MA-Thesis

Transmitting Fear through the Screen Aesthetics, Narratives and Media in Contemporary Horror Films

------Name: Britt Kaandorp Student number: 10170936 Date: 3 May 2015 Supervisor: Dr. Marie-Aude Baronian Educational programme: Mediastudies: Film, beroepsgeoriënteerde specialisatie University: Universiteit van Amsterdam Word count: 23.441 ------

Film Still 1 Ellison watching found footage in Sinister

ABSTRACT

This thesis examines emotional experiences of the viewer when watching a contemporary horror film. It looks at various cinematic aesthetics that are able to evoke particular responses within the spectator. This thesis focuses on the case studies The Conjuring (James Wan, 2013), Paranormal Activity (Oren Peli, 2007) and Sinister (Scott Derrickson, 2012). These recent feature films are all productive in generating the emotion of fear within me, a response that is both bodily and cognitive. Found footage is a crucial aspect in this research. Paranormal Activity is a found footage horror film and Sinister is a film that has incorporated found footage into the diegesis. I will look at the way in which found footage is able to create a more intense and scary experience than horror films that employ a classical and fluent film style are able to do. Obviously, the narrative, the monster, the characters and their performances, are essential when it comes to eliciting a response within the viewer. However, the camera, the possibilities of the camera and the process of filmmaking turn out to be crucial in evoking an emotional response. Furthermore, screens are a salient motif in every case study, although in different ways. They add multiple cinematic layers to the film, which creates a fascinating and complex image. Due to the multiple layers, filmic boundaries become blurred. This occurs often in found footage horror films and in horror films that incorporate found footage. The monsters in Paranormal Activity and Sinister address the viewer at the end of the film. Because of the blurred boundaries, the monsters successfully challenge the screen that stands between our world and the world of the film. This creates a terrifying and overwhelming experience. In short, the three case studies aim to pull the spectator into the diegesis via particular cinematic aesthetics.

Key words: emotional responses, cinematic experience, horror films, found footage, aesthetics

Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENT

Film Stills Page 4 Acknowledgements Page 5

Introduction Page 6

Chapter 1: Spectatorship in Suspenseful Horror Films Page 13 § 1.1 Emotional Responses Page 13 § 1.2 Horror and Suspense Page 18 § 1.3 Found Footage Horror Film Page 26

Chapter 2: Haunted House Stories Page 31 § 2.1 Narrative and Opening Page 32 § 2.2 Ubiquitous Presence of Media Page 35 § 2.3 Demonic Entities Page 36 § 2.4 Characters, Expressions and Performances Page 38

Chapter 3: Camera Functions Page 45 § 3.1 Camera as Another Presence Page 45 § 3.2 Camera as Third Protagonist Page 46

Chapter 4: Screens as Portals Page 49 § 4.1 Mirrors in The Conjuring Page 49 § 4.2 Recordings in Paranormal Activity Page 51 § 4.3 Found Footage in Sinister Page 52

Conclusion Page 56

Bibliography Page 60 Films Page 63

Page 3

FILM STILLS

Film Still 1 Ellison watching found footage in Sinister Page 1 Film Still 2 Micah and Katie in Paranormal Activity Page 10 Film Still 3 Samara coming out of the screen in The Ring Page 27 Film Still 4 Opening shot The Conjuring Page 32 Film Still 5 Opening shot Sinister Page 33 Film Still 6 Opening shot Paranormal Activity Page 34 Film Still 7 Bathsheba in The Conjuring Page 36 Film Still 8 Bughuul in Sinister Page 38 Film Still 9 Lorraine in The Conjuring Page 39 Film Still 10 Christine in The Conjuring Page 40 Film Still 11 Carolyn in The Conjuring Page 41 Film Still 12 Katie in Paranormal Activity Page 42 Film Still 13 Ellison and his moving box in Sinister Page 43 Film Still 14 Micah and the camera in Paranormal Activity Page 47 Film Still 15 Micah talking to the camera in Paranormal Activity Page 47 Film Still 16 Carolyn visible in the mirror in The Conjuring Page 50 Film Still 17 Micah watching his recordings in Paranormal Activity Page 51 Film Still 18 Bughuul addresses the spectator in Sinister Page 52 Film Still 19 Ellison becoming part of the footage in Sinister Page 54 Film Still 20 Ellison becoming part of the footage in Sinister Page 54 Film Still 21 Katie addressing the spectator in Paranormal Activity Page 55

Page 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For this thesis I would like to thank the University of Amsterdam for providing me with knowledge and insights regarding media, culture and film. The Bachelor Media and Culture and the Master Film Studies broadened my horizon within the field of media studies. The university gave me the chance to focus on aspects of media studies I found fascinating and interesting, while also stimulating me to develop myself as a scholar and deepen and broaden my knowledge and skills. I also would like to thank Dr. Marie-Aude Baronian for her supervision, critical and constructive feedback and advice during the process of writing this thesis. She helped me with formulating my ideas and arguments and did so with genuine interest. Her guidance and knowledge were of great importance and she always encouraged me to keep working. Mashya Boon has helped me structuring my thoughts. Together we brainstormed about my arguments and how I should transfer this onto paper. The conversations we had inspired me to keep going when I momentarily got stuck in my thoughts. I owe her thanks for this. She also gave me useful feedback regarding my writing-style, as did my fellow student and friend Eva Bakkum. Thanks to them, I could optimize this thesis. I owe much gratitude to my parents, Theo Kaandorp and Marian Velzeboer, for giving me the chance to study in the first place. They value education greatly and always motivated me to keep learning and studying. Finally, I would like to thank Eric Hoogland for being a sounding board and motivating me to keep improving this thesis. He encourages me to always be the better version of myself.

Page 5

INTRODUCTION

“The cinema offers complex and varied experiences; for most people, however, it is a place to feel something.” - Carl Plantinga and Greg M. Smith

Plantinga and Smith’s quote captures exactly why so many people enjoy watching films, myself included. Films have the power to make us feel happy, sad, angry, frightened, and much more. They are able to generate an emotional response within the spectators. Or at least, that is what a film aims to do. Consequently, the main goal of any horror film is to scare and horrify its spectators. But why would an audience want to be scared? In his book The Horror Film, Peter Hutchings claims that horror films offer us thrills, shocks and iconoclasm, which send us on a ruthless roller-coaster ride. A horror film can be seen as a fast journey that contains amusing and mighty sensations that generate a memorable experience within the spectator (Hutchings 82). This sensational experience thus makes a horror film appealing for the spectator. Hutchings explanation of the appeal for horror films captures precisely why I myself love to watch a good horror film. It is the promise of the adrenaline rush that lures me to the cinema to see the next horror film. The horror genre is always trying to generate a greater adrenaline rush and sensational experience within the viewer. Monsters become scarier, narratives are presented in new ways and special effects become more elaborate. The relatively new phenomenon of the found footage horror film is an outcome of this ongoing development. A found footage horror film is presented as filmic material that is discovered or found by someone, usually the viewer of the film. Logically, this footage contains frightening content. The footage is filmed by one of the protagonists to document a particular thing or event, mostly an evil presence. Handheld shots, direct sounds, an amateur look, presence of the camera and a voyeuristic viewing mode for the spectator are some of the typical aesthetics of a found footage horror film. The Do-It-Yourself aesthetics and amateur look of a found footage horror film make the film personal and subjective. Next to this, it looks like something everyone could have filmed with his or her cell phone or camera. Because of this, found footage horror films are linked to our own reality, which make them scary and overwhelming for the viewer. In addition to the found footage horror film, there are horror films that employ a mainstream film style but incorporate found footage in the narrative. In this case, it is mostly one of the protagonists who finds the footage and watches it. My focus lies on how horror films, and especially found footage horror films and horror films that incorporate found footage, are able to generate an emotional response via specific treatments of aesthetics and the narrative.

Page 6

I want to make clear that this research and the books and articles that I read for my research are not about reception or reception studies, but about how a film can direct the emotions of the spectator. For instance, Passionate Views. Film, Cognition, and Emotion by editors Carl Plantinga and Greg M. Smith and Feeling Cinema. Emotional Dynamics in Film Studies by Tarja Laine focus on emotional responses, aesthetics and narrative theories. Passionate Views contains many essays by different scholars who shed a light on this subject. Jennifer M. Barker also deals with spectatorship in her chapter “Musculature”. Barker focuses on the musculature relationship between the viewer’s body and the film’s body. Similarly, Elena del Río writes about the relationship between different screens and the human body. She also addresses spectatorship, but goes further by looking at spectatorship within a film. Here, the concept of ‘mise-en-abyme’ is of importance, for this concerns films within films. Patricia Pisters, focusing on narrative theories, looks at the ways in which a film can involve the spectator in the narrative and its characters (Pisters 86). This is crucial for a film to generate any emotional response within the viewer. Noël Carroll deals with horror films and the emotional response they can elicit in his article “Film, Emotion and Genre” in Passionate Views, as does Laine in her book. However, they focus on significantly older horror films such as From Beyond (Stuart Gordon, 1986) and The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980). It is my aim to focus on contemporary horror films and a contemporary phenomenon within this genre, namely the found footage horror film. Alexandra Heller-Nicholas’s book Found Footage Horror Films: Fear and the Appearance of Reality is one of the first books that solely concentrates on found footage horror films. She focuses on the genealogy of the found footage horror film, the development of the subgenre, the releases and franchises of the found footage horror films The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez, 1999) and Paranormal Activity (Oren Peli, 2007), socio-political aspects when a found footage horror film is released within a particular national context, and the relation between independent and corporate film productions (5 – 6). Yet, she does not take a close look at the relation between found footage horror films and the spectators. Chris Packham also focuses solely on the found footage horror film in his article “The Rise of Found-Footage Horror”. Although Packham does touch upon the experience of the spectator, his text is mostly about the characteristics of found footage horror films. Thus, both writers do not pay close attention to the experience the subgenre can evoke within a spectator. Therefore, my emphasis will be on this particular aspect. Hutchings claims that there has been a renewed interest in ghost stories in the early years of the 2000s, but that this interest seems to be short-lived (217). He names What Lies Beneath (Robert Zemeckis, 2000) and The Others (Alejandro Amenábar, 2001) as examples of this renewed interest. However, films like The Ring (Gore Verbinski, 2002), The Grudge (Takashi Shimizu, 2004), The

Page 7

Amityville Horror (Andrew Douglas, 2005), Shutter (Masayuki Ochiai, 2008), The Uninvited (The Guard Brothers, 2009), Insidious (James Wan, 2010), The Possession (Ole Bornedal, 2012) and Jessabelle (Kevin Greutert, 2014) indicate that ghost stories are in fact still popular and prove that Hutching’s claim should be nuanced. In this research I will focus on this particular type of horror film, namely the supernatural and ghostly type. Moreover, supernatural and ghostly horror films contribute to the uncanny nature of films and photographs. Terry Castle states that photography is “the ultimate ghost-producing technology of the nineteenth century” (61). I argue that films, then, are the ultimate ghost-producing technology of both the 20th and 21st century. For this reason, I think the combination of horror films and the supernatural is fitting and relevant. Furthermore, in these kinds of horror films, suspense is of significant importance. The bloody and gory kind of horror film relies more on graphic violence than on suspense. The combination of suspense and horror creates a truly scary and horrific film text. The case studies in this thesis contain suspense and therefore I call my case studies suspenseful horror films. Supernatural and suspenseful horror films can be qualified as uncanny. The diegetic world of the film is familiar, yet the happenings are strange. Our bodies and minds respond to this. Torben Grodal states the following in his article “Emotions, Cognitions, and Narrative Patterns in Film”:

Film viewers prefer to experience narratives that strongly activate the mind and body, that move and touch, that cue production of adrenaline and elicit visceral reactions. Such feelings and physical reactions are linked with narratives that offer stimulating cognitive problems and scenes of spectacle and intrigue. (127)

Thus, films with fascinating narratives are able to stimulate physical and mental senses. Grodal also points to the interaction between physical and cognitive reactions. This interaction that occurs inside us when we watch a film can be seen as a phenomenological experience. Tarja Laine and Vivian Sobchack, in their respective studies, focus on this phenomenological relationship. The phenomenological sensations within us, produced by films and their narratives, did not yet receive the attention it deserves in film theory (Grodal 127). According to Grodal, it is always important to study new types of horror films to see how they achieve activity in the mind and body and cause physical and emotional reactions. These reactions and activities in our mind and body ensure that we lose ourselves in the film: we forget everything around us and focus solely on what is going on onscreen. It feels like I am part of this fictional world. Or, to put it in Bernard Stiegler’s words: “We become immersed in the time of their flowing forth; we forget all about ourselves watching, perhaps “losing ourselves” (losing track of time), but however we define it, we will be sufficiently captured, not to say captivated, to stay with it to the very end” (10). I watch films because I want to be

Page 8

entangled within the narrative. When a film is able to capture my attention, I become absorbed into the film. This is why I love watching films. Moreover, the landscape of media and film is ever-changing. New technologies and phenomena such as modern cell phones, digital camera’s and small video camera’s are everywhere around us and will create new film styles and aesthetics. Can these changes add something to the horror genre? They also allow us to be filmmakers ourselves. Do-It-Yourself or amateur films challenge the professional film industry. A way of dealing with this phenomenon is by incorporating the DIY film and amateur look into professional films. The outcome of this development in the film industry, and particularly in the horror genre, led to a new subgenre: the found footage horror film. Heller-Nicholas gives an explanation for the popularity of the genre:

These films are exciting to watch not because their events may or may not have happened, but from the formal innuendo that if they did occur, this is how they might look, seemingly filmed as they are on the same ubiquitous consumer-grade technology that many of us have ourselves (home video cameras, mobile phones, webcams, etc.). (7)

My fascination with these films thus stems from the fact that it takes place in the same setting as the one I am living in. I recognize the DIY and amateur look in the film because it looks like something I could have filmed myself. Horror films try to evoke fear within the spectator. To generate this emotional reaction, filmmakers employ specific filmic aesthetics. Found footage horror films try to elicit fear by utilising DIY and amateur aesthetics. These aesthetics are able to generate the feeling of horror and anguish. The Paranormal Activity film series (Oren Peli et al., 2007 – 2015) and numerous other found footage horror films, such as The Devil Inside (William Brent Bell, 2012) and [REC] (Jaume Balaguréo and Paco Plaza, 2007), have proved the popularity of this new subgenre in horror. The camera, which is an important element in these films, creates a paradox. The ubiquitous presence of the camera makes the film seem more genuine and real, as if the filmmaker, who is simultaneously one of the main characters in the film, really filmed everything. This contributes to the grip a film can have on the audience. At the same time however, the ubiquitous presence of the camera also points to the fact that the film is indeed filmed by the filmmakers, which demonstrates the artificiality of the film. Film still 2 from Paranormal Activity captures this paradox concerning the ubiquitous presence of the camera. The film focuses on Katie and Micah, who are recording their life to find out what is haunting them at night. This recording element in the film is especially important for the narrative and the characters and therefore constantly emphasized. The camera is visually present in this image. This contributes to the sense of authenticity surrounding the film. Still, it also points to the artificiality of the film since it emphasizes that this film is indeed recorded by someone.

Page 9

Film Still 2 Micah and Katie in Paranormal Activity

The fact that the camera is present in this shot also shows that this film is a profound example of the ultimate ghost-producing technology. The protagonists are actually recording and therefore producing their own ghost story. Secondly, the mirrors are salient in this shot. They point to the different screens and layers in the narrative and the artificiality that actually makes the film more authentic. Mirrors show a reflection of reality. This is similar to films. A film is a recording of reality and, therefore, that recording is a reflection, or a mirror image, of that reality. This image directs our attention to Katie in the mirror. Consequently, we are watching a reflection (the film) of a reflection (the mirror). But, because reflections are representations of reality and because we know we are watching reflections, due to the camera and the mirrors, the film seems realistic and genuine. These different reflections are intertwined in one image. In other words, they become one filmic reality and this contributes to our feeling of being ‘there’ with the protagonists. Classical and/or mainstream horror films try to pull the spectator into the story via their fluent film style. The editing and cinematography are used in a way that leads the attention away from the fact that the viewer is watching a film. There are also horror films that incorporate found footage in the narrative. These films are mostly about a protagonist who finds footage. This footage will then have a significant influence on their life. I will focus on what kind of horror film is most ‘productive’ in frightening the spectator and also maintaining his or her attention to the screen. Film still 2 from Paranormal Activity already shows that aesthetics and narrative elements prove to be important when it comes to eliciting an emotional response within the spectator. My case studies will be The Conjuring (James Wan, 2013), Paranormal Activity and Sinister (Scott Derrickson, 2012). These three contemporary horror films are suspenseful and contain a narrative with supernatural aspects. The Conjuring employs a classical and fluent film style; the film tries to hide the fact that it is in fact a fictional construction by pulling the viewer into the story and not putting the emphasis on the camera. Paranormal Activity, on the other hand, is a found footage

Page 10

horror film. Sinister dwells between these types of films. The film employs a classical film style, which is similar to The Conjuring. However, Sinister contains found footage in the narrative and diegesis of the film. Although the films differ from each other in terms of film style and aesthetics, they are all productive in frightening the audience. I consider my case studies and my experience with the films the foundation of this research. In other words, my approach is bottom-up for the films and my experience of them are of foremost importance. I am a participant in the viewing experience, which means that I will actively watch and study my case studies. I will analyse the emotions the films generate within me and how they evoke emotions. My approach is thus mostly phenomenological for I will rely on my own conscious and bodily experiences when watching the case studies. Still, I will also employ the cognitive approach and make use of Romantic perceptions. Because I will concentrate on emotional responses, the phenomenological interaction between the body and consciousness, as well as the interaction between subjectivity and objectivity, are major and meaningful elements. In Carnal Thoughts. Embodiment and Moving Image Culture, Sobchack argues that our own experience is central in film-viewing, meaning that it implies bodily activity and perception and the correlation between subjective and objective elements (Sobchack 2). In other words, all these elements are related and together form my response to what I am watching. Therefore, I will look at how objective and recognizable elements in film create subjective feelings within me. A similar approach is to be found in Laine’s book Feeling Cinema. The next quote captures the way Laine looks at film: “Making sense of cinema as an emotional event requires making sense of oneself as a sentient subject, interacting emotionally with the film” (7). This points to our own feelings and emotions that are evoked when watching a film. Together they constitute our experience of the film. She places herself, a critical analyst, as a participant within the viewing experience. She looks at the research object in a critical, observational and attentive way, while also paying attention to her emotions during the cinematic event (Laine 3). This method could also be called Romantic and subjective in the sense that romanticism focuses on feelings during a viewing and/or hearing experience (Plantinga and Smith 4). Still, it is important that you remain aware that you are researching something on a scholarly level (Laine 7). It is obviously crucial to be aware of your own subjectivity. Furthermore, the claim that derives from this subjective experience should be supported by proper and objective arguments. This can be achieved by utilizing the cognitive approach, which is used by the different authors in Passionate Views. Plantinga and Smith mention that this approach is characterised by specificity in the analysis (3). In other words, every filmic element is closely looked at. Subsequently, this close analysis can constitute the objective arguments that support the

Page 11

main claim. I argue that the combination of different approaches, namely phenomenology, romanticism, and cognitivism, is productive and useful in any research that considers the way in which emotions are generated by filmic elements. The case studies are all productive in frightening me, but they are also very different, as I will demonstrate later on. Because of this, I wonder why exactly I find them scary. I started doing research and learned about theories and arguments that fit the experiences I had when watching these films. I will first elaborate on these theories so that the case studies are clearly positioned within a particular framework. In the next chapter I will elaborate on the subject of spectatorship, emotional responses, horror films and found footage. The following chapters will offer a close-reading of the case studies. I formulated three different themes that are significant in the case studies, namely haunted house stories, camera functions and screens as portals. Chapter 2 will focus on the theme of haunted house stories. I will concentrate on the narratives, the presence of media, evil entities, performances of the characters, moods and music. Chapter 3 will focus on the different camera functions. It turns out that the camera can be seen as another presence and as a third protagonist in the case studies. In Chapter 4, screens will be considered as portals. I will focus on mirrors, found footage and visual recordings that are present in the case studies. In these analyses, I will consider the experiences and feelings I had when I watched these films, the construction of the films and the theoretical framework I outlined in Chapter 1.

Page 12

CHAPTER 1: SPECTATORSHIP IN SUSPENSEFUL HORROR FILMS

“We are part of cinema in its emotional eventfulness.” - Tarja Laine

This quote perfectly captures the experience of watching a film. As I already mentioned, we become immersed in the film; we are part of it. This ensures that we do not merely watch a film, but actually experience feelings and emotions. Filmic elements, like cinematography, editing, lighting and sound, are used and structured a certain way to make the spectator laugh, frightened or sad. This chapter looks at the way in which spectators respond to the film they are watching. The first part of this chapter will specifically deal with emotional responses in cinema. Bodily and cognitive reactions will be considered. It becomes apparent that the combination and interaction between bodily and conscious responses are significant. The relationship between the viewer and the film, facial expressions of the characters, clues and narrative elements, moods and music will also be discussed. Thereafter the focus will be on suspenseful horror films and the ways in which those films evoke emotional responses. I will consider the monster, narrative, emotional core, emotive address, sympathy and empathy, uncanny atmosphere and camera movements. The remainder of the chapter will be devoted to found footage and the found footage horror film. It explores the different characteristics and looks at different film styles from where this subgenre could have originated.

§ 1.1 Emotional Responses When I watch a film, both my body and my mind respond to it. But more importantly, they respond together, in collaboration with each other. Without my mind telling me what is going on onscreen, my body will not react to it. Similarly, the way my body is reacting to a particular scene tells my mind what is going on and what I should think and feel. These responses interact and sustain each other. When I watch an emotional scene in a romantic film, I get emotional, both consciously and bodily. I know the story of the characters and understand why they are emotional; this is a cognitive realization. My cognitive awareness of the film ensures that I get consciously emotional. I also feel myself tear up when watching this emotional scene, which is a bodily reaction. This confirms that my cognitive reaction is an appropriate response to the emotional scene. And in turn, this cognitive reaction confirms that it is appropriate to be tearing up. In sum, cognitive and bodily reactions confirm and sustain each other. Plantinga and Smith write that emotions and cognitions tend to work together (2). According to cognitivists, emotions and cognitions make certain objects more salient

Page 13

than others. Emotions help us to react quickly and direct the body and mind to evoke action (Plantinga and Smith 2). Laine also mentions that affective, or bodily, and cognitive, or cerebral, states are interwoven with each other during a cinematic experience (1). This interaction within the viewer can be called a phenomenological sensation. Carroll writes that affective states are central in the viewing experience, or even constitute the cinematic experience. Emotions colour the experience the spectator has of a film. Carroll notes that the body of the spectator reacts to the emotional feeling he or she is having. The cognitions cause the bodily changes in the spectator. Carroll claims that “emotions require cognitions as causes and bodily states as effects” (23 - 27). This is a phenomenological process that involves the spectator and his or her world and the film and the world of the film (Laine 1). Still, Laine makes a distinction between bodily sensations and emotional sensations. To use my example of the emotional scene, my bodily sensation would be me tearing up and my emotional sensation would be that I feel for the characters because I understand their story. According to Laine, affective appraisals are bodily changes. Emotional evaluation collects this affective appraisal and gives meaning to it and memorises it (Laine 2). Thus, when I am tearing up during the moving scene, I know that this is caused by the emotional state I am in. Laine argues that the focus should be on both elements. The combination of an affective appraisal and emotional evaluation is called the cinematic emotion. A film tries to keep the audience emotionally engaged by being an emotional product itself. Since people are emotional beings, the film is able to capture the attention and fascination of the viewer. Alongside the phenomenological connection between cognitive and bodily states, there is the phenomenological relationship between the spectator and the film. Barker is interested in the way a film can blur the boundaries between the spectator’s world and the film’s world (72). She studies this via ‘muscular engagement’, which is visual. Barker argues that the spectator and the film are both muscular bodies and that they are in a muscular relationship with each other. This relationship is possible because the viewer’s body and the film’s body move in similar ways (Barker 73). The body of the film makes the same movements that a human can make, and the viewer, in turn, can mirror the muscular movements of the film (Barker 77). Because of this, the spectator can be at two places at once, namely here, in the physical world we inhabit, and there, in the world of the film (Barker 72). Through the aesthetic elements, the film invites us to be part of its world. This is why a film can capture us so fully. It makes us feel like we are part of the filmic world. The following statement points to why an audience can have such strong emotions and feelings when watching film: "The phenomenon of feeling, if not being, physically in two places at once is a hallmark of the cinematic experience” (Barker 83 – 84). This is why the spectator can become immersed in the film. An important and highly emotional and frightening scene in The Conjuring illustrates Barker’s claim

Page 14

about the musculature relationship perfectly. One of the characters, the young girl Christine, wakes up at night and feels that something is wrong. She first looks under her bed. Via a point of view shot from Christine’s perception, we see the bedroom door slightly moving. Christine’s face is shown in the next shot. Thereafter, she sits upright in bed. The camera makes the same movement as she does, which causes a fast turning movement. Although this is somewhat disorienting, we still know it is similar to Christine’s movement and also movements we ourselves are able to make. This contributes to the feeling of being ‘there’ in the room with Christine. It ensures that the boundary between my world and the world of the film is blurred, for this aesthetic makes me part of the filmic world. I will come back to this scene and discuss it elaborately in the next chapter. A similar argument to Barker’s is formulated by Elena del Río in her article “The Body as Foundation of the Screen”, in which she discusses the relation between different screens and the body (95). She claims that the viewer has to overcome the gap between him or her and the screen to form a proper relationship (del Río 106). This can be said about the spectator and the film, but also about the characters in the film that are watching something on a screen. This occurs often in found footage horror films. This situation can be called a ‘mise-en-abyme’, which means a film within a film. A mise-en-abyme adds more cinematic layers to the film and, consequently, creates an intriguing cinematic construction. This is especially interesting when analysing films that incorporate found footage into the diegesis, but still mostly employ a classical film style. In films like Sinister and The Ring, the protagonists watch found footage, just like the spectator, and they also react in a similar way. Due to the musculature movements in the footage within the film, the characters that are watching this footage develop a muscular relationship with it. They respond physically and cognitively. This is similar to the position of the spectator; he or she is related to the film and to the footage within the film. Due to this mise-en-abyme, there are two filmic layers in the film, which are connected to each other. This creates a complex cinematic experience. I will return to this argument in the following chapters. The connection between the film and the viewer can also break. This can happen during disruptive moments, for example, when we are startled in a horror film. At that moment we realize that we are watching a film. The combination of overwhelming music, fast editing and a scary image, is able to cause such a ‘startling effect’. We are confronted with the filmic construction. After this startling moment, the spectator says to him- or herself that “it is just a movie” (Barker 88 – 90). This is of course disastrous for the emotional response that the film wants to evoke. Films have to find a way to deal with these disruptive moments. Horror films aim to frighten the viewer and thus have a lot of these moments that could break the connection with the spectator. A horror film can deal with this by maintaining and enhancing the tension instead of giving the spectator a moment to

Page 15

breath after a terrifying scene. That way, the viewer remains uptight and his or her attention stays fixed to the screen. Smith points out that emotions not only direct the way in which we respond, they also direct the way in which we gather information when watching a film (113). They guide the attention of the spectator (Carroll 28). This is the case in real life, but also in fiction films. In a supernatural horror film we look for clues that prove the presence of the monster and in a detective film we look for clues that reveal the mystery. The opening sequence of a film is important since it tells the viewer what kind of film he or she is watching. Cinematic aesthetics immediately set a certain tone. Consequently, they work as clues for determining the genre. Thomas Elsaesser and Malte Hagenar mention that opening sequences and scenes provide watching instructions for the spectator; the opening scene gives a sense of what the rest of the film will be like (42). Thus, the opening of a film immediately directs our attention and establishes a particular mood. When we recognize this mood, we look for more clues and stimuli (Smith 113). For example, the eerie mood that is established in a horror film will direct the attention of the viewer to frightful objects and events in the film, which will then help sustain the eerie mood. Moods and emotions are created and emphasized by the aesthetic style of the film. Smith names facial expressions, lighting, editing, cinematography, music, sounds, narrative situations and the mise-en-scene as important indicators of the mood and tone of a film (115). These filmic elements work together to guide our attention to particular aspects. Carroll states that filmmakers direct the attention of the viewer by making salient what they want the viewer to notice. In fiction films, then, the viewer is guided by his or her emotions that are called upon by the film and thus by the filmmakers. The difference is that, in real life, we are only guided by our emotions. In fiction films the filmmakers obviously guide us, since they created the film in such a way that it makes us feel something (Carroll 29). In other words, certain techniques will help evoke certain emotions. Laine uses Carroll’s concept of a ‘criterially prefocused’ text to describe this. She explains that a criterially prefocused text directs our attention to specific details in a film, making some elements more salient than others (Laine 33 – 34). Carroll explains in A Philosophy of Mass Art that a criterially prefocused text will evoke the apt emotions in the spectator (264). He proposes that a criterially prefocused film can elicit an emotional response from the viewers if the audience is encouraged to feel concern for the developments in the story and the characters. If the film elicits an emotional response in the viewer, this involves creating an emotive focus in the audience. This emotive focus then guides the spectator in his or her viewing experience on a moment-to-moment basis (Carroll 33). By structuring filmic elements in a particular way, the film radiates certain emotions and emotional states. Laine goes even further by saying that films embody emotions and not just express them. Films have a specific structure, which she calls the

Page 16

‘emotional core’ of the film. This emotional core is affective and interwoven with the cinematic experience (Laine 3). She also argues that without this affective quality, or emotional core of the film, the spectator cannot be engaged with what he or she is watching (Laine 4). The emotional core tries to capture and sustain the attention of the spectator. The spectator will not be interested in the film if the emotional core is not fascinating enough. Another interesting point Carroll makes concerns the plausibility of the narrative. He argues that emotions are governed by criteria of appropriateness. For us to feel fear, we must believe that the situation or monster is dangerous and harmful (Carroll 30). In other words, the appropriate feeling when watching a scary monster onscreen is fear. If the monster meets the criteria to be fearful, the film is emotively prefocused and the attention of the viewer will get emotively charged. This shapes his or her expectation and anticipation of what is coming (Carroll 30). Thus, if the opening has captured my attention, the narrative has to be fascinating and plausible if the film wants to keep my attention. I will only find the monster believable as a monster if it is truly harmful and dangerous. This way, the film will evoke the appropriate emotion within me, namely fear. Taken together, this will create certain expectations in me that concern the remainder of the film. Next to certain criteria that have to be met to create a particular emotion, sound and the combination of sound and visual imagery are of significant importance when it comes to eliciting emotions. This atmosphere is, logically, an important aspect of how the spectator perceives the film and what kind of emotions it evokes within him or her. Laine claims the following: “Every sound, musical or non-musical, can carry emotional information that is resonant in nature and to which our ears are attentive” (66 – 67). Thus, sound and music, in combination with visual imagery, keeps the attention of the spectator to the screen. Laine goes further by saying that sound and music invite the spectator to tune in with the film (67). By doing this, the spectator is both where he or she literally and physically is and within the world of the film. Sound is able to blur the boundaries between the world of the film and the world of the viewer. This is similar to Barker’s argument concerning the musculature relationship between the film and the viewer. The combination of visual imagery and sound obviously works best to blur the cinematic boundaries. Laine mentions that sound can blur these boundaries because it elicits particular emotions within the viewer, which keeps his or her attention to the screen. According to Jeff Smith, music and sound work as an emotional stimulus and can signify and enhance emotions within the spectator (147 – 148). It can also signify how the character is feeling, set the mood and evoke an emotional response (Smith 167). Hence, music is crucial when it comes to indicating what the character is feeling and also when it comes to generating a feeling within the spectator. Music enhances the combination of feelings of the character and feelings of the viewer. This makes the cinematic experience emotional. Furthermore,

Page 17

Laine claims that sound and music are related to touch or tactility. In other words, we can actually feel sound in our flesh (Laine 80). Think of when you are frightened by a horror film because of the scary imagery and loud sounds; the sound or music enhances the horrifying image onscreen, which creates a fearful experience that you can feel in your whole body.

§ 1.2 Horror and Suspense The defining trait of the horror genre is the aim to horrify the audience. Rick Worland argues that a horror film can evoke deep psychological fears in the audience (7). Horror films try to achieve this by taking over the spectator (Laine 12). However, this fear of being taken over is mostly irrational. In other words, the fear that we have for the monster in a horror film, on the condition that it is nonhuman, is irrational (Worland 12). This explains why the viewer must be fully engaged with the film to be truly scared. To understand how a horror film can achieve this, we must take a look at the suspenseful element in horror films.

Horror There are many types of horror films. Think of supernatural horror, slashers, torture porn, psychological horror, zombie films, gothic horror, science fiction horror and action horror films. Indeed, the horror genre contains many subgenres and of course, these subgenres are often mixed and combined. For this reason, it is difficult to give an exact definition of the horror film. Hutchings states that horror films do not have a specific style, distinctive iconography or a particular setting. The genre of the horror film is profoundly eclectic (Hutchings 6). Although I do not intend to give an exact definition of the genre, it is useful to list some of its main traits. Maria Pramaggiore and Tom Wallis list some of the most important characteristics of horror films in Film. A Critical Introduction. One of the most important and crucial characteristics of the horror film is the monster, may it be human, a ghost, a demon or an inhuman creature such as a vampire or a werewolf. Furthermore, the authors argue that the first act focuses on the central characters in the narrative. The last act, or the climax of the film, mostly consists of the confrontation between the protagonist(s) and the monster (Pramaggiore and Wallis 383 – 384). This is the case in each of my case studies. Pramaggiore and Wallis also mention that the resolution of the plot often remains open in contemporary horror films (284). If the film proves to be successful, a sequel can always be made. Moreover, films of a particular genre share visual techniques. Pramaggiore and Wallis name low-key lighting, extreme camera angles, distorted lines and chiaroscuro as salient visual techniques in the horror genre (284). Still, these elements do not suffice for characterizing the salient aesthetics in contemporary horror

Page 18

films. Not all horror films contain these techniques and yet they are still considered horror films. Found footage horror films are an example of this. However, it should be noted that the found footage horror film is a subgenre and a hybrid of different film genres, which explains the various aesthetics. I reject a generalisation of the horror film since it does not do any justice to such a diverse genre. Later on, Pramaggiore and Wallis argue that, as I previously insisted, horror can also be defined by the emotional response it elicits within the viewers, and not by conventions (386). This view is indeed much more appropriate to describe the horror genre. Thus, all types of horror films want to elicit one particular emotion within the audience: fear. This particular emotion is the emotive address of a film and it is mostly obviously present in genre films (Carroll 34). According to Carroll, genre films are dedicated to evoking a specific set of emotions. If this emotion, fear for instance, is not being addressed, the film is unproductive. The criterion that has to be met for the viewer to feel fear is harmfulness (Carroll 38). The film thus must contain harmful prospects and situations. The monster embodies this harmful aspect. Monsters are harmful because they are a threat to the safety of the characters (Carroll 38). Hutchings points to the fact that a monster is only a monster when it is dangerous and harmful (34). And because of this, monsters are frightening. Later on, he also suggests that the sense of otherness is an important aspect of the monster. This otherness is a threat to the normal (Hutchings 96). Another characteristic of monsters is that they are disgusting because they are impure and not natural (Carroll 39 and Hutchings 35). I would insist then, that the monster embodies the emotive address in a horror film for it generates fear within the viewers and the protagonists. Laine makes a similar argument when she states that the emotional core of a horror film is evilness or malevolence (5). Since the monster embodies evilness, it is also the emotional core of the film. The emotional core is closely related to the emotive address of the film; they cannot exist without each other. Because the monster represents both the emotive address and the emotional core, the way a monster is designed and structured is crucial for the potential success of the film. In many horror films, monsters represent the emotional core, evilness, by taking someone over or attempting to do this. Laine gives a number of examples of films that represent this, like The Exorcist (William Friedkin, 1973) and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Philip Kaufman, 1978) (14). However, contemporary horror films also embody this fear of being taken over. Insidious and The Amityville Horror are examples of films in which an evil presence wants to take over a character. Martin Buber mentions that, just as the characters are taken over and overwhelmed by an evil presence, we are taken over and overwhelmed by the film (44). For we are so immersed in the film, the narrative becomes overwhelming. In the end, this is what makes the horror film and the monster overpowering.

Page 19

Other aspects that are often present in a suspenseful horror film are hope and curiosity. Hope has to do with the structure of narrative information and not so much with whether the main characters are sympathetic or not (Laine 28). We, the spectators, hope for a particular ending. Therefore, we keep watching the film to find out how the story will develop and end: we are curious. Laine explains that this curiosity turns into ‘morbid curiosity’ when hope is no longer important (28). Elias Baumgarten explains in his article “Curiosity as Moral Virtue” that in these cases, curiosity is inappropriate and therefore immoral and voyeuristic. During this shift, the spectator is keener to satisfy his or her aesthetic desire than his or her moral desire (Laine 29). This choice between aesthetic and moral desire is particularly easy if the protagonist is not very sympathetic or empathetic. Although characters are often of significant importance when it comes to hope and curiosity for the outcome of the story, a film can still be fascinating if the characters are not particularly likeable. For instance, the protagonist of Sinister is not someone who is very sympathetic or empathetic. And yet I am still fascinated by him and by the narrative. I will come back to this later. Characters in horror films are, of course, often afraid of the monster that is haunting them. Hutchings argues that scared characters show the audience how to react to what is onscreen (149). Scared characters show us signs of fear via their actions and facial expressions. Thus, the reactions of the characters to the frightful event show the viewer how to react properly. Therefore, the performance of the actor plays an important role in how the spectator responds to the film. Similarly, Plantinga mentions in his article “The Scene of Empathy and the Human Face on Film” that scenes wherein the film focuses on the protagonists’ face communicate information about how he or she is feeling, but also, and more importantly, elicit empathetic emotions in the viewer (239). This is similar to the function of music in films, which I explained earlier. The emotion we see on someone else’s face is contagious. This is true in real life as well as when watching a film (Plantinga 242). Moreover, we sometimes mimic facial expressions (Plantinga 243). When watching a horror film, it is more likely that we experience the emotion of fear when the characters onscreen also experience this emotion and we can see this on their faces. The Conjuring, for instance, relies heavily on the performances of the characters. Their facial expressions do not only show us how we should react, they elicit fear in itself. This will be elaborately discussed in the following chapter. Still, Plantinga notes that the scene wherein the focus is on the character’s face is not sufficient for eliciting an empathetic or sympathetic response within the spectator. The narrative is the foundation for sympathy and empathy. This means that the narrative must first be properly structured and built. Besides, for a scene of empathy to work, the context must be morally proper and contain a good deal of information about the character in question (Plantinga 251 – 253). Only then the scene of empathy will work as it is supposed to. Thus, the viewer must first establish a relationship with the character

Page 20

onscreen. According to Vittorio Gallese we can only share emotions with others when we have a relationship with them. He calls this the ‘shared manifold’: through the shared manifold the spectator can connect with the film and its aesthetic film style (Gallese 42). Plantinga nonetheless argues that an empathetic response depends on the film style (253). This means that the aesthetics of the film contribute to the relationship the viewer has with the characters. I emphasize that the aesthetics of the film and the shared manifold sustain, enhance and interact with each other. Still, only when the relationship between the viewer and the character is established, it is possible for emotions to be contagious. However, if we do not feel affinity for the protagonist, we can still find the film scary. We just do not feel fear for the protagonist. Next to the narrative, the monster and the characters, the mood of the film is an important element of a horror film and crucial for evoking fear within the viewer. The film establishes the appropriate mood by using the proper visual and auditory clues. This can be sustained by incorporating, to use Greg M. Smith’s words, ‘emotional outbursts’ in the densely informative text that the horror film stands for (Smith 124). After an emotional outburst, the tension will build up again whereupon another emotional outburst will follow. This way the eerie mood in the film will be sustained and emphasized. This explains the characterization of a horror film as a ‘roller-coaster ride’. The interaction between moods and emotions shapes our experience of the cinematic event (Smith 117). A film is not able to generate a great response if the mood and emotions are poorly developed and structured. A horror film can only be scary and startling if the mood is well established and truly sinister. Visual and auditory techniques establish and contribute to the mood and tone of the film. Consequently, they also contribute to the uncanny atmosphere, which is a meaningful aspect of the mood in a horror film. Although Worland does not address the concept of the uncanny, he does succeed in giving a proper definition of the term. Worland accurately captures the meaning of the uncanny atmosphere in a horror film: “[…] the horror film seems to exist in a fictional world at once highly familiar and quite removed from the everyday experience of most people” (16). Hutchings points to the German word where the word uncanny originates from, which is ‘unheimlich’. The term umheimlich points to something being simultaneously strange and homely. According to Hutchings, the English word uncanny lacks this resonance (69). A film can make sure that the spectator experiences an uncanny feeling because of the supernatural events in the narrative. Moreover, the uncanny can also be a process wherein secrets or memories come back to life. Hutchings adds that this is often dramatized via the house and the representation of the house in the film (73). This is all perfectly demonstrated in The Shining as well as in the contemporary film Insidious. The house, or rather home, of the family plays an important role in Insidious. The home is the place where the

Page 21

family belongs and where everything ‘feels’ familiar. If this is also the place where the horrifying and demonic events take place, the home becomes a terrifying place, which, in the end, does not function as a safe haven anymore. When it becomes disrupted, the harmonious and innocent family also becomes disrupted. As the story of Insidious develops, the protagonists move to another house to escape from the terrifying happenings. However, this is in vain, since the frightful events do not stop. The new house occurs in a dream of one of the characters. This dream is visualized in an eerie and sinister way. The camera glides slowly through the dark house, the doors are creaking and a nervous voice-over is describing the dream. Although the house should be a safe haven, in this instance it is a frightful place. The climax of the film partly takes place in a different and rather ghostly dimension. The first house of the family is present in this other world. This time, it is even more uncanny than it already was and it presents one of the protagonists with frightening obstacles. It is clear that houses are important elements in Insidious. They contribute greatly to the ubiquitous uncanny atmosphere, since they are both homely and strange for the protagonists. This is especially true for the house in the other dimension, since the protagonist is simultaneously looking at his old house and yet he is not. Both for him and for the spectator, this is uncanny and unnerving. Another visual aspect that is crucial in film is the camera, and more importantly, the visual possibilities it possesses. This visual aspect is able to capture and maintain the attention of the spectator. The Shining is a famous example of a film that explores the possibilities of the camera. Laine focused specifically on the camera in her analysis of The Shining. The camera follows the little boy Danny when he is cruising through the hallways in the huge and empty hotel where he lives with his parents. Laine claims that the camera is associated with a malevolent presence that is following Danny. Even in the opening sequence this is already demonstrated, for the camera follows the car that is driving to the hotel from high above, like a haunting presence (Laine 13). This camera technique in The Shining functions as a so-called ‘pure point of view’. Laine explains that this is the POV of a presence and not of a person, which is the case when the perceptual POV is used. The pure POV is threatening and scary because it is beyond our control. We share the POV with an evil presence through this camera technique (Laine 20). This is disturbing for the spectator. Hutchings adds that this kind of POV shot adds more suspense to the situation onscreen (197). This cinematic technique is used in many horror films, for instance in The Conjuring and Sinister, which I will demonstrate later on. Another technique that is often used in horror films is the combination of a POV shot with a reaction or response shot. This way, it appears as if the spectator is seeing the same way as the character does (Murray Smith 417). Laine claims that, because of this, the spectator becomes aware of the emotions and perceptions of the character (25). Due to the immediacy of this process, it is

Page 22

overwhelming for the spectator. It ensures that the spectator is ‘there’ with the character (Laine 26). This is similar to Barker’s phenomenological statement that a film can ensure a muscular relationship with the spectator through filmic aesthetics. Clearly, every cinematic aesthetic aims to pull the viewer into the world of the horror film, for that is the place where the frightening events are most terrifying.

Suspense Because the case studies in this research are, what I call, suspenseful horror films, I will now look at some characteristics of suspense. In Passionate Views, Carroll claims that suspense is future-oriented (43). This means that a narrative or situation can only be suspenseful if the outcome is still unclear, since this will be revealed in the future. Another important element for a situation to be suspenseful is probability. Something is only suspenseful if the outcome that the viewer prefers is not probable (Carroll 43). For a film to be suspenseful, then, the outcome must be unclear and improbable. Furthermore, the viewer must care about the narrative and the characters. If the spectator does not feel any concern, he or she would not be interested in the film and consequently he or she would not feel any suspense. To obtain the attention from the viewer, the filmmaker plays with morality. If a character is presented as morally correct, his or her views and perceptions are accepted by most people and therefore also by most viewers. This way the spectator feels connected to the characters for they share similar views and perceptions. To put it differently, we feel allegiance for them (Carroll 44 – 45). If we follow Carroll’s view, morality, a future-oriented outcome and improbability are the criteria for a film to be suspenseful and fearful. Often, the empathy and sympathy the viewer feels for the characters are crucial for eliciting a response. However, Laine argues that cinematic emotions are not the same as the empathy and sympathy that the spectator feels for the characters (Laine 5). You could say that a spectator can be emotionally engaged with a film without necessarily feeling sympathy and/or empathy for the characters. Laine claims that a suspenseful film sometimes relies more on story information and the flow of the narrative than on feeling affinity for a character (28). Pisters also states that the structure of the narrative adds suspense and keeps the attention of the audience to the screen (79). I agree with these statements for I can find stories fascinating while not feeling affinity, sympathy or empathy for the characters. For instance, the main character in Sinister, Ellison Walt, is not exactly a character you easily feel affinity for. Nevertheless, Sinister is suspenseful due to the structure of the story and the monster. Although improbability, morality and a future-oriented outcome are often present in suspenseful films, there are also suspenseful films that do not contain these characteristics. A film

Page 23

that does not contain these elements, and yet is very suspenseful, is Rush (Ron Howard, 2013). This film does not support Carroll’s claims about what makes a film suspenseful. But it does support Laine’s statements about cinematic aesthetics and emotions. The film tells the true story of two legendary Formula One racing drivers James Hunt and Niki Lauda. During the course of the film, we focalize alternately with Hunt and Lauda. The characters are intriguing, which is why I keep watching intently. However, they do not necessarily evoke sympathy or empathy within me. There are scenes in which the characters are sympathetic, for example the scene wherein Hunt beats a journalist who asked Lauda a nasty and immoral question about how his wife responded to his burnt face. Although Hunt and Lauda are enemies on the racetrack, Hunt shows his moral side by standing up for his colleague. Still, these small bits of morality do not dominate the film. Rush thrives on the rivalry between Hunt and Lauda, which is constantly highlighted by the exciting Formula One races as well as the provocative conversations between the two in which they challenge each other. Here, of course, the drivers do not come across as empathetic or sympathetic. The film contains many suspenseful scenes wherein the two protagonists race against each other and try to win the world championship. The music, the sound of the engines, the slow-motion shots, close-ups and extreme close-ups of the characters and different parts of the cars a few moments before the race, build up the tension enormously. When the race starts, the music explodes, as well as the sounds of the engines. The slow motion shots make place for fast editing and we can see close-ups of the protagonists as well as occasional POV shots. This aesthetic structure generates cinematic emotions and contributes to the tight grip the film has on the audience. Next to the future-oriented outcome that characterizes suspense, Carroll claims that probability and morality are important elements in a suspenseful film (Carroll 43). However, Rush is a biographical film, meaning that the viewer can know the outcome of the story. Moreover, this film is not about morality and the protagonists do not embody morally correct people. Thus, I argue that a film can be suspenseful for the spectator even when he or she knows the outcome and even when the characters do not embody morality per se. Since the aesthetics of the film evoke a feeling of suspense in the viewer, this also explains why you can still feel suspense when watching a film that you have already seen. Another element that can create suspense in a horror film is the moment when the evil monster is revealed. According to Worland, the audience watches a horror film to see the monster. But the moment when the monster is revealed is paradoxical. On the one hand we are fascinated by it and on the other hand we fear it (Worland 9). It depends on the ability of the filmmaker, the aesthetics and the structure of the narrative, whether the reveal will be productive in frightening the viewer or not (Hutchings 128). If all this is done in a good way, the monster can be extremely

Page 24

terrifying. If it is not, the reveal can be a disappointment for the spectator. Unfortunately this happens often. The Possession and Jessabelle are two recent examples of suspenseful horror films that contained a ‘disappointing’ monster. Moreover, the evil creature in Jessabelle was made explicit too soon which, in combination with the disappointing appearance, did not do any good to the narrative and the suspense. To avoid this from happening, some filmmakers choose to not show the monster at all and instead address the imagination of the viewer. This is the case in The Blair Witch Project and the Paranormal Activity-series. But if we follow Worland’s claim that the spectator wants to see the monster and therefore watches the horror film, we must say that these films should be a disappointment for the audience, since the monster is not shown. However, these films are suspenseful and well received among the targeted audience. This statement thus does not correspond with all horror films. Nonetheless, it is possible to make the monster explicit without losing the suspenseful and frightening atmosphere. Director James Wan is able to maintain this in The Conjuring after making the monster explicit. He even enhances the suspense and fear by doing so. As I already mentioned, filmic elements that contribute immensely to suspense are music and sound. Unexpected sounds, which are regularly present in horror films, can indicate an unknown and potentially dangerous presence; it tells us that something is wrong (Hutchings 129). Sound and music often embody a presence in horror films, which adds suspense to the moment. The low rumbling sound in Paranormal Activity, for instance, signifies the presence of the evil entity. Besides, this sound is the only non-diegetic sound in the film, which makes it even more significant and noteworthy for the spectator. The sound adds suspense to the scene and we are simultaneously curious and frightened. We anxiously gaze at the screen to see what will happen. The importance of sound becomes even clearer when you turn off the sound when watching a horror film. The suspense and eerie atmosphere, as well as the frightening shocks, immediately become rather silly and not scary at all. Hutchings mentions that sound has the ability to create the startle effect (134). The sudden sound can startle the spectator even more than the image does. A combination of a gruesome image and a startling sound obviously works best to scare the spectator. Sound and music can evoke emotions and thus contribute to the emotional response. Hutchings also addresses silence and quietness. These powerful sound effects signify that something is about to happen (147). The moment before an emotional outburst, the music often stops and everything becomes quiet. We listen intently, hold our breath and wait anxiously. Then, the combination of dramatic music and a terrifying image startle us enormously, even though we knew that something was about to startle us. This is perfectly demonstrated in Insidious. The scene in which one of the characters describes her eerie dream is scary, but not yet dramatic. Instead, it builds up the tension. I can see this in the nervous faces of the two protagonists who are listening and I can feel it in myself. Then, the music

Page 25

fades away and we hear a crackling sound that we associate with the malevolent presence, for we heard it only moments before when the monster was near in the dream. The next shot contains the frightening monster. The shot is accompanied with loud music and a terrifying growl. This combination of eerie images, close-ups of the characters, a well-developed atmosphere and music and sounds creates an overwhelming startle effect.

§ 1.3 Found Footage Horror Film Suffice is to say that horror has been a popular genre for a long time and still is today. According to Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell, even low-budget horror films without any known actors can be successful, which was proven in the 2000s (671 – 672). They name a few films to demonstrate their point1. A film they do not name is Paranormal Activity, which actually is a textbook example of a highly successful and popular low-budget horror film without well-known actors. Another example of a successful low-budget horror film without any known actors is The Blair Witch Project. This film was brilliantly promoted online, months before its release. The website made it seem as if the story was real. Worland states that the film style of The Blair Witch Project heightened the feeling of truth and reality that surrounded the film (114). This, of course, contributed to the mysterious and eerie aura of the film. The Blair Witch Project became highly popular and was the beginning of a wave of found footage horror films that followed a few years later. A found footage horror film can be made with a low budget. Therefore, this kind of film is ideal for filmmakers that still have to prove themselves in the industry. Although a lack of budget can work against the filmmakers, a found footage horror film turns this in one of the main selling points of the film, along with their unprofessional look (Thompson and Bordwell 691). Thompson and Bordwell state that these DIY films can be seen as a counter-reaction to mainstream cinema (692). However, because of the popularity of the first found footage horror films, I argue that the subgenre has become part of mainstream horror and mainstream cinema. There are also horror films that incorporate found footage in the narrative and the diegesis. The Ring and Sinister are mainstream horror films that contain found footage. This footage is crucial for the course of the narrative. Worland remarks the blurring boundaries between media and reality in The Ring (116). The film contains a strange and eerie videotape that seems to be the cause of multiple deaths. Journalist Rachel investigates this video because it seems to have something to do with the death of her niece. She finds out that Samara, the young girl that appears in the video, is

1 Thompson and Bordwell name Saw (James Wan, 2004), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Marcus Nispel, 2003), Halloween (Rob Zombie, 2007) and The Grudge as examples of low-budget horror films that proved to be successful. Respectively, the budgets of the films are estimated at $1,2 million, $9,5 million, $15 million and $10 million (IMDb). Page 26

responsible for these murders. The video plays an important part in the film and blurs the boundaries between Rachel’s world and the world of the video. The film ends with Samara literally coming out of the screen and murdering a character (Film Still 3). The two seemingly distinct worlds have become one and with that Rachel’s biggest fear has become reality. For the characters, the video is not just a film anymore. Worland argues that our foremost fear, even if it is irrational, is that “[…] the monster will step down off the screen into our world […]”: this means that the distinction between our world and the world of the film would be no longer present (Worland 120). The Ring is scary and successful in pulling the viewer into the narrative. This fear is also accurately represented in Sinister, which I will discuss later on. According to Worland, The Ring and The Blair Witch Project foreground the ubiquitous presence of media and electronics in our lives via their stylistic approach (269). This trend of involving media and electronics in the narrative occurs in many contemporary horror films. And a way of achieving this is employing the found footage film style. The Blair Witch Project is an example of this. Another way of doing this is to incorporate media into the diegesis while utilizing a classic and fluent film style, like The Ring does. These films differ greatly from each other in terms of the narrative and aesthetics. Still, in her article “Bringing It All Back Home. Horror Cinema and Video Culture”, Linda Badley states that they are both examples of a self-reflexive film that explores the illusion of control. She goes on by stating that mediation has become ubiquitous, interactive and invasive (Badley 58). This is true for our reality as well as for contemporary horror films, on the

Film Still 3 Samara coming out of the screen in The Ring Page 27

condition that the film takes place in the current era. According to Badley, the ‘home’ video represents voyeurism, surveillance and a lost reality (58). Paranormal Activity is exemplary since it situates the spectator in a voyeuristic viewing mode. Furthermore, the reason why the characters film and record everything is because they want to know what is going on in their house. The camera thus functions as a surveillance camera. The Blair Witch Project can be seen as a prime example of a lost reality. This trend of involving the ubiquitous presence of media and electronics in film contributes to the emotional response that is evoked within the viewer. The presence of media reminds the viewer of his or her own reality. Moreover, the sense of subjectivity that is achieved through the DIY and amateur look in found footage also contributes to the emotional response, for it enhances the viewer’s feeling of being ‘there’. As the term implies, the footage of the found footage film appears to be ‘found’. Because of the aesthetics of this footage however, it appears to be ‘real’. The label of found footage itself, then, has little to do with the association of seeming realistic. However, this association is often present since found footage films frequently borrow from documentary film style aesthetics. A certain ‘sense of realism’ is crucial in found footage horror films, for it increases the scary aspect of the film: the feeling that “it could be real”. Although contemporary audiences know that this is not the case, the first found footage horror films did raise the question within viewers whether the footage was real. When I watched The Blair Witch Project for the first time, my friend almost succeeded in fooling me by telling me that it was real. I suspect I am not the only one who has been kidded. I will now consider some genres that have had an influence on found footage horror films. Direct cinema, cinema of truth and cinema vérité are documentary film schools that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. During this time, new lightweight cameras became available, which enabled filmmakers to carry around their cameras. This way, it became easier to record unfolding events. The film style is mostly observational. Still, there is a difference between direct cinema, or cinema of truth, and cinema vérité. Filmmakers that adopt the latter film style draw attention to themselves, whereas in direct cinema the filmmaker would just let everything happen naturally (Pramaggiore and Wallis 285). Static shots, long takes and an observational approach are characteristics of direct cinema. These aesthetics ensure that the viewers feel like they are observing the events (Pramaggiore and Wallis 285). In the cinema vérité school, the filmmakers themselves play a role. This resembles a self-reflexive documentary for in these films the filmmaker also plays a central role. Pramaggiore and Wallis mention that the process of filmmaking is an important aspect in self-reflexive documentaries (286). These films are self-reflexive because they emphasize the medium film, the filmmaker and the process of filmmaking (Pramaggiore and Wallis 287). This is evident in found footage horror films and in horror films that incorporate found footage in the diegesis. Media in

Page 28

general, and the medium film in particular, are constantly being addressed and emphasized. Next to this, the filming itself is crucial in these films. The aesthetics of these documentary schools are used extensively in Paranormal Activity and create uncanny and authentic-looking shots. Another kind of documentary film is the mockumentary. Such films are fictional, but pretend to be documentaries. They do this by playing with documentary aesthetics, such as handheld shots, static and observational shots and direct sound (Pramaggiore and Wallis 287). The film Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (Larry Charles, 2006) is a perfect example, for it employs all these characteristics. The film is about Borat, who is making and recording a documentary about America. However, the film is not a real documentary. Pramaggiore and Wallis name Brüno (Larry Charles, 2009), The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity as examples of mockumentaries. However, I would not characterize the latter two films as mockumentaries. Mockumentaries, as the name implies, ‘mock’ documentary filmmaking or poke fun at it or its subject (Pramaggiore and Wallis 288). The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity do not do this. These films employ a documentary film style to generate a more horrifying and intense cinematic experience than horror films that do not make use of this film style. Therefore, I insist that the category mockumentary does not match found footage horror films. Laura Rascaroli has written about first-person filmmaking and first-person documentaries and the characteristics of this film style in her book The Personal Camera: Subjective Cinema and the Essay Films. In the chapter “First-Person Filmmaking: History, Theory, Practices”, she names autobiographical nonfiction, centrality of the filmmaker, perception of the filmmaker and subjectivity as salient characteristics of first-person documentaries (106 – 107). This is in line with the characteristics of a self-reflexive documentary. Furthermore, in the chapter “The Essay Film: Problems, Definitions and Textual Commitments”, Rascaroli names personal expression as a defining characteristic of these kind of films (30). Of course, subjectivity is part of this personal expression. And, experience is highlighted in these documentaries (Rascaroli 107). These characteristics are similar to the characteristics of a found footage film. Found footage horror films also centre around the protagonists since they mostly film their own lives. This makes the film personal. The camera further emphasizes this aspect. Found footage films often contain many POV shots of one of the protagonists. This makes the film personal and subjective; we follow their perception. Since the protagonist is filming everything for a particular personal reason, he or she is the focus of attention in the film, just like in a first-person documentary. Moreover, Pramaggiore and Wallis point to avant-garde films and state that the techniques in these films break with conventional techniques and thus create new ground in film aesthetics (292). Although found footage horror films are not avant-garde films per se, they share this characteristic.

Page 29

According to William C. Wees, these different techniques are “gestures of rebellion against the conventions of popular cinema […]” (4). They provide a different and new experience in film viewing, which can be more complex and dynamic than mainstream films (Wees 4). Pramaggiore and Wallis add that these films stimulate the spectator to watch attentively (292). The same things can be said about found footage horror films. A found footage horror film, as I wish to further argue, offers the viewer a different and more intriguing cinematic experience that is able to create strong cinematic emotions. The found footage horror film also borrows, in a certain way, from Neorealism. Neorealism portrays everyday life and ordinary people (Pramaggiore and Wallis 354 – 355). According to Pramaggiore and Wallis, location shooting, non-professional actors, direct sound and documentary techniques are evident characteristics of this film school. They add directness and immediacy to the film (Pramaggiore and Wallis 354 – 355). These elements can also be found in found footage horror films. The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity were shot on location and mostly used direct sound. They centre around normal people and, especially in Paranormal Activity, their daily life. Moreover, the actors had not participated in a similar project before these films. This was either their first role or their first noteworthy role. Besides, their first and last names were also the names of the characters they portrayed. This aspect enhances the creepiness as well as the sense of realism. Subsequently, after this exploration of different film styles and schools, you could say that the found footage film style originates, or at least borrows, from different types of documentaries, avant-garde and Neorealism aesthetics. After this consideration of the emotions and the ways in which they can be generated, the genre of the horror film, found footage and the subgenre of the found footage horror film, we can now properly analyse and discuss the case studies. Although found footage is obviously not exclusively linked to horror films, it does prove to be a gripping combination.

Page 30

CHAPTER 2: HAUNTED HOUSE STORIES

“It’s standing right behind you…” - Joey King as Christine in The Conjuring

This small phrase in The Conjuring sends shivers down my spine. Although we cannot see what exactly is standing there, it is obviously something frightening, for Christine’s face radiates the emotion of fear. The tension is tangible and it penetrates the screen that divides me from the film. It grabs me and pulls me into this particular scene, which perfectly fits in a haunted house story. Each case study, The Conjuring, Paranormal Activity and Sinister, is a classic haunted house story and thus follows a rather classical narrative. Nonetheless, they are fascinating because of the ways they present their story. The Conjuring employs a classical film style. The cinematography and editing of The Conjuring are fluent and try to erase any evidence of the film actually being a film. The film tries to pull the spectator into the story by putting the emphasis on the emotions of the characters and the monster. As I already mentioned in the previous chapter, people are emotional creatures. The Conjuring is highly emotional and by being an emotional text, it is able to keep the audience emotionally engaged with the narrative. Furthermore, the setting and atmosphere are well developed. Because of the fluent film style and the emphasis on the monster and the emotions of the characters, the film is successful in attaining and maintaining my attention to the screen. Paranormal Activity, on the other hand, does not conceal the fact that it is a film, but instead emphasizes that everything is filmed by the protagonists. The film is presented as found footage, which enhances the sense of truth and authenticity surrounding the film. Although we know that the film is not real, we are still fascinated by it. The reason for this is, to use Heller-Nicholas’s words, because if the story did happen, it would probably look like this (7). This film invites us to be ‘there’ in the world of the film through this particular film style. Paranormal Activity is also an emotional product since the characters and their emotions are crucial. However, the presentation of the narrative is more complex than in The Conjuring, which creates a captivating cinematic experience. Sinister is a clever film that revolves around found footage, media and different realms. Sinister employs a mainstream, classical and fluent film style, which means that the film style aims to hide the fact that Sinister is a film. Still, the film does emphasize the process of filmmaking, for horrific footage, editing, projecting and recording are evident. I emphasize that the film tries to capture our attention and fascination by first pulling us into the world of the film through its fluentness, after which it presents us with familiar matters, such as found footage, cell phones, laptops and the internet.

Page 31

Every case study centres around a family that is being disturbed and haunted by something evil. Due to the monster, the harmony of the family, and consequently also their home or safe haven, breaks. The evil presence is disrupting their normal and happy life. Next to the eerie happenings and frightening monster, the fact that a monster is tearing apart an innocent family, makes the film even more terrifying.

§ 2.1 Narrative and Opening

Film Still 4 Opening shot The Conjuring

The opening of The Conjuring immediately sets the tone for the entire film. Before the film has even started, the music is loud and overwhelming and therefore makes me shiver. Afterwards, the first shot is an extreme close-up of the creepy Annabelle-doll (Film Still 4). Due to the overpowering music and the uncanny doll, we instantly know that we are watching a horror film. Although the introduction, which revolves around the doll, has nothing to do with the narrative of the film, it does give us clear watching instructions: we are watching a horror film and should be looking for clues that emphasize this. The Conjuring is based on a true story and centres around the Perron family. Roger and Carolyn Perron and their five daughters, Andrea, Christine, Nancy, Cindy and April, are moving into a new house. Shortly after they moved in, they begin to experience strange happenings. The Perrons are frightened and do not feel safe. Carolyn asks demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren for help. Ed and Lorraine visit the Perron family and they immediately notice that something is wrong. They start an investigation to collect evidence of a haunting. Normally, Ed and Lorraine would show this evidence to their priest. He would then perform an exorcism on the house.

Page 32

However, the Perron family is not Christian, which creates a problem. Nonetheless, before they can even begin to arrange an exorcism, the situation escalates enormously. The terrifying and dangerous monster Bathsheba haunts the house. The aim of the monster is to possess Carolyn after which it wants to murder her children. Bathsheba almost succeeds in this but is defeated just in time. The story ends well for both the Perrons and the Warrens. The film does maintain the eerie atmosphere and by doing so it keeps the door open for sequels.

Film Still 5 Opening shot Sinister

Similar to The Conjuring, the first shot of Sinister is disturbing. It depicts four people hanging from a tree. The image is bleak and it creates a lugubrious atmosphere. Because of the combination of this horrific opening shot and eerie music – which consists of crackling noises and a piercing squeaking sound – it is clear that Sinister is a horror film. Still, at first sight, the image does not meet the standards of a contemporary film, for it is grainy and old-looking. This indicates that we are watching found footage (Film Still 5). Since contemporary viewers will probably be acquainted with found footage horror films, they will recognize these aesthetics. The DIY aesthetics make the already cruel image even more gruesome since it implies a certain authenticity of the image. Although we know that the image is of course not real, these particular aesthetics are still able to generate a disturbing shot. Contrary to The Conjuring, this image is related to the narrative of the rest of the film. Sinister tells the story of Ellison and his family, who, like the Perron family, also just moved into a new house. Ellison is a nonfiction crime writer and the story he is focusing on happened in the house they moved into. Ellison finds a box that contains footage and a projector in the attic. He is curious and decides to watch the footage. The footage is horrific and cruel. It depicts families doing something ordinary, such as playing in the garden or fishing by the lake, after which the family is

Page 33

brutally murdered. One of the films, the one that is shown in the opening shot, contains the murder of the family that previously lived in the house Ellison and his family are living in. Ellison tries to find out what exactly happened, who killed those people and where the missing girl went. Each film Ellison watches is more horrific than the previous. Ellison also begins to notice that strange things are happening in his house. Although Ellison’s wife Tracy and his two children Trevor and Ashley at first do not know what happened in the house, they are affected by it. In the end, they move back to their previous house, which is the worst thing Ellison could do. By doing so, he invited the monster Bughuul, who appears in the footage, to his own house. Bughuul takes children to his own realm to consume their souls. He possesses Ashley and makes her kill her parents and brother. Afterwards, Bughuul takes her to his own world as he walks into the screen. Although Sinister is clearly a supernatural horror film, it also contains elements of a detective story. Ellison is doing research to find out what exactly happened to those families. This enhances the suspense surrounding the mysterious footage. The first shot of Paranormal Activity is different from the opening shots of The Conjuring and Sinister. It contains a big television screen that is displaying a music show (Film Still 6). It is not scary and it does not tell us that this film is a horror film. Paranormal Activity takes place in the house of Micah and Katie. When Katie is introduced in the story, she immediately addresses the camera that Micah is carrying around. He explains that he bought it so that they can record what is happening in their house at night. Because they film everything, we soon notice that strange things are happening at night. Still, the happenings are not dramatic and overly obvious, which is the case in The Conjuring and Sinister. Instead, they are rather subtle and not that scary. However, as the story develops, the severity of the events increases. The presence that is haunting them is becoming

Page 34

Film Still 6 Opening shot Paranormal Activity

more persistent and bothersome. This causes multiple arguments between Micah and Katie. Clearly, Katie is much more frightened than Micah, who is more fascinated than scared by everything. The invisible entity is after Katie and during the frightening climax of the film the monster succeeds in possessing her. Katie then kills Micah, creeps to camera, gives us an eerie smile and lunges toward the camera so that the image goes black. The film is able to capture my attention so fully because my world is similar to the world of the film. The setting is contemporary and therefore familiar. Electronics and media are ubiquitous. The camera, computer, cell phones, television and DVD’s confirm this and signify that the story takes place in a contemporary environment. These objects are also present in my world, and I think I can safely assume in the world of many people.

§ 2.2 Ubiquitous Presence of Media Heller-Nicholas mentions that the found footage horror film is the subgenre ‘du jour’ (3). The term du jour suggests that something is currently very popular and fashionable, but probably also short- lived. Then, the question is, what is next? As I already mentioned, found footage horror films are fascinating because they look like something that everybody can make; it ‘feels’ familiar. Paranormal Activity and Sinister undeniably show the ubiquitous presence of media in our world, for it is a crucial part of their narratives. Katie even states in the opening scene of Paranormal Activity that Micah has “a strange fascination with electronics”. The ubiquitous camera, the computer, the shelves that are loaded with DVD’s in the living room and the first image of the film that depicts a television set, confirm this. Still, earlier horror films have already emphasized the ubiquitous presence of media in our world. The films Videodrome (David Cronenberg, 1983) and eXistenZ (David Cronenberg, 1999) portray the media as something evil and dangerous2. However, I argue that Sinister takes this emphasis on media a step further than Paranormal Activity or any found footage horror film. Spectators have become familiar with found footage horror films. The next step in the development of the horror genre is a film that contains characters watching gruesome found footage. This is similar to our watching position when we are watching a found footage horror film. This way, the film would try to pull the spectator into the story by its fluent film style and by incorporating something familiar for us into the narrative, namely found footage. Because this is

2 These films present technology, and also media, as the evil monster. This phenomenon was prominent in postmodern cinema, meaning that portraying media as evil is not new. However, the case studies do not per se portray media as evil. The horrific footage in Sinister is not evil in itself. The monster that lives in this footage is evil. Similarly, the footage from which Paranormal Activity is made is not malevolent. The film foregrounds the process of filmmaking and the technology the protagonists use to do this without portraying it as dangerous. The recordings contain frightening content and it is the monster within the film that is evil. Page 35

familiar and yet strange, it creates an uncanny feeling. Consequently, this sustains and emphasizes the suspenseful and eerie atmosphere. This kind of film points to our own world, in which found footage horror films are familiar and present. Because of this, I would think that Sinister is the next step in the ongoing development of the horror genre. The narrative consists of found footage, but the style of the film remains classical, fluent and mainstream. Due to this, Sinister is a gripping film.

§ 2.3 Demonic Entities The emotional core of the case studies is evilness. Bathsheba, the invisible entity and Bughuul are actually very similar. Graphically, the monsters are portrayed differently. But they all embody evilness and their goal is to take over one of the characters. For this reason, they also constitute the fear of being taken over by an evil presence.

Film Still 7 Bathsheba in The Conjuring Bathsheba, the monster in The Conjuring, is terrifying (Film Still 7). Not only because of the way it looks, but also because it is omnipresent. From the moment the Perron family moved into the house, we can feel something is there with them due to the camera movements. I will come back to this in Chapter 3. Bathsheba used to be a witch and before she hung herself from the tree in the garden, she sacrificed her child to Satan and vowed that she would destroy anyone who would take her land. Bathsheba’s appearance is hideous; she is dirty, ugly and greyish. Her feet and hands are enormous and her eyes are scary: she looks impure. Clearly, Bathsheba is not one of us, since her appearance and movements are nonhuman. Everything about this monster is barbaric. Moreover, she threatens the lives of others. The monster is thus dangerous and harmful for the characters. The aim of this

Page 36

monster is to possess mothers so she can sacrifice their children. Bathsheba inhabits all the characteristics of a monster, which make her the perfect monster. Due to this, she elicits fear within me. Although Bathsheba is not the only entity in the house, she is the only presence that is truly harmful and dangerous. The ghosts Rory, his mother and a maid also reside in the house. However, an important difference between them and Bathsheba is that they are merely ghosts; they are not harmful and only present in the house. Bathsheba’s reveal is successful. After we are presented with an emotional outburst, another emotional outburst immediately follows. This ensures that I am still uptight from the previous scene. The suspenseful scene that follows intensifies the emotional state I am in. The reveal of the monster occurs after just forty minutes. It is the climax and ending of the first act, leading to a turning point for the family, since Carolyn visits Ed and Lorraine and asks them for help after this event. The structure that leads to the ending of the first act builds up the tension and suspense via the frightening scenes that precede the climax. The tension peaks during the reveal. Similarly to Bathsheba, the nameless entity in Paranormal Activity is also demonic, meaning nonhuman, impure and harmful. Contrary to Bathsheba, the invisible entity in Paranormal Activity does not have an impure, nonhuman and ghastly appearance, since it is never visibly revealed. Although the appearance of a monster is important in partly determining whether the monster and the film are frightening or not, the invisibility of the entity creates enormous tension and suspense. Because the monster is invisible, it could be anywhere at anytime. The footsteps, sounds, growls and moving objects indicate that the monster is present and near. Still, this does not mean that the monster is not near when these indicators are not present; the threat is ubiquitous. Thus, Paranormal Activity does not rely on dramatic emotional outbursts, but on the ever-present threat of an invisible force. The invisibility of the entity ensures that I feel suspense during the entire course of the film. Another noteworthy aspect of this monster is that it is less aggressive than Bathsheba. At first, the monster is just present in the house with the protagonists, occasionally moving a door. Even though this is bothersome and strange, it is not dangerous. Later on, however, it does become more aggressive and therefore also daunting. The suspense of the film relies on the invisibility of the monster. This is what creates the feeling of fear within the protagonists and me. Bughuul, the monster in Sinister, is also demonic and therefore harmful for the characters. He is partly revealed after only 28 minutes (Film Still 8). Yet, it is important to note that he is revealed through the footage Ellison is watching and we do not get a close look at him. The monster is not yet present in the world of the film, but only in the world of the found footage. Bughuul is thus

Page 37

Film Still 8 Bughuul in Sinister still far away from us. He would have to cross two filmic boundaries to reach us. At this moment, he is not yet dangerous. Although Bughuul is creepy, he becomes truly daunting when he is present in the world of the film, or Ellison’s world. From that moment, he becomes a threat to the characters. Bughuul is frightening because he is able to cross different cinematic boundaries and thus step into the world of the characters. He then proceeds to make children commit horrific murders. Bughuul and the invisible entity in Paranormal Activity address the spectator at the end of the film. They killed the characters and look directly into the camera. The invisible entity possesses Katie at the end of the film who then looks at us through the camera. At first, the monsters were only a threat for the characters onscreen and not for the spectators. But the fact that they look directly at me is unnerving. An important difference between these two moments is the presence of the camera in the diegesis. Katie looks into the camera that is present in the story. Bughuul, on the other hand, looks at me since there is no camera present in the world of the film. Bughuul’s action is thus more direct than Katie’s, for a camera stands between her and me. Moreover, Bughuul is able to cross cinematic boundaries. And because of this, Bughuul’s action is the most terrifying. Bathsheba is only a threat to the characters onscreen, for it does not address us.

§ 2.4 Characters, Expressions and Performances The Conjuring relies heavily on the emotions that the characters display. The Perron family is sympathetic and normal and they clearly did not deserve to be haunted by this evil creature. Every member of the family is influenced by the frightful happenings. Because of the narrative foundation, we feel sympathy for them. But more importantly, facial expressions are significant for raising sympathy and empathy within me. The film contains many close-ups of the different characters, which mostly depict fear and anguish. Since the film contains many characters, we do not get to know them very well. But, as I wish to emphasize, this is not necessary for us to feel empathy or sympathy for them. Their strong facial expressions and the narrative foundation are able to evoke feelings of fear and concern within the spectator.

Page 38

Film Still 9 Lorraine in The Conjuring

Lorraine’s face (Vera Farmiga) is especially interesting. Her face and expressions tell us how she is feeling and how we should react to what is onscreen. While this is similar to the other characters, she is the only character whose facial expressions itself are scary. Her expression alone can make me feel anxious and nervous. Lorraine is clairvoyant and if her expression suddenly changes, we know that something is wrong even though we do not see anything onscreen (Film Still 9). This ensures my attention to the screen for it signifies that something might happen. One of the highlights of the film is the emotional outburst that concerns Christine (Joey King). An invisible force is grabbing her foot in the middle of the night, which wakes her up. Christine feels that something is wrong and looks around the room. When she looks under her bed, Christine notices that her bedroom door is slightly moving. Her gaze is fixed on it, just like ours. The scene alternates between shots of Christine’s face and her POV. Thus, a combination of perceptual POV shots and response shots is used to show the viewer what is happening. Then, she quickly sits upright on her bed. The camera moves the same way as Christine does. At first, the image was momentarily upside down, just like Christine. When she sits upright, the camera moves along with her, meaning that it makes a turning movement. This camera movement ensures that we share Christine’s POV and are there with her in the room. Although Christine is able to see the monster behind the door, we are not. Yet, we still feel fear for her. Christine wakes up Nancy by saying her name. Like us, Nancy is not able to see the monster. She walks to the door to prove to Christine that nobody is standing there. Christine reacts by saying: “It’s standing right behind you…” At this moment, a handheld shot from behind Christine is used. This contributes to my relation and alignment with Christine and therefore adds suspense, since it stresses our shared manifold. The music fades away as Nancy slowly turns around. The monster is still invisible for us, although we do hear heavy breathing. Christine’s facial expression is full of fear when she sees Bathsheba standing behind her bedroom door (Film Still 10). Besides her strong facial expressions, this scene relies on

Page 39

well-structured moments of silence, suspenseful music and squeaking doors. The combination of Christine’s terrified expression, her phrase, the perceptual POV and response shot, the handheld shot, the music and the silence, elicits fear within me. I can feel this fear in my body; I am holding my breath and I feel tensed. For Christine and me, this scene is overwhelming, both consciously and bodily. The scene ends with the door shutting on its own and the girls screaming. Without Christine communicating her fear so strongly, this scene would not be as overpowering and scary as it is.

Film Still 10 Christine in The Conjuring

Another highly suspenseful emotional outburst concerns Carolyn (Lili Taylor). She is folding laundry at night in her bedroom when she hears someone giggling. She assumes that it is one of her daughters. However, Carolyn soon finds out that everyone is asleep. Except for the ticking clock and the occasional giggle, the house is completely silent. We are startled by a loud noise and breaking glass. Next to this, we feel that a threatening and dangerous presence is near due to the pure POV. Carolyn’s terrified expression contributes to the threatening atmosphere. She goes downstairs to see if someone is there. We can see in her face that she is scared and nervous. The sounds appear to be coming from the basement. Carolyn goes inside and turns on the light, but does not descend the stairs. When she wants to leave, the door is slammed shut in her face, which causes her to fall down the stairs. The basement turns dark and Carolyn quickly crawls back upstairs. She lights a match and anxiously looks downstairs. She hears another giggle, after which two large hands appear next to her head (Film Still 11). Carolyn starts to scream and bang on the door. Suddenly we are at the other side of the door and do not see anything that is happening inside. I feel concern and fear for Carolyn because she is a sympathetic character and because of her facial expressions. Due to this, I find this

Page 40

Film Still 11 Carolyn in The Conjuring scene frightening. Besides, the giggling is uncanny. At first, Carolyn, and me too, think that one of her daughters is giggling. But when she finds out that her daughters are sleeping, the giggling becomes uncanny. It is simultaneously familiar and strange. This scene is similar to the emotional outburst that concerned Christine, since it relies solely on Carolyn’s facial expressions and the structure of the scene. Normally, after such an emotional outburst, a break would follow that allows the spectator to breath for a moment. However, we are presented with another outburst. This time it takes place in Andrea’s bedroom (Shanley Caswell). Cindy (Mackenzie Foy) is sleepwalking and entered Andrea’s room. She is banging her head against the closet. Andrea puts Cindy in her bed. But the banging sounds continue. Since everything is quiet, the emphasis is on the continuing banging sounds. Obviously, this is eerie. My mind tells me that nothing should be making these sounds, for Andrea put Cindy in bed. This situation creates a strong phenomenological reaction since it ensures that I react cognitively and bodily: I know that nothing should be making that noise because Cindy is in bed, and this knowledge generates a bodily reaction, namely goose-bumps. Then, Andrea looks at the closet. When she does not see anything, she looks at Cindy, who is now sitting up in the bed. The next shot shows the monster sitting on top of the closet. The camera quickly moves closer. The music is dramatic and contributes to this frightening moment (Film Still 7). Again, the characters and the fear that is etched on their faces evoke concern and fear within me. However, this time, I can see what is causing their fear. For the monster is now visible for us, this scene is very distressing. The scenes concerning Christine and Carolyn preceded this moment and contributed to the atmosphere and stress within the characters and me as well. Paranormal Activity also relies heavily on the performances of the actors. Protagonists Micah (Micah Sloat) and Katie (Katie Featherston) are a young and normal couple. Their interaction, expressions and performances come across as natural. For this reason, they are relatable for the viewers, which are mostly young people. I consider myself to be part of the target audience, and my stage of life is roughly the same as theirs. Therefore, I can easily relate to them. Because the

Page 41

characters film themselves in their personal living environment, it feels as if I really get to know them. I develop a relationship with them and feel sympathy for them. Katie’s facial expressions are important for eliciting concern in me. I can see on her face how scared she is, which evokes concern, sympathy and fear within me. Still, the narrative foundation must first be properly structured for me to feel sympathy and empathy for the characters. Due to the narrative and the cinematography, the film ensures that a shared manifold is created between the protagonists and me. Although I know that the narrative is not real and highly constructed, I imagine that a haunting would probably look like this in reality. The narrative is not overly dramatic, but still creepy and eventually frightening. The narrative foundation thus feels genuine, although I know it is not. Because the characters film themselves, the film ensures that I am right by their side. I share their view and I hear what they hear. Because of this, Katie’s facial expressions and because Micah and Katie are presented as normal and good people, I feel sympathy for them. Due to this, a shared manifold is created.

Film Still 12 Katie in Paranormal Activity

Katie clearly represents the fear that is evoked within me. Film still 12 demonstrates the fear that is etched on her face. The film contains many shots in which we can see that Katie is frightened. Micah, on the other hand, is curious and not as scared as Katie. He bought the camera so that they could film everything, he is researching demons and he is the one who brought an Ouija-board into the house. He stands for my morbid curiosity. The protagonists thus both represent a different feeling within me, namely fear and fascination. The fact that I can easily relate to the protagonists because of

Page 42

their life style and because of their different perceptions that are both present in myself, the film is able to pull me into the diegesis. Ellison (Ethan Hawke), the protagonist in Sinister, is different from the protagonists in the other case studies, for he is not a character you easily feel affinity for. He makes morally incorrect choices, such as moving into this particular house, not telling his family about what happened in the house, not moving out when he notices that the house is affecting them greatly in a negative way and not giving his children the attention they need. The shot wherein Ellison is introduced is telling, for his focus on work instantly becomes clear (Film Still 13). Ellison is standing in a moving truck and shoves a box that carries the label ‘office’ towards us. Before we even see Ellison for the first time, we know that his work is important for him since he accentuates this himself. I do feel affinity for his family, since they did not deserve this and are sympathetic people. Because I do not think Ellison is a sympathetic character, my desire is aesthetic instead of moral; I care more about the story than about the wellbeing of Ellison. My curiosity is thus ‘morbid’. My morbid curiosity for the story is in line with Ellison’s curiosity for the story. He wants to find out what happened so badly that he is willing to put his family at risk. Both our desires are aesthetic and morally incorrect.

Film Still 13 Ellison and his moving box in Sinister

Another similarity between Ellison and me is our focus on the found footage. Ellison watches the footage with a tormented expression on his face. My reaction matches his; I mirror his reaction. However, Ellison’s reaction is also the same as the reaction people have when watching a found footage horror film. This means that Ellison knows how he should react properly to the footage for he mirrors reactions of spectators that preceded his story. I thus insist that Ellison and I mirror each other. We know how to react to such appalling imagery and because we respond appropriately, the

Page 43

mirroring is sustained. Although Ellison is unsympathetic, I am willing to follow the story from his point of view because I am similar to Ellison: our desires and reactions are similar. It has become clear that a horror film does not need an original narrative or monster to be frightening and suspenseful. The narratives are similar and the monsters are, except for their appearance, the same: they all embody evilness and want to take over one of the characters. The story should be presented in a captivating way to attract attention from the viewer. Furthermore, the characters, their emotions and their performances are essential when it comes to evoking concern and fear. This is especially proven by The Conjuring, which is based on a true story. I knew this story, meaning that I knew that everyone would survive, on the condition that the film would roughly stay true to the original story. Nonetheless, because of the monster, the structure of the narrative and the performances of the characters, the film was highly suspenseful and scary. A film can also be successful if the protagonist is unsympathetic. It should be noted that an unsympathetic protagonist is only acceptable if he or she is similar to the viewer. Moreover, the narrative should be fascinating and intriguing enough if the film wants to keep the spectator engaged with the story. In Sinister, this is the case since we want to watch the mystery unfold.

Page 44

CHAPTER 3: CAMERA FUNCTIONS

“I think it’s a giant ass camera.” - Katie Featherston as Katie in Paranormal Activity

The camera is of great importance when it comes to pulling the spectator into the story and eliciting certain responses within him or her. More specifically, the camera is part of the narrative and the diegesis in Paranormal Activity and Sinister. Katie immediately addresses the camera Micah is carrying and this phrase in the opening scene indicates that the camera itself plays an important part in the film. Although the camera itself does not play a part in The Conjuring, it does signify an evil entity. This chapter focuses on the camera, the different possibilities it has and the role of the camera in the three films. As I will argue, the camera can be seen as another presence and sometimes even as a third protagonist.

§ 3.1 Camera as Another Presence The Conjuring often makes use of pure POV shots. Laine mentions that this kind of POV shot signifies the presence of an evil entity. In The Conjuring, the pure POV is used to introduce the Perron family. After the opening that revolved around the Annabelle-doll, we can see the family moving into their new house. Although they are excited, we know that something is wrong and that there is a presence in the house. We can see them arriving from inside the house through a window. The camera creeps towards the window so that we come closer to the family. However, the camera stays inside the house. When the family members walk toward the door, the camera slides to the left so that we can see them entering. Then, the camera slowly moves forward and slightly tilts down so that the focus is on Sadie the dog. Sadie feels that something is watching her and the family and therefore starts whining and refuses to enter the house. This scene is filmed in a fluent long take and the camera movements are similar to movements we ourselves are able to make. The film is thus developing a muscular relationship with the viewer. Through this relationship, the film wants to keep our gaze to the screen. But this shot is also a pure POV, which means that the camera represents an malevolent and nonhuman presence. This camera technique is threatening, for it indicates that something evil is in the house. The muscular relationship becomes problematic since we share the same POV with something evil. This is disturbing. In other words, the camera is not merely presenting the narrative; it is part of the narrative since it represents the evil entity that resides in the

Page 45

house. The camera and the movements it makes, ensure that we feel that something is wrong and that something is watching the Perrons, as Sadie’s reaction confirms this. The pure POV is part of cinematography. As I demonstrated, this plays an important part in the film since it indicates that another presence is near and also ensures that we are close to the characters. Most of the time, it feels as if we are ‘there’ with the characters. The long takes, musculature camera movements, handheld shots, and the combination of the perceptual POV and response shots all contribute to this feeling. It ensures that the shared manifold between the characters and me is established and sustained. Either we feel like we are there with the characters or we share the POV with an evil presence, due to the pure POVs. The cinematography ensures that I am emotionally aligned with the characters and that I am aware of another evil presence. Sinister also employs the pure POV, although less often than The Conjuring. One night, when Ellison is sleeping, the camera moves closer to the bed and focuses on Ellison. A flashlight is shining on his face and the shot is handheld. This shot indicates that something is keeping an eye on him. It adds suspense, for it ensures that I know that the monster is near. Bughuul has already been introduced at this moment, although only via found footage. The fact that a pure POV is used, points to the fact that he is already lingering in the house, even though we have not seen him yet. Sinister also presents the camera as another presence. This generates a disturbing and unnerving feeling within me. Paranormal Activity, on the other hand, signifies the presence of the monster via sounds. Of course, The Conjuring and Sinister also make use of sounds and music to indicate the presence of Bathsheba and Bughuul. Yet, especially in The Conjuring, the pure POV shots are significant throughout the whole film. At night, when the invisible demon is most active in Paranormal Activity, we can see what is happening via a static image, for the camera is situated on a tripod. The camera clearly does not represent something evil. And since the monster is invisible, the only cinematic element that signifies the presence of the monster is the low rumbling sound.

§ 3.2 Camera as Third Protagonist Even though the camera does not represent a malevolent presence in Paranormal Activity, it does have another function. I argue that Paranormal Activity is productive in pulling the viewer into the story for we experience everything through the camera, which is presented as a third protagonist. As I already mentioned, Katie immediately addresses the camera, we can see the camera in different mirrors (Film Still 2 and 14), Micah talks to the camera (Film Still 15) and they take it everywhere in the house to record their life. The camera is thus a visible object that is constantly emphasized by

Page 46

the characters and by the fact that we can see it. Moreover, the camera is not only an important element in the diegesis, it also creates the diegesis and the narrative. For, without this camera, there would not be any film for us to watch at all. Hence, it is a crucial element in the film. Paranormal Activity makes use of two kinds of camera movements. Either the camera is carried by one of the protagonists, or the camera is situated on a tripod, a table or something similar.

Consequently, we are Film Still 14 Micah and the camera in Paranormal Activity right by Micah’s and Katie’s side quite literally or we are there with them in a position from where we can observe them. The handheld shots contribute to our muscular relationship with the protagonists,

Film Still 15 Micah talking to the camera in Paranormal Activity since these movements are obviously movements that we are also able to make. It reinforces our relationship with the characters. The film is presented as DIY-material; the characters film everything themselves and a lot of handheld shots are used. Furthermore, the footage concerns their life. This makes the film very personal. These documentary aesthetics pull me into the story and ensure that I feel connected with the characters. Also, the film overcomes the gap that normally exists between the viewer and the film by addressing the fact that this is indeed filmed by a camera and thus a film. Paranormal Activity does not try to conceal the gap, what most films do by using a fluent film style. The film instead uses

Page 47

this gap to come across as genuine. By incorporating the gap in the film, the footage becomes something familiar for the spectator. Moreover, the way the story is presented is familiar. Since media and electronics are omnipresent in everyday life, many people will have filmed something themselves with cell phones and digital cameras. This will be mostly handheld and personal. Hence, the film looks like something that I, or anyone, could have filmed. Next to the relatable characters and the contemporary setting, the presentation and aesthetics of the film are disturbingly familiar which contributes to the uncanny atmosphere. Through the cinematic aesthetics, the film invites us to be part of the diegesis and the narrative. The Conjuring does this by focusing on either the characters or the monster. Consequently, the viewer stays close to the characters, which reinforces the shared manifold, or the viewer shares the POV with the monster, which is unnerving. This is what keeps the spectator immersed in the film. Sinister does not rely as heavily on specific camera movements as the other case studies, but instead relies more on the narrative and the different cinematic realms. Finally, Paranormal Activity creates an interesting cinematic experience due to the camera and the movements it makes. Although we are not actively participating in the story as Micah and Katie do, we are present as observers. And we certainly actively watch this film since we, together with Micah and Katie, look for clues that reveal the presence of the invisible entity. The aesthetics stimulate close attention from the viewer and put us in the same position as the protagonists. As I demonstrated, the camera really is the third protagonist in this film, for it plays a crucial role in the diegesis and narrative. Also, the camera records the film and ensures that we are able to watch it on a screen. I would argue that we, the spectators, experience the film through the lens of the camera. For without the camera, there is no film to watch. In other words, we experience it through the third protagonist. Because of this, we are, as it were, this third protagonist, for we inhabit the same position as the camera.

Page 48

CHAPTER 4: SCREENS AS PORTALS

“Why would you film it?” - Ethan Hawke as Ellison in Sinister

The answer of this question lies in the footage itself. The images and horrible footage in Sinister constitute another realm that is inhabited by Bughuul. He is able to cross over to the world of the film. However, he needs these images to exist and to be projected. The screens on which these images are displayed function as portals. This chapter deals with how particular screens function as portals. The cinema screen can also be seen as a portal to another world; if the film is able to grasp the attention of the viewer, he or she is willing to step into the world of the film and become immersed in it. Mirrors are often a salient motif in films and, especially in horror films, can also be seen as portals. Mirrors are often associated with other, mostly ghostly, worlds. The contemporary supernatural horror films Mirrors (Alexandre Aja, 2008) and Oculus (Mike Flanagan, 2013) clearly demonstrate this. Mirrors are a salient element in The Conjuring and important when it comes to inhuman entities. Thereafter, Paranormal Activity will be discussed since it challenges the different boundaries that exist between the viewer and the film and also between the viewer, the film and the footage. The remainder of the chapter will be dedicated to the found footage in Sinister.

§ 4.1 Mirrors in The Conjuring A salient element in The Conjuring is the mirror. Shortly after the family arrived at their new house, April, the youngest daughter, finds a small music box. The inside of the cover consists of a mirror that starts turning when the music box is turned on. April claims that she can see the little boy Rory in this mirror. He still wanders around the house as a ghost. Lorraine winds up the music box and looks behind her via the turning mirror. She does actually see Rory standing behind her (Film Still 9). Although April found the music box and claims that she can see Rory in the mirror, the music box is more linked to Lorraine. We can actually see that Lorraine sees Rory and later on she also sees Rory’s mother behind her by looking in the mirror. Although Carolyn is not able to see Rory in the mirror, she is linked to mirrors. However, she is differently connected to mirrors than Lorraine. Just like Lorraine can see Rory and his mother in the mirror, the viewer can see Carolyn in mirrors (Film Still 16). This way, she is related to the ghostly and nonhuman entities in the house. I argue that her reflection is particularly important. A reflection is a representation of reality and therefore not reality itself. Thus, if the film presents us

Page 49

Film Still 16 Carolyn visible in the mirror in The Conjuring

with images of Carolyn’s reflection, we are not looking at Carolyn herself. The fact that her reflection is visible indicates that something is about to happen to Carolyn that will alter her soul. When Carolyn is possessed by Bathsheba, her appearance is the same, but her soul is not. The fact that the viewer sees Carolyn’s reflection in a mirror a few times indicates Bathsheba’s influence on her. This influence is made subtly visible early on in the film. These shots point to Carolyn’s connection with the nonhuman entities in her house, to Bathsheba’s goal of possessing Carolyn and also to the achievement of this goal. Additionally, a mirror in a film can be seen as a film within a film and thus works as a mise- en-abyme. This is similar to situations wherein Ellison is watching found footage or when Micah and Katie are watching their recordings. Thus, The Conjuring presents the viewer with a situation that can be described as cinema within cinema. Clearly then, every case study contains films within the film itself. This, in turn, creates an intriguing image with multiple cinematic layers. Besides the mirrors, the closet in Andrea’s room is a motif in the film that, according to film critic Robbie Collin, also functions as a portal. Although it is indeed clearly emphasized a few times, the closet does not function as a portal for the characters in the story and consequently for us. It merely is a hotspot for the entities since it is the place where Bathsheba lingers around and where Rory’s hiding spot used to be when he was still alive. Clearly, the closet and the mirrors are salient motifs in The Conjuring. Although they do point to the existence of another ghostly and demonic dimension, they do not explicitly function as portals. They merely signify this different dimension that is full of nonhuman entities.

Page 50

§ 4.2 Recordings in Paranormal Activity

An interesting aspect of Paranormal Activity is that the characters actually watch the footage they recorded. Since the characters film their daily life to find out what is happening in their house, the footage can be seen as surveillance footage. Micah watches the material they recorded from the previous night to see if anything happened. He shows Katie the footage if anything significant happened and when this happens, they also film this. Hence, they film the footage that is displayed on the computer. Micah also captures Katie’s emotional reaction to this. The footage makes her even more frightened than she already was. Her reaction to the images shows the viewer how he or she should react properly. When Micah films himself when he is watching the footage on his laptop, an interesting image is created (Film Still 17). Similar to the film still I analysed in the introduction, this shot also points to the different layers in the film. As I demonstrated earlier, film is a representation of reality and therefore a reflection, just like mirrors are. This image directs our attention to the laptop. Consequently, we are watching a reflection (the footage on the laptop) within a reflection (the film itself). Although film still 2 contained mirrors in the image and this image contains a laptop, both images are productive in intertwining the reflections. Furthermore, if I take into consideration my own screen in my reality that is displaying this film, the image becomes even more complex. My gaze is fixed on my television screen, which is displaying this particular image. This means that I am watching a screen (the laptop) on my own screen (my television), while simultaneously being aware of the fact that this is filmed with a camera, since that is constantly emphasized. This should create a huge gap between the film and me, for the multiple screens and the presence of the camera point to the artificiality of the film. But because the film makes me aware of

Page 51 Film Still 17 Micah watching his recordings in Paranormal Activity

the fact that I am watching reflections of reality, it comes across as genuine for it does not try to conceal anything. Still, although this comes across as natural, the film is obviously highly staged to create such fascinating images. Furthermore, the screens and the camera intertwine the different realities by inserting the recorded footage and the camera in the footage we are watching. Due to this, the boundaries become blurred. And because all of this is presented in an over-the-shoulder shot, it feels like I am standing right behind Micah, looking at his laptop. The narrative and more importantly the presentation of the narrative, pull me into the world of the film. As I indicated, the cinematic boundaries that are materialised in the screens are blurred. This creates a portal for the spectator. Because the story and the characters fascinate me, I choose to step into the diegesis via this portal and become immersed in the film. Found footage horror films make use of specific cinematic aesthetics and thereby have the ability to make us part of their world.

§ 4.3 Found Footage in Sinister The found footage is a salient aspect of Sinister since it keeps the narrative going. The contemporary society is familiar with DIY footage and amateur films. Yet the content of this DIY footage is gruesome, which simultaneously defamiliarizes the footage. Because of this, the footage is uncanny. But more importantly, the footage represents another realm, which turns into a portal when it is displayed on a screen. This is similar to The Ring, which also revolves around a mysterious and fear-provoking film that turns into a portal for Samara once it is displayed and watched by someone. Brian Jarvis claims that The Ring is an auto-reflexive text since it is about a scary film, namely the videotape. He also mentions that the content of The Ring is an allegory of the viewer’s consumption of the film (Jarvis). The same can be said about Sinister. The scenes wherein Ellison watches the footage are an

Page Film Still 18 Bughuul addresses the spectator in Sinister 52

allegory of my consumption of found footage horror films and also Sinister itself. Again, the film mirrors my actions, which makes me aware of my viewing position. This ensures that I am not fully ‘there’ in the world of the film, but also partly in my own reality. Bughuul embodies this, for he is able to cross the different realms and the filmic boundary that stands between the world of the found footage and the world of the film. The film ends with a close-up of Bughuul looking directly at me (Film Still 18). Since the characters are either dead or gone, I know he is threatening me. His action challenges the border between my reality and the filmic world. Therefore, the fact that I am partly ‘there’ in the diegesis, while remaining aware of my own viewing position, is beneficial for this film. Samara, the threatening girl in The Ring (Film Still 3) and Bughuul are able to step out of the screen. Jarvis points to phantasmagorias in which this movement was common. Terry Castle defines phantasmagorias as fantastical ghost shows that utilized optical illusions to frighten the audience. These shows were popular in the 19th century (Castle 27). Projections of ghosts lunged toward the audience who would be enormously frightened by this. Although the audience knew that these flying projections were not real, they still thought so momentarily since they actively ducked away (Jarivs). Technically, Samara and Bughuul do the same. However, in most contemporary horror films, such as The Conjuring, Jessabelle and The Possession, this is not the case. The evil entities merely frighten and threaten the protagonists. Although they can be scary, they are not directly threatening the viewer. But in The Ring and Sinister, the evil entity is able to blur the boundaries between the footage and the world of the film. Before Bughuul threatens the viewer by addressing him or her, he did the same thing to Ellison. Ellison was watching the footage on his laptop and paused it momentarily. When he looked away, the paused image of Bughuul moved and looked at Ellison. This was the first moment he challenged the filmic boundary between him and Ellison. In the final shot of the film, he does the same to the spectator. Contrary to Sinister, The Ring does not challenge the screen that I am watching. It merely blurs the wall between the mysterious videotape and the world of the film. Bughuul’s action is similar to the optical illusions in phantasmagorias. I even leaped back into my couch a little, just like the audiences did during the phantom shows. Besides, Jarvis and Castle mention that the phantasmagorias and the techniques that were used to produce these shows were an inspiration for cinematography techniques (Castle 41). Phantasmagorias have had a notable influence on horror films. I argue that this influence is recurring more strongly in films like Sinister than the other horror films I mentioned. Films that depict closed stories and worlds that only concern the characters are less productive in scaring the audience than horror films that address the viewer directly. These films pull the spectator into the story while simultaneously trying to step out of the diegesis.

Page 53

Film Still 19 Ellison becoming part of the footage in Sinister

Film Still 20 Ellison becoming part of the footage in Sinister

Moreover, the footage in Sinister is clearly being projected onto Ellison, literally and figuratively. I argued in Chapter 2 that Ellison and I are similar because we both are morbidly curious and we inhabit the same viewing position regarding the found footage. I also pointed to the fact that horror films want to immerse us in the narrative. Similarly, Ellison becomes immersed in the footage. This is literally visualized in the shot wherein we see the footage reflected on Ellison’s glasses (Film Still 19) and again when the images are projected onto him when he stands in front of the projection screen (Film Still 20). Just like we become immersed in the film we are watching, Ellison becomes immersed in the footage he is watching. If a film is productive in pulling us into the narrative, we become part of it. These images depict that Ellison is becoming part of the footage. The ending of the film confirms this, for his family becomes part of Bughuul’s killings and therefore also of the horrific footage series. Furthermore, Ellison’s glasses are noteworthy in film still 19. The shot contains an extreme close-up of Ellison’s face whereby the focus is on his glasses. Firstly, we can see his eyes, which he closes momentarily. This indicates that he finds the footage horrific. Secondly, we can see the footage reflected on his glasses. Thus, both Ellison and the footage are in focus. This image

Page 54

emphasizes that Ellison looks at the footage through a screen, namely his glasses. My viewing position is similar, for I watch the footage via my television screen. Thus, we both watch the footage via a screen. This reinforces our similar watching position regarding the found footage. Later in the film, the screen that stands between Ellison and the footage is gone. This is depicted in film still 20. Here, the images are projected onto Ellison. But this time there is nothing standing between him and the footage. Even his glasses are gone. This indicates that Ellison is part of the footage. Sinister tries to do the same to me since Bughuul addresses me in the final shot of the film. In short, the mirrors in The Conjuring point to different and ghostly realms. Still, they are not presented or used as portals. Consequently, the wall that stands between the world of the film and my world is not challenged. My television screen embodies this wall and is still functioning as a boundary. Paranormal Activity and Sinister do challenge filmic boundaries. As I demonstrated, the narratives of these films enable the aesthetics to challenge the wall that stands between the film and me. Paranormal Activity is able to blur the cinematic boundaries due to the DIY and amateur aesthetics. Also, these aesthetics pull the spectator into the story and make them part of the diegesis. This is clearly demonstrated when Katie looks directly at us (Film Still 21). Taken together, this creates a portal for the spectator. Yet, Sinister is more complex than Paranormal Activity and more productive in blurring the cinematic boundaries. The different realms are intertwined in such a way that the protagonist eventually becomes fully immersed in it. Sinister is self-reflexive since it revolves around how a film is able to pull the spectator into the world of the film. And by doing so, it is actually productive in pulling me into the film.

Film Still 21 Katie addressing the spectator in Paranormal Activity

Page 55

CONCLUSION

Film critic Chris Tookey begins his review of The Conjuring with the following question: “Can a haunted house still be frightening?” The answer to this question is: yes, absolutely. After watching The Conjuring, Paranormal Activity and Sinister there is no doubt about it that a haunted house horror film can still be scary. These films were all productive in generating an emotional response within me. I experienced these films with my mind and my body. Obviously, the three films are highly criterially prefocused. They all direct our attention to specific elements, such as moving doors, monsters and facial expressions. They do this via particular filmic elements, like camera movements and sounds. My mind was constantly being addressed and activated and consequently my body also reacted to these elements. The combination of these filmic elements is able to evoke a response within me, which is mostly fear. Since my attention, consciously and bodily, is thus constantly being directed to frightful elements and situations, The Conjuring, Paranormal Activity and Sinister all provide the viewer with the phenomenological feeling of a roller-coaster ride. Thereby, I emphasize that these films are very able in producing a cinematic experience and cinematic emotions within the viewer. You do not merely watch these films; you feel them. Within this research, I have argued and demonstrated that cinematic aesthetics clearly are crucial when it comes to eliciting particular emotions. Moreover, the various aesthetics and characteristics that are related to the camera and the screen prove to be essential. I have emphasized that specific filmic elements are crucial when it comes to eliciting emotions. Surely, the narrative, the monster and the characters are important for evoking sympathy and concern, as I analysed in Chapter 2. The narratives of The Conjuring, Paranormal Activity and Sinister are not particularly original and follow a rather classical story. Therefore, the films must rely on other elements to keep the viewer fascinated. The Conjuring relies on the terrifying monster and the emotions of the characters: Bathsheba and her face are the embodiment of evil and the faces of the characters radiate extreme fear. Moreover, the monster was omnipresent in the house. The fluent tracking shots, the long takes and the pure points of views all contributed to the uncanny feeling of another presence being near. Collin even mentions in his review that the film contains “Kubrickian camera glides”. This contributes to the point I made in Chapter 1 when I argued that Laine’s arguments concerning the camera movements in The Shining could also be applied to The Conjuring. The camera represents a nonhuman and malevolent presence in these films. The Conjuring contains many emotional outbursts and the tension is tangible. I was either uptight due to the tension or I was startled due to the outbursts. The description film critic Kristy Puchko gives of her experience of this film is similar to my own. According to her, the film is terrifying, sensational and goose-bump- Page 56

provoking. Her description touches upon the conscious and bodily feelings she experienced when she watched the film. Her strong emotional reaction contributes to my claim that The Conjuring is a highly emotional product and that, because of this, the film is able to penetrate the screen and reach the spectator. Similarly, Paranormal Activity relies on the emotions of the characters. Katie is afraid and anxious and therefore represents my fear towards the invisible entity. Micah, on the other hand, is fascinated by the phenomenon: he represents my morbid curiosity. Their performances are natural, which contributes to the authenticity surrounding the film. The paranormal happenings in the film also contribute to this authenticity, since they are not overly dramatic. Critic Perri Nemiroff writes that these happenings are believable and therefore terrifying. This points to Heller-Nicholas’ argument about found footage horror films, namely that they are scary because a haunting would probably look like this in reality. Another essential aspect of Paranormal Activity is the setting: the world is similar to the world I live in, which is why I can easily place myself in the diegesis. Furthermore, the monster is frightening. The invisibility of the monster contributes to the omnipresence of the monster, for it could be anywhere at anytime. This is quite contrary to Bathsheba from The Conjuring, whose appearance is absolutely frightening and whose omnipresence is indicated by the camera. The camera techniques are entirely different in Paranormal Activity. The shots are either handheld or static. The DIY aesthetics and the amateur look of the film are characteristic for found footage horror films. Furthermore, I demonstrated in Chapter 3 that the camera can be seen as a third protagonist in this film, for it is constantly being addressed, spoken to and because it is a crucial part of the narrative. And since we, the spectators, experience the film through this camera, we are, as it were, the third protagonist. Moreover, the camera and the different screens within the diegesis blur the different cinematic boundaries, including the boundary that separates my world from the world of the film. Due to this, it feels like I am ‘there’ with Katie and Micah. In other words, the film is able to create a portal to the world of the film. Thus, the relatable characters, the contemporary setting, the camera and the screens pull me into the diegesis and keep me fascinated. Sinister dwells between The Conjuring and Paranormal Activity. The film contains found footage, but mostly employs a fluent and mainstream film style. However, Sinister differs greatly from the other two films when it comes to the main characters. The characters in the other two films raised sympathy within me. I did not feel sympathy for Ellison. Instead, he is similar to me. We are both morbidly curious and we inhabit the same viewing position regarding the found footage. Together with Ellison I want to find out what happened in his house. To watch the mystery unfold is an important reason for my fascination with the story. On top of this, the footage contributes to the

Page 57

complexity of the film. I demonstrated in Chapter 4 that the footage itself represents another realm, that, when it is depicted on a screen, becomes a passage. This points to what any horror film aims to achieve, namely to pull the viewer into the film via the screen. Due to this, the film creates a noteworthy phenomenological experience within me. It ensures that I am aware of my position as a spectator, for it mirrors this position, and it simultaneously pulls me into the film. Thus, I am partly present in my own reality, but I am also partly present in the reality of the film. Moreover, because Bughuul addresses me, the film challenges the screen that keeps me separated from the world of the film. Obviously, the filmic material plays a significant part in Sinister. Collin notices in his review of Sinister that the film contains a shot that resembles a film strip; the ladder to the attic is lit from above which causes it to look like a film strip. This emphasizes the centrality of film in Sinister. Therefore, Sinister is a complex, fascinating and auto-reflexive text. I emphasized that visual aesthetics are crucial when it comes to pulling the viewer into the film. Clearly, the camera and the possibilities it possesses are important in these case studies. Next to the camera, the screens play an essential part in the case studies. They add cinematic layers to the film, which blur the filmic boundaries. The Conjuring adds layers to the film via mirrors. Paranormal Activity and Sinister add layers via laptops, a projection screen and television screens. Furthermore, they point to our own world and therefore mirror our viewing position. Just like I focused on spectatorship and emotional responses in this research, Paranormal Activity and Sinister also focused on this. However, the latter is more reflexive since the scenes wherein Ellison watches the footage can be seen as an allegory of my own situation. I insist that a classic haunted house story can still be very successful and frightening, as long as it is either a highly emotional product or updated. The latter option proves to be the most original and stimulating for the viewer. The films that were most productive in activating my mind and body were the films that challenged the wall that kept my world apart from the world of the film. Paranormal Activity and Sinister blurred these boundaries and directly addressed the viewer. Through the realist aesthetics, the films generate a phenomenological reaction that is bodily and conscious. And by doing so, they constitute a phenomenological relationship between the spectator and the film. It is this relationship that guarantees the intense cinematic experience. Still, this does not mean that The Conjuring was not able to frighten me, for it was. It means that the other two case studies provided a more complex, layered and dynamic cinematic experience. The ubiquitous presence of media in our lives is becoming more and more represented in films and this creates a fascinating and scary experience that appeals to mind and body. Films will continue to try to grab the spectator and pull him or her into the world of the film. If the film wants to do this, it has to address the spectator and consequently address the real world, or

Page 58

the world outside of the film, for that is where the spectators are. This means that films will continue to address the spectator more directly. Maybe, then, the influence of the phantasmagorias will become even stronger. Monsters in future horror films could be coming literally out of the screen to grab us and pull us into the diegesis, just like the monsters and ghosts did in the phantasmagoria shows. Maybe in a few years, more supernatural and ghostly horror films will be screened in 3D, which would enable the monster to really step out of the screen and look at us. This would be a new kind of phantasmagoria3. Or it could be the other way around. Maybe we are stepping into the world of the film quite literally by wearing a ‘head-mounted display’, enabling us to walk around in a virtual reality4. These new developments would of course enhance the roller-coaster ride even more. Consequently, old ideas will be updated and adsorbed into contemporary horror films so that they will scare new audiences.

3 If monsters were able to step down the screen into our reality due to 3D screenings, the phantasmagorias from the 19th century, described by Castle, would have returned to contemporary cinemas. The fantastical ghost shows that utilize optical illusions to scare the viewer are quite similar to 3D horror films, for they both aim to scare the viewer via ghosts that literally lunge toward us. The updated phantasmagorias will be able to frighten contemporary viewers, just like the original phantasmagorias were able to scare their audiences. 4 A head-mounted display enables the person who wears it to ‘feel’ like they are really present in another world or a virtual reality. Horror games that make use of a head-mounted display already exist. Affected is an example of a virtual reality horror game. These kinds of games are scary because the gamer is really present in the world of the game and also an active participant. This heightens the feeling of being ‘there’. You cannot just look away from the monster like you can do when watching a film, for you are wearing something on your head that prevents you from leaving the virtual reality. Maybe in a few years, it is possible to watch a film via a head-mounted display. Page 59

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Affected. Mark Paul. Fallen Planet, 2014. Badley, Linda. “Bringing It All Back Home. Horror Cinema and Video Culture.” Horror Zone. Ed. Ian Conrich. London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2010. 45 – 63. Barker, Jennifer M. “Musculature.” The Tactile Eye: Touch and the Cinematic Experience. N.k. California: University of California Press, 2009. 69 – 93. Baumgarten, Elias. “Curiosity as Moral Virtue.” International Journal of Applied Philosophy 15.2 (2001): 169 – 184. Buber, Martin. The Knowledge of Man. 1962. Translated by Ronald Gregor Smith and Maurice Friedman. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Carroll, Noël. “Film, Emotion, and Genre.” Passionate Views. Film, Cognition, and Emotion. Eds. Carl Plantinga and Greg M. Smith. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1999. 21 – 47. Carroll, Noël. A Philosophy of Mass Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Castle, Terry. “Phantasmagoria: Spectral Technology and the Metaphorics of Modern Reverie.” Critical Inquiry 15.1 (1988): 26 – 61. Collin, Robbie. “The Conjuring, Review.” The Telegraph. Eds. N.k. 2013. Telegraph Media Group. 16 March 2015. . Collin, Robbie. “Sinister, review.” The Telegraph. Ed. N.k. 2012. Telegraph Media Group. 17 March 2015. . Elsaesser, Thomas and Malte Hagener. Film Theory: An Introduction through the Senses. New York: Routledge, 2010. Gallese, Vittorio. “The ‘Shared Manifold’ Hypothesis: From Mirror Neurons to Empathy.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 8.5-7 (2001): 33 – 50. Grodal, Torben. “Emotions, Cognitions, and Narrative Patterns in Film.” Passionate Views. Film Cognition and Emotion. Eds. Carl Plantinga and Greg M. Smith. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1999. 127 – 145. Heller-Nicholas, Alexandra. Found Footage Horror Films: Fear and the Appearance of Reality. Jefferson: McFarland and Company, Inc., Publishers, 2014. Hutchings, Peter. The Horror Film. Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2004. IMDb. N.k. N.k. Amazon. 10 April 2015. . (The Grudge). Page 60

. (Halloween). . (Saw). . (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) Jarvis, Brian. “Anamorphic allegory in The Ring, or, seven ways of looking at a horror video.” The Irish Journal of Gothic and Horror Studies 3.N.k. (2007): N.k. 6 March 2015. . Laine, Tarja. Feeling Cinema. Emotional Dynamics in Film Studies. New York and London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011. Nemiroff, Perri. “Movie review. Paranormal Activity.” Cinemablend. Ed. Eric Eisenberg. 2007. Cinema Blend LLC. 17 March 2015. . Packham, Chris. “The Rise of Found-Footage Horror. Why Paranormal Activity 4 and other new scary movies don’t look like movies at all.” The Village Voice. Ed. Tom Finkel. 2012. Voice Media Group. 4 March 2015. . Pisters, Patricia. “Suspense en surprise: narratologie.” Lessen van Hitchcock. Een inleiding in mediatheorie. 4th edition. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2011. 65 – 99. Plantinga, Carl. “The Scene of Empathy and the Human Face on Film.” Passionate Views. Film Cognition and Emotion. Eds. Carl Plantinga and Greg M. Smith. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1999. 239 – 255. Plantinga, Carl and Greg M. Smith, eds. Passionate Views. Film, Cognition, and Emotion. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1999. Pramaggiore, Maria and Tom Wallis. Film. A Critical Introduction. 2005. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd, 2011. Puchko, Kristy. “Movie review. The Conjuring.” Cinemablend. Ed. Eric Eisenberg. 2013. Cinema Blend LLC. 17 March 2015. . Rascaroli, Laura. The Personal Camera: Subjective Cinema and the Essay Films. New York: Wallflower Press, 2009. Río, Elena del. “The Body as Foundation of the Screen: Allegories of Technology in Atom Egoyan’s Speaking Parts.” Camera Obscura 13. 2 38(1996): 92 – 115. Smith, Greg M. “Local Emotions, Global Moods, and Film Structure.” Passionate Views. Film Cognition and Emotion. Eds. Carl Plantinga and Greg M. Smith. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1999. 103 – 126.

Page 61

Smith, Jeff. “Movie Music as Moving Music: Emotion, Cognition, and the Film Score.” Passionate Views. Film Cognition and Emotion. Eds. Carl Plantinga and Greg M. Smith. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1999. 146 – 167. Smith, Murray. “Imagining from the Inside.” Film Theory and Philosophy. Eds. Richard Allen and Murray Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. 412 – 238. Sobchack, Vivian. Carnal Thoughts. Embodiment and Moving Image Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. Stiegler, Bernard. “Cinematic Time.” Technics and Time, 3: Cinematic Time and the Question of Malaise. 1st edition. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2011. 8 – 34. Thompson, Kristin and David Bordwell. “American Cinema and the Entertainment Economy: The 1980s and After.” Film History. An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 661 – 693. Tookey, Chris. “The Conjuring: Watch this and you’ll never play hide and seek again!” Mail Online. Ed. N.k. 2013. Associated Newspapers Ltd. 17 March 2015. . Wees, William C. Light Moving in Time: Studies in the Visual Aesthetics of Avant-Garde Film. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Worland, Rick. The Horror Film. An Introduction. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.

Page 62

FILMS

Amityville Horror, The. Dir. Andrew Douglas. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Dimension Films, 2005. Blair Witch Project, The. Dirs. Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez. Artisan Entertainment, 1999. Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. Dir. Larry Charles. 20th Century Fox, 2006. Brüno. Dir. Larry Charles. Universal Pictures, 2009. Conjuring, The. Dir. James Wan. Warner Bros., 2013. Devil Inside, The. Dir. William Brent Bell. Paramount Pictures, 2012. eXistenZ. Dir. David Cronenberg. Momentum Pictures, Alliance Atlantis and Dimension Films, 1999. Exorcist, The. Dir. William Friedkin. Warner Bros., 1973. From Beyond. Dir. Stuart Gordon. Empire Pictures, 1986. Grudge, The. Dir. Takashi Shimizu. Columbia Pictures, Universal Pictures and Roadshow Entertainment, 2004. Halloween. Dir. Rob Zombie. The Weinstein Company and Metro-Goldwyn Mayer, 2007. Insidious. Dir. James Wan. FilmDistrict, 2010. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Dir. Philip Kaufman. United Artists, 1978. Jessabelle. Dir. Kevin Greutert. Lionsgate, 2014. Mirrors. Dir. Alexandre Aja. 20th Century Fox, 2008. Oculus. Dir. Mike Flanagan. Relativity Media, 2013. Paranormal Activity. Dir. Oren Peli. Paramount Pictures, 2007. Possession, The. Dir. Ole Bornedal. Lionsgate, 2012. [REC]. Dirs. Jaume Balagureó and Paco Plaza. Filmax International, 2007. Ring, The. Dir. Gore Verbinski. DreamWorks Pictures, 2002. Rush. Dir. Ron Howard. Universal Pictures, StudioCanal, Universum Film AG, 2013. Saw. Dir. James Wan. Lionsgate Pictures, 2004. Shining, The. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Warner Bros., 1980. Shutter. Dir. Masayuki Ochiai. 20th Century Fox, 2008. Sinister. Dir. Scott Derrickson. Summit Entertainment, Momentum Pictures and Icon Productions, 2012. Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Dir. Marcus Nispel. New Line Cinema, 2003. Uninvited, The. Dirs. The Guard Brothers. Paramount Pictures, 2009. Videodrome. Dir. David Cronenberg. Universal Pictures, 1983.

Page 63