The basic point it's trying to make, so I gather, is that it's trying to prove with SCIENCE that this must be a good horror movie, the numbers say so! As someone who understands a lot about statistical mathematics, scientific testing and film criticism, I can't help but have a few questions to raise about this graph.
This ad is basically trying to claim that Paranormal Activity 4 (Manchester United Nil) is a good horror movie purely because of how much of it consists of paranormal activity; but what does that term actually mean here? I saw the film, and I'm pretty sure that, given what I define as paranormal activity, that did not take up over a third of the runtime. I'm pretty sure that the random stuff floating about, the weird noises and some of the Microsoft product placement counts (seriously, there's a laughable amount of product placement in the film), but what else? Does the kid looking creepy or the scenes of the cult who're somehow behind everything count? The random satanic symbols? The murder scenes recycled from Paranormal Activity 2 (Wolverhampton 3) even though they had far better set up for creative death scenes already set up? Or are they just counting any time that creepy drone sound effect comes on the soundtrack?
Because there's not quite a clear cut-&-dry definition about what is or isn't paranormal activity (not just in these films either, try asking some real life ghost hunters about this!), it means that the makers have full range to fiddle with the facts like hell to make them fit. "Hmm, teenage girl talking in an impossibly deep voice; perfectly reasonable to us, sorry Exorcist!" As a result, none of these numbers look or feel right at all, although that is a matter of opinion on my part. Hell, I have no idea what they're counting in The Blair Witch Project since one of the key points was that we directly saw or heard little overtly supernatural! Plus, Carrie only has 11? Do I suspect they're counting the finale as one long one rather than lots of separate incidents to skew the numbers? Not defining parameters before stating conclusions and evidence; in GCSE level science that'd earn a D-!
I'm pretty sure that's nearly 11 in the trailer alone, and the film has far more!
Ultimately though, those points are only geek-peeves of mine; my real problem with this whole thing is it's founded on a basic fallacy, that ultimately you can measure these things pure numerically. Sure, you could count numbers of "scares" or whatever and fiddle with the results to your heart's content, but does it really tell you if it's really a good horror film or not? NO, and it never can!
It presents the idea that film is something entirely mechanical, a process, a product, not an art. As much as film is a business with budgets and the like, and even though many talk about story telling structures and formats (and I know one guy who has some pretty smashy things to say about that!), films ultimately are experiences of emotion, and that's something that can't be meaningfully be summed up as a number alone (pun unintended). Yes, I know we have IMDb scores and Rotten Tomatoes and such, but those are just vague indications of consensus on a film, not a set in stone judgement on it's ultimate worth. Also, review scores are meaningless without the rest of the review putting them in context, and indeed given online hissy fits by some other their beloved titles "only" getting eight out of ten or with what happened with The Dark Knight Rises, they're becoming meaningless period! A film critique is not an MOT, there's no set formula or rules or regulations, numbers alone when talking films mean nothing.
But OK, let's say they just want to compare purely one aspect of these films, it's still not that great a comparison, because, plain and simple, I know something that can top all of the titles here for both percentages, time between scares, and probably numbers... one of these!
(Warning: flashing lights)
Yeah, basically your average ghost train ride tops all of them in these stakes, and will be much cheaper than picking up a shiny new blu-ray of the film (actually, it'd be at least on par with renting it in some cases). Now, fun though that may be, would it really be comparable to watching a full scary film, and even with its higher scores, would it call it a perfect experience in terror? No, because a real horror film experience is about far more than just jump scares!
I covered part of this in one of my FilmJuice articles, but it's well worth repeating; just throwing in jump surprises isn't true horror, it all depends on build up, anticipation and suspense. Just because a lot of paranormal activity can happen in a film, that doesn't mean anything in terms of mood or atmosphere. I'm not against jump scares as a concept, and think they can be done well (the perfect one that'll never be topped for me is from Exorcist III; those who've seen it know exactly which bit I mean), but there has to be more to the film than those, and they have to be built up to properly. Being surprised by something isn't the same thing as being scared by it.
Now this is how you do it!
There's also the matter than the advert (remember how this started out talking about an ad? How long ago that seems!) really narrows the field; since when did purely scenes of the paranormal constitute horror? Some of the very best fright films ever made have nothing supernatural happen in them at all, and in a few really overtly paranormal titles, the most scary scenes are those without such content. Prime examples for that latter point can be found in some of the films on that list. Carrie is at it's most horrifying when we see how the titular character is treated by her oppressive mother and cruel classmates and The Exorcist has a truly chilling moment about halfway through when the characters suddenly realise what the possessed Regan may have done when they weren't around (which the director's cut spoiled by having her come in walking like a spider, but that's beside the point). Paranormal Activity 4 (Blake's 7) has no scenes like that at all, nothing that sticks with you after the film finishes (hell, you'll forget the entire thing in less than the time it takes to read the front of the DVD case).
"Ed", I hear you all cry with flutters in your hearts as my name leaves your lips, "did you really do this whole rant purely because of one minor piece of film marketing, and did I really just waste all this time reading it?" Well yes on the first, hopefully not, you may have learned a thing or two or at least laughed at those links in the second. I admit this was me working off some frustration at a recent extremely badly timed cold and the advert was an easy target, but I had good reasons to do this too. I don't like it when films try to one up each other in a dick measuring contest on general principle, but I really hate it when the one starting it is one of this poor quality. Seriously trying to claim that Paranormal Activity 4 (Mystery Science Theater 3000 - OK, I'll stop that now!) represents a better horror movie purchase than Carrie, The Exorcist, Drag Me To Hell or Poltergeist, especially considering that those are on sale price right now; a proverb concerning glass houses and stones comes to mind. I've barely even touched on the point of "quality vs. quantity" in this case. In terms of bad movie marketing it's right up there with "Highlander II is the smartest science fiction thriller since Blade Runner". It disappoints me that the franchise has slid down so far (I really liked the first one and will always love it for helping to kill the Saw franchise!) that the parody trailer makes for a far better experience and ended up so prophetic...
No comments:
Post a Comment