Historically-speaking,
I have not been the biggest fan of the Paranormal Activity franchise.
I
disliked the first film for its lack of subtlety and nuance. Paranormal Activity’s (2007) final reveal
of a demonic close-up was a capitulation to lowest common denominator-style
filmmaking, and an undercutting of the very “found footage” paradigm the film
exploited.
I
warmed a little (just a little…) to the second entry. Some moments in the drama worked moderately
well, whereas some effects -- exposed in too-revealing long shot -- actually played
as funny.
I
was surprised and impressed with the third film in the franchise, however,
which I found, by-and-large, scary. There’s a highly-effective sequence in Paranormal
Activity 3 wherein a man (with video-camera) and a young girl seek
shelter in a bathroom as an angry spirit attempts to break in. The scene
escalates and escalates, and is as impressive as any “big” horror movie moment
produced in the last few years.
So
color me ambivalent about the franchise as whole.
But
recently I had a reader here on the blog help me contextualize the PA movies
in terms of horror movie history. When I
reviewed the found-footage genre for high-points in a recent Ask JKM post,
Trent wrote the following in a comment:
“I still think that you have to recommend 'Paranormal
Activity' as a top tier found footage film. If ‘The Blair Witch Project'
is to the found-footage craze of the 2000's as 'Halloween' was to the
slasher film craze of 1980s, (which I think is fair) then 'Paranormal Activity' is
analogous to 'Friday the 13th.”
I suspect Trent’s point is spot-on regarding the
comparison (if not the quality of Paranormal Activity). Halloween and The Blair Witch Project
are the gold standards of their respective genre formats, and demonstrate a
zenith in terms of artistry and effect. The Friday the 13th
films and The Paranormal Activity movies are much more mainstream and commercially
calculated.
Likewise, these series share in common the fact
that they seem to vacillate wildly in terms of quality from entry to
entry. Furthermore, the next chapter
seems to come out every year, without fail.
To continue the comparison, Paranormal Activity 3 may
be the Friday the 13th (1980), or Friday the 13th Part
II (1981) of the PA saga… a relatively “good” or
strong outing.
But unfortunately, this comparison also means
that the recent Paranormal Activity 4 (2012) is the Jason Takes Manhattan of the
PA
franchise, meaning, simply, that it is pretty dreadful.
In fact, Paranormal Activity 4 is so bad that
it reinforces many of the common misperceptions about the found footage format:
that the acting is bad; that the films are dull and pointless; and that the
movies don’t make a lot of sense from a narrative or thematic standpoint.
When Robbie comes to stay in Alex’s house for a
few weeks (while his mom is ostensibly in the hospital), weird disturbances
occur at night, and Alex begins to suspect that someone or something wants her
dead. With Ben’s help, she sets up
cameras all over the house, and monitors the footage, at least for a time, from
her computer.
The first thing one might notice about Paranormal
Activity 4 is that this is the only franchise entry not to focus on
adults, but teenagers instead. Unlike
the Friday
the 13th films, however, the characters who are supposed to
be teenagers are actually played by
teenagers, rather than by twenty-somethings.
And for all the film’s abundant flaws, the actress who plays Alex,
Kathryn Newton is pretty strong. At the
very least, she’s better than the material she is asked to carry.
But the important point is an underlying one. The
franchise’s shift to teenage concerns suggests recognition on the part of the
producers that the franchise is now aging. Therefore attracting certain demographic
groups has become crucial.
Secondly, this is the first Paranormal Activity film
that is girded with specific tributes or homages to the horror genre, which
again suggests that the franchise’s appeal is narrowing, and that filmmakers
are hoping to target some demographics more directly.
I don’t know how many general audiences will
recognize the re-staging of a famous and scary sequence from Peter Medak’s The
Changeling (1980), or another moment that echoes Tobe Hooper’s Poltergeist (1982), for example. There’s even a moment here that deliberately
recalls Kubrick’s The Shining (1980). I recognized these allusions, but they don’t
add up to anything meaningful in terms of Paranormal Activity 4’s narrative or
themes.
My biggest concern with the film is that it
features almost no scares. Even the jump
scares are mild. And because this film
is longer in duration (nearly 100 minutes) than the other Paranormal Activity films,
the almost total absence of frightening material is noteworthy and troublesome. This film is a long, hard slog -- Paranormal Inactivity -- and with the
possible exception of a visual gimmick regarding Kinect, there are precious few
innovations in format.
In addition, Paranormal Activity 4’s finale
violates a cardinal rule of the found footage sub-genre: we don’t know what kind
of device Alex is recording on during her fateful, night-vision journey into
the neighbor’s dark and sinister house.
She doesn’t seem to be using her laptop, and there’s little indication
she picked up Ben’s video camera.
Instead, the entire final scene plays like a coda tacked on in
post-production, after audience focus groups found the third act uninspiring or
disappointing. One minute, Alexa is in
her own house, being attacked by an invisible demon, and in the next, she’s
crossing the street, using an unknown device, and probing into the dark house
alone. Almost all the supernatural “action”
of the film, at least in terms of effects, occurs in this brief denouement.
Further, Paranormal Activity 4 falls prey to
a problem that has become increasingly common in the found-footage genre. Specifically, cameras record overt,
undeniable, dangerous supernatural activity, but the dramatis personae mysteriously don’t review that important footage. Here, Alex is levitated above her bed one
night. Several days later, she still hasn’t reviewed the footage and
witnessed what occurred.
If she did watch that footage, it would be
evidence for her doubting Thomas parents, of course. And yes, there’s a lame excuse in the movie
that Alex can’t access the footage because she’s forgotten the password that
enables viewing. But if you really
believed a malevolent entity was after you, would you wait days and days before
attempting even a basic password recovery?
Most password encoded programs have a prompt that reads: forgot password? Click here.
Secondly, Ben also has access to the
footage. That footage includes his hot,
would-be girlfriend going to bed every night in her skimpy jammies and shorts. So wouldn’t he at least check in for
lascivious purposes?
Basically, the entire last act of Paranormal
Activity 4 is predicated on the ridiculous notion that Alex is filming
tons of footage (so we in the audience can see it), but not watching a lick of
it (so she can remain in danger). It’s
contrived in the extreme.
Of all the Paranormal Activity movies, I would
count this one as the worst, and also the most disappointing given the
surprising quality of the third film.
There’s not even one good scare moment in this sequel, or one legitimately
great visual composition, or scene set up. It’s all a slow, meandering trip to
nowhere, with a tacked-on ending that exists only to grease the wheels for the
inevitable sequel next year.
Perhaps that no-doubt-upcoming effort will be more Jason
Lives! or The Final Chapter than a A New Beginning. One can hope.
You know, sometimes I read movie reviews and wonder if there are two different films with the same title, and the reviewer saw the OTHER one. I didn't find PA4 that bad. Not great mind you, but still effective and what I paid my $7 to see. I am not saying you are wrong, or in any way diminishing your opinion, just wondering if we saw the same movie.
ReplyDelete