![\"Paranormal](\"http:\/\/www.cusjc.ca\/capitalarts\/wp-content\/uploads\/paranormal-activity_forweb.jpg\")
<\/a>It is a type of movie that makes the audience feel they are the main character. Traditionally, in the movie plot, a recording device such as a hand-held camera tells the narrative, and a documentation of something terrifying ensues. The taped footage is then \u201cfound\u201d by a third party who turns it into a film. Hollywood production is replaced by a very shaky camera, first-person perspective shots, and a gritty image to make the films feel realistic.<\/p>\n
The idea is simple enough, but newer examples of the subgenre are starting to move away from its prior conventions. Filmmakers are catching on to the fact that simply finding a single camera\u2019s footage with scary images doesn\u2019t work anymore. Why is that? Probably because multiple screens and formats are our real lives today.<\/p>\n
Fresh blood<\/h2>\n
Found footage leaped into view in 1999 with The Blair Witch Project<\/em>, about three filmmakers who disappear in the woods while filming a documentary about a local myth called the Blair Witch. The audience is told the filmmakers are missing, and the footage of their documentary was discovered a year later. The film consists of the found footage they shot.<\/p>\n It was one of the first films to be promoted on the internet, which effectively blurred the lines of fiction and real-life documentary. Shrouding it in mystery paid off enormously; it went on to gross nearly $250 million, from a budget of only $60,000.<\/p>\n The Blair Witch Project<\/em>\u2019s success spawned numerous found-footage copycats,with the genre peaking with films such as Paranormal Activity<\/em> (2007), Quarantine <\/em>(2008), and Cloverfield<\/em> (2008).\u00a0 These, in fact, were so popular that critics started to consider found footage a gimmick. Films like Paranormal Entity<\/em> (2009) and Monster <\/em>(2008) failed to capitalize on the phenomenon because they offered nothing new.<\/p>\n