MovieChat Forums > The Den (2014) Discussion > Question About Footage Inconsistencies

Question About Footage Inconsistencies

posted 9 years ago by mf61581
6 replies | jump to latest

I understand that most of the footage that the viewer sees is provided by people's webcams (and planted cameras in the torture locations). However, I'm a bit confused about the footage for a certain part of the film - from the events taking place inside the sister's home through the time that Elizabeth returns home with the police officer. We see the aftermath of the attack on the sister from a perspective inside the sister's house. If I'm not mistaken, the perspective is not stationary, meaning that there is a camera moving around capturing different people/events (presumably from a person moving around). Also, we see Elizabeth getting into a police car, someone following that car (along with video of that other car and a mask in the backseat), Elizabeth arriving home, gathering stuff inside her place, etc. The perspective changes here as well. It is possible that the interior footage has been compiled from a series of cameras in multiple locations inside the sister's home as well as Elizabeth's home. However, there is a certain point where the perspective appears to be right behind the police officer as he surveys Elizabeth's house, suggesting that there was a person behind him. Furthermore, there is footage as Elizabeth frantically flees her apartment. She is obviously not holding her phone out to record at this time, so where does this footage come from? It doesn't make sense.

How was all of this accomplished? Are we to believe that all of the footage shown is merely from pre-planted cameras and not from any people carrying cameras? This is not realistic given the footage from the other car, outside the homes, etc. I suppose it is possible that the footage is functioning as an omnisicient narrator (rather than relying on webcam coverage) and the filmmakers are utilizing this style to be consistent with the rest of the film. If this is the case, it is a confusing technique and is very manipulative to the viewer. I can't think of another explanation. The storytelling technique (either the traditional camera work or the found-footage variety) should be consistent throughout.

Can anyone shed light on these inconsistencies? I'd appreciate it.

Just because your father tried to eat you do we all have to be unhappy .... forever?

[–] goddessofgoalies 9 years ago

yes that part was driving me crazy too- who in the world would be filming?

[–] timlin-4 9 years ago

some shots seem to be hand-held by the website operatives, and she seems to be recording a lot either intentionally or unintentionally

[–] LightningBalt 9 years ago

I figure one of the officers investigating the crime scene was also one of the perps, hence the ability to walk around filming without arousing suspicion.

[–] crackedvenom 8 years ago

This. If you noticed, he was more than likely part of CSI, as to why he went unnoticed while grabbing the camera. He also had gloves on to show that.

[–] rageinblack 8 years ago

I think, first the camera was put in a plastic bag as evidence and left where it was found, untill one of the killers came along and picked it up during the police interrogation of the pregnant woman.

[–] rageinblack 8 years ago

That's the biggest problem with such, found footage movies, as - why the camera is filming - excuse only a few found footage movies have done this right from start to finish, the majority makes these movies unbelievable, and this movie was almost the exception but no... they kinda screwed it all up, by confusing me and making me enjoy the movie less, then I would if the camera excuses would be more plausible. 6 out of 10.