Upcoming
Youth in Revolt
January 15
January 22
Drool
The Girl on the Train
Spewing in your seat
Arizona-based film journalist Henry Cabot Beck informs that last weekend in Pheonix "a sign was posted on each of the box-office windows of the AMC chain theaters warning people that they might get sick watching Cloverfield. When I asked the ticket seller, he told me there had been some upchucking and retching and like that. Next thing will be barf bags handed out with the tickets. William Castle would have made a mint with a gimmick like this."
I've almost never felt queasy from jiggly, hand-held photography (I eat films like Dancer in the Dark for breakfast), although I'll admit that Cloverfield has more than its share. Yesterday, however, I saw the King Kong of hand-held nausea jiggle movies -- Tia Lessin and Carl Deal's Trouble The Water, a doc about the Katrina disaster.
Half of it was shot by Lessin and Deal in the usual fashion and is no big challenge, but the other half is shakycam footage of Katrina's devastation shot by one of the film's main subjects, Kimberly Rivers. (The other is her husband Scott.) The footage is so scattered and whip-panny that I was starting to think about bolting less than ten minutes in. Show Trouble The Water to those Cloverfield sufferers in Pheonix and they'd spew in their seat.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on January 21, 2008 at 6:29 AM
comment #1
Dave
says ...
I got queasy a couple of times during Cloverfield. Had to close my eyes and let it pass.
I don't blame the movie, though. OF COURSE it was going to make me queasy-- it's emulating crazy hand-held video. Can't really complain about something I knew going into ahead of time.
As for the movie itself. . . Jeff, I (and my GF) now kinda/sorta agree with your "Don't show the monster" rant. I think that Cloverfield did an awesome job of hinting at the monster for most of its running time-- it wasn't until the
SPOILER AHEAD!!
scene where Hud gets eaten, where he takes a long lingering shot at the beast above
SPOILER OVER!!
where the film goes off the rails RE: visualizing the monster. I was even okay with the ending "from the helicopter" shots-- the vantage point made sense. But the big "reveal" looked hokey, and sucked us out of the movie.
Still, a good ride, even if it felt long. I have no idea how they could make a 90-minute movie feel as long as they did, but after the fourth or fifth running scene, I was hoping the damn beast would just eat these brats already.
Posted by Dave
at January 21, 2008 7:24 AM
comment #2
tophertilson
says ...
I agree in principle, but that shot of the monster hovering over the camera has sort of haunted me. Don't know why.
On a completely unrelated note: I pray to God the Santa Barbara Film Festival ends soon. Those ads are KILLING my browser. Dag!
Posted by tophertilson
at January 21, 2008 7:58 AM
comment #3
corey3rd
says ...
The Waking Life made me feel rather sick when I saw it on a 30 ft. screen.
Posted by corey3rd
at January 21, 2008 8:08 AM
comment #4
ZacharyTF
says ...
On a completely unrelated note: I pray to God the Santa Barbara Film Festival ends soon. Those ads are KILLING my browser. Dag!
The Savages one is forcing my browser (Firefox) to wait until it loads completely to let me switch tabs. Annoying!
Posted by ZacharyTF
at January 21, 2008 8:42 AM
comment #5
The Winchester
says ...
AGREED on the Santa Barbara Fest ads screwing up my browser. It takes 3 minutes to load until I can click on anything else. Shennanigans!
AGREED on showing the monster less in Cloverfield. It was damn effective, and even though I wanted some nice Spielbergian glamour shots of the monster, the way it was done shows too much. Less is more.
However (SPOILER)...
When you can hear the goddamned creature from blocks away, how the hell can you not hear it when it's, I don't know, RIGHT BEHIND THE FREAKIN CAMERA THE JERKOFF DRUNK RUNS TO PICK BACK UP?!?!?!
Posted by The Winchester
at January 21, 2008 9:19 AM
comment #6
carla kolchak
says ...
I sat in the back row for both Cloverfield screenings I went to this past weekend and didn't feel even a moment of shaky cam-induced nausea. I also didn't witness any upchucking by others at either screening. I did, however, see a few walkouts by people who were sitting close to the screen.
Posted by carla kolchak
at January 21, 2008 9:56 AM
comment #7
Jean
says ...
Ditto on the not showing the creature method - I was so involved in the "veracity" of the the film, the feeling that you are there... then they'd show the creature and boom, you see the cgi and it pulls you out of the illusion.
The shaky cam did finally get to me. I sat too close to the screen - sit in the back rows and you'll be fine. But still, the cinematography used in Children of Men achieved the same effect without the shaky camera. The camera panning and lack of edits are what work, not the shake.
Posted by Jean
at January 21, 2008 10:39 AM
comment #8
LYT
says ...
Only shaky-cam that ever made me seasick was OPEN WATER. Hand held AND on a boat.
Posted by LYT
at January 21, 2008 11:59 AM
comment #9
alan
says ...
I am about ready to stop visiting Hollywood Elsewhere until my browser can load it without locking up for several minutes due to whatever ad is causing the problem. VERY frustrating.
Posted by alan
at January 21, 2008 7:01 PM
Post a comment