"Cloverfield" making some viewers sick.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Senseless is the key word I think. If it doesn't fit the story, it's just annoying.

 

Often the story is annoying and senseless. So one needs something to take one out of the story, give one a chance to check the bus schedule.

[Adam Roades]

I'm really curious as to how many of the people here trashing the visual style have actually seen the film.

 

For example, Daniel Sheehy made a clever quip about implementing a crane and if asked where it came, the producer should "tell him it comes from the same place the music does." The problem with that is the music in the film all comes from on location sources. Which of the point of the film.

 

It's not trying to be shaky for the purpose of being shaky. It's being shaky to give the feeling of a documentary film. To put in cranes and dollies would essentially ruin the concept of the film. And that's what it essentially is, a concept film. Without the concept of it being an in-the-moment document of a monster ravaging a city, it's just Godzilla. Who needs another one of those. Cinematography doesn't have to be pretty. It is there primarily to serve the ideas behind the film.

[Daniel Sheehy]

It's not trying to be shaky for the purpose of being shaky. It's being shaky to give the feeling of a documentary film. To put in cranes and dollies would essentially ruin the concept of the film. And that's what it essentially is, a concept film. Without the concept of it being an in-the-moment document of a monster ravaging a city, it's just Godzilla. Who needs another one of those. Cinematography doesn't have to be pretty. It is there primarily to serve the ideas behind the film.

The crane comment was tongue-in-cheek.

 

No, as I said in my first post, I have not watched the movie yet, I intend to wait for the DVD release. I watched the trailer on the big screen and based on that, (which was supposed to 'sell' the movie to me) I decided that I would not watch it on the big screen, because of the camera work.

 

I have friends who have watched it and they came out with differing opinions. One who works in production with me enjoyed it because she could appreciate the technical challenges. However, she had to look away from the screen occasionally, because of the overpoweringly shaky camera.

The other friend, who is not as technically savvy, simply disliked the movie, again because of the camera work

 

Well I guess that brings us right round the block to the old argument over whether art is merely for the enjoyment of the creator, or for an audience. I think it's beyond argument that a Hollywood film is for the audience. Thus it would seem pretty self-defeating to insist on authenticity in a feature film to the extent where it deters viewers. But that is just my 2c. This discussion has been had before...

[Adam Roades]

The crane comment was tongue-in-cheek.

 

No, as I said in my first post, I have not watched the movie yet, I intend to wait for the DVD release. I watched the trailer on the big screen and based on that, (which was supposed to 'sell' the movie to me) I decided that I would not watch it on the big screen, because of the camera work.

 

I have friends who have watched it and they came out with differing opinions. One who works in production with me enjoyed it because she could appreciate the technical challenges. However, she had to look away from the screen occasionally, because of the overpoweringly shaky camera.

The other friend, who is not as technically savvy, simply disliked the movie, again because of the camera work

 

Well I guess that brings us right round the block to the old argument over whether art is merely for the enjoyment of the creator, or for an audience. I think it's beyond argument that a Hollywood film is for the audience. Thus it would seem pretty self-defeating to insist on authenticity in a feature film to the extent where it deters viewers. But that is just my 2c. This discussion has been had before...

 

I can definitely understand how someone could get motion sickness while watching, especially if they are prone to it. I just think it's crazy that people are belittling the film's technical complexity. They're jumping to the conclusion that the shaky camera equals laziness on the cinematographer's/director's/producer's part, which is absurd in this film's case. I mean, it's not like they just handed the camera to an actor and said, "go wild." The shots are well thought out, showing the viewer everything they need to see, while still feeling like chaotic documentary footage (which is pretty impressive in my eyes). Very reminiscent of the visceral WTC collapse street footage.

 

I didn't mean to single you out before, it was just the first comment my eyes landed on that suggested judging before seeing. I didn't mean any offense by it.

[Chris Keth]

I can definitely understand how someone could get motion sickness while watching, especially if they are prone to it. I just think it's crazy that people are belittling the film's technical complexity. They're jumping to the conclusion that the shaky camera equals laziness on the cinematographer's/director's/producer's part, which is absurd in this film's case. I mean, it's not like they just handed the camera to an actor and said, "go wild." The shots are well thought out, showing the viewer everything they need to see, while still feeling like chaotic documentary footage (which is pretty impressive in my eyes). Very reminiscent of the visceral WTC collapse street footage.

 

I didn't mean to single you out before, it was just the first comment my eyes landed on that suggested judging before seeing. I didn't mean any offense by it.

 

I actually have not seen Cloverfield so tell me if my comments don't apply. I think, as a movie, it should balance that feeling of authenticity, entertainment, and "watchability." The aesthetic of found documentary footage could still come across if they prettied up the operation enough that people wouldn't become ill from it.

Edited January 25, 2008 by Chris Keth

[Charles Talbott Jr]

Handheld WAS used sparingly in Cloverfield. It was only used for shots where it was appropriate to be handheld, i.e. in the case of Cloverfield: every single shot.

 

Yes, Ruairi, I understand that with regards to "Cloverfield". My opinion, in this case, was referencing the trend of using handheld in narrative films when a different creative choice would be more suitable. Obviously, going handheld doesn't make shooting a picnic for the operator, but I find that it's a lazy choice sometimes by the Director and as evidenced [by the article] above...not very audience friendly. I wasn't specifically bashing "Cloverfield". No offense meant, sir.

[Adam Roades]

I actually have not seen Cloverfield so tell me if my comments don't apply. I think, as a movie, it should balance that feeling of authenticity, entertainment, and "watchability." The aesthetic of found documentary footage could still come across if they prettied up the operation enough that people wouldn't become ill from it.

 

Well, I can't really speak for the people that it made sick, but I thought it was extremely watchable and well shot.

[Chris Keth]

Well, I can't really speak for the people that it made sick, but I thought it was extremely watchable and well shot.

 

Maybe flat, quiet Oklahoma predisposes its residents to motionsickness. :) I just know I'd be pretty miffed if I paid for a movie that turned out to be unwatchable for me.

[Daniel Sheehy]

Well, I can't really speak for the people that it made sick, but I thought it was extremely watchable and well shot.

I just spoke to another friend who watched it on the big screen. He enjoyed the plot, but again, he was put off by the camera work. It 'irritated' him. (His description.)

Edited January 25, 2008 by Daniel Sheehy

[Adam Roades]

I just spoke to another friend who watched it on the big screen. He enjoyed the plot, but again, he was put off by the camera work. It 'irritated' him. (His description.)

 

I actually had the exact opposite reaction. The plot was serviceable but nothing spectacular. I thought the visceral element that the camera work and art direction added really made the film. The sound editing really added to it too.

[Brian Dzyak]

As Cameramen, we are supposed to (in collaboration with the Director) develop a visual style, both in lighting and operating, that contributes to the creative sensibilities of the story. So while one story may call for a lot of static wide shots (like in The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and His Lover) another may call for "unconsidered" handheld (as in Blair Witch). Fair enough.

 

However, when the techniques being employed to tell the story begin to impede the audience's ability to actually watch the movie, then the original purpose may indeed call for a reexamination. This could involve shaky cam (as in this case) or something like constant strobe lighting effects blasting from the screen for 90 minutes. Or, hypothetically, having a character screech a monologue in a very irritating way for the full 90 minutes while the rest of the story continues behind her.

 

So point being, it is clear that a movie like Cloverfield is being told from the POV of an onscreen character who is operating the camera which is capturing the event/story. However, at a certain point, if the inherent shaky effect keeps potential audience from actually paying for a ticket (someone like me), then while the artist may have achieved his victory in principle (he got the story told the way he wanted), he also failed because he chose to not find an acceptable compromise that would allow everyone the opportunity to watch the screen for 90 minutes without wanting to puke. In that, I believe the Cameraman failed as well in that he did may not have adequately "warned" the Director that too much shaky-cam for a sustained amount of time can actually turn off audiences. It should be our responsibility as "Directors of Photography" to be the stewards of how the images will be received by audiences. We may not have the ability to "decide," but we have the responsibility to "recommend."

[Evan Winter]

<rant>

The film is financially successful ($40 million weekend), well reviewed (74% rotten tomatoes), and well liked (8.0 on IMDB as voted on by 26.5K people). For all those concerned about the camera work; at the very least see the film before you pass judgement.

 

Having said that, I've seen it. The camerawork is complex and clearly carefully designed. So much of the time you are left feeling as if you want to see just a little bit more than you do (it's the essence of thrilling). It's also the audience control of Hitchcock meshed with an entirely concept driven style.

 

What's more, I watched the film at the Grove in Hollywood and the theatre was packed (roughly 500 or so people) and not a single person left the room. The whole motion sickness thing is hype at its best. Instead of real news or information we end up with infotainment. Sure, some people will feel nauseous but some people feel nauseous sitting in the back seat of a moving car.

 

Reading through the last two pages of posts have been a surreal experience. It feels extremely 'can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees'...

 

</rant>

 

Evan

[Mike Panczenko]

Well, to chime in, I saw it and I did get nauseous- which has never happened before. I had to close my eyes for a few seconds and sip my water to ease it. But, I also did enjoy the movie and am glad I saw it. It was a well done movie with a nice spin on a classic idea. I do think that they should have toned down the shaky-cam concept and sought a happy medium, but, on the scale of things, my liking of the movie overall outweighed my nausea at the camera-work.

[Adam Roades]

<rant>

The film is financially successful ($40 million weekend), well reviewed (74% rotten tomatoes), and well liked (8.0 on IMDB as voted on by 26.5K people). For all those concerned about the camera work; at the very least see the film before you pass judgement.

 

Having said that, I've seen it. The camerawork is complex and clearly carefully designed. So much of the time you are left feeling as if you want to see just a little bit more than you do (it's the essence of thrilling). It's also the audience control of Hitchcock meshed with an entirely concept driven style.

 

What's more, I watched the film at the Grove in Hollywood and the theatre was packed (roughly 500 or so people) and not a single person left the room. The whole motion sickness thing is hype at its best. Instead of real news or information we end up with infotainment. Sure, some people will feel nauseous but some people feel nauseous sitting in the back seat of a moving car.

 

Reading through the last two pages of posts have been a surreal experience. It feels extremely 'can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees'...

 

</rant>

 

Evan

 

Glad someone else feels the same way.

[Alessandro Machi]

I noticed this on CNN's site:

 

http://www.koco.com/news/15112533/detail.html

 

I wonder if this could be an artifact of a film being edited on small screens with a TV aesthetic. Even the shakiest camera won't bother me on TV but on the big screen is another story.

 

lol, I mentioned this exact thing on another topic about Cloverfield, the radio reviewer actually threw up during the movie from all the shakiness yet still gave the movie a thumbs up.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I think you probably have hit the nail on the head, viewing on a small screen can give a different "feeling" than viewing on a big screen. My biggest gripe about the Lord of the Rings fight scenes were the several hundred 4 to 8 frame shots that were nothing but a blur on the screen, they actually had less resolution than a well shot super-8 film frame. I suppose in Cloverfield those types of shots are now sharp and that must make a huge difference.

[Paul Bruening]

Hello good folks,

 

It is very interesting to me that the negative reactions to shakey-cam are personal. I'm noticing that if the movie just plain stinks, there will be negative reviews but few people seem to be personally upset with it. Movies that over-employ shakey-cam seem to be able to enter into the viewers and cause personal reactions. I mean, we all, as creators, hope to make something that impacts our viewers. Shakey-cam appears to have a power to do that... to shift a movie into a personal relationship with viewers. But, then again, it may be that power that is partly upsetting people. Is it getting too far into people? Is it crossing a safety border that we need to make a movie consumable?

 

 

Just mentation, not taking a stand or anything on this.

[Brian Dzyak]

Hello good folks,

 

It is very interesting to me that the negative reactions to shakey-cam are personal. I'm noticing that if the movie just plain stinks, there will be negative reviews but few people seem to be personally upset with it. Movies that over-employ shakey-cam seem to be able to enter into the viewers and cause personal reactions. I mean, we all, as creators, hope to make something that impacts our viewers. Shakey-cam appears to have a power to do that... to shift a movie into a personal relationship with viewers. But, then again, it may be that power that is partly upsetting people. Is it getting too far into people? Is it crossing a safety border that we need to make a movie consumable?

 

 

Just mentation, not taking a stand or anything on this.

 

 

There's a difference between affecting people emotionally and affecting the physically. Something like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (the original) has the power to make women get up and leave the theater, but it is because of the story that is being told. Arguably, the movie is successful because it has the power to reach into the audience member and affect him or her in such a way that they are no longer just watching, but become invested in it. Other movies make us cry, laugh, jump.... bad movies demand little else from us than our presence as we merely watch them.

 

But when an element of a movie is employed to such lengths that would cause someone to not be able to watch it, then something is wrong. Who would advocate a "4D" experience for The Passion of Christ where the audience members are continually flogged in their seats so they can feel with the characters onscreen?

[Lav Bodnaruk]

i was told to check this film out by a friend who works in post production - who saw it twice at that stage? (crazy!)

 

this is just personal take on the film, so don't get upset if you don't agree, please.

 

1.)The film had no plot, no character depth and no drive (very bad dialog!), bad casting and performances.

 

2.) The shaky camera didn't bother me in a sense that it got me sick... it didn't. I was upset at it, because it was 'constant' and i felt it was not necessary. I could notice people around me turning their heads away on the shaky bits etc... I understood why they used this particular technique and what they tried to achieve with it - but I felt (like many other posters here) that they could have slowed it down after establishing it is being filmed by a nob (no seriously, the character filming is a NOB, with cliche dialog).

 

Using this type of camera movement to disguise shots is logical - they had a bad animation for godzilla in many shots but good sound design made it work for most in the theater i was in. acting was covered a lot too - you could be crap at directing/acting and still manage to get 'something' on screen with this technique since you are filming people's feet! (again, this didn't appeal to me)

 

3.) Pick up a batt, a stick, ANYTHING - and hit them little monsters instead of walking around trying to look pretty for teenage audience in midst of a panic and Godzilla chase!

 

I've been in many crazy situations, war, panics, gang fights, protests, cop bashings... first thing anyone does is pick up a stick.

 

this is only my 2 cents.

 

Never again will I watch a film suggested by this same friend :P .

Edited January 26, 2008 by Lav Bodnaruk

[Ruairi Robinson]

i was told to check this film out by a friend who works in post production - who saw it twice at that stage? (crazy!)

 

this is just personal take on the film, so don't get upset if you don't agree, please.

 

1.)The film had no plot, no character depth and no drive (very bad dialog!), bad casting and performances.

 

2.) The shaky camera didn't bother me in a sense that it got me sick... it didn't. I was upset at it, because it was 'constant' and i felt it was not necessary. I could notice people around me turning their heads away on the shaky bits etc... I understood why they used this particular technique and what they tried to achieve with it - but I felt (like many other posters here) that they could have slowed it down after establishing it is being filmed by a nob (no seriously, the character filming is a NOB, with cliche dialog).

 

Using this type of camera movement to disguise shots is logical - they had a bad animation for godzilla in many shots but good sound design made it work for most in the theater i was in. acting was covered a lot too - you could be crap at directing/acting and still manage to get 'something' on screen with this technique since you are filming people's feet! (again, this didn't appeal to me)

 

3.) Pick up a batt, a stick, ANYTHING - and hit them little monsters instead of walking around trying to look pretty for teenage audience in midst of a panic and Godzilla chase!

 

I've been in many crazy situations, war, panics, gang fights, protests, cop bashings... first thing anyone does is pick up a stick.

 

this is only my 2 cents.

 

Never again will I watch a film suggested by this same friend :P .

 

 

I saw someone try to punch a bus once.

 

The bus wasn't hurt.

[Thomas James]

For me it is impossible to shoot at 30 frames per second handheld while I am walking. So for these situations I shoot at 60 frames per second.

[Dory Breaux DP]

Wow, jsut the footage from that news clip made me not want to see it. It looked like a good idea, but poorly exicuted.

[Jayson Crothers]

Having just returned from seeing the film, I can say that I think the film is a great technical achievement - very complex blocking that feels largely seamless and an excellent creation of "amateur" home video. As with anything, there are a few liberties taken (for example, I suspect nobody runs in a screaming panic but keeps the camera upright and forward the whole time).

 

My complaint is that the film feels, to me anyways, like a text-book example of style over substance. I couldn't tell you the name of any of the characters (except, ironically, the one behind the camera because he seemed to be the only character with some kind of personality) and frankly I couldn't have cared less what happened to any of them (when one of your lead characters dies, I believe you should have SOME kind of reaction and I didn't at all). The technique and process of the the filmmaking was so overwhelming that it put me at a distance from the story and characters. It seemed to me that the movie was a case of the style being conceived of first and then a story was built around that, rather than the other way around. I had a similar reaction to the Mike Figgis film "Timecode", in which the method of making the film was more important that what the story was.

 

Interesting to me from a technical stance, but hollow as a whole experience.

[Amin Khan]

Hi,

 

 

The film has just opened in the UK and i got to see it last night. Overall, i left the cinema unimpresed because i couldn t accept the premise quite like i could with Blair Witch. The camerawork was shaky to act as a cue for our brains to create a heightened sense of realism thereby creating a more acute sense of shock,fear etc....just as in Blair witch. The problem was that although the camera was shaking all over the place the lighting still seemed cinematic, i mean when the guy went round the party collecting interviews the subjects were surprisingly well lit, this in itself destroyed the notion of 'found amateur footage'. The other thing was the acting, it wasnt as nearly as naturalistic as Blair Witch so it also helped undermine the illusion tha this whole shebang was real - it all seemed tightly scripted and staged. Finally the monster looked cg, the compositing wasnt realistic on some of the shots.

 

So for me the problem wasnt that the camera shook, it was the fact that the rest of the film didnt shake quite as much. They tried to hit the balance between believabilty and watchability and fell short.