Can We Please Lose the Overhead Drone Shot?

It's become a cliché. The overhead drone shot of a car driving along a highway or through a forest. Despite some minor variations, I've seen these shots way too often. They're pointless apart from looking pretty, because they're rarely aesthetically motivated. As an establishing shot, they have become banal and, well, cliché.

 

 

As a cliché, the drone shot of the driving car rivals the fruit cart. As described in Roger Ebert's The Little Book of Hollywood Clichés, whenever a film has a chase scene, and you cut to a fruit cart, you just know a speeding vehicle will collide with that cart.

Why are filmmakers so in love with overhead drone shots? I have a theory.

Camera drones are a relatively recent consumer technology. Prior to them, overhead shots required expensive cranes or helicopters, operated by highly paid (often unionized) workers. Thus, overhead shots were both rare and impressive. In the 1980s, SCTV even had a running gag about TV personality Johnny LaRue (John Candy) incessantly badgering the station owner for a crane with which to wow his audience. Crane shots were big league.

And so when drones became available to ordinary folk, filmmakers jumped at the chance to showcase their new toy. They used and overused drones, much like filmmakers of the late 1960s/early 1970s overused their newly affordable zoom lenses.

Because they used to be expensive, filmmakers think that an overhead shot will make their films look slick and professional and expensive.

In Horror Film Aesthetics, I observed that in They (2002), the camera looks directly down upon (rather than from an angle at) city buildings. Aesthetically, seeing building roofs and city streets passing below us creates (1) an emotionally unsettling geometric pattern, because an ordinary city suddenly looked "alien" to us, and (2) creates a sense of some evil looming overhead.

 

 

But in 2002, such shots were fresh, rare, and therefore emotionally jarring. But as with Japanese ghosts crawling along the floor with their faces obscured, the emotional impact of overhead drone shots have lost their punch as audiences become jaded through repeated exposure.

I also love the moving overhead shot of bridges to New Jersey in Lost Souls. In the context of the story, with the brooding clouds and sun breaking over the skyline (I wonder how much color correction was done in post?), the cinematography creates a sense of impending Apocalypse.

And again, because of its expense, that kind of shot was rarely seen. (Lost Souls was released in 2000, but shot in 1997, so I'm assuming the shot was created with a helicopter.)

At this point, overhead drone shots are so commonplace, they no longer impress. Audience know that drone shots aren't expensive. Plus, so many crappy low-budget films open with overhead drone shots, I groan when I see them, expecting the worst. Another poor filmmaker who hopes to hide his poor story and actors with technical wizardry.

One "cool shot" cannot compensate for a poor story, mediocre acting, and sloppy production values in the overall film. Actually, it can have the opposite effect. If the film is mostly bad, then one great element (a beautiful shot, a classic song, a single fine actor) can create a contrast, highlighting how awful is the rest of the film.

When computer video editing software became widespread some 20 years ago. I'd watch low-budget, independent horror films with amazing opening credits that raised my hopes and expectations. And then followed a really bad film, like something a group of amateurs had shot with a camcorder.

Amazing opening credits only makes a bad film look worse. The same can be said of drone shots.

Drone shots, like all technical aspects in a film, should be aesthetically motivated. Which means they should support the film's story, characters, or themes.

And sometimes the old ways are best. An establishing shot doesn't have to be from the sky. Unless there's some point to an overhead shot, a ground level shot will do just a nicely. Focus on telling a good story with a talented cast; not on wowing us with your new toy.

 ==================

For more information on framing and cinematography in horror films, see Horror Film Aesthetics: Creating the Visual Language of Fear. This blog represents a continuing discussion of my views on horror, picking up from where the book left off.

Do Young Fans Ignore Old Horror Films?

Horror filmdom has suffered a rash of remakes these past few decades. It's one of the more disheartening trends in modern horror.

What was the point of the Omen remake? It mimicked the original, scene for scene, but without Jerry Goldsmith's creepily demonic music soundtrack. Nearly identical, minus some of the better parts.

The Haunting remake was no better despite offering a new story. The remake removed all the ghostly atmosphere and subtle characterizations of the original, replacing them with embarrassingly silly and inappropriate CGI effects. I suppose Hollywood thought that “modern” means CGI.

Dozens of other examples come to mind. But the big question: What's the point of all these remakes?

John Carpenter offers a theory. In the Special Features documentary on The Fog remake's DVD (another inferior remake), Carpenter says:

“I've heard several reasons why horror films are being remade. One, I think, probably is the simplest explanation, is a lot of kids have heard of these movies, but they've never really seen them. Maybe they've heard their older brothers or their parents talk about them. So it's in their consciousness, but they've never paid attention.

“But in general there's a cultural mindset right now that says anything over fifteen years old is kind of dead and old-fashioned. And so in order to make it viable again, we need to take it out, and kind of give it a fresh coat of paint, and try to revise the corpse.”

So Hollywood thinks that young horror fans have heard of these old films and are interested in seeing them, but refuse to do so because the films are over 15 years old.

Huh?

Does anyone say, “Wow, that film sounds great. I'd like to see it. But it's old, and so I can't.”

Not only illogical, but contrary to the evidence.

Horror is the most enduring of genres. The 1930s Dracula and Frankenstein films remain widely known and admired nearly a century later. Even lesser known horror films from that period (e.g., The Black Cat, The Raven, Maniac, The Devil Bat) win new fans each year. Despite some exceptions (e.g., Gone with the Wind, Stagecoach) the same cannot be said for dramas or westerns from the 1930s.

Horror is evergreen. Hardcore horror fans love horror films from every decade. There's no need to remake the older films (even if Hollywood does, on rare occasion, do it well, as in 1978's Invasion of the Body Snatchers).

So why does Hollywood produce so many remakes? Three theories come to mind.

1. Famous older films are seen as a pre-sold commodity, hence, a “sure thing.”

2. Hollywood has run out of new ideas.

3. Young horror fans refuse to watch any horror films made before the 2000s.

Of those three theories, I doubt there's much truth to #3. Young casual film goers might shun older horror films -- but not young hardcore horror film fans.

Ironically, the hardcore horror film fan is the core target market for these horror remakes. Why? Because only they would know about, or care about, all the horror films that have been remade over the past 15 years.

The Toolbox Murders Thirteen Ghosts, The House on Haunted Hill -- all remade (even when they only kept the title). Not the sort of films known to casual film goers, but films that continue to attract hardcore horror fans of every age.

I believe that hardcore horror film fans of every age, being connoisseurs, appreciate horror films of every era. No need for all the bad remakes. Try to come up with something original (e.g., It Follows).

==============

To learn about the four attractions of horror films, see Horror Film Aesthetics: Creating the Visual Language of Fear. This blog represents a continuing discussion of my views on horror, picking up from where the book left off.

 

Beneath: A Cave Horror and Its Brief Glimpses in the Dark

Beneath: A Cave Horror (2018) accomplishes much with little. Its story is unoriginal and its cast is unpolished, yet the film has a creepy atmosphere and genuine scares.

The story consists of five young tour guides who work for a local cave attraction. The cave is infamous as the site where a cult conducted a human sacrifice to conjure a demon -- the Midnight Man -- back in 1966. And so, on Halloween night of "The Present Day" (as the screen credits inform us), the tour guides conceive the bright idea of holding a party in the cave along with a ceremony to conjure the Midnight Man.

No, they don't intend a human sacrifice. Just a little blood drawn from each guide's finger. Perhaps a human sacrifice is unnecessary because the Midnight Man presumably already lives in the cave, but, as the internet informs them, he slumbers after every ten years if he's not called. So this is a lesser ceremony meant to wake him. (Okay, the rationales are kinda murky.)

Beneath runs at about 78 minutes (not including end credits), and our heroes enter the cave a half hour into the film. So most of this low budget affair is set in the cave.

The cave provides a dark, creepy, claustrophobic atmosphere. Some areas are well lit, but I suppose a tourist attraction would have a light setup. At some point, the guides wander off the designated tour path, and it gets darker.

Like many low-budget horror films, Beneath demonstrates that nature does not discriminate against the poor. A cave (or forest, or desert, or beach) looks equally impressive whatever the budget.

But I especially admire Beneath's handling of the demonic Midnight Man. I'm not a big fan of Full Moon's rubber suit demons. By contrast, the Midnight Man is just a man in a black suit wearing a gray alien mask (well, a beige alien). The face is original and unexpected (not your usual demon) and thus startling at first glance.

Filmmaker J.J. Perez doesn't spend much screen time showing us his demon. Only brief glimpses in the dark, usually in wide or medium shots. This is wise because lingering on the face, especially in close-up, would lessen the tension. The face would more obviously appear as a silly mask.

If you have an obvious mask, or crude make-up, best limit its appearance to brief glimpses. Plus there's the theory that if an audience doesn't clearly see something, their imaginations will fill in the unseen details with the worst assumptions.

This technique of showing only brief glimpses of the horrific can also be seen in Tower of Evil (British, 1972) the "Mannikins of Horror" (sic) episode of Monsters (1989), and The Crane Wife (2024).

Perez uses another old trick to good effect, one that combines lighting and editing:

Sarah (Meghan Forbes) is alone in the cave when her flashlight runs out of power. So she uses her camera's flash as a light, repeatedly taking photos, seeing what's up ahead with each flash. For the first two flashes, she sees nothing. The next four flashes shows the Midnight Man approaching. Sarah grows ever more panicked. (Why doesn't she run?) But the next two flashes shows no demon.

Is Sarah safe?

Horror fans know that, though the demon appears to have left, the next time Sarah flashes her camera, the demon will be right in front of her. And sure enough, that's what happens.

 

It's an old trick, but it works. It's one of the most effective scares in Beneath.

Beneath: A Cave Horror, has a low score on IMDB. Yes, the film is rough in spots. The cast's delivery of the unoriginal dialog is stilted at times. Even so, Perez displays talent. I enjoy Beneath for what it is: well made trash horror with much entertainment value.

=========================

For more information on lighting or editing in horror films, see Horror Film Aesthetics: Creating the Visual Language of Fear. This blog represents a continuing discussion of my views on horror, picking up from where the book left off.