Paranormal’s Lack of Activity

Think scary movie today and what do you imagine? Blood? Gore? Half-naked girls? Old school filmmakers went by the theory of less is more. They put us into the world of the poor, defenseless characters, pulling out our most vulnerable emotions.

Paranormal Activity seems to abide by the less is more practice, but it still falls short of achieving something great. Much of the attention the film has garnered is predicated more on the film’s thrifty production. Word on the street is that it cost $400.00 to make, and was shot in two days on an iPhone…using the “film your own movie” app. I’m kidding of course (it was actually an iPhone 3G). Is this the reason for all the attention? Or, does it deserve credit for the final creation of a film well-done?

Paranormal Activity follows two people with the impression that they’re being followed by demons (get in line guys). The film’s story isn’t radically different than what we’ve seen before. What is different about the film is how we literally see the story portrayed. It’s shot in the same manner that a lot of our Dad’s filmed our fourth grade piano recitals (I used to take a sneak peak into the audience and see my old man with the thing on his shoulder, angry at the camera for not really knowing how to work it, and even angrier at my mother for making him film the stupid thing). Paranormal Activity is extremely raw, which attempts to make it feel more spontaneous. You could say it was filmed “handheld,” but that wouldn’t really be doing it justice; handheld, while either drunk at a party, or floating in outer-space, would probably be more appropriate.

What the film’s look and presentation provides is a sense of intimacy between the audience and the characters. We see them sleep, eat, and talk with one another through their eyes, literally, via the camera. Telling a story from this perspective is all well and good, but the problem with relying so heavily on a unique visual vantage point is that you often ignore a lot of the key elements of the story.

Action? The activities of the characters are reminiscent to an episode of the reality series, Big Brother. It’s like Waiting for Godot, except Vlad and Estragon are waiting for….well you get it.

Conflict?

The film is meant to induce fear, but causes hilarity in some instances when the “demons” come out to play. It’s tough for us to be engaged with a character’s external conflict when the aforementioned demons are so nebulous in nature.

Suspense?

The film has a very powerful ending, but the lack of action and tangible conflict doesn’t bode well for a tense build-up or a strong climax.

Paranormal Activity’s ending does pack a pretty strong punch, when the demons come to life and finally begin interacting with the two characters who we’ve almost literally “become,” in a weird sort of way.  Overall, the film doesn’t try to work with a whole lot, which is why it’s successful…at times. It achieves a unique intimacy by stripping the film down to it’s most fundamental elements: Characters and the world they live in. The problem is the length it takes to become attached to the world, and the mundanity of following two characters interacting in such a static environment. It might look like a home movie, and it certainly feels as boring as one at times. I wonder how engaging the film would be if it didn’t have such propaganda behind it? The ideal objective, after all, of any movie is to captivate it’s audience with a distinctive story and characters, not a unique marketing campaign. There are producers with cars the size of my apartment that are laughing at that statement, but I’d like to think it’s true. 

Paranormal Activity did a bang up job in getting it’s story distributed to theaters across the country and it certainly brings a unique style to a watered down genre. But the film’s central appeal is in the story focusing on the production, rather than the film itself.