How does London’s FrightFest Festival impact on the distribution of independent horror films within the UK?

FrightFest is the UK’s biggest genre film festival. Set in London’s Leicester Square, the summer event happens once a year in August and screens only the best horror and fantasy films from around the world to a 1,300 strong membered audience. Most of the films shown are independent and mostly invisible to the mainstream cinema goer’s eye, but some of these films get famed in the UK and I aim to find out how, by looking at the type of films shown, the people who organise everything and the fans that attends.

Out of the many films shown at the festival, Adam Green’s Hatchet trilogy, The Soska Twins American Mary and Alex Chandon’s Inbred, all stood out in their own particular ways, in relation to FrightFest helping their success. Green always mentions the festival in a positive way, in interviews (Hall 2007) across the globe[i], not just limited to the UK. What stands out most in Green’s interviews, is the way he talks about the fans, and how much they actually contribute to his success.

‘As much as FrightFest may have not been the actual world premiere of HATCHET, it has always been where I consider HATCHET and "Victor Crowley" to have truly been born. The screening at FrightFest was comparable to a rock concert with fans screaming, cheering, applauding, and laughing so loudly that often times they missed the next few lines or jokes because they couldn't hear them. From that point forward every genre festival on the planet came calling asking for permission to program the film. I've joking called it "the screening heard around the world" since after that night in August 2006 HATCHET became a juggernaut worldwide on the festival circuit’. (Green 2013)

There are two reasons why the film had this kind of reaction at the festival, first being that it’s okay to scream and shout during a film’s screening (as long as it’s an actual reaction, and not in a negative way), it’s all part of the FrightFest experience (Dickinson. 2013). And secondly, the film has the appeal to a wide range of horror fans. There’s a clear division between fans of modern horror films, and classic b-movie type horror films (A History of Horror with Mark Gatiss. 2010), and Hatchet is most definitely the best of both worlds (Young, R. 2013). The festival co-directors cleverly programmed Hatchet (and its two sequels) at times where it would get this kind of reaction. As the festival shows all types of genre films, including serious ones that require a lot of thought about, the co-directors have to make sure that all of the films are shown at times that would capture the audience correctly. Hatchet premiered in the penultimate slot on the Friday evening in 2006, which is well known as the one that has the best audience attendance, as after a long day of watching films, they want something that’s not only good, but light-hearted and doesn’t take much effort to entertain them. Normally the last slot of the day is the one that would have most suited those needs, but considering that it wouldn’t start until almost midnight, and the festival started at 9am on the same day, most fans would have retired back to their hotel or pub for the night. Hatchet II opened the festival in 2010, which is a big deal at any festival, as it’s the one that starts everything off and creates a buzz, whereas Hatchet III was shown after two more serious horror films, and before a sombre thriller, so it was the perfect escape for some humour and over the top gore.

Even renowned film critic and FrightFest co-director Alan Jones agrees that it’s mainly down to the fans that attend the festival, who help the films gain success. “HATCHET hadn't been picked up in the UK until we showed it and The Works saw the audience reaction. That's why Adam Green added our names on the final credits”

The four co-directors (Alan Jones, Paul McEvoy, Ian Rattray and Greg Day) of the festival are definitely one of the main reasons for the success of the films shown. To make sure that they programme the films into the right slots, they not only start relationships with the filmmakers, but watch rough cuts of their films, give advice and motivate them along the way until their films are shown at the festival. They definitely know what the audience wants to see, and therefore, the audience has a lot of trust in them. As well as the audience, distributors have great trust in them too. Films such as The Desert, Odd Thomas and The Banshee Chapter were all picked up halfway through the screenings thanks to the audience’s reaction. This proves that the audience plays a big part in getting the films shown at the festival, a distribution deal.

Alan, Paul, Ian and Greg are so involved and passionate about the films that they show; they even created their own DVD label in 2005 – “Frightfest Presents”. They decided that so many great films were being ignored by the mainstream distributors; they would go ahead and distribute them themselves.

As well as them directly helping out with the success of Hatchet, there is clear evidence of them helping out with Alex Chandon’s Inbred. Following his tour around the best genre festivals around the globe, Chandon (2012) published two blog posts onto the FrightFest website, titled “HOW FRIGHTFEST HELPED INBRED GO GLOBAL, AND HOW A FRIGHTFEST GOODIE BAG TRAVELLED THE WORLD”. The blog posts explain how Chandon screened the co-directors a very rough cut of his latest film - Inbred, and how they pushed him to finish the film in time for a world premiere at FrightFest. ‘The timing of FrightFest was perfect. Being such a prestigious festival it generated a lot of press and great word of mouth for INBRED and it was the catalyst that kick started a great adventure on the festival circuit for the film.’ (Chandon 2012)

Word of mouth is a very powerful tool in the world of film promotion, especially for an independent genre film. Reason being, films like these don’t get massive million pound marketing budgets, and word of mouth is not only free, but very personal. So the likelihood that friends/family will go see said film based on an opinion of someone that they actually know, rather than nameless quotes on posters and in other advertisements, is very high indeed (Kerrigan, F. 2010). Also, because it’s almost exclusively genre fans that will be seeing the films shown at FrightFest, they would be more inclined to like it, whereas if the film is shown to an audience of all kinds of fans, the probability of someone not liking it, and sharing bad thoughts about the film would be much higher. This is slightly biased on both levels but after all, it’s better for a filmmaker to have positive biased reviews, than negative ones. Coming back to the point about seeing the film at FrightFest, the fans would also be more likely to share their views, as the majority of the screenings are premieres, or previews. This means that the fans will be able to in a way, ‘show off’ about how they’re seeing films before the mass public, and how they’re literally rubbing shoulders with celebrities at said screenings. Most of the ‘showing off’ would be done via social networking sites, as they would want to get their views out quickly and as it happens, rather than waiting until after the festival ends. Furthermore, because it’s all happening on social networking sites, their views can be read and shared with hundreds, if not thousands of people, making the word of mouth go further.

The Soska Twins American Mary, and Christian James’ Stalled both gained a theatrical release after showing at FrightFest (albeit a limited run). Mike Hewitt from Universal Pictures saw how great the audience reaction was to American Mary, and how much the fans got along with the twins, so decided to try and get them more screenings in the UK. After a couple of months, the Soska twins and lead actress Katharine Isabelle were back in the UK, and embarked on an eight night tour in association with FrightFest Presents to some of the biggest cities around the country – including two nights in London. This would not have been possible if for the great reaction it received at FrightFest. Currently, the pair is working on a WWE studio film – See No Evil 2, which is a huge step up from their two previous independent releases. As for Stalled, they got to put on a special event at the very well-known Prince Charles Cinema in Leicester Square. They screened the film, and had a very long Q&A afterwards with key cast members and a few of the crew, including the director.

As well as the Hollywood films and independent ones, there are also some very small, micro budgeted films from upcoming filmmakers. Quite a few of these smaller films are made my fans of FrightFest and have felt that the festival gave them enough confidence to let them make their own films. They get to network, interface with fans and other film industry folk, which builds up their confidence and well as their contacts book. We integrate everyone - from top to bottom - which is a key to ensuring that our events don't become elitist and 'awards-driven'’ (Day, G & Jones, A. 2013)

 
Fans such as Chelsey Burdon[ii] and Evrim Ersoy[iii] have done this. Burdon created a short film for FrightFest’s 666 Short Cuts to Hell competition. Her film didn’t win, but it aired on The Horror Channel and became part of their anthology that was released onto iTunes and BlinkBox. Shortly after this, she began pre-production on her next short film which stars the well-known Fiona Dourif. None of this would have happened if it wasn’t for the inspiration and courage FrightFest gave her. As for Ersoy, he co-founded the production company Ne'er Do Well Films, and for the past two years, they have been making short films and idents for the festival. This means that the most respected and famous filmmakers in the industry will get to watch their work thanks to FrightFest. It is a proven fact that the festival helps launch filmmaker’s careers. Directors such as Neil Marshall, Jake West, Paul Hyett, Christopher Smith and Simon Rumley are all examples of this. Alan Jones and Greg Day both agreed that they helped launch their career though FrightFest (Day, G & Jones, A. 2013). By mixing well established filmmakers, with beginners, it allows them to feed off of each other, instead of just keeping the more reputable people to one side. And this works too, in 2006, Guillermo del Toro chose to hold the UK premiere of Pan's Labyrinth at FrightFest, over The London Film Festival, showing that it’s all about the audience it plays for, rather than the status of the festival. Also, when there was a special screening of An American Werewolf in London, John Landis originally was only going to attend that screening, but instead, he stayed the whole weekend. He didn’t shy away from fans, Landis was very sociable and was interested in the fans views on what they just watched. The FrightFest audience is like no other.

One of FrightFest’s best aspects that a lot of fans are thankful for, is that the fans and the filmmakers are all put on the same level. They sit together during film screenings, go to the same pubs at the end of a festival day, the press pit is in the cinema’s lobby so everyone can see and hear what’s going on, and they aren’t given over the top special treatment, because at the end of the day, they’re all horror fans, and they all have shared interests. Evil Dead star Bruce Campbell noted this in his documentary FANALYSIS (Fanalysis. 2002). Whilst at festivals and conventions, he used his icon status to interview the audience members about their fandom and find out the meaning of fan/celebrity relationships. He found that the more the celebrity takes an interest in the fan, the more the fan tries to look like a ‘super fan’ and obsesses over them. Even though this isn’t necessarily easy for the celebrity to do as they would have many thousands of fans and it’s literally impossible to get to know them all on a personal level, the ones they do spend time with pay off indefinitely. This is because the ‘super fans’ obsession powers them to make their celebrity seem like the best and most talented one. Bringing this point back to FrightFest, when a filmmaker approaches an audience member that may or may not already be a fan of them, this kick-starts a relationship between the two, and therefore, the audience member would be more inclined to watch said filmmakers work and possibly become a fan (Hills, M. 2010).

Since the majority of the audience at FrightFest are hardcore genre fans who are willing to spend over £500 to stay in London to attend the festival, the filmmakers know that they have great knowledge of the genre. Since the target audience for the films shown are these type of people, the filmmakers and fans can freely talk to one another and give honest opinions of what they watched. Alan Jones mentioned ‘Often what the FrightFest audience says is implemented in the final print’ (Day, G & Jones, A. 2013), and this is a big deal, for well-known filmmakers to make changes to their work, just because a couple of fans said they didn’t like something/wanted to see more of someone. This just shows how much trust is put into the organisers, and the attendees.

From my findings, it is clear that the fans that attend FrightFest are the biggest reason that some independent films get distribution deals in the UK – and sometimes worldwide. The filmmakers, co-directors and distribution companies all trust the audience’s opinions and act on them whenever they get the chance. In return, they are allowed to mix in with the talent and talk with them endlessly over the festival, and sometimes start new friendships with them.

As well as this, the way that the films are programmed into the festival is also a big reason why some get a better reaction than others. By separating them into specific sub-genre’s and mixing them into one another, the audience never gets bored of seeing the same sort of films one after another. So their attention span is always at its highest.

Reference List
A History of Horror with Mark Gatiss.(2010) The American Scream. London, BBC, 21st October 2010.
Chandon, A. (2012) How FrightFest Helped Inbred go Global and How a FrightFest Goodie Bag Travelled the World – Part One. [Online] Available from: http://www.frightfest.co.uk/Frightfestwebfeatures/frightfestbagtra.html [Accessed on 4th November 2013. GMT 19:15:00].
Day, G &; Jones, A (2013) Interviewed by: Richardson, L. (21st November 2013)
Dickinson, J. Interviewed by: Richardson, L. (7th November 2013)
Fanalysis. (2002) [Film] Directed by: Bruce Campbell. USA, Campbell Entertainment Inc.
Green, A. Interviewed by: Richardson, L. (7th November 2013)
Hall, D (2007) Hanging with the Hatchet Man, an interview with Adam Green. [Online] Available from: http://www.eatmybrains.com/showfeature.php?id=73 [Accessed on 7th November 2013. GMT 13:00:00].
Hills, M(2010). “Attending Horror Film Festivals and Conventions: Liveness, Subcultural Capital and ‘Flesh-and-Blood Genre Communities’.” Horror Zone: The Cultural Experience of Contemporary Horror Cinema. Ed. Ian Conrich. London; New York: I.B. Tauris. pp. 87–101
Kerrigan, F. (2010) Film Marketing. Oxford, Elsevier Ltd. pp 115 – 177.
Young, R (2013) 'Hatchet III' concludes the series with a blood-spattered final note on DVD. [Online] Available from: http://www.examiner.com/article/hatchet-iii-concludes-the-series-with-a-blood-spattered-final-note-on-dvd [Accessed on 7th November 2013. GMT 13:45:00]

Are the conventions of realism able to be productively deployed with those of genre?

Since the start of film, there have been many realist film movements, with some of the most prevalent ones being Italian Neorealism and Dogme 95’. With almost all of the movements, the films made following them fit into specific genres, (i.e. ‘Kitchen Sink’ films and the comedy-drama genre, and New Iranian Cinema with Drama), and also making similar statements within their movements, which are mostly political based. Today however, there is no specific movement, with most realist films being able to adhere to movements in the past for example; Kelly Reichardt’s Wendy & Lucy (2008) for Italian Neorealism. A lot of the key traits from previous realist movements are being pulled together and used to make fictional subjects in the physical world, real in the film world - examples of this would include the use of monsters, or beings having special powers.

In the horror genre particularly a lot of their films have been based around real people and real stories, most famous ones including Ed Gein inspiring Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960). Having being constructed around real happenings, it would give audiences reasons to believe that the films were more credible than others since part of it is truth. In a lot of films nowadays, title cards are used in the beginning of the films to let audiences know that it is based on a true story. The reason why horror films like using this technique is on the belief that audiences would overall find the film scarier if they knew it was partly real or at least felt real to them, and since horror films are made to scare, they’re upping their chances of their film being a success.

One technique that the horror genre has recently capitalised on is by making their film seem like it is found footage. The film is seen through the camera lens that the characters are using, and the footage is presented as if someone discovered their recordings. The first film to use this technique was Ruggero Deodata’s Cannibal Holocaust (1980), in which a documentary crew travel to the Amazon to film a cannibal tribe. The film was a success, and even though it was entirely fiction, Deodata was arrested as police thought that some of the characters were actually killed on screen. Since the film, there were a couple of small releases that used the handheld camera method, but it wasn’t until Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez’s The Blair Witch Project (1990) did the technique really take off. In a news article from 1999, journalist Akin Ojumu stated that mock documentaries have developed into its own genre, thanks to the success of The Blair Witch Project. In the years after its release, there were only 1 or 2 films of this new genre being released - until 2007 when Oren Peli’s Paranormal Activity (2007) came out. It kick-started the genre again throwing it into the media spotlight and it is now known as found footage films.

In both The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity, the way in which they were made was very similar. The directors took a step back and allowed both casts to improvise the entire film. Sanchez and Myrick for The Blair Witch Project took the cast to their location and literally let them run free in the forest for eight straight days. The directors left them occasional notes in the forest with plot points for them to follow and sometimes shook their tent at night to really scare them as they thought they were alone. In Paranormal Activity however, the two characters weren’t left completely alone, but did improvise the entire script with Peli only giving short instructions on what he wanted to see in the coming scenes. By method acting in the two films, it allowed the actors to give a more credible performance as the fearful reactions on camera were actually their real reactions in the physical world, and their characters in the film were essentially just the actors in real life.

Alike with Italian Neorealism, the two films share a lot of the same characteristics as the movement. The most prominent are that all of the actors are amateurs; they hadn’t done any other acting work before the film and were not known at the time either. By doing this, audiences wouldn’t recognise their faces and automatically recall other films they were in, making the film seem less real to them. Being fresh in their minds, it was entirely possible that the film’s plot could in fact be real, as the ‘actors’ were not previously known as them. Alongside this, in both films the main characters all have the same names as the actors playing them. When audiences search online about the films or see information about it, having the same names would also increase the plausibility of the film.

To take things a step further, both films used different approaches to making them seem more realistic to audiences. In Paranormal Activity, there were no opening or closing credits and not even Paramount’s logo which is unusual for a film to have. The reason for this is so that it doesn’t look like anyone created the film, except for the characters in it. With The Blair Witch Project, the filmmakers decided to make the actors literally disappear to add to the authenticity of the film’s plot. The actor’s IMDB pages had them listed as ‘missing, presumed dead’, and there were missing persons posters being given out at film festivals. This part of their marketing campaign worked so well, the lead actress’s mother received sympathy cards from friends and family who believed that the film was real. 

As well as using the actors for realism in the films, they use real locations, and ones in which audiences would associate everyday life with. Paranormal Activity is exclusively set in the house owned by the two main characters (which was also the house Peli owned and lived in at the time to keep costs down). By setting it all in a house would ignite the viewer’s everyday fears that somewhere so personal could be haunted. The Blair Witch Project is almost entirely set in a forest, which isn’t as everyday as the former, but it is somewhere that everyone knows about and has probably visited sometime in their lives. By using locations that are natural to most, their fears would be heightened as it would be a familiar feeling to them. Also, the two locations used both allow a deep focus because of the camera equipment they were using, and the fact that most of the time they weren’t focusing on anything in particular. This lets the audience see everything in the shot and how it would have been in the film’s universe, as they haven’t focused away from anything they want to hide.

As the characters in both films are using the camera equipment within the film’s universe and the characters aren’t trained to use them, nor do they come from a film background, there is a lot of room for error and imperfections. Both films use this to their advantage though – as well as the obvious fact that untrained non-professionals would be able to correctly use their equipment perfectly all of the time, especially when under threat as they are in the films, they are able to imply that someone, or something else is with them. Take The Blair Witch Project for example, the cameras that they are using are their eyes, if they see something, turn around and run away, the audience only gets to see what they see as they won’t be holding the camera backwards to get a perfect shot whilst running away from it. It allows the characters to imply that what they saw was much, much scarier than it actually was. The ambiguity and uncertainty of it all would allow the viewers to try and decipher what just happened in their head. In a journal about how the film was made, Scott Dixon McDowell writes “I can think of no other film that prompts the viewer to anxiously search the periphery of the screen for a glimpse of something that simply is not there” (McDowell, 2001). Since the viewers haven’t actually seen any kind of supernatural being, they would just assume that if the characters reacted like they saw something, then there would definitely be something there, and they would want to know what it was. Vivien Sobchack describes this feeling in his book Screening Space “A great deal of our rising curve of excitation is based in a cinematic teasing of our desire to see everything in one uncut long shot” (Sobchack, 1997). With Paranormal Activity, it is exactly the same, but most of the cameras in this film are static, so when a character sees something off screen or goes out of shot – that’s it for the viewers, they are left to just try and work out what’s happening.

When it comes to the editing of both films, they have both clearly been edited since all of their cameras would have been rolling 24 hours a day, and the films are only just under 90 minutes each. Audiences could either think two things about this, either that the shots that have made the final cut of the film were added into it because it would strengthen the plot and something significant happens, or that the films are being presented as if they were a real, unedited documentaries where the characters had actually turned off the cameras a lot. Out of the two options, the latter seems a lot more realistic, and it would explain the numerous shots that are blurry as it is showing everything that they recorded. Since the films are part of the horror genre, their ultimate goal is to scare audiences, and with the editing, they make some key scenes last a little too long for comfort. By doing this, it heightens the tension of the scene, but also it gives off the sense of how trapped the characters are. There are no fast cuts away to a different scene when they are in danger – the cameras instead linger and show their reactions, as if they would in reality.

There are also a lot more elements of realism that have been popularised over the years for the general audiences. The most notable would be the lack of mise-en-scene in films that want to convey realism. In both films the use of lighting isn’t controlled, it was left up to the actors to determine how it should be, and in the case of The Blair Witch Project, the only light available to them was natural light, and the light on the top of their cameras. It would have been very hard to manipulate it under the harsh conditions they were shooting in. As for costumes and make-up, there was very little choice about it. The characters in The Blair Witch Project wore the same clothes throughout the film, and their make-up was non-existent as didn’t have any outside communications. Every aspect of mise-en-scene was largely uncontrolled by the filmmakers and came from within the film’s universe.

Both The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity are able to convey realism whilst being part of a genre. The conventions of realism that they use, particularly camerawork fit perfectly in the horror genre, so much so that it is debatable if found footage is now fully fledged enough to become its own genre. The filmmakers use specific techniques such as method acting, lack of any type of mise-en-scene and the use of an unknown cast to make their films seem more genuine. Plus, the more the film seems real to the audiences, the closer it brings them to the story and the more personal the experience will be, ultimately frightening them more. The horror genre has definitely changed due to the impact of found footage films and the faux documentary style is undeniably here to stay.

References

McDowell, S D. (2001). Method Filmmaking: An Interview with Daniel Myrick, Co-Director of the Blair Witch Project. Journal of Film and Video. 53 (2/3). pp 140.

Sobchack, V. 1997 Screening Space: The American Science Fiction Film. 2nd ed. New York: Rutgers University Press. pp 137.

The Aesthetic Traits of the Independent American Film The Blair Witch Project

Eduardo Sanchez and Daniel Myrick both attended and graduated the University of Central Florida; it was during this time that they came up with the idea of The Blair Witch Project. Having just graduated film school, the pair were on a tight budget and had to produce the film through their small production company; Haxan Films. Over the years, the film established itself as one of the most profitable independent American films ever made.

The Blair Witch Project was made for a very little $22,000 and to keep costs down, they returned their most expensive camera back to the store they bought it from after using it, saving them around $10,000. Initially, Sanchez and Myrick created a short trailer to try and get financing for the film. They made the trailer out to be a mini-documentary and caught the attention of John Pierson who ran a piece on his television show Split Screen. He did not tell anyone that the footage used wasn’t real and managed to convince viewers that what they just witnessed was factual.

The film premiered at Sundance Film Festival where The Blair Witch Project soon became the ‘buzz’ film and faced many sold out screenings. One of the production and distribution companies from the new emergences in the late 1990s was Artisan Entertainment (Yannis, 2013); they picked up the film for $1million and spent another $1 million on promotion. Thankfully, the film was promoted around the time of the boom of the internet, so they managed to use a cutting-edge marketing technique by making it go viral, and most importantly, it was free. Lead actor Michael C Williams in an interview said “The internet was new! So if you think back, some of the things you read on the internet you go, ‘Oh that must be true. I saw it on the internet.’ Just like when newspapers came out. You believed what you read” (Meslow, 2015). The filmmakers had their own website where they posted unused clips from the film, news articles and interviews, all trying to show audiences that the film was real. Artisan worked with them to grow the website and used it as one of their main marketing strategies, as well as creating fake missing person flyers and listing the actors as ‘missing, presumed dead’ on their IMDB pages. Their audiences believed that it was in fact a real film, so much so that Heather Donahue’s mother actually got sympathy cards from friends believing that her daughter died during the making of the film.

Another marketing strategy that they used was to make audiences feel like it was something that they wanted to get involved in. When the film was released across the United States, they limited screenings so that they sold out days in advance, making the film greatly in demand as viewers wanted to see what all the hype was about. Sanchez and Myrick took out an advertisement in Variety magazine simply stating "Blairwitch.com, 21,222,589 hits to date” (Blair Witch, 1999). One of the co-directors of Sundance said "I've never seen an advertisement, ever, in which a company takes out a Variety ad about the number of hits to their Website. That says something about how the campaign for this film has worked.... They've really made people get involved with a sense of wanting to be involved with this film, wanting to be a part of the feeling around it” (Carvell, 1999). Fortunately, their marketing strategies worked to a great scale as they made over $248 million at the box office, making it one of the most profitable films ever made. Yannis explains that “Despite the clear affirmation of indiewood films as the dominant expression of independent filmmaking from the late 1990s onwards … independent films of all kinds and modes continues to be made” (Yannis, 2013), and it’s true – the success of The Blair Witch Project proves this.

In David Bordwell’s essay The Art Cinema as a Mode of Film Practice he states that “The art cinema motivates its narratives by two principles: realism and authorial expressivity” (Bordwell, 1979). As far as authorial expressivity goes in The Blair Witch Project, both directors had complete control over the way their film was produced; it was made in their own way and was of an unusual style. The shoot was 24 hours a day, for eight days straight, allowing the actors to completely submerge themselves into their roles. They thought that they were left alone in the woods to make the film themselves, with the directors leaving them capsules every so often with written instructions for scenes, food and water, but in fact the directors were there with them. Sanchez and Myrick camouflaged themselves so that they could get more of a reaction from the actors by making unnerving noises and shaking the tent at night.

The Blair Witch Project goes against most classical narrative rules, especially the three act structure and cause-effect linkage. The film does have the first act, albeit a very short one; the actors are introduced to the audience and their goal is stated. The next act which would be the development is just the rest of the film, as there is no resolution. The film makes it way to its climax (unbeknownst to the audience when watching it, as there is no build to it), and then it ends, making it one of the most infamous, ambiguous endings ever. For cause-effect linkage, there are many, many other examples – Josh disappearing and never returns, children are heard screaming and there are none to be found, the actors walk for 15 hours in a straight line and end up in the same place and teeth are placed outside their tent but it’s unknown how they got there.

As for the realism aspect, The Blair Witch Project is the epitome of it. The film is shot on location, with unknown actors, all of the sound is diegetic, the composition lacked and the only light used is natural light from the light on the camera, which is natural in the characters universe.  The camera is hand-held all the way through, so they audience see everything from the characters point of view. We are restricted for what we know, as we are learning and seeing things at the same time as the characters. Since the three actors were all amateurs at the time, their knowledge on how to use the cameras wasn’t very good. There is one scene in particular where the three are interviewing a woman named Mary; the scene is significantly out of focus and shows their inexperience, but this works in favour of the film as it adds credibility to their characters authenticity. Also, one key detail that helps with the reality of the film is that as soon as the closing credits come on screen, the audience will be able to see that their characters names are in fact their real names too.

In Bordwell’s essay, he states that “Most important, the art cinema uses “realistic” –that is, psychologically complex-characters . . . the art cinema is less concerned with action than reaction” (Bordwell, 1979) and in The Blair Witch Project, the characters all fit this bill. The film doesn’t concentrate on action, but instead focuses on the psychological breakdowns of the characters. The filmmakers wanted to show this, so they wrote notes on their instructions for scenes, such as "Heather knows more. Heather is not telling the truth about all this stuff” (Meslow, 2015) to try and build tension between the three actors. From this, it wore the actors down from being apprehensive of one another and really allowed them to show their most primitive state with their emotions running high.

The film covers a short time span of only one week, but due to so much repetition of their activities and because the setting of the forest looks the same wherever they walk to, the time span feels a lot shorter. The only other locations used a hotel room and the town of Burkittsville, but these are only featured in the opening ten minutes of the film.

Independent films usually cast as few stars as possible, but with The Blair Witch Project, there were no stars at all, in fact for the three actors who starred in it, it was their first ever film. The obvious reason being that it brings production costs down, but it adds to the realism as the actors aren’t familiar faces that audiences have watched in films before. As well as the three main actors, the townsfolk that they interview before going into the woods were also unknown faces. What is so good about everyone that appears in the film too is that they are just ordinary people, the type of person you’d see walking down the street – no one special or extraordinary, meaning that there was a greater chance audiences would believe that the film was real.

Ultimately, Sanchez and Myrick created an independent American film - they produced their film how they wanted to, and with an extremely low budget that had audiences both excited and horrified. The pair strived to make the film as realistic as possible and showed how far word-of-mouth advertising could take them.

Works Cited

Blair Witch. 1999. in Variety. 19 July, 44

Bordwell, D. 1979. ‘The Art Cinema as a Mode of Film Practice’, Film Criticism, vol. 4, no.1 (Fall), 56-63.

Carvell, T. 1999. 'How The ‘Blair Witch’ Project Built Up So Much Buzz'. Fortune, [online] Available at: [Accessed 27 March 2015].

Yannis, T. 2013. ‘Independent’, ‘Indie’ and ‘Indiewood’: towards a periodisation of contemporary (post-1980) American independent cinema. In: American Independent Cinema: indie, indiewood and beyond. Oxon: Routledge. 28-40.

Meslow, S. 2015. The Blair Witch Project: An oral history, Part 2. The Week, [online] Available at: [Accessed 02 April 2015].

Does faecal matter, or does nobody give a shit?

The Human Centipede II (2011) has become one of the most talked about and controversial films of the year.  Alike with the first in the soon to be trilogy, it is jam-packed full of scenes that will make you squirm in your seat. Of course we should all know by now that The Human Centipede (2009) is a film about a German doctor who creates a centipede out of three people, by stitching their mouths to the anus of the person on front of them. The second film is the same concept, but this time there are twelve people involved in the centipede. Also, the creator of this centipede is an overweight man sexually obsessed with the first Human Centipede film. He is so infatuated with it; there is even a scene in which he masturbates using sandpaper whilst watching the film.

As soon as the BBFC got their hands on this film, they banned it in the United Kingdom. Reason being that; “Unlike the first film, the sequel presents graphic images of sexual violence, forced defecation, and mutilation, and the viewer is invited to witness events from the perspective of the protagonist. Whereas in the first film the ‘centipede’ idea is presented as a revolting medical experiment, with the focus on whether the victims will be able to escape, this sequel presents the ‘centipede’ idea as the object of the protagonist’s depraved sexual fantasy”. After a couple of weeks though, director Tom Six decided to give in and cut the film according to the BBFC’s guidelines. On October 6^th, the film received an 18 rating and had its UK premiere at the Frightfest Halloween all-nighter in London. After attending this and watching this film, I thought to myself that it wasn’t as bad as it was made out to be. Evidently, each audience member reacts differently to the film depending on their own interests and how desensitised they are to the genre.

To me, A Serbian Film (2010) was far more shocking than The Human Centipede II, and one scene even managed to disturb me.  Of course I’m talking about the infamous ‘Newborn Porn’ scene, in which an unknown woman gives birth in a grimy room and then a chubby man proceeds to rape the child – still attached to its mother. The part that made me feel most uncomfortable was the fact that the mother was smiling and looked pleased as the man raped her child. Obviously this was one of the parts that was heavily cut when it was passed through the BBFC. I asked the main actor of The Human Centipede, Dieter Laser what he thought on the matter; “all kinds of penetration and rape seem to be subconsciously more acceptable than poo in your mouth”. Looking back at the history of this genre, what he is saying is totally true. The only film I’ve heard about that is centred on faecal matter is Monsturd (2003) – a straight to video film about a serial killer that mutates into a monster made of human waste. The subject of rape however, is in countless films - even mainstream ones such as Kill Bill Vol. 1 (2003), Thelma & Louise (1991) and Straw Dogs (1971).

The main difference between the two films is that in The Human Centipede II, the protagonist does not face any repercussions for his actions, whereas in A Serbian Film, the protagonist goes through a living hell. Milos (Srdjan Todorovic) ends up unwillingly killing people, raping his own seven year old son and in the end commits suicide, taking his wife and son with him. To the viewers, this is giving out an almost positive message that suggests you will pay for actions if you cause harm to others.  The endings of both films are left open for the viewer to decide what happens next. In The Human Centipede II, the final scene is of the protagonist sitting alone watching The Human Centipede, which gives off the impression that the whole film was just part of his imagination. As much as I’d like to think of this as true, I wouldn’t experience the full effect of the film if I thought about it in this way.

Even though both are classed as horror films, I think that they both dabble in the genre of torture porn and exploitation. According to Srdjan Spasojevic - the director of A Serbian Film, the film is a metaphor for the struggle of the people living in Serbia under their government - there is just no hope for the future and no way to escape. This could possibly be one of the reasons why the BBFC decided not to ban the film, as it actually had meaning behind all of the shocking images. When I asked Dieter on his opinion on why The Human Centipede II was banned, he replied; “Maybe it’s very simple, maybe they are (like me) very easily disgusted by bodily fluids and excrement but don’t dare to frankly admit it”. I have to agree with what he is saying, as when you take away all of the faecal matter in the film, the content of it isn’t so bad. It just looks like another horror film filled with rape and bloody violence, nothing exceptional that hasn’t been done before.

Ultimately, the BBFC decided to ban The Human Centipede II because it was likely that it would cause harm to the viewers. But does cutting just over two minutes of footage make this film less harmful? Was it even harmful in the first place, and would you suddenly decide to make your own centipede and rape it after watching this?

That’s up to you to decide.

How does Royston Tans use of Micro Elements work to add meaning to a 10 minute sequence from ‘15’ (2003)?

Meaning is created in this film with the use of micro elements such as Performance and Cinematography. Performance is the imperative because we as the viewers have to believe that what is going on is real. Physical expression is the primary conveyor of dramatic meaning in most, if not all films because after all, one little smile can be worth a thousand words. Sometimes physical actions are more intense and meaningful to an audience than mere words, this is because any actor can memorize their lines and recite them, but only good actors can demonstrate them too. Considering that this film was in the Cinéma vérité fashion, and almost all of the lines were improvised, the physical expression was the biggest contributor to giving this film meaning. The use of Cinematography in a Cinéma vérité style film can sometimes be missed out as the director would want to concentrate on the storyline more, but ‘15’ certainly does not lack any of it. Just by having the camera at a different angle can make a big difference as it can show the character in a totally different perspective. I have decided to review the 9 and half minute sequence in the film, where the three main characters are all introduced.

The sequence begins with the character Armani portrayed by the real-life gangster Melvin Lee with his head submerged in a tank of water. The only light source being a shot of light coming from behind his head and the camera is set to sepia tone to make the character more mysterious. This makes his identity secret to the viewers as they do not know who he is at this point, the identity of this character in particular is important to be kept a secret at this point so that he can have a dramatic introduction. A quick paced fight is next in line to be shown, Armani encounters two other gangsters called Vynn and Melvin (who have both kept their real names). After a quick confrontation and a lot of abusive language later, a speedy street fight takes place. Both jump cuts and long shot’s are used here, the jump cuts are used to create the illusion that the fight is longer and that they had to shorten it down, and the long shot is used so that you can see all three characters and so that none of them go off the camera. This short sequence shows the hate between the teenagers and how much violence is in their everyday lives.

About a minute into the sequence probably the most controversial scene takes place. The character Armani expresses his feelings in a unique manner that most film directors wouldn’t dare illustrate. It starts off with Armani sitting in the corner of a highly contrasted room with a box cutter in hand. Without any warning as to what will happen, he starts to slash his left arm and wrist open. This is beyond the elements of realism, and this is also one of many scenes that are recorded using a handheld camera. This gives the scene much more importance as it looks like one of his friends recorded it and it is set aside from the other scenes around it so it stands out more. There is no sound apart from the sound of his skin tearing apart, but most of the time, the images spoke for themselves. To some people, this will be too much for them to sit and watch as it may be discomforting, but the deepest feelings sometimes have to be shown dramatically, so that the audience can really know what the characters are going through. The camera is at a high angle so that the audience will feel like they are looking down on him as if he is not worth anything. It then moves into a close-up of his arm so we can see the self-inflicted damage. Tan obviously wanted the audience to engage well with what is happening, so he made the room that Armani is in highly coloured so you can see clearly what is going on.

Straight after the scene with Armani, it quickly cuts to Vynn and Melvin talking about their regret for having a fight with him. They use the word ‘brother’ to describe their relationship with him to show that they are more than just friends. The word ‘brother’ is also used a lot in gangs as it shows the bond between the gang members and how if one of them dies, they all die. After a brief talk with each other, Vynn gets up and offers to get some food for Melvin and a long shot is used here and that cuts off the top of Vynn’s body, so it’s like you’re sitting across the table from him. Behind the two teen’s you can see a table full of Chinese boys wearing white clothes and a blurry congested background. A couple of jump shot’s are used when Vynn keeps coming back to the table asking which food Melvin would like which shortened down this part of the scene. Once he gets back, you see the Chinese boys laughing at their group leader for spitting at a cat. Considering both Melvin and Vynn are Singaporean and the boys at the other table are Chinese, a foul-mouthed argument gets underway which Vynn takes control of whilst Melvin slouches beside a table. Lighting also plays an important role at this part of the sequence because it helps control the audience’s perceptions of the characters. There is mostly only direct sunlight used at this point, since they are just in an open topped cafe, but it is clearly more focussed upon the well-educated Chinese boys. This shows that they are superior to both Melvin and Vynn who are in a shady area.

A swift cut takes us to the next part of the scene, which is a panning shot of both Armani and Vynn. The screen is split into two and it shows the two boys walking in opposite directions through a dull underpass. This shows us that they are both taking different paths in life and that they are drifting further and further apart. After about 20 seconds of solely panning them, Vynn starts to turn around so now he is walking in the same direction as Armani. The split down the screen disappears so now it looks like Vynn is following Armani, this notifies us that their relationship is going to change and somehow Armani will become a leader to him. This panning shot of both characters takes up about 50 seconds of the scene.

Tan cuts this part of the sequence with skill and accuracy, which makes it show the hype of the character’s lives and how everybody knows everyone. You see other gangsters talking on the phone to Armani telling them about the Chinese gang chasing Melvin and Vynn. It is edited so that the conversation runs on throughout each person talking on the phone. After the call has ended, the film cuts back to the bland underpass showing the chase taking place until both Melvin and Vynn are lying on the floor getting beat up. The lighting is very high and saturated at this point to bring out all of the characters. For about 10 seconds, you see Tan playing the part of the leader of the Chinese gang, he is standing above the other gang members in slow motion, whereas everything else around him is sped up. This shows how he is dominant and how he doesn’t take orders, he gives him.

Armani comes into the shot with about 50 armoured gang members and orders them to chase the Chinese away, leaving Armani alone staring at the two motionless bodies. A low, long shot shows him standing there for about 10 seconds, until he finally walks over to them and helps them up. This type of shot is used wisely here as it places us in the perspective of the bodies on the ground. After brushing them off, Rocco and Mohawk (two of the gangsters Armani brought) bring back a bloody Chinese gang member. As soon as the box cutter comes out again, Tan uses tracking shots to follow it’s every move, he does this because it is the most important subject in frame to be watching. One giant slice into the Chinese boys face finishes him off and you can hear the deep breathing of all the characters in the underpass. The end to the scene takes place in a whole new setting, Armani, Melvin and Vynn are reciting a gang rap whilst making peculiar hand actions. The room that they are in is tinted blue and the lighting is quite low because of the vulgarities they are saying, but all three of them rapping together shows that they have finally been reunited.

Tan’s unconventional style of having all of the actors hand picked from the streets definitely makes this film better, as it gives you a better insight into the degradation that the actor’s come from. Since all of the actors are all from real gangs too, they can use that to make their characters in the film stronger by using their own knowledge about what actually happens, this also lightens the realism. Our society today judges them as troublemakers who indulge in criminal activities simply to get attention but from this film, we are starting to find out that it is in fact not true.