After watching a movie a day, some observations that go a bit deeper into the implications of ‘Zombieland’ and ‘Adventureland’, ‘Paranormal Activity’ and ‘[REC]‘.

First, a little background on this whole ‘Mile and a Movie’ project.

As an experiment, I’ve decided on a simple regimen to combat the twin menaces of backlog and beer gut. Hop on the treadmill for at least 20 minutes every single day, and watch a movie every single night. Go for at least a month — assuming I can last that long — and see where I stand.

With such a rigorous schedule, there’s naturally a lot to talk about, so I started with a few short thoughts on individual films (see that post here). But watching so many in succession, I was also struck with some higher-level observations that go a bit deeper into trends, patterns and implications, which I opted to separate into its own post here.

……….

First-person Horror

The first-person technique in modern horror movies — seeing a story through a camera physically present in the film itself — is becoming almost prevalent enough to spawn its own sub-genre. The conceit works so well for horror because by restricting the audience to a single perspective, our knowledge of the surreal situation is as limited as that of the terrified character holding the camera.

Debuting with (at least to my knowledge; if not, then certainly made most famous by) the original if possibly gimmicky Blair Witch Project, taken to its grandest scale with Cloverfield, and back for another round of indie triumph with this month’s Paranormal Activity, results are largely dependent on how well-constructed the scenario into which the unfortunate cameraman is placed. Blair Witch hasn’t aged well primarily because nothing much happens to its band of frightened campers. Paranormal is the scariest movie I’ve seen in years, but I doubt it’d have the same impact a second time. On the other hand, Spanish first-person zombie flick [REC] is disturbing for more than just its ability to make us jump.

But this technique is worth examining for more than its being in vogue. It must be noted that the list is getting awfully full and may soon run its course; I’ve now seen first-person witch, giant monster, ghost, and zombie movies. Too many more and the novelty could easily wear off.

On a related note, these films are outstanding when it comes to taking us on a scary thrill-ride, but may lack staying power if on second viewings the shock wears off and all we’re left with is a blurry, shallow haunted house experience. The real test will be which are worth re-watching, with something to say more weighty than “Look out, there’s a demon!”.

Most interesting though is how uniquely modern these films are. Only the minds of this self-publishing century could devise this sort of premise, which depends on the protagonist’s desire to capture a terrifying event overriding even their desire to escape it. The first-person setup only works for an era in which the audience can relate to never wanting to put down the camera, no matter what gruesome sights they’re exposed to. The characters of these films have both an inherent need to share their presumed (but almost never realized) survival story, as well as a culturally ingrained preference for processing disturbing images through a lens and screen.

In addition, the cameraman is almost always the least frenzied of the group, because he has the benefit of journalistic distance from what would otherwise cause overwhelming fear, making an interesting meta-comment on the act of horror-movie watching itself. After all, we cheer when a zombie tears the throat out of whatever jerk gets taken down before the good guys, but not many of us could keep from vomiting if something similar happened before our eyes. Who wouldn’t want a camera to hide behind?

As audiences, we’re willingly taking on that character’s cowardly role. We happily put ourselves in a position to be both frightened and powerless. The cameraman-character should feel a duty, whether friendship or simple human compassion, to put down the camera and take a more active role in helping deal with whatever ghastly force he’s so busy taping. Instead, he remains safely behind the camera not just as a defense mechanism, but also as a reflection of our own experience. He simply watches the mayhem take place, and therefore isn’t responsible for what goes on in front of his eyes.

Of course, as we know, in most cases he dies anyway. Then, as viewers, we enjoy the voyeuristic thrill of watching it all unfold. It makes for the perfect low-stakes rollercoaster of scares. High-impact, no time to think, only react. We want to be present for the grim spectacle, even placing ourselves in the middle of the chaos, and we fully expect the character who we’re inhabiting to be punished, to never make it out alive. So as fun as these films are to watch — and trust me, I love them too — the fact that they work so well may be the scariest part.

……….

The Eisenberg Uncertainty Principal

This idea is similar to the Heisenberg principal in quantum mechanics, which states that with certain pairs of physical properties, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known.

In this version, we can state with great certainty that in a given movie, Jesse Eisenberg will be sarcastically funny and awkwardly sympathetic, because he plays the same character in every single film. Because he’s a reserved, cynical everyguy, Eisenberg is consistently amusing but not emotive enough to really grab an audience on his own. Therefore the other property, whether any individual movie he stars in will be merely decent or fully excellent, remains largely uncertain.  Studies show that the outcome depends largely on the ecosystem he’s placed in — see also the Cera Clause, which many have noted elsewhere.

As a result, Adventureland is a perfectly watchable film about young love, but nothing very special (for reasons noted in a previous post). Meanwhile, Zombieland has Woody Harrelson and Abigail Breslin shooting a ton of zombies to balance out Eisenberg’s ‘Gee, I sure wish a girl would like me’ schtick, and ends up being lots of fun (for reasons also noted here). Films like Roger Dodger or The Squid and the Whale are even better because he’s a reliable support in films with other strong leads and better stories. Because of the Eisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Under Culture recommends always collecting further data on a particular film before making an Eisenberg-related calculation. I mean, he was in a film directed by Fred Durst for christ’s sake.

……….

Click here to see all Mile and a Movie posts.