Viewed: In theatreRelease Date: January 18, 2008
writer: Drew Goddard
director: Matt Reeves
The Bourne Ultimatum was a huge hit in the theatres last year, one of the top ten grossing movies of the year, and unanimously agreed upon by critics to be one of the best action/thrillers in a long time (I haven't seen it yet, so I can't comment). But despite it's great rankings and returns, there was a bit of a hubbub about the movie's use of what's been colloquially called "the shaky cam" (also, "queasy cam"), or digital hand-held cameras that don't hold a stable picture and, along with quick-cut editing, are used by filmmakers to present an erratic or frantic sense of motion. It's the reverse of bullet-time or slo-mo as used in the Matrix or 300 and is done so to also blur out the imperfections in the choreography, to much annoyance of many. Because of it's popularity, the Bourne Ultimatum played to packed houses, but also because of it's shaky camerawork, many people left the movie early, with headaches and sometimes nausea. Sitting in close proximity to the big screen with your entire field of vision enveloped by the movie is often the best way to watch a film, but with shaky cam work, it's hard for many people's brain's to focus on the images or track movement with their eyes and the strain of doing so yields an unpleasant viewing experience, despite the quality of film.
The shaky cam first noticeably reared it's ugly head when The Blair Witch Project erupted on screen. The necessity of the camerawork for that film was obvious and often effective, but again, the shaky cam element of it was distracting to the point of ruining the film goer's experience, even causing theatres to post signs on their doors warning of the effects of watching the film. Now that the (cost effective) hand-held digital cameras are becoming favourites of directors, and not of just smaller films but big-budget franchises as well, it's becoming problematic for those of us whose brains can't process it (see Roger Ebert's website and David Bordwell for more commentary on the shaky cam).
If it's not obvious yet why I bring this up, it's because Cloverfield is first-person shaky cam from frame one through to the last. If you don't know the set-up, it's almost perfectly simple: a giant monster attacks Manhattan, and the film presents it from the ground-level bystander's perspective.
The films starts with military-issued "top secret" notices and a preamble that details where the camera footage was found. We're given a few minutes of a man, later identified as Rob Hawkings, awake early in the morning greeting a sleeping woman, Beth, in bed with his camcorder, recording the moment. Their intimate conversation is interrupted by a cut to Jason, Rob's brother, and his girlfriend, Lily planning his going away surprise party, his camera now in their possession. Rob's heading to Japan (where giant monster attacks are historically more frequent), and Lily wants the party to be documented so that Rob has something to remember them all by. Jason pawns off his camera duties to Rob's best friend, Hud, who seems more intent on chasing Marlena, than capturing the party. When Beth arrives, the tension between her and Rob is palpable, and it comes to a head, souring the party, or at least the key players' enjoyment of it. As Jason and Hud console Rob on the fire escape, the ground trembles and the lights go out downtown momentarily. There's a bit of anxiety but more curiosity. The TV news is put on and the party makes its way to the roof, where in the distance building's explode and everything shakes again.
Everyone panics and flees to the streets where there are more buildings, closer ones this time, sparking up or falling over. An object careens into a building, deflected and crashes before Jason, Lily, Hud and the rest, coming to rest to reveal the Statue of Liberty's head. Chaos ensues as a wall of smoke and dust heads towards them. They duck into a storefront as the cloud furiously storms past, blowing out windows. When it passes Rob and Jason venture into the streets, Lily and Hud following. They find Marlena, traumatized after witnessing... something... eating... someone....
Hud makes it his mandate to document how it all goes down, coming to understand that the tragedy isn't a terrorist attack, but something even more foreign, perhaps alien... just utterly unknown. People are attacked, property is destroyed, the army attempts an evacuation as well as an assault on the monster, but it's all quite futile. Rob, having received a distress call from Beth, makes it his mission to find her, to him it's something worth much more than leaving her behind and living. His friends join him, Rob's mission giving them focus amongst the chaos.
The film is clever, in a "why hasn't this been done before" kind of way. It presents the giant monster movie in a completely different manner, from the first-person perspective. The characters aren't themselves fighting the monster, the objective of the film isn't to show how the monster is taken down, but instead, it's about the damage and loss that happens on the ground floor. If people were scrambling trying to find any way out, or trying to save a loved one, isn't this almost like how it would happen? Pretty much.
Credit goes to the actors for living in the moment, providing dialogue reading that sounds like average people talking about and reacting to above average circumstances, keeping humour in the natural mix of all the tension. There's no superheroes here, and nobody is doing anything that is beyond their means (except a few out-of-character movements by Beth at the end). It's believable, and the effects are spectacular. The decimated New York in the wake of a giant sea creature/bug/alien-hybrid attack is a thing of terrifying beauty. The toppled buildings, the debris, the cars and trucks and bridges ... it's all gorgeously realized in the context of the film, what we see of it. It's probably the most realistic setting of any disaster movie in cinema... if only we got to appreciate it more.
And that's my problem with this film, I just can't appreciate enough of the visual aesthetic as a result of the shaky cam. My brain, striving to stabilize the picture while simultaneously process the information just can't handle it and so much of it was either lost or just not focussed upon enough to enjoy more. The effort at wrangling all these extras, military people and vehicles, and constructing set pieces was not in vein, but the lack of steady focus on any of it reduces my ability to soak it up. For the sake of the film, the amount and way we're exposed to everything -- from the giant monster and the mini monster to the decimated city, to the military component -- all works to great effect. If you were down on the street, you wouldn't be stopping to watch either. But as a geek, I want more.
I like that the movie is essentially Gojira (Godzilla), but from a different point of view. Like The Host, this movie looks to the fears and worries of a nation and exploits them for entertainment purposes. In this case it's terrorism and fear of the unknown attacking. The panic that ensues (as well as hitting some big New York icons) will no doubt spark 9-11 flashbacks, and it's intentional but also why it works, even if it is a little uncomfortably predatory. But with "real" 9-11 films cashing in on "real" stories, I think translating that into something more pop-culturally unimportant is part of the healing process, of letting go and moving on.
I see the potential for a franchise for Cloverfield, with a second film presenting an hour and a half of a cable news channel's reporting on it, gleaning more "educated" theories as to the creature's origin and seeing better shots of the ground level. A third film could be shot entirely from the military angle, as they document their battle with the creature and the evacuation. Regardless, there's room for more material to be extracted, as no questions are answered here as there's really no reason for them to be.
I want to like Cloverfield more, and on a smaller television screen (like watching your friend's vacation videos) the shaky cam will probably be a lot easier to take in and I'll be able to appreciate it more. In fact, a movie like this is meant for the small screen. Being shot on a hand held, despite the epic proportions of the subject matter, just isn't big screen friendly.
Rating: 4/5