As director Oren Peli's "Paranormal Activity" continues its seemingly unstoppable march into the Halloween weekend, it's a good idea for us all to take a step back and consider exactly why it is so successful. The horror genre isn't exactly imperiled, but there are those in the fan community -- myself included -- who contend that so much attention has been brought to bear on delivering lifelike special effects and moment-to-moment thrills that the all-important element of suspense has been cast aside.
There's plenty of evidence to support the theory. Whatever your interest level in recent efforts such as "Halloween II" and "Saw VI" may be, they are clearly not subtle. "Paranormal," on the other hand, is highlighted by a slow-building terror. There's nary a drop of blood nor exposed innard to be found, and yet it's hard to sit and watch without squirming uncomfortably as the demon's tortures grow more overt. As Peli told us in a recent interview, that was the plan all along.
"I knew from the beginning that I wanted to have a very slow build, compared to the current horror movies that... usually start with a big bang and [then] deliver a jump scare every few minutes," he explained. For inspiration, he dug deeper into cinema history than the past 10 years, looking beyond well-regarded efforts like the original "Saw" and "Scream."
"I knew I wanted to break this formula," he continued. "Kind of go back to the way older movies were done, like Hitchcock movies and movies that really took their time to build a premise and give you a chance to get to know the characters." The most effective horror, he reasoned, has you right there with the characters, seeing what they see and fearing what they fear.
"I thought that if you do that, then the payoff later is far better, because you're really invested in the characters," he said. "Also, when you go through the formula, it reminds you that you're watching a movie. I wanted to break that so people would think they're just watching some home video."
With such a profound break from the current norm, one starts to wonder if "Paranormal" can even be referred to as a genre film. Does Peli think so? "In a way, but some people say it's more a suspense/thriller or supernatural thriller, not really a horror movie."
How so? "Although of a lot of scary things happen, it's not a horror movie in the traditional sense of a lot of gore and jump scares and stuff like that. So I don't know if it's really easy to define."
Whatever the recipe is, it's clearly a successful one. With more than $65 million in box office earnings to date, off of a movie that cost less than $15,000 to make, formal concerns such as genre fall by the wayside. Hollywood is a business after all, and "Paranormal Activity" is immensely profitable. However you want to label it, you can bet that studios large and small are going to be looking to repeat that success.
Which elements contribute the most to the success of "Paranormal Activity"? Is it purely in the quality of the film/filmmaking? Does the marketing, which has followed a decidedly guerilla, grassroots approach, have anything to do with it? Is this sort of success some that can even be intentionally repeated, or do you see it more as a luck-of-the-draw success story? Do you think Peli has proven himself as a filmmaker with this debut effort, or will lightning have to strike twice (or more) before you're convinced?
Comments