Much has been made of the nausea-inducing handheld camera work in the monsters-invading-New York movie Cloverfield. Reviews recommending that you sit towards the back of the theater, especially if you're susceptible to motion sickness, movie theaters posting signs, recommending the same… and a huge second week drop-off in ticket sales that, one assumes, has more to do with the nausea factor than any bad word of mouth. Because, say what you will about the movie's overwhelming conceit, you can't say it's not an effective one. (See meanings 3a and b — you're choice as to whether it's fanciful or strained in this case will, most likely, stem from your actual appreciation of said conceit.)
I, generally, don't care much for hand held camera work (as I've stated, more than once). But I not only didn't mind it this time, I found it incredibly effective and a great storytelling tool.
This time around, the camera work is more in the style of Blair Witch Project than the above referenced Bourne Supremacy. It is, in fact, the primary storytelling tool in this movie. We see the entire movie through the viewfinder of a video camera. And while the metaphor gets stretched to the breaking point (hence my reference to a conceit), it gets the job done… more effectively bringing you into the action, and making it all much more immediate than I think the film would have been had it been shot more traditionally.
This contributes to my acceptance of the handheld work this time around. Since the entire movie is shot from this perspective, you're never subjected to the disorienting jerk that comes from going from standard cinematic storytelling (with its smooth arcs, pans and zooms) to the jerkiness of the handheld camera. After the first few minutes, it stops calling attention to itself simply because there's no contrasting camera style within the movie to compare it to. (Of course, if you ARE susceptible to motion sickness, that also means there's nowhere to escape. Hence the torrents of vomit, of course.)
As I walked out of the movie, I realized that what I'd really seen today was, quite possibly, the best representation of a first person videogame viewpoint I've yet to see. Forget about the gimmicky 5 minute FPS (FPS: Firt Person Shooter) segment in the well-nigh unwatchable Doom movie… this was the real deal. For the duration of the movie, you experience it all through the viewfinder of the camera operator (I was especially amused that the guy running the camera is called Hud—in this case, short for Hudson. For those wondering WHY I was amused, in videogame parlance the acronym HUD stands for Heads Up Display, a key interface element in most FPS's, and videogames in general).
So despite my reservations about the shakicam approach, despite an ending that pretty much defines "unresolved endings" (one MUST assume this is the prequel to a fully fleshed monster movie — no pun intended — that will resolve all those nagging, unresolved questions), I really enjoyed Cloverfield. Now we just have to hope it did well enough that they can finish telling their story.
I, generally, don't care much for hand held camera work (as I've stated, more than once). But I not only didn't mind it this time, I found it incredibly effective and a great storytelling tool.
This time around, the camera work is more in the style of Blair Witch Project than the above referenced Bourne Supremacy. It is, in fact, the primary storytelling tool in this movie. We see the entire movie through the viewfinder of a video camera. And while the metaphor gets stretched to the breaking point (hence my reference to a conceit), it gets the job done… more effectively bringing you into the action, and making it all much more immediate than I think the film would have been had it been shot more traditionally.
This contributes to my acceptance of the handheld work this time around. Since the entire movie is shot from this perspective, you're never subjected to the disorienting jerk that comes from going from standard cinematic storytelling (with its smooth arcs, pans and zooms) to the jerkiness of the handheld camera. After the first few minutes, it stops calling attention to itself simply because there's no contrasting camera style within the movie to compare it to. (Of course, if you ARE susceptible to motion sickness, that also means there's nowhere to escape. Hence the torrents of vomit, of course.)
As I walked out of the movie, I realized that what I'd really seen today was, quite possibly, the best representation of a first person videogame viewpoint I've yet to see. Forget about the gimmicky 5 minute FPS (FPS: Firt Person Shooter) segment in the well-nigh unwatchable Doom movie… this was the real deal. For the duration of the movie, you experience it all through the viewfinder of the camera operator (I was especially amused that the guy running the camera is called Hud—in this case, short for Hudson. For those wondering WHY I was amused, in videogame parlance the acronym HUD stands for Heads Up Display, a key interface element in most FPS's, and videogames in general).
So despite my reservations about the shakicam approach, despite an ending that pretty much defines "unresolved endings" (one MUST assume this is the prequel to a fully fleshed monster movie — no pun intended — that will resolve all those nagging, unresolved questions), I really enjoyed Cloverfield. Now we just have to hope it did well enough that they can finish telling their story.
Comments