Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Cloverfield

Cloverfield is a monster movie for the twenty-first century. There's the recreation of 9-11 iconography-the collapsing buildings, the crowds running from plums of smoke, I wonder what it must have felt like to watch this thing in NYC- and well as the wholesale embrace of digital technology. Not only is the entire film shot from the perspective of the digital camcorder of a New Yorker fleeing a monster attack, but the filmmakers smartly acknowledge the degree to which documenting our every move has become an unthinking habit. When the head of the Statue of Liberty comes bouncing down Spring Street, people are taking pictures of it with their cell phones before it even stops spinning. This awareness of the place of digital technology in our culture gives the film contemporary relevance. While past generations experienced historic events through print, or. more recently, television images, modern history is largely seen through the grainy lenses of digital camera and viewed on the internet. Recognizing the compulsive need to record our surroundings on film, and also the growing roll of amateur footage in shaping our relationship to catastrophe also goes a long way towards making the film's central conceit, that someone would keep their camera running during a giant monster attack, seem plausible. It also neutralizes the accusations of crass exploitation made by those who are uncomfortable with the 9-11 imagery: since 9-11 is the defining media event of this generation, any cinematic portrayal of mass terror will inevitably reference it.

Cloverfield can also lay claim to the mantle of the first 21st century monster movie due to its savvy use of the internet. Yes, there is of course the inevitable, and tiring, online hype and "viral marketing" fuckfest, but more interesting is the way that internet has been used as a secondary platform for the continuation of the film itself. All of the inevitably disappointing and awkward exposition that most films of this ilk are obligated to grind to a halt in order to deliver, has here been completly excised and placed on-line. If you really want to know why a giant monster is trashing New York City, there are plenty of websites to consult for the answer. Meanwhile, the film itself can dispense with the clunky scene where some government scientist stops the action all together for ten minutes to let the audience know what is going on. Not only does this model allow for tasty viral marketing opportunties, it also ends up streamlining the film for maximum efficiency of awesomeness.

And yes, friends, Cloverfield is pretty awesome. The verite style creates a sense of identification with the protagonists that most monster movies fail to achieve. Usually, when a giant creature destroys a city, there are tons of crane and helicopter shots that make the viewer identify more with the monster than with the tiny, scurrying humans running beneath its feet. That approach can look good, but it isn't that scary. Conversely, keeping the camera in the hands of one of those scurrying humans, looking up to get a glimpse of the massive, terrifying creature twenty stories above, can't help but leave the viewer feeling vicarious vulnerability and fear. The initial scenes of the creature attacking are sheer terror, as is a later scene in a darkened subway tunnel that ranks in my personal pantheon of unnerving film sequences. The characters are thinly sketched, but that doesn't really matter in the context: the real protagonist isn't on screen: it's the viewer. The character holding the camera, yuppie chucklehead "Hud," is only there to provide some humorous commentary. He's essentially Duke Nuke'em, but instead of spouting ripped off Bruce Campbell catchphrases, he's spitting some surprisingly funny, realistic comic relief. Like a first-person video game, the viewer fills the void at the center of the screen with their own persona. This approach worked to an extent in Blair Witch Project, but is more fruitfully applied here. Since there is an actual budget that allows for some pretty kick ass special effects, there's more to look at than three stammering improv class drop-outs walking in circles for an hour before something interesting happens.

For all of the visceral thrills on display, though, I was left, as I usually am while watching an apocalyptic horror movie, wanting to spend more time with the harried, gun-toting military grunts than with the dazed, largely useless civilians. Rather than leaving me unsatisfied, though, it really just left me hankering for more. Let's get some sequels in the pipe, pronto!

Score: 8.4

2 comments:

Jesse Gant said...

I'll see this now--was weary about doing so because the marketing has been intense on the East Coast and that makes me suspicious. Looks like they got me! ha hahaah

But I like your point to about incorporating media in a creative way--in this case, to give depth to the big question of "what is it?" I agree that cutting the clumsy stuff about whatever radioactive voodoo or sinister scientist with an axe to grind from the plot would make 99% of these movies better, and in that sense the viral marketing here is at least curious and not purely annoying.

The New York Times review has come up in conversations with friends because it's an especially negative one. The reviewer calls it, essentially, 9/11 exploitation, and that's really the issue people seem to be uneasy with. That, and the shallow characters. But I think you are right in making the case that these folks might be missing the point. My reasoning is that New York is filled with these kinds of douche-cougars and I don't suspect them to sound all that intelligent or thoughtful or emotionally in tune when the city goes to shit. (as it will) I imagine people running around on cell phones and screaming "oh my god!" The poetry will be in the accumulated noise.

A good counterpoint (one that vibes with your review) is that of the more trustworthy Village Voice, which says that the monster makes a good protagonist too. Their reviewer says the movie is more of a commentary on post 9/11 New York--the stuff of gentrification, new "yuppies," and 20-something malaise. In their eyes, the film is more of a generational critique of young people who have lost all capacity to think in the world, or maybe to cogently confront the world's terrors. As their review makes clear, instead of asking "why is this happening?" as so many did on 9/11, the question nobody seems willing to ask years later is "why is this happening again?" New York likes to pretend its an innocent agent in the world. No monsters here, right? We never saw it coming, right?

matthew christman said...

The yuppies are pretty clueless, but I don't think they end up mattering much. It seems like they just make the most functional protagonists: I mean, what other group of New Yorkers is more likely to keep their digital camera running throughout a monster attack on the city? Also, I am pretty convinced that the real protagonist is supposed to be the individual viewer. Giving too much time to character development would detract from the viewers ownership of the point of view camera. As for 9-11 exploitation: is it even possible to make a disaster film nowadays that doesn't evoke 9-11?