The face of evil? Katie is caught by the camera in "Paranormal Activity 3."
(Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman, 2011)
October 24, 2011
by Joel Crary
In “Paranormal Activity 3,” two characters play “Bloody Mary” and nail down the formula of the entire film series in the process. First, you turn out the lights. Repeat something that creeps you out. Wait a bit, then turn the lights back on. But don’t jump the gun, or the effect won’t work. You’ll never see the killer, but you’ll convince yourself it’s there, just on the other side of the glass, out of sight until you least expect it.
I was always too petrified to play “Bloody Mary” as a kid; hearing about it was enough to make my skin crawl. Thus far, the formula has worked for “Paranormal Activity,” and the latest installment in the series continues to play us like a violin. For three films now, we’ve watched night fall on families in impressive suburban homes, repetitious scenes of strange goings on, and then the relief of daylight dawning, allowing the characters to try to figure out what the hell is happening, exactly.
The series has been unique in its efforts to prequelize. Each film, presented as found footage taken from video cameras set up to capture the hauntings, has taken us further and further back into the stories of Katie (Katie Featherston) and Kristi (Sprague Grayden), the two sisters who can’t seem to shake ghostly visitors. The first film chronicled the gradual terrorizing of Katie and new husband Micah, the latter of whom, you’ll remember, flew across a room impressively at the suggestion of Steven Spielberg. The second focused on Kristi’s family, adding a dog, baby, and teenage daughter to the mix, heightening the sense of vulnerability.
Part 3 takes us back to 1988, courtesy of VHS videotapes that Katie had left in Kristi’s basement somewhere amidst the events of the first two films. (Will Part 9 mostly comprise Eastman Kodak 16 mm?) The tapes contain typical home movie footage of Katie (Chloe Csengery) and Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown) as children, enjoying birthdays and tea parties, with ironic observations thrown in about what little monsters they are. The girls’ father, Dennis (Christopher Nicholas Smith), shoots wedding videos on his camcorder for a living, which is good enough to explain the convenient editing suite in his garage.
Eventually Dennis and wife Julie (Lauren Bittner) begin to notice strange things happening, but not strange enough to take Kristi’s imaginary friend “Toby” seriously. Dennis sets up the cameras for surveillance – one in the girls’ room, one in the bedroom, one in the dining room/kitchen – and we get more of the foreboding clock in the lower right-hand corner along with text telling us how far into the haunting we are. Dennis shows the tapes to buddy Randy (Dustin Ingram), there to lend comic relief with his reactions, as guys named Randy in horror movies do.
The success of the “Paranormal” films depends ultimately on what we’re shown of the ghosts, and how. One pretty creative twist directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman add is the placement of the kitchen camcorder on a modified rotating fan, which causes the image to pan back and forth on the lowest setting. This challenges them to stage scares that are reliant on a very particular setup; as the camera moves, an action has to happen at precisely the right moment or the effect is lost. Though strained at times, it’s mostly impressive and new.
The “Bloody Mary” scene is the film’s terror high point, preying on ideas that suburban youth in the ’80s found scary and bringing them to life. (In my review of “Paranormal Activity 2” I mentioned Freud’s theory of the “unheimlich.” I’m not sure what he’d have to say about the weird kind of regression I felt watching the adult in this scene lose his composure.) The mythology is handled a bit better this time around, though some scenes are too forcefully acted, and the “why are they filming this” question looms like an invasive spectre. These are the risks filmmakers run with the “found-footage” aesthetic, which often requires a significant suspension of disbelief.
I gave Joost and Schulman a lot of flack for “Catfish,” which I found a gross misfire of tone and execution. They do far better work here with Christopher B. Landon’s script, tapping into the slow burn and big jump scares that are the series’ raison d’être without going too big, and ending things on an intense high note that offers possibilities for storylines going forward. The task for future installments (and with this one opening to $54 million, there will be) will be to avoid the temptation of shocking to a cartoonish extent. (Certain shots in Part 3 that showcase the ghost’s playful side are risky enough.) So far the series has kept the haunted house aesthetic simple and fresh while refusing to show us everything. As long as it doesn’t turn on the lights too soon, the scares should keep on coming.
