Paranormal Activity 2 and the scary cuts

Well I got another review in the Free Press again this week, but I’m not so pleased with this one. I didn’t like the film I watched (Paranormal Activity 2), and wrote a review of 343 words (it has to be under 350) which I thought was fairly entertaining – you can be the judge of that below though. However on looking at the paper this week it had been cut down to 170 words.

Of course I understand this happens and much, much better writers than me have had their work cut, but I was disappointed with the outcome – the tone of the piece changed and the bits that I thought were the best ones had gone. It also gave a slightly differing opinion in the review; for instance the review in the paper starts “If you like frightening moments and enjoy extended periods of tedium then Paranormal Activity is the film for you”  which is  quite different from what I wrote below.

The bits about Kubrick and Hitchcock were also cut out which is more understandable as they weren’t crucial to the review, but I still feel a bit odd about the whole thing, especially as I spent a while trying to find the right words. It’s not a big thing I guess (there were more reviews on the page than usual this week which explains the cuts) and I probably shouldn’t be precious about it, but it’s my name on the reviews and I just hope that people reading understand that they are sometimes heavily edited. I fear they won’t though, because it’s not something I’ve ever really thought about before recently.

Anyhow, should you be interested, the original review in its entirety is below. If you really want to see the edited result then you’ll have to buy the Free Press (a bit tricky if you don’t live in Doncaster, mind!)

 

This sentence is a bit dull and…BOO! This sentence is also a bit dull and...BOO! This sentence is also a bit….well you get the idea. But if you found that frightening and you also enjoy extended periods of tedium followed by loud sudden shocks, then there’s a chance you may enjoy Paranormal Activity 2, the wearisome prequel to the low-budget surprise hit of 2007. For everyone else however, disappointment is likely.

The story revolves around a seemingly happy family of whom the mother is the sister of the female lead in the original Paranormal Activity. Following a mysterious burglary, video surveillance is installed throughout their house (it is this footage along with hand held home-movie pictures that constitute the film); and then we wait. And wait. And wait some more.

There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with scenes of normality where little happens. Used effectively these can give bursts of action greater impact and this technique has been used with great success by heavyweight directors such as Kubrick and Hitchcock. Here however it is as if the director has a vague idea of what makes a good horror film, but not realised that the periods of inactivity must serve a purpose. Too often it appears that footage is shown simply for the purpose of filling time

Eventually, after a whole lot of waiting, there’s a shock. And yes, it makes the audience jump. But you could achieve the same effect by forcing a friend to watch dull CCTV footage and randomly bursting a balloon just behind their ear. It’ll give them a start, but it’s not exactly subtle and won’t linger long in the memory.

There’s no real involvement here; it’s difficult to care much about what happens to the characters and none of them say much of any interest. Admittedly the film improves slightly in the last act when the atmosphere becomes more sinister and we lurch towards some sort of conclusion, but by then your attention may have wandered to much better horror films than this. After all, there’s plenty to choose from.