The movie that might revolutionize filmmaking

It's not Avatar.

No, the movie I'm thinking of is Cloverfield, which I saw last night.

First, please bear in mind (once again) that this is a book blog, and that I (and the blog) will focus mostly on story, and the telling thereof. It's the aspect of films, books, and theater that interests me the most.

Cloverfield, for those unlucky humans who have not seen it, is a standard monster movie filmed through a shaky video camera. Remember when I said that Naughts and Crosses had essentially one gimmick going for it? A lot of pieces of media are like that. This is one of them.

I defended 9 on this blog before because, despite the fairly standard plot and animation, I loved the storytelling. Augment that feeling on this movie. The acting is standard B-movie fare, the script-- well, the script's pretty good, having been modernized for the times; but actually, the plot is nothing new. The creature is a pretty standard monster, just with enormous modern visual effects that lets it blow up NYC a little more.

The one thing that's great about this movie is the cinematography. It uses the same shaky-cam style as The Blair Witch Project. I haven't seen that film, but I think Cloverfield would be superior to it. Blair Witch takes a relatively original story in a barren setting and follows characters in an unfamiliar area for a couple of hours. Meanwhile, Cloverfield is a monster movie from the same perspective.

But still, monster movies have almost always focused on the human element. Ignore the hype that Cloverfield is unusual for that. No, what makes this movie so thrilling is its framing.

In a standard monster movie, there are certain shots you look for. Reaction shots. Destruction shots. Glimpses of the monster in the distance. In a tunnel, maybe there's a closeup of debris falling from the ceiling as explosions rumble overhead. In this one, you can't look for them. They're all there, in the shot, but only because they've been captured (seemingly by chance) in the hands of a very amateur filmmaker.

And the result is that nothing is framed. It's the same story you always knew-- but by framing it seamlessly in a home video camera style, J.J. Abrams has managed to make the whole thing feel more real and spontaneous. It's much more immersive than any big disaster movie that's come out in the last decade, because while you could expect basic plot beats (as in real life), you can't expect how you're going to see them.

Sometimes the story you tell matters just as much as the way you tell it.