The atmosphere of Cloverfield is extraordinary. Crumbling New York City skyscrapers, raided electronic stores, organized makeshift medical centers, citywide evacuation teams and engaged army firefight battles all captured on a single roving handheld camera, cinema verite style, in much the same way a film like Children of Men used its techniques to drop you into the action but, you know, with monsters. It’s an entirely awesome idea. The difference being, Children of Men had a clear-cut purpose, some social commentary mixed in with a pretty nifty story about saving the entire human race, while Cloverfield has a couple of separated lovers, played by interchangeable twentysomething blank slates, trying to make their way back to one another. The monster is practically an afterthought here. There’s a scene halfway into Cloverfield’s running time when Rob (one of the aforementioned bores) gets his friends caught in the middle of a combat battle between a squad of soldiers and the monster. The camera - controlled by another one of the group members, Hud - stubbornly refuses to even acknowledge what’s going on. Instead we get a long shot of Rob and some girls huddling in the low level stairs across the street as the mêlée marches off screen. Unfortunately, it’s an archetype for what’s wrong with Cloverfield… we, as the viewers, are always pinned down watching these dumb kids while something endlessly more interesting heads off in the other direction. We’re not invested in the love story here, know nothing about its characters (a generous term) and it’s aggravating to be forced to watch their story unfold while you know something far more compelling is happening only steps away. The whole thing is akin to being forced into watching “The Real World” on MTV while the apocalypse is happening on the next channel. Admittedly, the cinematography and special effects are seamless, really top notch stuff especially for a creature feature, and the film works when it’s running through the streets of Manhattan with the monster picking people off left and right. The unfortunate thing is, because of how vapid and monotonous all these people are (the first twenty minutes where we are introduced to these people is excruciating), we’re actually rooting for Cloverfield to win. Because without characters, all you’re left with are some pretty pictures and sqaundered opportunities.
Note: Did anyone else find the movie a bit redundant as well? I mean c’mon, the monster is from Godzilla, the head of the Statue of Liberty idea is taken from Escape from New York’s poster, the camera trick and “found footage” concept is taken from The Blair Witch Project and some of the visuals are taken from War of the Worlds… or even worse, from 9/11 imagery. Plus, the dust clouds are definitely there to evoke 9/11, so why do nothing to comment on it?
3 comments:
Dude, the monster is an original and the camera style is being used in several movies nowadays. Blair Witch was just the first major movie to use it effectively.
Bro, J.J. Abrams has admitted that the creature was directly inspired by a visit he took to the toy store with his son when he stumbled across a Godzilla toy and asked himself, "why can't we (the U.S.) have one of these?" Just because it's been changed does not make it original. It's still a huge, destruction-causing lizard creature, is it not?
Also, if you're referring to the handheld camera... yes, lots of films are using it nowadays. Still not a lot are using the camera as a character's viewpoint though. Cloverfield uses a single perspective camcorder, held by one of its characters a la Blair Witch that captures the entire story.
It's also considered "found footage" in the same way Blair Witch was. I'm sure there are others, but I don't know of any other film that uses the same technique.
ITS A FISH NOT A DINOSAUR!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post a Comment