🔗 Share this article

After the massive found-footage horror boom of the 2000s following The Blair Witch Project, the subgenre didn't fade away but rather evolved into different styles. Audiences saw the emergence of “screenlife” movies, freshly stylized versions of the first-person perspective, and ambitious single-shot films dominating the screens where shakycam shots and improbably dogged filmmakers once reigned.

One significant exception to this pattern is the ongoing V/H/S series, a scary-story collection that created its own boom in brief scary films and has kept the first-person vision alive through multiple themed installments. The eighth in the series, 2025’s V/H/S Halloween, includes several shorts that all take place around Halloween, connected with a framing narrative (“Diet Phantasma”) that involves a completely detached scientist conducting a series of consumer product tests on a diet cola that eliminates the people sampling it in a variety of messy, extreme ways.

At V/H/S Halloween’s global debut at the 2025 version of the Fantastic Fest film festival, all seven V/H/S Halloween filmmakers gathered for a post-screening Q&A where director Anna Zlokovic described found-footage horror as “hard as fuck to shoot.” Her co-directors applauded in reply. The directors later explained why they feel shooting a first-person film is more difficult — or in some instances, simpler! — than creating a conventional horror movie.

This interview has been condensed for concision and understanding.

Why Is Found-Footage Horror So Challenging to Film?

One director, co-director of “Home Haunt”: In my view the most challenging thing as an artist is having restrictions by your creative ideas, because each element has to be motivated by the character operating the camera. So I believe that's the thing that's hard as fuck for me, is to separate myself from my imagination and my concepts, and needing to remain in a box.

Alex Ross Perry, filmmaker of “Kidprint”: In fact mentioned to her recently — I concur with that, but I also differ with it vehemently in a very specific way, because I really love an unrestricted environment that's all-around. I found this to be so freeing, because the movement and the filming are the identical. In traditional filmmaking, the blocking and the shots are diametrically opposed.

If the character has to look left, the coverage has to look right. And the reality that once you set up the action [in a found-footage movie], you have figured out your shots — that was so remarkable to me. I've seen 500 first-person movies, but until you film your first shaky-cam movie… The first day, you're like, “Ohhh!”

So once you understand where the person goes, that's the filming — the lens doesn't shift left when the actor moves right, the camera advances when the person progresses. You film the scene once, and that's it — we avoid get his line. It progresses in a single path, it arrives at the end, and then we proceed in the next direction. As a storyteller seeking simplicity, who hasn't shot a traditional-coverage scene in years, I was like, "This is great, this restriction actually is liberating, because you only have to figure out the same thing once."

A third director, director of “Coochie Coochie Coo”: In my opinion the difficult aspect is the audience's acceptance for the audience. Everything has to feel real. The sound has to seem like it's genuinely occurring. The acting have to feel grounded. If you have something like an grown man in a nappy, how do you sell that as realistic? It's ridiculous, but you have to make it feel like it fits in the environment properly. I discovered that to be challenging — you can lose people easily at any point. It only requires a single mistake.

Another filmmaker, director of “Diet Phantasma”: I agree with Alex — as soon as you finalize the movement, it's excellent. But when you've got so many practical effects happening at the same time, and trying to make sure you're capturing it and not making errors, and then preparation attempts — you have a certain amount of time to get all these elements correctly.

Our set had a large barrier in the way, and you couldn't hear anyone. Alex's [shoot] sounds like great fun. Our project was extremely difficult. I only had three days to complete it. It is liberating, because with first-person filming, you can take certain liberties. Although you make a mistake, it was destined to appear like trash anyway, because you're putting filters on it, or you're employing a garbage camera. So it's good and it's challenging.

R.H. Norman, co-director of “Home Haunt”: In my view establishing pace is very challenging if you're filming primarily oners. Our approach was, "OK, this is edited in camera. There's this guy, the dad, and he operates the camera, and that creates our edits." That required a lot of fake oners. But you really have to live in the moment. You really have to observe exactly how your shot appears, because what's going into the lens, and in certain cases, there's no cutting around it.

We were aware we only had a few attempts for each scene, because ours was highly demanding. We attempted to focus on discovering different rhythms between the attempts, because we were unsure what we were would achieve in post-production. And the real challenge with first-person filming is, you're needing to conceal those edits on moving fog, on all sorts of stuff, and you cannot predict where those edits are will be placed, and if they're going to betray your whole enterprise of attempting to create like a fluid first-person lens traveling through a realistic environment.

Zlokovic: You should try to avoid trying to hide it with digital errors as often as possible, but you have to occasionally, because the process is difficult.

Norman: In fact, she is correct. It is simple. Simply add glitches the content out of it.

Another filmmaker, director of “Ut Supra Sic Infra”: For me, the biggest aspect is convincing the viewers accept the people using the device would persist, instead of fleeing. That’s also the most important element. There are certain first-person scenarios where I simply don't believe the people would continue recording.

And I think the camera should consistently be delayed to whatever's happening, because that happens in real life. For me, the illusion is ruined if the camera is positioned beforehand, expecting an event to happen. If you are present, filming, and you detect a sound and pan toward it, that noise is already gone. And I think that gives a sense of authenticity that it's very important to maintain.

What's the One Scene in Your Movie That You're Proudest Of?

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

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