ROTTEN TOMATOES: Michael Stahl-David Talks Cloverfield

Michael Stahl-David Talks Cloverfield

Monsters! Handcams! Improv!

by Jeff Giles | January 03, 2008

It's been somewhat lost in all the excitement surrounding January releases such as One Missed Call and Mad Money, but there's a little monster flick called Cloverfield coming out this month -- and one of the movie's stars, Michael Stahl-David, is here with a new interview to help us remember where to spend our ticket money on the 18th!

Stahl-David sat down with ShockTillYouDrop's Ryan Rotten to talk about his experiences behind the scenes of the J.J. Abrams-produced Cloverfield, admitting he "thought it was something I was going to be completely embarrassed of" before discussing the way director Matt Reeves used handheld cameras and improv to bring his vision to life:

"It felt like we were on a search for truth together...[Reeves] wasn't going to make me do something I didn't feel was real. If there was something on the script I didn't feel quite like it would happen in that moment, we wouldn't do it. I would say something else, do something else. It wasn't about trying to be clever and come up with your own stuff. It's not a very talky movie, it was more about questioning what would you do in this situation? What would I do?

"I think in some ways it's as much a survival movie as it is about the monster. The monster is definitely the problem, but you're seeing it the way we would, we don't pan back and watch it perfectly. It is going to be exciting. It is contemporary film vocabulary -- this kind of first-hand account, something that could've been on YouTube or something. Someone just holds up the camera and starts filming, there are probably other accounts, [our footage is] just the one the government happens to find."

The footage the government happens to find, eh? Sounds like things don't end so well for Stahl-David and his band of merry monster fighters -- but then again, wherever Abrams goes, unexpected twists are sure to follow. To read more of Stahl-David's interview with ShockTillYouDrop, follow the link below!

Source: ShockTillYouDrop

Related Items

Movie:	One Missed Call
	Mad Money
Celeb:	Matt Reeves
	Jeffrey Abrams
	Michael Stahl-David

(1-20 of 25 posts) | Reply

ffamilyguy writes:
on Jan 03 2008 07:32 AM

Every trailer where something happens to the Statue of Liberty, the movie ends up being just OK.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Jan 03 2008 07:32 AM

this movie is going to make the "cinematography" of the last two bourne movies look like steadycam work. there will be so much camera juggling, screaming and explosive combustion that we won't even be able to make out the monster - oh wait, that's the point. if you can never really see the monster, no one can complain about it!

this will be a legendary cop-out in terms of what's revealed visually. and who wants to drop 10 clams to be simultaneously nauseated and deafened. This is where reality TV has gotten us. A total abandonment of cinematic technique because it looks "realer"... except a monster is never going to attack new york. people only want to know about this because they're not allowed to know, not because this looks cool.

(Reply to this)

BowieSwimmer writes:
on Jan 03 2008 07:45 AM

People shelled out millions to see Blair Witch...
Either way, the first trailer [which ended with the Statue of Liberty's head, which cut to merely 1-18-08] was even more buzz worthy than Transformers [which it aired before]

and why hate on a movie that is total fantasy?
obviously a monster is never going to attack NYC; JJ Abrams and his team are taking a new approach to the monster flick, and I honestly hope it works out/is excellent.
My only problem: the resent news that his is rated PG-13. And the early January release date- usually never a great sign.

I don't know why I didn't see it coming.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Jan 03 2008 07:47 AM

In reply to this comment (#1423135)
people thought blair witch was real for the first month!

(Reply to this)

Dave the Destroyer writes:
on Jan 03 2008 08:08 AM

In reply to this comment (#1423123)
Guess that rules out "Planet Of The Apes" and "Ghostbusters II", then, eh?

(Reply to this)

rsav1976 writes:
on Jan 03 2008 09:02 AM

PG-13 would definitely be bad, along with the overabundance of teen heartthrob actors that the producers chose. The monster alone could save this movie, because if it's just another Godzilla with a reality TV angle, I won't waste my time on this. I'll admit the trailers look excellent, but then again, some of the best trailers in history resulted in some of the worst movies ever made.

(Reply to this)

opTIMus Nerd writes:
on Jan 03 2008 09:13 AM

I think this looks really fun! while I can can understand arguments against hand-held, you-tube style filming I think it's a little overly critical to crap all over something for that as it's just movies and style is style and all deserve a place, etc. That said, I really like wondering about "the monster" though I must admit I keep coming back to some sort of giant Mario Bros. style Bowzer stomping New York...We'll see?!

(Reply to this)

The Tony Show writes:
on Jan 03 2008 09:13 AM

I'd be perfectly happy not seeing the monster. Every movie based on a book I've read with monsters ends up being a letdown- the mind can conjure things infinitely scarier than WETA or ILMs CG.

The noise they've come up with for the Cloverfield monster is terrifying- leave it at that, give us a few glimpses, and let our imagination do the rest.

(Reply to this)

EdwardBlake writes:
on Jan 03 2008 10:00 AM

In reply to this comment (#1423228)
X-Men, Independence Day, Hitchcock's 'Saboteur.'

(Reply to this)

thereign writes:
on Jan 03 2008 12:40 PM

Optimus Nerd:

I think hand-held has a place in small, indie projects like "Blair Witch". In a big-budget like "Cloverfield", it has minimal-to-none.

Think about it: if a monster were really attacking New York, who the hell would actually stop to film the military fighting it? I don't know about you, but I'd be busy running my damn *** off to try and survive. Would the military even allow civilians to film in a M.A.S.H. tent, as is evident in the trailer? The problem with this being hand-held is that it won't "feel" real in those moments, because no one would be busy filming in instances like that...especially if Abrams doesn't do at least one or more scenes with a friend of whichever character's filming going "Shut that f*****g thing off!"

While it does take some time to decide how best to use hand-held for certain sequences, in my opinion, hand-held has taken the place of true cinematography, which REAL artists work at to frame a shot. It's the new laziness, like everyone using idiotic shorthand when writing on the internet, rather than using actual real words.

I'm with dahluzz; this is where reality tv has gotten us.

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Jan 03 2008 12:41 PM

Dahluzz: You ever seen Jaws? Or maybe Alien? It's very well shown that if you want your monster to be more effectively frightening and horrific, you try not NOT to show it as much as possible. People are inherently scared of the unknown. Once you show the monster, immediately it becomes tangible and real. What you imagine the monster to be is much more terrifying than anything they could show. You get a shot or two here and there to keep your mind going and keep the thing hidden. If Jaws and Alien had shown their monsters too much, you would've recognized they were just a fake metal shark and a guy in a suit. And if Cloverfield showed the monster too much, I'm sure we'd all just say it was crappy CG (which is why I think I Am Legend would've done better to keep the vampires hidden a bit more). Personally, I'm interested to see how they're going to hide a monster big enough to destroy New York City. Jaws had a giant ocean, Alien had a maze-like space freighter.

-Moses

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Jan 03 2008 01:37 PM

In reply to this comment (#1425262)
yeah, i'm familair with both movies. and i know that there's no way my brain could have imagined an alien as terrifying as the one they showed in the film. H.R. Giger's artwork is way too deranged for me to come up with and it was translated perfectly into physical design.

at the time jaws came out, those animatronics were as good as it got, so in the context of each film's release, they were pushing special effects with regard to the monster.

My assumption about cloverfeld is that they'll just hide the thing behind buildings and explosions (and focus pulls / shakey camera work) and that's lame. They're making a giant monster movie and there's no way the monster will look good, let alone scary. so what's the point?

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Jan 03 2008 02:02 PM

"They're making a giant monster movie and there's no way the monster will look good, let alone scary. so what's the point?"

You just answered your own question... You're right, there's no reason that was going to look good, so what's the point? Hence why they probably (I hope) show the monster too much. Because "there's no way the monster will look good." Besides, as Tony and I pointed out, the psychological effect is a lot greater when you don't show the monster too much. So it's really just the better option all around. I'm not sure we're actually disagreeing here...

-Moses

(Reply to this)

cman333 writes:
on Jan 03 2008 03:30 PM

he even said himself that we WILL see the monster

(Reply to this)

rockster11 writes:
on Jan 03 2008 04:28 PM

Shouldnt cloverfield be on the "coming soon" section of the site by now??? Cant wait!!!!!!!!

(Reply to this)

kooks25 writes:
on Jan 03 2008 07:06 PM

This movie is making money.

Scary monster or not.

(Reply to this)

killermonkey8822 writes:
on Jan 03 2008 09:15 PM

In reply to this comment (#1423135)
what's wrong with a PG-13...... does every movie these days have to be overly gory to suit everyone's taste?!

(Reply to this)

Canuck666 writes:
on Jan 03 2008 10:20 PM

This movie will do good on the first weekend, making between $20-$25 million, but it will have a steep drop the next weekend, probably over 60% due to the bad word of mouth. Their game plan is the smart thing to do with a bad movie: build up as much hype and buzz as you can to get as big an opening as possible before word leaks out that it's a bad movie.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Jan 04 2008 06:09 AM

In reply to this comment (#1425851)
i guess i didn't sum things up too well. what i mean is that creature movies like alien and jaws supplemented the parts where we weren't shown the monster with excellent (for their time) special effects when the monsters were finally revealed, making them feel authentic.

I think that cloverfield will build the suspense by not showing us, but when the time finally comes to see the monster, the current limitations of CG (because you know they're not gonna use a physical model) will either make it look corny or it simply won't be shown at all.

Either way, how could you not be disappointed after all that build-up? Because the movie's framed by real new york, the monster would have to look fully real to match the style of the film, and I just don't think they can achieve that yet.

(Reply to this)

overthehead writes:
on Jan 04 2008 11:10 AM

I must say that the new trailer they had on myspace demystified it a bit (The one where the soldier's telling them that the monster is winning); it's looking more and more like something we've seen before. But what should I expect - it's a monster movie. Maybe the first trailer was too good for the movie's good. Or maybe there will be a lot more surprises...

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Cloverfield

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links