"Found Footage" style of filmmaking -- gimmick?

[Cracker Funk]

Or is it legit? I was heavily-swayed today, in the direction of saying that it is a legitimate style of filmmaking. Previously, it's only been used, in my opinion, to save money on production costs (which is a legit reason, in and of itself).

In "Chronicle", however, I don't see how it could've possibly saved money. On the contrary, it probably added to the production costs. So why in the world would they use it? I wondered about this for a while, after the movie, and I think it actually helps add a real sense of authenticity. These characters felt real, and I think the fake-documentary approach aided in achieving that?

Your thoughts? Agree/disagree? Of course it helps if you've seen "Chronicle", but it's not necessary to comment on the style, in general.

Almost forgot to mention -- I loved the movie. The review I posted on FB:

This movie is great in so many ways! It is easily the best movie ever made in the Blair-Witchian style of "found footage", and proves that that style of filmmaking is legit, not just a gimmick.

"Chronicle" achieves a level of intimacy, familiarity and authenticity so rarely seen in a Hollywood movie, let alone a Superhero Movie. The build-up keeps us emotionally-engaged, and the climactic finale pays off. And if those aren't enough superlatives, I think I can say that the argument could be made that this is the best Superhero Origin Story ever made.

Remember that scene in "Superman 2", when Superman squares off against General Zod, in downtown Metropolis? Imagine that scene on steroids. Solid "A"!

 

[Cracker Funk]

I'd be amazed if having 'Cloverfield' shot as found-footage didn't increase production costs.

It's a money-saver because the format allows you to get away with showing WAY less of the monster. In "Cloverfield", you see the monster for a total of maybe 30-seconds. People would've been rioting, if a filmmaker were to try and get away with that with a "regular" narrative style. Compare "Cloverfield" with "Godzilla". In "Godzilla", you've got countless shots of the monster wreaking havoc on NYC, complete with tanks, helicopters, fighter jets, explosions galore, and buildings being torn apart. You have to do that, because that's what the audience expects (and wants). "Cloverfield" spends all of it's time hiding from the monster. "Godzilla" budget -- $130mil (in 1998 dollars). "Cloverfield" budget -- $25mil.

And yeah, I agree, it's pretty difficult to make a distinction between "found-footage" and "mockumentary". There are some distinctions, but they're roughly the same.

bird -- sounds like an interesting subject. No doubt what you're doing is way more difficult. Good luck!

 

[harmonica44]

Don't do what Paranormal Activity 3 did. The way the movie is edited, it skips ahead in conversations people have, and that ruins the found footage illusion, cause found footage, should not be edited in quick cut Hollywood style, if it's suppose to found. So keep your shots unedited and all in one take, unless it goes to a different shot completely, and the previous shot is over. By over, I mean the character shooting, would have either turned off the camera, or there is nothing more significant to show for the remainder being, in that part of the found footage.

 

[mad_hatter]

Harmonica: With found footage, you as a viewer are generally expected to believe that somebody has found the footage, and then edited it into the movie you see. Specifically, with the PA series, who do you think added the "Night 1" titles? Who speeds up the footage during the night? You noticed that the footage comes from different cameras? We're expected to believe that somebody has produced a movie out of the "found-footage". The editor is only showing us what they feel we need to see. That's why we're sometimes given only half a conversation; thats all the editor wanted to show us, or felt we needed to see.

 

[PaulGriffith]

Just another shout out for chronicle... It was pretty amazing!

 

[bird]

I

bird -- sounds like an interesting subject. No doubt what you're doing is way more difficult. Good luck!

Oh, guess my post sounded a bit arrogant. Just to clarify, I should say 'in my experience', after making both scripted live action and cel animation, I think the hardest thing I've done is trying to piece together a cohesive work from such a broad spectrum of possibilities (when working with 'found footage'). I didn't mean to imply that what I am doing was harder than what anyone else is doing.

 

[harmonica44]

Harmonica: With found footage, you as a viewer are generally expected to believe that somebody has found the footage, and then edited it into the movie you see. Specifically, with the PA series, who do you think added the "Night 1" titles? Who speeds up the footage during the night? You noticed that the footage comes from different cameras? We're expected to believe that somebody has produced a movie out of the "found-footage". The editor is only showing us what they feel we need to see. That's why we're sometimes given only half a conversation; thats all the editor wanted to show us, or felt we needed to see.

Yes I realize that, but in PA 3 they edited it out too much, to the point where key to the plot were missing.

SPOILER



When the little girl got out of bed, it skipped ahead then all of a sudden she said to the demon "don't worry, I won't tell them". Or something like that she said, then it skipped ahead after that. That was the only part of the conversation left in, and if the demon told her a secret, it's pretty important to not cut out most of their conversation, and only leave in one sentence. Found footage, should not be caught in key peaces of evidence, otherwise it's Hollywood butchered found footage, and the illusion is no longer appreciated, in my opinion. The movie does this in a few scenes.

It's like taking the Zapruder film, and chopping it up into a bunch of quick cuts that skip ahead. Would we really want to see that in JFK (1991), to see what happened?

 

[Kholi]

@Harmonica44 -- It's found footage, skipping is inherent to the medium.

On Chronicle:

I gave myself the excuse that I wanted to research for two reasons. One, it's sorta similar to our feature... bunch of knuckle heads get super powers, do weird things with them, stuff happens. It could help with pushing it to distributors or whatever we're going to do, if it makes a decent amount of money.

Two, wanted to see how they executed.

Pretty short and simple, for me. The beginning was interesting at best with a very cliche and obvious setup. The middle dragged on with no real progression, the final act had some cool moments in it but was ultimately just kind of whatever, and the ending was really silly.

The assumptions my friend and I came up with about the trailer held true: there were so many breaks in the convention that it actually hurt this more than helped it. However, my GF made a good point. It isn't a found footage production...

It's a recount of the events that happened told from several POV's, even if the setups for each of those POVS were hokey. AKA, that's why it's called CHRONICLE. So in that case, the gimmick is applicable to this movie. It isn't found footage, it's just handycam style.

To me, Cloverfield was several times stronger, and it had more to do with the fact that the characters were actually going on a journey with one specific goal in mind. That drove everything in that movie, and the tension never let up. And, they never had to create silly reasons for a camera to be on.

SPOILER ALERT.

For instance, when the blonde (Don't remember her name, she didnt' do anything important in the movie) opened her door and she had her camera setup on what I assumed was a tripod. Really? I carry a GH2 around all the time and even I don't do weird things like that. That was just forcing it. Aka, breaking its own convention for the sake of "a love interest".

SPOILER END

There were several, SEVERAL other occurances like this in the entire movie that kept pushing it down a notch. At the end of the day, it felt a tad sloppy. But, I can't remember if this is the Landis son's first feature. So, whatever.

That brings me to Found Footage in general:

I'm definitely doing one this year. Regardless of what I thought, the audience responded quite well to the experience and that's what this is all about: creating an experience for people. It's just another way to do that, and it's at least here to stay for a little while longer, the same as 3D.

What sucked is seeing a lot of stuff that I had written into my "found footage" script showing up in here. xD My GF and I looked at each other with mouths wide open at some of the lines and some of the little nuances that I put on page end of last year. Crazy.

But, she did remind me that there's only so much you can do with it, and you're bound to see similarities.

My final thought... just know exactly what you're going for. I think Chronicle lives up to its name, as it's an account from several different POVs. If you're going to do a found footage project, just make sure you've got your rules and you adhere to them.

Get it done.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Oh, guess my post sounded a bit arrogant. Just to clarify, I should say 'in my experience', after making both scripted live action and cel animation, I think the hardest thing I've done is trying to piece together a cohesive work from such a broad spectrum of possibilities (when working with 'found footage'). I didn't mean to imply that what I am doing was harder than what anyone else is doing.

Oh, no -- I didn't think your post arrogant at all. The way you described it, I took it to mean that you're editing a documentary, using nothing but archival footage. I can't imagine making a documentary, without the use of interviews, heavily-edited to create a narrative. To create a narrative, without interviews? Yeah, that's a very difficult task.

The assumptions my friend and I came up with about the trailer held true: there were so many breaks in the convention that it actually hurt this more than helped it. However, my GF made a good point. It isn't a found footage production...

It's a recount of the events that happened told from several POV's, even if the setups for each of those POVS were hokey. AKA, that's why it's called CHRONICLE. So in that case, the gimmick is applicable to this movie. It isn't found footage, it's just handycam style.

I think to not call this "found-footage" is doing some serious nit-picking with semantics. The vast majority of the movie is told through one person's camera, a good deal is told through another person's camera, and then the climactic finale is told through a shit-ton of people's cameras.

The movie definitely breaks convention. When you first mentioned it, I didn't get what you were talking about, but after reading your post, yes, it breaks convention almost constantly. But breaking convention isn't a bad thing if it leads to new-found awesomeness.

I also noticed the hokey reasons for cameras to exist. First, there's the love-interest that you mentioned. It's one thing for our main dude to always carry a camera -- I kind of liked the way that they made that part of his guarded personality. But for the love-interest to always have a camera running, yeah, that's pretty silly.

There was also the scene in the hospital. "We need to keep the cameras running, for the investigation". What?! That is also pretty silly, and I think they could've gotten the same done, using the hospital security-cam.

But that is total of three short scenes. The barn-party, the girls' house, and the hospital. That's a total of probably three minutes of movie. C'mon, let's not let that ruin the other 80-minutes for us.

The rest of the movie, when they break convention, I personally think they did it to great effect. The floating cam, the lingering tripod shots. The lingering everything shots -- that's another thing I like about this movie. They broke "found footage" convention, and flipped a big middle-finger to modern short-attention-span editing, by using a great number of very affecting stationary shots. The audience's first witness of abuse, the after-flying-sleepover, and son finally standing up to dad -- I love those shots.

To me, Cloverfield was several times stronger, and it had more to do with the fact that the characters were actually going on a journey with one specific goal in mind. That drove everything in that movie, and the tension never let up. And, they never had to create silly reasons for a camera to be on.

I'd say I enjoyed each movie just about the same, for different reasons. But yeah, each point you make here is totally valid.

For instance, when the blonde (Don't remember her name, she didnt' do anything important in the movie) opened her door and she had her camera setup on what I assumed was a tripod. Really? I carry a GH2 around all the time and even I don't do weird things like that. That was just forcing it. Aka, breaking its own convention for the sake of "a love interest".

Yes, that was ridiculous. She even had a mirror conveniently hung right next to her front door. Because that is where everyone keep their mirrors?

Look, if I let silly things like this ruin movies for me, I wouldn't like any movies. Implausibilities abound in Hollywood, especially in any genre that involves anything fantasical.

Implausible though it was, the scene worked. And I think it was much more than a simple "love-interest" scene. Without this (and a few other scenes), the entire movie would've been an origin-story for a villain. But with these scenes, we see a hero rise.

The hero-rising aspect of the story isn't nearly emotionally-compelling as the villain's story, but I do think we need to see it, for the story to be complete.

I'm definitely doing one this year. Regardless of what I thought, the audience responded quite well to the experience and that's what this is all about: creating an experience for people. It's just another way to do that, and it's at least here to stay for a little while longer, the same as 3D.

It has a paltry "B" on the CinemaScore. But like you, the audience that I sat with reacted very positively. I heard enthusiastic applause, on two different occasion. I enjoyed the shit out of it, and I'm glad that others did too.

But, she did remind me that there's only so much you can do with it, and you're bound to see similarities.

I disagree with that. I don't think this format is any more or less limited than any other "normal" style of filmmaking.

 

[JoshL]

Yes I realize that, but in PA 3 they edited it out too much, to the point where key to the plot were missing.

Digressing for a moment, but you bring up an interesting point, and some food for thought for you. In storytelling, sometimes what you DON'T tell is as important as what you do.

I haven't seen any of the PA movies yet (again, don't really appeal to me, though I love ghost stories, so I'll probably watch them eventually), but the scene you described seems like good storytelling to me. It reveals information (the girl was talking to the demon, and there's something that she's not sharing) and leaves the viewer with questions (what was the conversation about, and why can't she share the info). Leaving the viewer with questions helps keep them engaged with the film, and lets them think a little rather than just dumbing everything down.

Something like that does seem to take away from the "found footage" illusion (though there are plenty of ways you could handwave that), but it's better in terms of storytelling.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

"I haven't seen any of the PA movies yet"

Me either.
I have seen bits of Cloverfield, but turned it off after maybe 45 minutes.

 

[Kholi]

Preface: people should do exactly what they want to do. I'm only commenting because the thread was opened for that, and the subject is of interest to me. AT the end of the day, it's just that: commentary.

I think to not call this "found-footage" is doing some serious nit-picking with semantics. The vast majority of the movie is told through one person's camera, a good deal is told through another person's camera, and then the climactic finale is told through a shit-ton of people's cameras.

Of course, as you can tell, I disagree but that's all well n'good. To me, found footage is exactly what it delineates: someone found this footage and they are now presenting it to an audience.

A mockumentary has specific guidelines that classify it as such. So does a documentary. In my eyes (take it or leave it of course), it's not found footage. It's just told in what's supposed to be a linear timeline from the POV of several different cameras. If you took out the acknowledgement of cameras by characters in the world OR removed them altogether, but covered everything the exact same way you would still have the same exact movie.

Do the same with Paranormal Activity or Cloverfield, not the same movies.

The movie definitely breaks convention. When you first mentioned it, I didn't get what you were talking about, but after reading your post, yes, it breaks convention almost constantly. But breaking convention isn't a bad thing if it leads to new-found awesomeness.

Eye of the beholder. One person sees awesome, another sees sloppy; either way works.

You do see my points, though. Especially the hospital scene.

But that is total of three short scenes. The barn-party, the girls' house, and the hospital. That's a total of probably three minutes of movie. C'mon, let's not let that ruin the other 80-minutes for us.

Actually, the hospital scene alone was at least five minutes. Accounting for the rest, I'd wager that all three of those scenes take up 10-12 minutes of runtime. When it's out on video, we can revisit that and see just how long they do run.

Yes, that was ridiculous. She even had a mirror conveniently hung right next to her front door. Because that is where everyone keep their mirrors?

Look, if I let silly things like this ruin movies for me, I wouldn't like any movies. Implausibilities abound in Hollywood, especially in any genre that involves anything fantasical.

Here's where we definitely split paths, though. Traditional narrative is completely different (or is supposed to be) from this. To me, that you're considering this production and a normal production so close means that they didn't own the "gimmick" or aesthetic, method.

The entire mockumentary, found footage, handycam presentation is supposed to feel like real events, even if they are not. Troll Hunter did a better job of doing this than Chronicle did by far. So did THE LAST EXORCISM, to a degree before it too began to break its own world in favor of conversation.

Literally, TLE would cut between non-existant cameras to cover the same conversation. Cross-coverage. By the end of the movie it had all fallen apart, sadly.

The implausibilities of a traditional narrative work because you go in knowing that it's not real, that things are setup to present a surreal or faux reality. Circumstance and happenstance are both just part of that method.

Not sure if I'm saying that right, but basically they're two different things if both are committed to their presentations fully. One is supposed to feel and seem like real events, the other is supposed to be a third person perspective on events.

Implausible though it was, the scene worked. And I think it was much more than a simple "love-interest" scene. Without this (and a few other scenes), the entire movie would've been an origin-story for a villain. But with these scenes, we see a hero rise.

I would've much preferred she stay out. From the moment she showed up, it was obvious why she was there: love interest, another camera to fill in time on a story that hadn't enough meat to really push a 75-78 minute RT. She never does a single thing to deserve any attention (which is a huge annoyance to me in movies anyway), and she's completely flat.

So, yeah, would've taken something more compelling than that. Things like that made the high seventies runtime seem a lot longer to me.

It has a paltry "B" on the CinemaScore. But like you, the audience that I sat with reacted very positively. I heard enthusiastic applause, on two different occasion. I enjoyed the shit out of it, and I'm glad that others did too.

That's really all that matters. I didn't get the applause here, but a lot of people were laughing when it obviously called for laughs, jumped when it called for jumps, and ooh-aah'd when they were looking for those; it worked, that's all that matters when we're talking about money.

Even if I didn't really enjoy it all that much, the mass that I sat with did, and that's enough to spurn me forward into trying one.

I disagree with that. I don't think this format is any more or less limited than any other "normal" style of filmmaking.

Depends on how much you're adhering to the presentation. And, of course, to each their own! Everyone's gotta be different or we'll get the same stuff all the time. No problem by me.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Good thoughts, Kholi. No question about it -- this world would be a boring place if we all made the same damn movies. By the way, I don't want to exaggerate -- the applause came from about three people (not me). But it was very enthusiastic!

 

[Utopia]

ok so what do you want to know about the sound, Cracker?

 

[Cracker Funk]

ok so what do you want to know about the sound, Cracker?

Well, since you mention it -- and I do think this fits in with the thread just fine -- if you were to be a sound-designer for a "found-footage" film, would your approach be any different from a "regular" narrative? If so, why?

Although you griped, a few posts back, that "found-footage" filmmaking can be used as an excuse to have sub-par audio, I actually think audio becomes even more important in this format. Though "Chronicle" kind of cheated, the sub-genre is normally typified by all sorts of extreme-shaky-cam, and a lot of shots in which you can't really see what is going on. Even if you're not dealing with extreme-shaky-cam, there's often a lot of stuff happening off-screen. In those cases, obviously, you're left mostly with audio to tell the story.

 

[LiveShowFilms]

I found that the way the main character in particular handled the camera added to his character. When he was lonesome, he made it float. When he was enraged, it jerked more. When he was solemn, he steadied it. I felt like every time the camera moved it in some way connected to the emotions and tone of the scene or sequence. This can also be said with the other mediums used such as security cameras and other people's recording devices. All in all, I thought it was a fantastic film and is worth seeing in the theaters!

 

[Utopia]

Here's my answer to your question I'm glad you asked:

Absa-frickin-lutely.

I would absolutely approach it differently on many ways - the way I recorded it, the way I edited it and the way I sculpted the overall soundscape.

It would also depend on if music was involved, and hopefully if the directors stayed true to what a "found footage" film should be like, he would not add in any musical elements in a traditional sense and would leave it to sound design to create the emotional mood which is simple to do through sound effects creation.

So much can be done with something like this.

It starts in pre-production. I would get the director's agreement to leave many things off-screen or in the darkness and let sound really shine. I find that sometimes audiences will be much more afraid of something they cannot see and can only hear than something they see in broad daylight (for example, Blair-Witch Project - you never see the baddy, only a shadow at the end and boy was that a freaky movie).

The next thing is that a lot can be done with lack of sound. Lack of sound on a soundtrack can cause eeriness and suspense - I don't mean a muted soundtrack, but subtleties of sound - lower the backgrounds and ambiences and put in some really nice creaks or door creaks, subtle breath of the actors, subtle cloth movements - for example, the scene in "The Lovely Bones" when the girl is stuck in the baddy's house and is trying to find something while he is gone but he comes back; there is subtle sounds all throughout that scene which make it just edge-of-your-seat beyond belief.

Dialogue is key for one of these films. It can't be all hacked up by auto-gain on the camera nor can it sound as pristine as Social Network's dialogue mix - it has to have just enough grit on it without being cheesy and without being too hi-fi. You want it convincing.

Depending on what film stock or medium it's supposed to have been recorded on in the first place, I would do lots of research into that medium and listen to how an authentic real recording is on it, and I would probably start out with this quality (or very similar) for about the first 10 minutes of the film and then I would back off and make it a couple notches more hi-fi, but gradually over let's say, 5 to 10 minutes, so the audience doesn't notice it, but it's pleasant enough to not hurt anyone's ears in the theater.

I'll think of more stuff and post it up later. I'm a bit busy at the moment

 

[Cracker Funk]

Wow, nice commentary, ROC. I think you probably wouldn't like the audio in "Chronicle". Just as they "cheated" with camera-placement, etc., they also went with fairly slick production-values, both in cinematography and audio.

I particularly like your comments on "lack of sound". Yep, that can be some powerful stuff.

This entire conversation has made me contemplate doing one of these. No plot comes to mind, just yet. I only know that I'd likely take it in a goofy direction, probably with some sci-fi elements.

 

[Kholi]

This thread was one worth starting and keeping up with. Good stuff.

I even re-read my own assessment of Chronicle and one thing sticks more than my disappointment in it: how important it is to create an experience for people. If given one or the other, story or experience, I'll have to say that I'll go for experience.

It's weird, but I know a lot of good movies with depressing stories that I would never watch again. SERIOUSLY good movies.

But, I'll re-watch Mortal Kombat to LOL all day long, and Ghostbusters is my favorite movie of all time. It's fun, it's interesting, it's what movies are about.

Thanks for the thread CF.

Chronicle Review: http://www.film.com/movies/review-chronicle#fbid=BfRumgl5bf9

This sums it up for me.

 

[Utopia]

hey no prob.

I think a found footage of an incident with aliens would be hilarious if you have the right cast - stereotypical hillbilly family or person stumbles over a crash.

Then you can treat the preview all serious like Silent House's preview with the dark voice-over - "One of the most shocking discoveries in human history..."

 

[rayw]

Only because CHRONICLE was mentioned in this thread a dozen times...
http://www.brandchannel.com/brandcameo_films.asp

(FWIW, I'm starting yet another investigation, subordinate to the VOD one, about product placement in film).

ITSTATS​