother to baby, Hunter, and stepmother to Ali, Kristi seems to have the perfect life. However, it isn’t long before things begin to take a darker turn. After the family’s home is burgled, Daniel sets up security cameras to document any strange happenings in the house.
It would be all too easy to dismiss Paranormal Activity 2 as the studio attempting to cash in on the success of the first film. The scares are very similar and the presentation is practically identical. But to write it off as such, would be to do a great disservice to the film. The similarities don’t read as tired tropes, but rather, a level of consistency that is hard to find in most horror franchises. Tod Williams, who takes the directorial reigns from Oren Peli, does justice to the first film’s vision while doing everything in his power to improve it.
One such improvement, which sounds minor but greatly improves the flow of the film, is the addition of new cast members. Paranormal Activity, while scary, burdens its two leads with most of the dialogue and actions. By focusing the second film on an established family, it allows for multiple reactions to events and creates a richer sense of tension that is sorely missing from the first film. The character of stepdaughter Ali, while annoying at times, does wonders to establish a sense of urgency in the story. Even the addition of non-speaking cast members, such as the dog, Abby, and the baby, Hunter, help build the suspense. Abby’s role is a trope from a number of other horror films. There is this idea that both dogs and infants have a greater connection to the spiritual world than others, so by playing off audience’s previous knowledge of horror films, Paranormal Activity 2 builds suspense without weighing the film down with exposition.
Ultimately, the greatest thing that Paranormal Activity 2 is play with the audience’s sense of time. Horror films, such as the Saw franchise, have attempted to do this but none has managed to do this as effectively as this film. Throughout the opening portion of the film, titles are interjected that state the time and date. Honestly, it feels as if it’s a non-issue until the introduction, or rather re-introduction, of Katie. It then becomes clear that Paranormal Activity 2 takes place before the conclusion of the first film. However, as time passes, the violence and hostility escalates. It is only when Daniel suggests passing this “curse,”or whatever it is, on to a blood relative that the film comes into focus. It becomes clear just where this film falls in the franchise’s story line. By revealing that the actions of the characters in this sequel directly influenced events of the first film, Paranormal Activity 2 elevates itself from the category of “cash-in sequel.” It becomes an alarmingly interwoven and enriched film that builds the mythos of the franchise in a way that the first film couldn’t.
Paranormal Activity 2 does something that not enough horror franchises do. It takes the mistakes of the first film and does everything in its power to rectify them. However, it is also certain to pay tribute to the elements that made the first film so effective and build on them. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it recognizes its place in the franchise. Rather than being content to be the second in a series, it uses its status as a sequel to weave a new story of its own, while building on the mystery of the first film.
Well, the turn out for this past week’s poll was slightly better… with a whopping eight votes, there was one clear winner. Don’t get me wrong, it was a nail-biter, but when two of the films (the third and fourth in the series) don’t garner any votes at all, there’s only so much tension one can create.
This week’s winner is Wes Craven’s original 1996 game-changer, Scream.
Paranormal Activity tells the story of Micah and Katie, a young couple who find themselves terrorized by an unseen force. In an effort to get to the bottom of the problem, Micah takes it upon himself to start filming the house at night, hoping to catch what ever is causing these problems. But as the couple soon realizes, just because it can’t be seen doesn’t mean it can’t scare you… or hurt you. In every sense of the word, Paranormal Activity is by no means a “new” film. Stories of demon possessions have been around for ages, since before the written word. Even in the world of movies, found footage films, like The Blair Witch Project have been done before. So what is it that stuck with audiences when Paranormal Activity hit audiences in 2009? That was the question on my mind when I watched Paranormal Activity for the first time. truth be told, it’s a question I still find myself asking from time to time. Could it be the underdog nature of the film production itself? After all, it is the little movie that could. Could it be the acting or directing of the film? Or is it something as simple as the fact that audiences seem to love a god old-fashioned scare? It’s hard to tell.
One thing that’s for certain is that Paranormal Activity has a timeless element to it. Completed back in 2007, the film didn’t see a wide release until two years later. Still, the story held up just the same. There is absolutely something universal to the fear of what happens in the dark. That compounded with the uncertainty of what goes on when you sleep? It’s enough to unsettle just about anybody.
But part of the genius is based in the setting of the film as well. Most people are somewhat familiar with the making of Paranormal Activity, but for those who aren’t, the film was made on a shoe string budget in the director’s own home. It wasn’t a set. It wasn’t a found location. It was a home. It was someplace lived in. That’s such a huge part of what sells the scares of Paranormal Activity. Even though most people will never find themselves living in a house like that, it’s a location that is clearly lived in.
However, what’s even more remarkable is that, as the film demonstrates, the home isn’t even the most important part. Sure, it does wonders to help establish that fear that this could happen to anyone or anywhere, but as Paranormal Activity shows its viewers, this type of evil can find you anywhere. it isn’t like Poltergeist where there’ s a clear answer, such as leaving the house behind. Paranormal Activity poses questions which it freely admits does not have a clear answer. All of these elements work together to create an overwhelming sense of tension, but the film is not without its problems either.
As previously mentioned, Paranormal Activity utilizes the found footage technique of filming. The majority of the film takes place in the same house. While these are beneficial in bringing the scares into the average viewer’s home, the film is also burdened by its commitment to this technique. When forced to focus on the actions of two characters for any extended period of time, every choice becomes questionable and most dialogue begins to sound stilted. Although the film manages its scares effectively, unfortunately the same cannot be said for its characters and by the end of its almost 90 minute run time (which was stretched into roughly 100 minutes for the DVD release) the fate of the characters is a welcome end to the movie-going experience.
Paranormal Activity covers well-traversed ground in its story of demonic hauntings in a seemingly idyllic home. However, it is the film’s ability to universalize these timeless aspects of the horror film that make it such a visceral moviegoing experience. However, much like any horror film, Paranormal Activity is not without its problems. Its rather flat characters and clunky dialogue sometimes make the scenes in between the scares seem like more of a chore than they should. Ultimately, it is easy to forgive this film for its faults and enjoy it for the good old-fashioned horror flick that it is at heart.
The A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise faced a serious setback after its sophomore venture. Luckily, the razor-sharp wit and bloodlust that people had some to expect from the original was back with bite in 1987, with the release of A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors. The franchise made a wise decision to essentially ignore that Freddy’s Revenge had ever happened and brought back some of the favorites of the original for a second go-around.
Dream Warriors finds the “last of the Elm Street children”, the kids of the vigilantes who killed Freddy Krueger years ago, placed in a mental institution under the care of Dr. Neil Gordon and Nancy Thompson, from the original. With no one believing them, except Nancy who has experienced the terror before, Freddy begins to take the children down one by one. Only when they realize that each is enabled with special powers in the dream world are the children able to fight back against their tormentor.
Honestly, there’s a lot to love about Dream Warriors but one of the undeniable elements is Freddy’s Revenge. A franchise is only as strong as its weakest sequel and with an abomination like Freddy’s Revenge in the line-up, a strong follow-up like Dream Warriors is even more appreciated. That’s not to say that Dream Warriors can’t stand on its own, but its placement in the series is a key factor.
Another undeniable element of the fun is that Freddy is back in fine form. While the Freddy from the original had a mixture of menace and macabre humor, this Freddy has fun with his power. while some could easily view this as campy, I think it establishes this great villainous dynamic. With so many other slasher figures, such as Michael or Jason, they don’t have a voice. Freddy uses his voice to toy with his victims. It builds up this whole cat-and-mouse routine as he lurks in the shadows. This is where the storytelling of A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 truly shines. Most people don’t think of the storytelling as a part of the slasher world, since so many slashers ignore it, but Dream Warriors does a fairly proficient job of enriching the story world of the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise.
However, this should not mean that the slasher elements, the blood and guts that many slasher fans have come to expect, are completely ignored. In fact, Dream Warriors easily has some of the greatest kills in the series. To give you an idea of one of the more memorable ones, Freddy takes the tendons of one of his victims and uses them to control his victim, much like a puppet. To be honest, it’s the best kill of the movie and arguably the franchise. But there is plenty to satisfy the gore craving of many slasher fans while appealing to those who long for more narrative focus from their horror films.
Fresh off the failure of Freddy’s Revenge, the third film re-invigorates Freddy. With a killer cast and the playful menace that people have come to expect from Freddy, this is a welcome addition to a franchise that was jeopardized with its second film. Dream Warriors return to form is welcome and even improved upon this time around. Ultimately, it is the combination of smart storytelling and standard slasher fare that make Dream warriors such a successful venture for the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise.
