The Shining Case

When comparing the infamous Stanley Kubrick's 1980 film, The Shining, to a modern 2011 horror film called Paranormal Activity 3 it was easy to see the overwhelming differences from one film to the other. Not only was there a huge gap in time between the movies, but a very obvious and distinct difference in their styles. Although both films do fall under the horror category, the execution of the directors' approaches at using light, sound, and the camera to scare the audience were remarkably different.

In Stanley Kubrick's, The Shining, the method of story telling is more extreme. The story, with the help of the actors is somewhat dramatic and theatrical. There is a seemingly drastic sound and lighting approach to accompany the sometimes blunt and direct shots (like that of jack freezing to death). The simplicity of a shot like this with the right lighting and sound makes it far more disturbing to the audience. Kubrick was known for his abilities in photography which made the cinematography of his films very compelling. Something unique about The Shining is that it is knows as most unnerving film in cinematic history yet it strays from typical methods of horror movies. In many parts of the movie there is an unnatural calmness & normalcy that contrasts with horror and eeriness. The movie doesnt employ classic horror genre visual elements, but instead creates a very different kind of scary movie. Kubrick used wide lenses. By implementing these throughout the movie, you are able to see what character the sees, no hidden places, and you cannot expect what will be around the next corner.

In Paranormal Activity 3, however, is filmed in a "home footage format" which has been the method for all 3 movies in the Paranormal Activity franchise so far. In the three installments, events took place from the point of view of home cameras and surveillance cameras setup by the the victims . The whole hook of these movies was the audience's fear that these kind of supernatural occurrences could, or maybe do, happen in their very own home. This movie has a rhythmic formula from the cutting from one camera to the next, a pattern that is followed over and over, looking for action. All but one camera is stationary and the one that is not is a handheld camera and all the footage from that particular camera is shaky, and askew just as if it were a home movie.