Paranormal Activity 3

Let's be honest about it, Paranormal Activity 2  - or Paranormal Inactivity as I prefer to call it - was poor. As any horror movie that focuses on spooky goings on involving a pool cleaner for much of the first third of its run time would inevitably be. It felt like a tired, overlong re-run of the far more effective first outing for what is now a film franchise. Therefore, the idea of Paranormal Activity 3 did not sound desperately appealing to me. Fortunately, the makers of that film - who also made the impressive mockumentary Catfish - worked out what they needed to do to get the franchise back on track. And they do it in two ways.

Firstly, they don't slavishly follow the original, but instead play with the audience's expectations. So rather than this all happening concurrently with the original film (as the first sequel sort of tried to do), PA3 is a genuine prequel. And that helps to create some fun with the format. Aside from the (at times OTT) eighties references, the film has to cope with the fact that technology was not as advanced in the eighties, so documenting a demonic haunting would not have been as easy as it is in that day and age. This leads to a lot of improvisation - including using a fan-mounted video camera, which in turn leads to some of the movie's most effective moments.

It also introduces ideas such as the demonic force not being the sole evil force with this movie - something perhaps forced on it by the "revelation" in the previous film about the cause of the demonic haunting, but also a hand it plays well. And it also bucks the trend of having the leading male character being a dick by having a genuinely likable protagonist in Dennis. It becomes far easier to watch a film - and care about the character's eventual brutal fate - if he is basically likable rather than a bit of a dick.

But above all it remembers to be scary. It does this simultaneously by offering cheap scares based on the characters' awareness of the cameras (the babysitter disappearing and then jumping out at the camera) but also by offering some genuine chills and some truly stressful scenes - in particular, the "bloody Mary" sequences followed by the child's chair been kicked across the bedroom or the moment when the ghost/demon cleans the kitchen, only to bring it all crashing down again. The film knows it needs to up the ante in terms of the scares and the same time as confound expectations; it manages to do both.

As with everything, it isn't flawless. Indeed, there are a couple of moments when I positively winced - such as when the camera recorded the dust falling on the demon in the aftermath of an earthquake. And the ever-present problems of the found footage genre were there (why are you still filming this? Why the hell do you have the foresight to record this stuff but not to turn on the fucking lights when something goes bang in the night?) However, overall, this was exactly what it should be - a clever, occasionally scary and witty horror film that can make you jump. If you want more than that, then look elsewhere. But if you want more than that, seeking out the third installment of a horror franchise is the wrong place to start.

What to read and watch on 31/10

Halloween is all about watching horror movies and/or reading ghost stories. For me, the ultimate televised ghost story is Ghostwatch. If you've never seen it, then you should go do so. And if you have, then I offer you a ghost story about what happened next...

Paranormal Activity

So, saw Paranormal Activity last night. And it is good. It would be better if it wasn't just a version of The Blair Witch Project with less attractive scenery and even more irritating characters, but it does work hard at creating a level of fear that didn't rely mainly on special effects. It has atmosphere; if only because it lacked the budget to go for scares through gore. Still, I do have some advice for anyone who wants to make a similar film based on the flaws of this particular motion picture:

1. Don't make the leading male into an amazing tool who not only disregards every piece of advice he is given but also has a go at his girlfriend for bringing a demon into the house. Look, Micah, Katie didn't choose to have a demon molesting her, and it isn't helping to throw that in her face as her life turns into a terrifying quagmire of unsettling shit. The problem with making a character like Micah is that no-one really gives a fuck what happens to them because they are such a grade-A, prime dickhead.

2. It's all very well setting up that they can't leave the house because the supernatural entity will follow them, but if you keep on going on about it, then it simply highlights the fact that there isn't any slack in the budget to film anywhere else.

3. All the talk about demons made the film at times feel like a low-rent version of Drag Me To Hell. You don't need demons to make something scary, and you end up over-egging the pudding. The concept of a unseen, extremely powerful ghost fixated on a woman in an increasingly terrifying way is unsettling enough. All the talk about house-fires in the past and the heavy-handed insinuations about demonic possession simply bring to mind other famous horror movies that had more money to throw around. Furthermore, with horror movies, the less you explain, the better. The unknown is almost by definition unsettling, so don't be afraid to use that.

And some advice to any potential viewers going to see this film: don't go to a cinema in central Nottingham as it will be filled with chavtastic teenagers screeching at just about everything except the shots of the woman in a low-cut top and shorts. At which point the feral, lusty lads will start wolf-whistling...

What films to watch this Halloween

Halloween is about a lot of things - for the students for Nottingham, for example, it seems to be about energetic yet faintly unconvincing costumes and the consumption of scarily large quantities of booze. For kids, it seems to increasingly be about demanding treats or offering tricks - even in this country. For me, though, it is about watching horror on the TV.

Now, let me clarify - I'm not talking about the visceral, gut wrenching horror that you might see in the Saw film series or torture porn flicks like Hostel. There's arguably a place for those sort of films - certainly, the money studios make on those films show that there is both a market and a fan-base for those types of movies. But for me they are horrific movies, but seldom actually manage to be scary. It is a different type of film that is genuinely unsettling.

My own favourite - possibly of all time - is Ghostwatch. It created a massive response when it was first broadcast, and is a key point in the ongoing popular genre of the mockumentary. It manages, through astute use of its framing device and through careful, almost clinical use of a ghostly figure, to drag the viewer into the fictional world and leave them deeply unsettled at the very least. It takes the simple word "Pipes" and turns it into a powerful entity whose potential reach is both awesome and terrifying. It is like the very best of Nigel Kneale combined with creatively astute people who understood that unconventional means can make a ghost story more effective than ever. There's a generation of children who were shocked by Ghostwatch when it was first broadcast, and remember it to this day. And often their memories end with "and we turned it off before it reached the end."

A more traditional, yet still very creepy, ghost story is The Woman in Black. Whilst I'd recommend the book, there is also a very effective film adaptation - if you can get hold of it. Unfortunately, the novelist hates the film adaptation, and it took me a lot of searching to get hold of a copy of the video. However, it was worth the effort since it manages to produce some very creepy moments and some genuinely terrifying moments. Through the locations used for filming, the music, the restrained acting and the occasionally glimpsed but always striking apparition of the woman in black, it convinces you that there is a malign force in a remote house. A malign force that is determined to damage those it comes into contact with. The most memorable scene is probably the one when Arthur Kidd awakes to the sound of a ghostly child, only to be menaced by a looming vision of the woman in black. Yet for me the creepiest scene - and the one most evocative of what the tone of the film is like - is the scene where Arthur Kidd, alone at Eel Marsh House, encounters the woman. He sees her staring at him, and as she slowly starts to move towards him, he turns and flees into the house, locking the door behind him, panicking.

As I said, you'll be lucky to get hold of a copy of The Woman In Black, so instead The Innocents does a very similar job, but with added ambiguity. Again, there are menacing figures seen from a distance and then - very suddenly - up close. But unlike in both The Woman In Black and Ghostwatch, The Innocents (a film adaptation of The Turn of the Screw) refuses to categorically state that ghosts exist. Either we have a very powerful haunting that is trying to harm two children, or we have a couple of children in the care of an unstable and increasingly delusional woman. The horror comes from the fact that the ending is inevitable - even if it cannot be conclusively explained.

So those would be my suggestions for a bit of spooky Halloween viewing - and if you are in the US, it may also be worth seeing Paranormal Activity. Not having seen it myself, I have no idea whether it is any good, but it looks like a good choice for anyone who wants more from their horror films than a bit of blood and guts.

On Ghosts

There has been a study recently, looking for photographic evidence (or otherwise) of ghosts. The website is here. And looking at most of the photos, you can see that, well, if they're not faked then there is probably a logical explanation for them. None of them really seem to depict a ghost; most of them are far more representative of bad photography.

And that is the conclusion reached by the study:

The majority of the images showed mysterious-looking orbs, mists, figures and faces. Many of the photographs may have a normal explanation. For example, orbs can be caused by the camera flash reflecting off tiny dust particles, mists can result from condensed breath in front of the lens, long exposures can create ghostly figures, and apparent faces are often people seeing patterns in random shapes.

Even though we had the public submit their most mysterious photographs, the images we received don’t provide compelling evidence for spirits. If ghosts are out there, it seems they are somewhat camera shy. There were possible normal explanations for the majority of the pictures, and so were surprised that, on average, about 15% of those voting thought that the photographs portrayed genuine ghosts.

This is far from being conclusive proof that ghosts don't exist; yet it does seem to indicate that, on balance, their probably aren't spirits walking amongst the living.

Despite having a long-term fascination in the supernatural, and despite writing ghost stories in my spare time, I'm a sceptic about ghosts. All of the evidence is either easily debunked or is purely ancedotal. Many people have seen something that might be a ghost, or have experienced something ghostly. But there is nothing to show that it definitely was a ghost, and in most cases there is no shortage of potential other explanations.

Which is the point; the photos might be of ghosts. They might equally be dust on the camera, an odd reflection or someone unseen straying into the view of the camera. And on balance, the rational explanations seem far more likely and, well, real than the supernatural ones.