🔗 Share this article

Following the massive shaky-cam thriller boom of the 2000s following The Blair Witch Project, the subgenre didn't fade away but rather evolved into new forms. Viewers saw the rise of computer-screen films, freshly stylized interpretations of the first-person perspective, and showy one-take movies largely taking over the screens where shakycam shots and unbelievably persistent camera operators once reigned.

One significant exception to this trend is the ongoing V/H/S series, a horror anthology that spawned its own boom in short-form horror and has kept the found-footage dream active through multiple themed installments. The latest in the franchise, 2025’s V/H/S Halloween, includes five shorts that all occur around the spooky season, strung together with a framing narrative (“Diet Phantasma”) that follows a completely detached researcher leading a series of consumer product tests on a diet cola that eliminates the participants trying it in a variety of chaotic, over-the-top ways.

At V/H/S Halloween’s world premiere at the 2025 edition of the Fantastic Fest film festival, all seven V/H/S Halloween filmmakers assembled for a post-screening Q&A where filmmaker Anna Zlokovic characterized first-person scary movies as “extremely difficult to shoot.” Her co-directors applauded in reply. They later explained why they believe shooting a first-person film is tougher — or in one case, simpler! — than making a conventional horror movie.

This interview has been condensed for concision and clarity.

Why Is Found-Footage Horror So Difficult to Shoot?

One director, co-director of “Home Haunt”: In my view the biggest thing as an artist is having restrictions by your creative ideas, because everything has to be motivated by the person operating the camera. So I think that's the thing that's incredibly tough for me, is to separate myself from my imagination and my concepts, and having to stay in a box.

Alex Ross Perry, filmmaker of “Kidprint”: I actually told her recently — I agree with that, but I also disagree with it strongly in a particular way, because I greatly enjoy an unrestricted environment that's all-around. I found this to be so liberating, because the blocking and the filming are the identical. In conventional movie-making, the blocking and the shots are diametrically opposed.

If the character has to turn left, the camera angle has to face right. And the reality that once you block the scene [in a found-footage movie], you have figured out your coverage — that was so remarkable to me. I've seen numerous found-footage films, but until you film your initial shaky-cam movie… The first day, you're like, “Ohhh!”

So once you know where the character moves, that's the filming — the camera doesn't shift left when the character moves right, the camera moves forward when the person progresses. You shoot the sequence one time, and that's it — we don't have to get his line. It progresses in one direction, it arrives at the conclusion, and then we proceed in the next direction. As a storyteller seeking simplicity, avoiding a standard multi-angle shot in years, I was like, "This is great, this limitation actually is liberating, because you just need to determine the same thing once."

A third director, director of “Coochie Coochie Coo”: In my opinion the difficult aspect is the suspension of disbelief for the viewers. Each detail has to appear authentic. The sound has to seem like it's actually happening. The acting have to appear believable. If you have an element like an adult man in a nappy, how do you make that as plausible? It's ridiculous, but you have to create the sense like it fits in the world correctly. I discovered that to be challenging — you can lose people easily at any point. It just takes one fuck-up.

Bryan M. Ferguson, creator of “Diet Phantasma”: I agree with Alex — as soon as you get the blocking down, it's excellent. But when you've got numerous physical effects occurring at one time, and trying to make sure you're panning onto it and not fucking up, and then preparation attempts — you only get a certain amount of time to achieve all these things correctly.

The filming location had a large barrier in the way, and you couldn't hear anyone. Alex's [shoot] sounds like very enjoyable. Ours was very hard. I only had 72 hours to complete it. It is liberating, because with found footage, you can take certain liberties. Although you do fuck it up, it was destined to appear like trash anyway, because you're putting filters on it, or you're employing a low-quality camera. So it's good and it's challenging.

R.H. Norman, co-director of “Home Haunt”: I would say finding rhythm is quite difficult if you're shooting mostly single takes. The method we used was, "Alright, this is filmed continuously. There's this guy, the father, and he turns the camera on and off, and that creates our edits." That entailed a lot of fake oners. But you really have to live in the moment. You need to observe exactly how your shot feels, because what is captured by the camera, and in some instances, there's no editing solution.

We knew we had only two or three takes per shot, because ours was highly demanding. We really tried to concentrate on discovering varying paces between the attempts, because we were unsure what we were going to get in editing. And the true difficulty with first-person filming is, you're needing to conceal those cuts on moving fog, on various elements, and you cannot predict where those edits are going to live, and if they're going to betray your entire project of trying to feel like a seamless first-person camera traveling through a realistic environment.

The director: You want to avoid concealing it with glitches as often as possible, but you have to sometimes, because the shit's hard.

Her colleague: In fact, she's right. It is simple. Simply add glitches the content out of it.

Another filmmaker, director of “Ut Supra Sic Infra”: For me, the most challenging thing is convincing the audience believe the people operating the device would continue, rather than fleeing. That’s also the most important element. There are certain first-person scenarios where I just cannot accept the people would keep filming.

And I think the device should always be delayed to any event, because that happens in reality. For me, the illusion is destroyed if the camera is positioned beforehand, anticipating something to occur. If you are here, recording, and you hear a noise and pan toward it, that sound is no longer there. And I think that gives a feeling of truth that it's very important to preserve.

Which Is the One Scene in Your Movie That You're Most Satisfied With?

One director: The protagonist seated at a multi-screen setup of video editing, with four different videos playing out at the identical moment. That's all analog. We filmed those clips previously. Then the editor processed them, and then we put them on four computers connected to several screens.

That shot of the character sitting there with four different videotapes playing — I was like, 'This is the visual I wanted out of this project.' If it was the sole image I viewed of this film, I would be pressing play right now: 'This looks cool!' But it was harder than it appears, because it's like multiple crew members activating playback at the identical moment. It looks so simple, but it took several days of preparation to achieve that image.