DEVIL'S DUE review

Let's get this out of the way for anyone not in the know who didn't read my interview this week with Radio Silence's Matt Bettinelli-Olpin: I have known the guys from Radio Silence for a long time now.  They're good friends of mine. We hang out rather frequently. I've helped them on a few of their shoots and we have spent many hours debating movies over the years.  So I wouldn't blame you if you want to keep those details in mind as you read my praise of their film, DEVIL'S DUE, opening today.

Then again, if I hated the film, I wouldn't lie about it. I simply would have side-stepped writing a review in the first place.

In an era where the success of found-footage horror like Paranormal Activity has lead to an explosion of found-footage projects, it would be easy to be weary of what many see as a gimmick.  In the wrong hands, that cinematic approach could be a cheat, a short-cut done to hide the lack of budget, resources and artistry on the part of the filmmakers.  Worse, it's leading to a number of projects being turned into found-footage movies just because producers are looking for quick and cheap ways to shoot a film.  A writer friend of mine tells of passing on a prospective rep when the manager kept pushing him to turn his scripts into found-footage stories, paying little mind to the fact that would not have been good for the story.

Fortunately, Radio Silence (directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin & Tyler Gillett, executive producer Chad Villella and executive producer/cinematographer/visual effects supervisor Justin Martinez) are smarter than most who take a stab at the genre.  In doing so, they not only refresh the genre, but also what could have been an uninspired retake at the concept of Rosemary's Baby.  (Lindsay Devlin wrote the script.)

Character development can be a hard thing to achieve in found footage (To date, Chronicle probabaly is the genre's best achievement on that front), and horror films in general often have trouble hitting those heights.  What was the last horror film where you really cared about the victims?  Right from the start, Devil's Due sets out to do what every script should - get the audience invested in its leads.

This would be a far lesser movie without the adorable chemistry of Zach Gilford and Allison Miller.  They play a young newlywed couple named Zach and Sam who end up in the wrong club during the final night of their honeymoon in the Dominican Republic.  Thanks to Zach's determination to capture much of their lives on film, the camera is left running through some of this and we catch glimpses of a satanic ritual the two are participants in while drugged and unconscious. Upon their return home, the two discover that Sam is pregnant.  While at first it's a happy moment, Sam's behavior becomes increasingly odd and disturbing.

The first fifteen minutes of the film lets us experience the two young lovers' wedding and honeymoon.  It's enough time to make them really feel like a couple.  They're cute in a way that doesn't feel forced and there's an intimacy to their reactions.  These two feel comfortable and goofy with each other and the genius of this is that it gives the horror something to threaten later on. You might find yourself rooting harder for a happy ending for Zach and Sam here than you have in a number of romantic comedies.

I can't help but contrast that with Paranormal Activity, where not only was it hard to buy the two leads as a couple, but the male lead was incredibly unsympathetic in how he ignored his girlfriend's terror and continued antagonizing the demon.  It didn't take long until you were just waiting to see this idiot push things too far and get maimed for it.

Zach is the complete opposite of that character.  Gilford brings a great everyman energy to the role and his empathic eyes sell both his deep love for Sam, but the total impotence he feels in the face of her strange behavior.  Without spoiling too much, Sam becomes more and more withdrawn even as she's prone to strange outbursts.  A nice touch is that it's hinted not all of her moodiness is the result of possession.  Sam hadn't planned on being pregnant for a while and one tense scene shows her frustrated with how this has upended all her life plans.  It's a credible way to increase the tension between her and Zach.


Miller does a great job playing the two sides to Sam.  Regular Sam is so goofy and adorable that you might develop a crush on her immediately.  As the transformation progresses and Sam becomes someone more unfamiliar to us, we're right there with Zach in wanting the old Sam back.

Radio Silence delivers on a number of scares, even while playing with familiar staples like nightvision and hidden cameras.  In most cases, our foreknowledge of how those tools are applied only increases the dread.  (When the nightvision comes out, you know it's for a reason. The only question is how long the suspense will be drawn out before the film plays its cards.)  There are a couple sequences here that are definitely in the mold of their V/H/S segment, but for my money, the most unsettling and uncomfortable sequence is one that has no supernatural aspects at all, and actually calls to mind a sequence in The Exorcist.

The film manages to avoid most of the found-footage pitfalls.  Since Zach never started filming with the intent to capture a ghost or haunting on film, we avoid the moments in all the Paranormal films where the characters apparently - and conveniently - miss playing back the footage with the most unsettling haunting footage (PA4 was especially sloppy in this regard.)  Still there is a point where Zach begins editing the footage and stumbles on to some shots he never expected to find.  This is one area where a little more follow-up might have been warranted.  Fortunately the film amps up the pace soon after this.

Aside from a welcome appearance from Sam Anderson, known to genre TV fans from Lost and Angel (and to TGIF fans from Perfect Strangers and Growing Pains), Gilford and Miller are left to carry most of the film on their own.  They rise to the challenge so well that there's little doubt they both have long careers ahead of them.  It's remarkable how much better a found footage film can be when the creators aren't afraid to cast familiar faces just because viewers won't believe it's "real."

A chat with Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, co-director of Radio Silence's DEVIL'S DUE - Part 2

We continue our chat with Matt Bettinelli-Olpin of Radio Silence and co-director of DEVIL'S DUE.

Part 1 

I saw an early cut of this film and one of the things that struck me was how much time you spend building up the characters so that we care about them when things go horribly wrong. It's rare to get a horror film where the characters feel like real people, and surely some of that is because you don't often have the luxury of doing a purely character scene. Was it challenging to preserve that character depth as you went through the post-production process? 

We had to fight a little to keep in a couple scenes that were more character based, but for us that's what we love about all great movies. And it's one of the things that at the end of the day we could have easily cut down but Fox acknowledged that it's falling in love with Sam and Zach that makes the rest of the movie work, it's out linchpin. It's part of makes ROSEMARY'S BABY so incredibly special -- the amount of time you get to really understand Rosemary and who she truly is.

JOYRIDE, one of our collective favorites, does the same thing -- you get to fall in love with the Fuller brothers and laugh with them for a large part of the first act so that when Rusty Nail begins fucking with them, you hope them survive on a guttural level, not just a surface "I hope the hero lives" type thing, but a deeper feeling of "I truly like these people, they feel like my friends, I want to spend more time with them. And I hope some psycho doesn't kill them!"

It's pretty obvious of course, every great movie is about the characters, but unfortunately FF doesn't always lend itself to that type of storytelling but we really wanted to hold onto that from day one. Hopefully it comes through.

DEVIL'S DUE also marks the first time you four work on a script that you didn't generate yourselves. What was that process like?

It was a fun challenge but everyone involved was up for it and we really spent a lot of time molding the script into something that we felt was unique and ours, something we could go out and have fun with and tell a story that might have familiar themes but that ultimately we could make our own. It felt like a very malleable story that was constantly shifting as we tried to discover out the version we loved. We also had the extra job on constant camera justification. And after DEVIL'S DUE, V/H/S and the shorts, we've had way too many conversations and way too many headaches about why the camera is filming, but it's only because of those conversations and headaches that we're ultimately able to tell the story we want to tell in an authentic and intimate way.

Also, on set Zach Gilford and Allison Miller's (Zach and Sam) contributions were invaluable. We spoke at length during the entire process about camera motivation. Zach (who actually films a lot of the scenes his character is filming in the movie) was instrumental in helping us never lose sight of the camera as an extension of his character. We really functioned as a team throughout and that dialogue was always happening.

Let's talk about casting. Most of the time, found-footage films go for total unknowns or nearly-unknowns. While Zach Gilford and Allison Miller aren't quite household names, they've become fairly familiar faces on TV. The same could be said of Sam Anderson, who's recurred on everything from Growing Pains, to Angel to Lost. We don't usually see actors like that in found-footage because of the attempt to preserve the "this all actually happened" artifice. Was there any discussion of this? Why go in this direction? 

That was a very intentional choice during casting. Initially, we had talked about casting unknowns but with Zach (we're all huge fans of FNL) we decided he was the best for the role and shouldn't NOT get it because people might recognize him. We never wanted to pretend this is real. As soon as we settled on that we solidified the idea by casting Sam Anderson, who we loved on Lost.

Our thinking, and CHRONICLE did this wonderfully, was that we should focus on making an entertaining movie, not just a FF movie. That doesn't me we abandoned the rules of FF (we didn't) but it allowed us to be more creative with the story and the casting and everything in between.

For us, the movie should feel emotionally real, that's the ultimate goal -- audiences are way too smart to have the "this is real" FF wool pulled over their eyes anymore.

What were the most important things you guys learned from screening early cuts to an audience, both for this film specifically and for the process of shaping a film in general? 

Besides previews being nerve-wrecking part of the experience, they're actually pretty enlightening. Don't get me wrong, it's an awful experience but even if they go great, it's generally acknowledged that they don't ultimately mean much. Great movies get horrible numbers and vice versa.

But regardless of all that, I actually think they're incredibly helpful. An audience filled with strangers doesn't lie. They love it or hate it and either way we don't get to explain our choices or make excuses. They talk, we listen. But we got lucky, I think, because Fox let us take what was useful from the feedback and make those changes but none of it was do or die. Most of it was left up to us.

When you're sitting with an audience of strangers, there's a deep feeling in your gut when things aren't working and it sucks but it's much better during a preview than on opening night, right? And regardless of the feedback being negative or positive, those gut something-is-wrong-here moments are things you want to change. And ultimately, I think our movie is better for having gone through that process -- you get so close to the material that at a certain point it's impossible to see the big picture.

DEVIL'S DUE hits theaters this Friday!

A chat with Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, co-director of Radio Silence's DEVIL'S DUE - Part 1

 About three years ago, I ran an interview with some good friends of mine who had made a name for themselves with web short released as the comedy troupe Chad, Matt and Rob.  You can find all three part of that interview here, here and here.

Since then the team has reorganized as the film-making collective Radio Silence, with Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, Tyler Gillett, Chad Villella, and Justin Martinez.  Two years ago, they were among several filmmakers involved with the original V/H/S.  Many reviewers pointed to their segment, 10/31/98, as being the strongest of the bunch and most deserving of its placement as the film's closing segment.

Their first feature, DEVIL'S DUE, comes out this Friday.  It's already found a big fan in Eli Roth, who moderated a media event last month promoting the film.  The guys had some interesting things to say about the film and found footage in general, so if you're at all interested, you should check out the links below.

http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/73151/devils-due-preview-radio-silence-speaks-new-images#axzz2pvbOlv8o
http://collider.com/radio-silence-devils-due-interview/
http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/344067-devils-due-what-you-need-to-know/#/slide/1

 In advance of the film's release, I arranged a two part interview with Bettinelli-Olpin, who along with Gillett, is credited as co-director. (Villella and Martinez are credited as executive producers, while Martinez is also credited as cinematographer and visual effects supervisor.)  In it we talk about found-footage in general, creative freedom and how one of the influences on the film was... The Notebook?

It's interesting that while you guys have done a fair number of "typical" narrative shorts for the web, the work that's made the most impact among a wider audience is all found footage. CHAD HATES ALIENS was your first viral short. MOUNTAIN DEVIL PRANK FAILS HORRIBLY was what got you V/H/S and your first foray into VFX, and then of course there's 10/31/98 from V/H/S. 

What are your thoughts on found footage in general and do you have any theories on why your work in it is so well-received? Is there something you're bringing to it that few others are? 

 There are obviously huge disadvantages when talking about FF, the most common ones are always "why are you filming" and too much "shaky cam." but there are also some advantages that we love -- mainly the intimacy you can create which in turn can heighten the humor and the horror. We love how intimate it can be, it's a real unique chance to bring the audience into the scene with the characters.

Since way back with CHAD HATES ALIENS, we've always focused on justifying the camera and making sure that it serves as an extension of the character and authentically have a place in the world of the story. But where the online pranks and V/H/S could literally be considered "found" footage, DEVIL'S DUE doesn't pretend to be footage that anyone has found or compiled, it's simply a story told through cameras that exists in that world. In that sense, it's a bit of an experiment that we were able to have fun with and as the character's lives spiral out of control we were able to mirror that journey visually by shifting to different (and hopefully creepier) POVs.

But all that said, our number on FF rule is always to be sure that the cameras in our story always function as an extension of character.

You guys have mentioned that Fox gave you guys a lot of creative freedom. Given that it's pretty normal for first-time feature directors to feel like their work is compromised, was that a surprise? Can you point to an instance where might not have expected the studio to go with an idea and they were won over? 

We wanted to create a sense of realism throughout so to allow for lots of improv within our scenes we had to meticulously structure the rest of the movie. And then try to hide that structure as much as possible. We're hoping to create an intentional feeling of free-flowing authenticity so from day one Fox agreed to let us go off the script a lot, as long as we got the scripted version first. But from there they were more of a creative partner than anything. We were given great and helpful ideas but never told "do this" or "do that" -- it was almost always left up to us to decide what should make the cut.

We found that a good conversation can go a long way, just talking through ideas as fully as possible whenever possible. And the people at Fox, Emma Watts and Steve Asbell especially, felt like true partners, not our bosses (even though they were, of course). At the end of the day, whatever felt like the best idea to serve the story would win out. And of course a few times that just meant trying all the different versions to see what truly fit the movie.

What do you think found footage skeptics will be most surprised by in this film? 

I wish I had a better answer but I feel like skeptics are always going to be skeptics and that's fine. We're not making a movie to change hearts and minds, we're just hoping to entertain people who want to be entertained and hopefully a little moved by Sam and Zach's plight.

We focused on their love story from day one. The first thing we said when we read the script was "let's hone in on their love story and then watch what happens when you throw a huge obstacle between them..." Not joking at all, we talked about THE NOTEBOOK quite a bit in terms of the horror of watching the person you love degenerate and being left helpless beyond continuing to love them unconditionally.

Read on in Part II!

What worked and didn't work in Paranormal Activity 4

I saw Paranormal Activity 4 this weekend and found it to be something of a mixed bag.  I have to admit, I enjoy these found footage horror films largely from the angle of looking for the seams.  I rarely am able to get immerced in the conceit that what we're seeing is "actually happening" but oddly, I really enjoy spotting all the tricks and innovations that the creators use to create that illusion.

But rather than pontificate about found footage, just go read my old post on the matter here.

There was a fair amount I liked about the film.  For one thing - casting director Terri Taylor should be commended for finding the young actress who plays the lead, Kathryn Newton.  The 15 year-old really has to carry most of the movie and it's clear the wrong actress in that part could have sunk the film.  She manages to be the most likable and most sympathetic protagonist in any of the PA films.  It helps that she has great chemistry with the actor playing her boyfriend, Matt Shively.  Shivley's actually 22, but he manages to play a credible 15 or 16.

It really enhances the film to have teenagers who actually look like teenagers.  We're so used to seeing actors in their mid-twenties playing high school students that it almost takes us aback to be reminded how young and vulnerable actual teenagers look.  It actually makes terror more vivid because these victims don't look like over-developed adults.  Even though these movies always end with the heroes getting killed, I found myself really wanting these kids to come out of this okay.

And yet, when they met their end, I felt cheated in a way that had little to do with the downer nature of the ending.  It was a little bit of a surprise, especially since the second film went out of its way to spare its teenage protagonist from the slaughter.  Mostly, I felt let down because every previous sequel tried to expand the mythology.  The mythology and the backstory deepened, perhaps not completely, but enough that it felt like this chapter needed to be the definitive end.

Over the course of the previous three movies, we learned that the demon haunting Katie in the first film was a demon that had made a pact with a coven led by Katie's grandmother.  The pact demanded payment in the form of the first male child born in the family line.  This turned out to be Hunter, the infant stolen away in the second film, who resurfaces in Paranormal Activity 4.  The events of this film lead to Hunter ending up in the possession of the coven.  Unfortunately, his fate after that is ambiguous and it's pretty well hinted that Kathryn's character meets her end trying to save him.

As profitable as these films are, it's probably unrealistic to expect Paramount to produce a definitive conclusion before the box office totally bottoms out.  The problem is that three films of build-up demanded a more meaningful climax to the Hunter story.  Basically, the film ends right before the true climax should begin, giving the audience a massive case of blue balls.

Other writing issues:

Why do Alex's parents agree to take in Robbie?  Alex's mother meets Robbie's mother Katie only once, briefly. How many of you would taken in a strange kid belonging to a neighbor whom you met for only three minutes once.

How the hell did Hunter come to be adopted by the family as Wyatt?  There's a big red herring in that we're clearly set up to think that Robbie is actually Hunter, but as it turns out, Wyatt is revealed to be Katie's nephew.  This unfortunately leads us to wonder how Hunter ended up going from being in Katie's clutches at the end of the second film, to going into the adoption system.  There are some indications that Katie had to wait until Hunter was of age so that the pact could be completed, so that at least explains why he wasn't delivered to the demon immediately.  Yet I can't figure out how or why she would have lost custody of the kid without revealing herself to the authorities in the process.

As for Robbie's real identity, I'm presuming that Katie was pregnant when she got possessed and that the boy is her actual son.  I'm going to further suppose that since Robbie was the second male child born to that family line that he couldn't be offered up to the demon to fulfill the pact.

Why does Alex stop watching the videos?  Alex and her boyfriend are smart enough to rig up a surveilance system that basically turns every laptop in the house into a hidden camera.  For about 2/3 of the film, we see them dilligently reviewing the footage and finding evidence of weird stuff.  Then, when things become a little less ambiguous (i.e. the knife incident), Alex conveniently stops reviewing the tapes. 

The script tries to cover this by showing Alex having trouble logging in, but that's a fix that actually makes the problem worse because it creates an unanswered question about why Alex's password has suddenly been changed.  (Maybe you could argue one of the kids did it under the direction of the demon, but then why not just turn off the cameras or trash the laptop altogether?)

Was Katie really in the hospital? If so, what was wrong with her? If not, why was she faking?  Robbie ends up with Alex's family because his mom Katie becomes sick under strange circumstances.  Not only is her condition never explained beyond this, but Alex points out that Katie doesn't look like someone who was sick.  That line seems designed to make us suspect there's more to her illness than meets the eye - but we know that at a minimum, there was an ambulance that took her away.  We get zero clue to what she was sick with.  It's just a weak plot device designed to isolate Robbie.

The arrival of the coven members also doesn't make much sense.  Since Katie obviously knows all of these people, why wouldn't one of them take Robbie in?  Are all of these holes supposed to lead us to the conclusion that Katie went to these lengths to plant Robbie in with Alex's family, knowing he'd make contact with Hunter?  Surely there had to be easier ways to insinuate oneself with that family.  (A good start? Try not acting like a fucking weirdo.  Just knock on the door and say "Hi, I'm Katie.  My son and I are new to the neighborhood and I thought it'd be good for Robbie to play with boys his own age.")

Those are the biggest issues with regard to the script's internal logic.  I have a few others, but they start to enter the realm of nitpicking.  Did you guys see it this weekend? What did you think?

Tuesday Talkback: Do found footage films need to develop their cameraman?

In yesterday's comments about found footage films, this question came up:


And finally, do we even NEED to setup the cameraman as a character for a film like this to work? Is it possible to just not explain why there is a camera rolling or who it is? I watch shows like The Office and Parks and Recreation, and there is an implied camera crew around at all times, but never explained, and I never question it as a viewer.

My feeling - in films it is rather necessary because the movie is documenting a particular moment or incident.  Cloverfield wouldn't work if the cameraman was handled in the same way as The Office.  On the other hand, Christopher Guest movies rarely make an issue of their cameraman.  Of course, there's a reason for that.

The difference is that The Office isn't "found footage."  It's presented in edited, documentary form.  The conceit isn't that we're seeing things as they happen, which is the case in Paranormal Activity and The Blair Witch Project.  There, the idea is "here is this raw footage presented in unedited form, showing this inexplicable event unfold right before your eyes.

But what say you? Does the cameraman need to be a character in the film?

Finding the secret to found footage films

The first several weeks of 2012 has seen two found footage films at the top of the box office charts, both which look to have substantial returns on their budgets.  The Devil Inside cost $1 million to produce and thus far has made $53 million domestically.  (It doesn't appear to have been widely released abroad yet.)  Even allowing for the fact that marketing that film easily had to cost $35 million, there'll still be a wide profit margin after international and DVD markets.  (Don't worry, I'm sure some Paramount accountant is already cooking the books to "prove" this film is still in the red.)

Chronicle opened this week to an impressive $22 million on a $12 million budget.  It's already made $12 million abroad, so it's likely to be a healthy performer by the end of its life.  When you look at those numbers, it's easy to see the upside.  It cost less than $10 million to produce ALL THREE Paranormal Activity films, which grossed over $575 million.  That's half a billion dollars on an investment of $10 million.

In other words, expect "found footage" to be beaten into the ground.  I wouldn't be surprised if many of you were planning on writing scripts in that genre.  Pretty much since the first Paranormal Activity, I've seen an increase in those kinds of submissions, so here are a few things I'd keep in mind as you develop those ideas.

You'll notice that most "found footage" films tend to be negative pickups.  This is a term for when the producers foot the bill for the film and then sell it to the studio upon completion.  The advantage of this is usually greater creative freedom for the filmmaker.  The advantage on the studio end is that they get to see EXACTLY what they are buying.  (There are other kinds of negative pickups, but this is the scenario for most of the found footage films you've heard of.)  This could be advantageous for the buyer as well, for if you have several studios interested, you can stoke a bidding war and drive up the price.  The Sundance Midnight Movie V/H/S is a good example of a found footage film that had three interested buyers vying for the rights.

But I'm drifting... my point is, I don't know how much success you'll have by writing a found footage film on spec and then selling it to a studio as you would a more typical high concept spec.  (I know there's at least one such found footage spec sale in the past year, but the specific title escapes me at the moment.)  These sort of scripts don't always read well.  The "reality" of the finished product comes from the "real" and mundane nature of some scenes, but on the page some of those moments are "dramatic death."  (Imagine a transcript of most movies in this genre and meditate on how many scenes would feel lifeless and dead on the page without the texture of being seen through the camera lens.)

I'm just one reader, but the dialogue can be a real dealbreaker in this genre.  Too "realistic" and it's a chore to slough through on the page.  Too clever, and the events feel scripted and inauthentic.  A found footage script is less likely to be a spec you sell than it is to be a spec you actually shoot yourself.

The second big thing to remember - you have to justify EVERY moment the camera is running.  The longer this genre's around, the more people are going to become sticklers for this.  In the past, audiences might have gone with the conceit that the guy with the camera "just wants to get a record of this incredible event" but suspension of disbelief is critical to this genre.  You're trying to pass this story off as "real" so you can't use some of the cheats that a conventional film uses.

Never write a scene if you can't answer the question "Why is the person holding the camera shooting this moment?"

Third rule:  Keep it short.  90 minutes or fewer is pretty much the sweet spot for this genre.  If your found footage script is 120 pages long, odds are there's a problem.  Cloverfield, The Devil Inside, Chronicle, The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity are all under 90 minutes in length.

Fourth rule: Your ending will almost always shape the reaction to your film.  For their occasional deficiencies and logic issues, The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity have extremely memorable climaxes.  The final scenes are shocking, disturbing and rather unsettling.  That emotion stays with the audience as they leave the theater and it's that reaction which defines the buzz.  In contrast, The Devil Inside had a terrible ending and made the film the target of a lot of critical and audience vitrol.  (Those idiots still lined up to see it, though...)

So if you want to make a name for yourself in found footage, your ending has to be the best thing about your film - and it HAS to stir a reaction in your audience.

If there's a fifth thing to remember, it's that horror - or at least a concept with supernatural elements - is the hot genre for found footage at the moment.  The comedy equivalent is the "mockumentary" but there's a clear distinction in the structure of a Christopher Guest film and something like Paranormal Activity.  (And there's also the fact that most comedy mockumentaries don't usually go the extra step of using a visual asthetic that deliberately apes low-quality video.)

The breakout hits in found footage all have an element of the fantastic.  They're "High Concept, Low Budget."  Comedy mockumentaries often find their humor in the mundane.  There's nothing wrong with that, but it won't have the box office resonance of something that scares the pants off the audience.

That's the way I see it.  Your milage may vary.