Film Analyses

Film Analysis

Grave Encounters 2 is Canadian-American horror film released in 2012, directed by John Poliquin and written by The Vicious Brothers. It is the sequel to the 2011 film Grave Encounters. It is shot in found footage style like its predecessor and follows a group of enthusiastic fans who break into the same mental hospital that’s used in Grave Encounters to investigate the events that happened are real or just special effects. For people who don't believe the events of Grave Encounters. Film student Alex Wright is out to prove them wrong. Alex is as obsessed with the first film as the 20 million people who viewed its viral trailer on YouTube. While he and his friends research the events and visit the real psychiatric hospital depicted in the original film, they find themselves face-to-face with unspeakable evil, banking on the hope that their knowledge of the original film will help them survive the sequel. The ending contradicts the audience’s expectations – two victims are left, and one makes promises and devotes his life to saving the other, but is told only one must be alive to escape the mental hospital – he doesn’t spare her life like most other horror films, he kills her for his own selfishness and greed. In this film, there is no hero/heroine – all teenagers go into the house and end up being chased by their own fears and supernatural beings. This goes against Propp’s theory of character types, as none can be identified as any of the character types. However, the in-film producer of Grave Encounters 2 could be categorized as a donor, for giving the group information about the prequel. What makes this film a horror is the setting, the supernaturalism and the lighting. The film is set in a haunted house in Vancouver, Canada. The place has a message on the front door, saying ‘Death Awaits’, written in blood, which immediately tells the audience there’s something horrific on the other side. The events that occur while the group are in the house are horror-related. Supernatural beings and random things happening (i.e. windows creaking open, tables being flown across the room) all are done in the hope of the audience jump out of their seat. The green and black night-vision camera effect gives the film a scary feel to it, and makes the supernatural occurrences more ‘in your face.’

In conclusion, Grave Encounters 2 challenges Propp’s theory of character types – since there’s only one identifiable character (the donor) and it isn’t part of the main cast. The ending also goes against the expectations of the audience, and finishes off the film in a way most horror films don’t.

 

 

Paranormal Activity 3 is a 2011 American supernatural horror film, directed by Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman. The plot is set in 1988, in California, cinematographer Dennis moves to the house of his girlfriend Julie to raise a family with her daughters Katie and Kristi. Little Kristi has an imaginary friend named Toby while weird things happen in the house. Dennis decides to place cameras in the house to capture images during the night and soon he finds that there is an entity in the house. Dennis's friend Randy Rosen (Dustin Ingram) researches the events and learns that his house might be a coven of witches and the children may be in danger. This film also challenges Propp’s theory of character roles. The whole family is victimized by the supernatural curse that sits upon their house – the grandmother, Lois, is a villain, as she is possessed; she kills the mother and the father of the family; and she turns the 2 children into possessors. The main things that make this film a horror is the supernatural activity going on in the house and the setting. It’s set in a large house, and large houses often relate to being haunted or having something ‘spooky’ about them. The activities that go on are very similar to what happens in Grave Encounters 2 – it ‘jump scares’ the audience and keeps them on the edge of their seats. The patrolling cameras set around the house at night give the audience a bigger overview of the house, making them more nervous as it’s more open to them and they can see everything that goes on.

Overall, the film is a typical supernatural horror film, excluding the indifference in character roles and going against Propp’s theory. It has some attributes which may go against the audience’s expectations, like two little girls turning into possessed spirits – and the main character dies, which could also be unexpected, but seems to come up quite often in supernatural films (examples being The Woman in Black and The Pact).

House of Wax is a 2005 American horror movie directed by Jaume Collet-Serra. It’s a loose remake of the 1953 original, which is in turn a remake of the 1933 film ‘Mystery of the Wax Museum.’ The plot is about 6 friends are on their way to a football game. They decide to camp out for the night and continue driving the next day. The next day the friends find that they're having car troubles, so 2 of the friends accept a stranger's ride into a small town named Ambrose. The main attraction in Ambrose is the House of Wax. Except something is not right in this town, the wax figures are so realistic and the whole town is deserted - except for two murderous twin brothers. The 6 friends must fight to survive and escape from being exhibited in the House of Wax. This film approves Propp’s character roles theory. The film has a damsel in distress, a hero, a villain and a donor. The story is set in a forest to start off with, then a deserted town. These are commonly used in horror movies, as it tells the audience the main characters are alone and away from civilization and the comfort of high authority services (police, ambulances). The gore and slashing of the film immediately make it a horror, along with the setting, time of day and props. The scene with the damsel in distress makes the audience want to see what happens and keep watching, as it happens about 30 minutes into the film. This film also supports the ‘male gaze theory’ – the scene where the 2 characters are going to have sex, the male goes out of the scene, and we’re left with the female in her underwear. We see none of the male’s death, but we go on to see the entire sequence to the female’s death – this is because it’s what is wanted by the male audience. It also goes with the final girl theory – the ‘sexy’, ‘attractive’ girl gets killed after being sexy with her boyfriend. The more ‘intelligent’, ‘strategic’ girl lives through to the end.

In conclusion, the film has many conventions that a typical horror movie has. It approves of the male gaze theory and Propp’s character role theory. It also matches the final girl theory. It doesn’t have anything that would go against the audiences’ expectations of a horror movie.