There are probably 50 Paranormal Activity’s made a year. I saw a few of them, one shitty one coming to mind being The Ceremony, which I saw at SXSW because I was in the mood for some delicious Alamo Drafthouse popcorn and a Guinness milkshake (wow, do I miss that place. I really want a shake right now), and one decent, if not modestly funded Grace, directed by Emerson grad Paul Solet, which I saw at Sundance but was also at SXSW. Grace got a release from Anchor Bay, and The Ceremony is probably on Youtube in 10-minute sequences. Neither got any attention, even while Grace was infinitely better than Paranormal.
The point that needs to be made, which the world seems unaware of, is that this isn’t out of nowhere. It’s not like Oren Peli, director of Paranormal, is the first guy to get the idea to do a cheap horror movie that takes place in a house with a few actors. This is the go-to for young filmmakers with few ideas but lots of interest in movies. Rarely are these movies good, and almost as rarely do they get a real release. Usually they’re made as an exercise and because there’s a good chance that you can make it for 10k and make back 50k.
Blair Witch was a brilliant idea mainly because it was the first of its kind. If you’ve ever read me before, you know that I’m a big originality guy. I’m very partial to early period, usually liking the first album better than the rest. I was very upset when it happened that the night I went to see Springsteen this summer was when he played Born in the USA instead of Born to Run or Darkness on the Edge of Town. He played nothing from the first two albums, which really pissed me off.
So Blair Witch was an amazing idea on many accounts. The actual movie was pretty fucking good, even thinking about it now, giving us a few memorable moments, but it was all about the ideas—from the story, to the making and execution, especially to the marketing. While it was pretty influential as far as narrative and style, the marketing was what really broke the mold. This was the first time the internet broke a movie. It was the people’s movie.
Most interesting, was that it wasn’t a studio who thought of the brilliant marketing plan. I actually watched the movie online long before Artisan picked it up for release, for a number that appeared crazy at the time, I think 10 million, which turned out to be the best proportionate investment of all time, only to be beaten by this year’s Paranormal.
This film got no attention for a few years, but it stood out enough to get picked up by Paramount for some reason. I’ve heard a number of stories about the pickup, including the ludicrous Spielberg yarn. Why it got picked up, I’ll never know, but they bought it for what was a great payoff for the filmmakers at the time.
After a while of shelving it, they figure they’ll take one from Blair Witch and one from Bob Shaye. They brought the film on the road to college campuses, with the plan being that worst case scenario they get in touch with the kids a little, and best case that they like it and create an organic following to other campuses, organizing their own screenings. Over time, this could feasibly return six figures by their plans.
Their plans worked far better than expected, but after watching the film tonight, I have no clue why. I guess it was just the kinda thing that was bound to happen at some point, and this was the lucky winner. Blair Witch happened because it was a better movie marketed more effectively than the rest. I think Paranormal was just a fluke though. The movie sucks. Had I seen it at a festival, I would have walked out disappointed. Actually, I would have gone to sleep on purpose, saving my awake time up for others more worthy.
Now, I often get angry at the wide release or success of absolute shit. Paranormal is basically shit. But I’m not angry about its success. I wish it could have happened to a better film, but it’s not a big deal. They obviously worked hard on this regardless, and the marketing kicked ass.
I really wonder what the real story is, at what point along the way this hit its tipping point. Was there a specific school that really got things moving? A group of people? A specific influential student? It doesn’t really matter, because I don’t see this archetype as being something to implement moving forward. It’s like My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Only idiots were looking for the next one of those. That was the biggest fluke of all time.
I think Paranormal’s success was mainly due to lucky circumstances, but there are a few factors that put it in position to capitalize on said circumstances. Most of America has no idea that these small niche horror movies exist. When exposed to this, they think they’re seeing something new and fresh. We’re also pre-disposed as humans but specifically as Americans to root for the underdog. Much like District 9, we enjoy taking ownership of films like this. Sony took their name off of marketing materials for District 9 so that it could be perceived as more indie and grassroots. Paramount’s name on Paranormal didn’t hurt it, because it was well-known that they were only distributing it, so it makes them look like the champion of the underdog.
The rollout of this film was done in such a way that each person felt upon point of discovery, be that from a flier on their college campus, or at their local multiplex recently, that they were in the know, and a part of something exclusive and special. Their actual enjoyment of the film became much less important than the fact that it makes them feel cool.
As far as the content—it’s a horror film. You get the date movie vibe, especially since it’s October. You get the nerds. Point is, there’s just a big built in audience for the genre. While I don’t like it at all, it’s tolerable. For regular audiences, it’s good enough I think. Well, that’s basically been proven at this point.
A big part of this is that it isn’t actually very scary. There’s no gore nor is there anything really adult about it. He says “fuck” a few times, but that’s it. The entire scary vibe is built on a slow burn suspense, all coming from suggestion. The reason why I think it sucks is that none of it is ever paid off, nor is it really built up that well. The majority of my suspense was because I assumed the movie was going to get good and just kept thinking this must be when. But then it never happened, and then it ended. The movie is easily PG-13, so it’s a movie that parents will be happy to let their young kids (well, I think 13’s as young as it’d go) enjoy.
So even though it’s being pitched as this really clever high-concept ghost film, it’s rather basic, shies away from any chance it has of being different or deep, and it’s just plain not that good. With all of this success, my big question is should we be encouraged by Paranormal Activity?
On the one hand, it makes the statement that films from this tiny niche genre of very cheaply made films can break out. On the other hand, it’s far from the best and most deserving example and it’s highly likely that this is a fluke. Fluke or not, there are lessons to be learned here, and I do not think they come in filmmaking.
Google “hybrid distribution.” The term was supposedly coined by Peter Broderick, but you could attribute the concept to any number of people, specifically Ted Hope. It’s all about figuring out what works for your project individually and thinking outside the box. It’s not the old world where we can market films in a small variety of ways, just deciding which cookie cutter model each will fit in and moving forward connecting the dots. We need to take every film and mix and match strategies for it because at this point, with such a huge playing field, no two films will take the same route to success.
The big reason why Paranormal Activity has become such a success is that they did this different. They broke the mold here. I give them so much credit for the way they’ve trail blazed with this film. Not since Blair Witch has there been a story so exciting about the marketing of a film. Whether or not they got lucky, they got lucky because of great ideas, hard work, and spot on execution. They knew they had a unique project, so they did not try to market this like they market, say, Saw VI. They invented new paradigms, and the 10 thousand dollar movie beat out the 30 million dollar franchise last week. If more filmmakers and distributors think like these guys did, we will have more successes, even if they look absolutely nothing like Paranormal Activity.
*Below, see the evolution of the Paranormal Activity posters and marketing campaign. First, it's just the tiny niche genre film festival, with the Kid Pix-esque art. Granted, they have the Hollywood Reporter and LA Weekly on there, but it's still obviously just a few people behind this. Then it's the cool kids picking it up, such as the uber-tastemaker Cobra Snake, having their own screenings. Then we get the hype with all of the videos of how scared the audiences are. Then we get the revolutionary "Demand It" campaign. Bloody-Disgusting.com jumps on board. For those of you who don't know, they're the Ain't-It-Cool-News of horror. They focus on a very genre-centric discussion process for these films, telling us more about how good the gore effects are than the metaphors behind the stories. Point is though, that they're marketing this as the people's movie. Did Abbie Hoffman co-author this film's marketing campaign? Last is the repeated current poster. Some bigger names, included Ain't-It-Cool, but still a bunch of the bloggy stuff. No Paramount logo. It's the number one movie in America at this point, but they're still keeping it from appearing corporate. The Rolling Stone quote is dodgy though, I'd have left that off personally. Maybe it's there for those who don't care about the integrity and the underdog aspect. Biggest question still is, why is this getting such great reviews?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment