Advertisement
Matt Reeves Comes to Cloverfield
Cloverfield opens up a whole new world for Reeves
Matt Reeves on the set of Cloverfield (2008).
Even before there was a script—or a cast, location or story, really—audiences have been waiting the release of Cloverfield with baited breath. And the box office numbers did not disappoint when the film was finally released last week (bringing in more than $55 million so far). A monster movie in the most classic sense of the genre, the film is a collaboration between childhood friends Matt Reeves, JJ Abrams and Bryan Burk. And while it sounds like the type of movie these guys have probably dreamed about for years, the whole film came together rather quickly—less than a year from pitch to release. In the midst of a grueling press tour, Cloverfield director Matt Reeves spoke with MM about his first venture into the world of visual effects and how the film turned out to be a “terrific challenge.”
Jennifer Wood (MM): You’ve been a successful writer for more than a decade now, but have only sat in the director’s chair once before, on The Pallbearer. What was it about Cloverfield that appealed to you as a director?
Matt Reeves (MR): Actually, in addition to writing for film and TV, I have been directing television pilots for the past 10 years. JJ Abrams and I created “Felicity” together, and I directed the pilot to that, as well as a number of others along the way which were really fun for me; but Cloverfield, it’s true, is only my second feature as a director.
What attracted me to it was the sheer outrageousness of the idea—the idea of trying to depict an absolutely absurd premise (a giant monster attacks NYC) with a sense of utter realism. It was such an epic-sized story, with massive destruction and all these visual FX, but it had to be told from an incredibly intimate point of view, and grounded in a strong sense of naturalism. That seemed very different to me. I loved the idea that we would be going through this terrifying event with this small group of people, and that we would know no more about what was happening than they did, that the whole movie could be this visceral experience—a kind of first-person, voyeuristic horror. And the handicam style I knew would create a lot of opportunities for experimentation—long, continuous masters, improvisation, jump cuts, no musical score… All of that sounded very exciting—and I had never done anything with VFX before, so I just thought the whole thing would be a terrific challenge for me.
MM: I know that you and JJ Abrams have been friends since you were teenagers, when you were both aspiring moviemakers who met at a film festival. Is Cloverfield—a monster movie in the truest sense of the genre—something you guys have talked about making for a long time? It seems like the sort of project every teenage moviemaker dreams of one day making.
MR: No, the whole project actually came together very quickly, for me it was less than a year. I had been putting together another film, which I wrote, a drama/thriller called The Invisible Woman, and one day JJ and his producing partner Bryan Burk (who I’ve also known since childhood) came to me and said ‘We really want you to do this first.’ At that point there wasn’t even a script, just a very detailed outline written by Drew Goddard. But everything was moving forward fast; they already had a green light and a release date.
As it turned out, the entire movie, from studio pitch to release in theaters, was completed in under a year. It was kind of astonishing, the momentum of it all. But there wasn’t a lot of talking about it beforehand. It’s funny though, because this is definitely the kind of movie that JJ and I might have made together when we first met as teenagers—it is kind of a strange mix of our sensibilities. In fact there was a funny little 8mm movie we made together that was not totally unlike this in that it was this sort of sci-fi/drama hybrid. It was called Genius, and was basically our crazed, teen-aged attempt to do something completely Spielbergian, because we were such huge fans of his.
1 of 4 |
SHARE THIS STORY |
TAGS |
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Del.icio.us
Reddit
YahooAdvertisement
COMMENTS | POST A COMMENT 
- Comment by James Milford on 2/04/08 at 5:13 am
This was the worst film i’ve seen, pointless and a waste of £6.50. It gave me motion sickness and was very unrealistic!
james
posted 05.25.12
posted 05.22.12
posted 05.15.12
SITE DELIVERY OPTIONS
