Thanks to the ‘shaky-cam’ filming method of Cloverfield, apparently a significant number of viewers have been getting sick during the film:
Scary movies are supposed to leave patrons feeling a bit scared and jittery, but the newest horror flick is leaving Oklahoma City-area moviegoers with a different feeling — nausea.
…
Some moviegoers across Oklahoma City have gone so far to complain to theater managers, forcing some to refund tickets or offer other compensation.
“I heard a few people kind of whining about it,” said moviegoer Thomas Dozier. “They were talking about, like, ‘I have got to get out of here.’ Everyone around me was freaking out.”
…
But for those with a sensitive stomach, precautions might be warranted.”Take Dramamine, and you’ll be fine,” said Hastings.
Here’s an even easier bit of advice for queasy Cloverfield viewers: close your eyes. You’re not actually moving while the movie is playing, unlike on a roller coaster, so you can simply shut your eyes for a few moments during a slow spot in the film to let your brain settle down. This is the same advice you’ll get on many virtual reality rides at amusement parks.
I thought your title was a reference to the IMDb half-wits that babs67 was complaining about.
What a bunch of pussies…
The girlfriend aka Babs67 wrote: “What a bunch of pussies…”
Are you referring to the Dramamine crowd or the IMDb crowd or both?
Probably both.
babs67 wrote: “What a bunch of pussies…”
Yikes! And you complain when I use such language? 🙂
I’m not as critical of people getting sick as I am of people demanding their money back because they were unable to shut their eyes…
I remember feeling nauseated during “The Blair Witch Project” and “Dancer in the Dark.”
Frankly, the whole handheld camera thing is dopey. I know, I know, its “edgy” and “cool.” But a little bit goes a long way. F*** arty pretensions – buy a Steadicam or rent a tripod.
Eric – I don’t think the point of Cloverfield was to be “edgy” and “cool”. The technique was supporting the story that this was a first person account of the monster attack. I don’t think the movie would have had the same effect had they used a traditional technique for filiming.
Hey Girlfriend! (Sorry, I just had to say that)
I’m sorry – I haven’t seen Cloverfield, so I apologize if you thought I was commenting on that. I liked the previews and have thought about going though!
While I like the concept of the first person shooter, it has a tendency to be nauseating if carried on through the entire movie. I had a headache fifteen minutes into “Dancer in the Dark” and almost lost my lunch by the end of “Blair Witch Project.”
But to be totally fair, I hate first person anything. As a former newspaper editor I still loathe seeing reviewers or social commentators (Camille Paglia is a notable example) who write everything in the first person. Its the same with film – a little goes a long way.
To be sure, there ARE people who shoot or write in the first person and do it extremely well – but they are the exception not the rule. Again, that’s just my two cents!
Eric: In general, I tend to agree with you. Clearly there’s a damn good reason steady-cams were invented in the first place! I also tend to get irritated by television shows that have ‘special episodes’ filmed from the point of view of a documentary filmmaker – Nip/Tuck had a recent example of this. Even if the camera is steady, having a limited perspective of the action is generally an annoyance rather than a boon.
In the case of Cloverfield, though, the POV works really well. Having the camera swivel up to see a massive monster looming overhead is more terrifying than any Godzilla movie ever was (though, to be fair, Godzilla movies have a lot more than camera angle going against them: cheesy effects, cheesy acting, cheesy plot, cheesy dubbing…). I would summarize by saying that one should only use a first-person POV if it will show you something new, and I think Cloverfield does it.