Here-in lie spoilers ... I think. Technology has tossed a monkey wrench into film making, particularly independent film making, and it's called "everyone has a video device". Pick a major incident around the world from a hurricane to a monster assaulting Japan (Godzilla, anyone?). Odds are, there is going to be homemade video footage. What a wonderful way to think (for a story teller) things through. Another "eye" through which to see and tell the story. "Blair Witch" did a hell of a job. Yeah, I'm one of the ones that didn't buy the "it's real" hype but liked the delivery. It's easy and comfortable for me to "fall" into a tale told by "live" footage. "Blair" creeped me in a way few movies of recent have. Those familiar and comfortable with traditional story-telling in films have trouble with "documentary" style story telling. That's okay. Cinema has its niches. I feel the "documentary" story-telling, via the ubiquitous Digi-Cam, or whatever, is a rudimentary explored aside in cinema. One ripe with potential. Big dollar attempts can be seen with the recent "Cloverfield". Comparing this film, Monster, with Cloverfield, it's easy to see a new medium being explored but not understood. The blending of traditional storytelling and "through the lens of an eyewitness on video" storytelling is an obstacle course for visionary filmmakers. Somewhere in the near future, a filmmaker is going to get it all together and present us with a knockout. Blair Witch spearheaded that move (okay, for cinema buffs "Cannibal Holocaust" spearheaded that move ... no, this other film did it, no ... that film did it ...). I feel Blair Witch upped the ante because it acknowledged the wide availability of video equipment to the lay person. Cannibal Holocaust reflected a world where documentarians (not a word) carried professional equipment with their explorations. It has to do with the writers that can make script seem real and authentic instead of trying too hard to seem real and authentic. If a real event occurred of a giant booger attacking anything or anywhere, the real video of the event would be useless and of no meaning because it would rightfully be chaotic and have nothing linear to bear out a story (which Blair Witch managed to work around). So the Monster story would have to be done on that one in a million video that managed to "accidentally" follow script, with beginning, middle and end. That would be the writer's goal. A documentary that aligns, by deceit, the mandatory framework of storytelling. It's a new field. Filmmakers are trying it everywhere. It's an arena waiting for a champion. Someone's going to do it. "Monster" missed in not providing the appropriate reveal shots and hints at explanation. "Cloverfield" missed in the same way. "Cloverfield" did a better job. Both were fidgeting with a new medium everyone is trying to understand, as filmmaker and as audience. It's a great platform for horror and sci-fi and a lot of other genres. But is new to storytellers, filmmakers and audience. Lots of good things coming. One of the things I couldn't believe in "Monster" was how easy it was for the camera to go digitally berserk. Even cheap-o cameras put in better performance. No, it didn't work but, boy, are they headed in the right direction.
