Friday, January 18

Cloverfield

What exactly is it? Well, I'm not in too much of a hurry to find out, frankly; shaky-cam in the trailer is bad enough, so I don't think I'll be able to sit through two hours of feeling nauseous.

(I spent two days, thank you very much - don't want to go through that again...)

Why do today's directors insist on using shakycam? It doesn't add to suspense - it just alienates part of your audience, because your mind instead of concentrating on the film is more interested in stopping your stomach from hurling.

I'm all for kinetic camera-work, but please, use a Steadicam instead, or a Louma crane. Or, heaven forbid, take a leaf out of Alfonso Cauron and Emmanuel Lubeski's book and utilise their techniques in Children of Men: very tense, energetic scenes with no hint of shaky camerawork.

In fact, could you imagine the go-kart scene in The Shining if they used shakycam? Or De Palma's superb shoot-out sequence from The Untouchables?

Shakycam works in music videos, but that is where it should stay.

Enough of my film-geeky rant.

2 comments:

edash said...

I think the idea in this case is that the video footage has been recorded by someone on the ground with an ordinary camcorder, as events unfold, so allowing us to get involved in the action more.

m.west31 said...

Shaky-cam work has a definite place, but it shouldn't be used all the time. I mean, Sam Raimi made a crude steadicam for 25p on "The Evil Dead" - can you imagine the evil dead running through that forest and the cottage as shaky-cam?