« Markets in everything: buy put options on your gadgets | Main | Department of "Whatever" »
Cloverfield
I thought this was a remarkable cinematic event. But you need to know that the characters are supposed to be vacuous and annoying, and that the opening scene is supposed to be obnoxious and superficial. The heroism is supposed to be thin. (The whiney NYT review I read is, in retrospect, an embarrassment.) And that the movie is supposed to make you feel physically nauseated. You are in fact witnessing a disaster. Most of all this is a movie about how the young'uns have no tools for moral discourse and that all they can do is utter banalities and take endless pictures of each other and record their lives for no apparent purpose. I can't recall any other movie that so completely devastates its intended demographic. The integration of sound blips and flashing lights is brilliant. The homage to the tanks attacking Godzilla is loving. I didn't even know how good this movie was until after the halfway point. Bravo.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 19, 2008 at 10:01 PM in Film | Permalink
Comments
I just wanted to say without any intent at irony that I loved the flick. I loved it. It was like plugging into the Matrix and queuing some weird parts of my bad dreams/diversions all in one fast rocking experience. I dug it.
Posted by: Chris Brogan... at Jan 19, 2008 10:26:22 PM
While the film's portrayal of the cameraman was far from positive, I thought the main character was shown in a very positive light. He did what he could to be a hero, and certainly showed moral discourse when he kept urging his friends to stay behind. I think the cameraman had to be a jackass in order for him to stay filming for so long. Did they have to make him a dolt in order for their style of filming to make sense? Or did they decide to make him a dolt for thematic reasons before deciding on the style of the film? I don't think its clear. I'd imagine the film making process of Hollywood leans heavily towards the former, although I'm sure its a bit of both.
I came away from it with basically the opposite conclusion from you. What I got was,
-The cameraman was made to be an idiot for comedic value and so that there was a good excuse for the guy to be filming constantly.
-The friends were made to follow the hero for very weak in-character reasons, in order to add more main characters to the film.
-The trapped girlfriend was an excuse for a bunch of ordinary people to trek through a disaster.
I really seemed like a cookie-cutter horror story to me. The pretty white girl dies horribly; the hero reaches the girlfriend; and they almost escape before a series of plot twists doom them (although sometimes in horror movies these twists of course leave the protagonists alive where we thought them doomed).
If the director did indent to devastate the twentysomething demographic, I think he failed due to gross sampling error (the vast majority of young people obviously fled the disaster, so of course the few tapes found would over-represent the number of moronic cameraman out there).
I didn't like the movie mostly because I don't like horror movies. I will say that it was an efficient use of $25 million. I can never understand why Hollywood always pays so much for stars when they can get lesser-known but similar-quality actors much cheaper.
Posted by: Grant at Jan 19, 2008 10:39:14 PM
How does Tyler know the following:
"...the characters are supposed to be vacuous and annoying, and that the opening scene is supposed to be obnoxious and superficial. The heroism is supposed to be thin."
Posted by: chrisare at Jan 19, 2008 10:47:13 PM
Guys, Tyler has confessed to deliberately seeking out movie interpretations that are entirely at odds with conventional wisdom, the creators' intent, and common sense, but that are supportable by the actual content of the film.
That's who he knows they are supposed to be vacuous and annoying - any other interpretation would lead one to the widely held view (among the sophisticated critics, if not the critics at large) that the movie is an annoying and vacuous failure due to the shallowness of its characters.
Posted by: Dylan at Jan 19, 2008 11:14:50 PM
Remember those Mitsubishi Motors TV commercials a few years back? Hipsters nodding their heads and gyrating their arms to techno music as they drive around in circles in a darkened city? Mitsubishi lost a ton of money by the way, because the demographic they were trying to appeal to turned out to be deadbeats who defaulted on their car loans. Anyways, in this movie those hipsters meet Godzilla, Blair-Witch-style. It's hard to know which side to cheer for.
The most unrealistic aspect of the movie was the ease of making cell phone calls in mid-crisis. Surely capacity would be overloaded as everyone tried to call at once, to say nothing of expected destruction of base station infrastructure and the electrical grid... the latter was almost unaffected but for the occasional dramatic flickering of lights. The street scenes were also unconvincing: they obviously didn't have enough budget for huge crowds of extras, and Manhattan seemed curiously deserted.
Tyler, ask your wife: what was the Russian guy in the street scene saying?
Posted by: at Jan 19, 2008 11:52:22 PM
If a bad movie is supposed to be bad, does that make it good?
Posted by: zlguocius at Jan 19, 2008 11:54:23 PM
The plot device of analog-style taping over a previously recorded segment also makes no sense with what was surely a digital camcorder.
Posted by: at Jan 20, 2008 12:14:39 AM
He's right in that any genuine critique in the genre would be nearly indistinguishable from a banal flick in the genre. I dig Romero's zombie movies, but it's pretty goofy how they are (at least the first 3) respected for their social commentary, especially Dawn, by the type of critic linked above. That social commentary consists of some good gags (which still got laughs from me when recycled in 28 Days later) but nothing more. A sly son of a gun who really wanted to make a comment would do it in the manner Cowen describes and we could ratify it with a 45 million dollar opening weekend.
For what it's worth, I saw the flick opening day and thought it was okay. Went into There Will Be Blood for the double feature, but had to bail because I can't stand the sound of popcorn noshing within 3 feet and the theater was packed (much more so than Cloverfield). Unfortunately, plan C-- the Cowen-endorsed Diving Bell & Butterfly-- did not time out. We'll have to take a 2nd crack on a week day.
Posted by: burger flipper at Jan 20, 2008 1:05:56 AM
" all they can do is utter banalities and take endless pictures of each other and record their lives for no apparent purpose. "
Sounds like Facebook!
Posted by: Robert Olson at Jan 20, 2008 1:06:26 AM
First of all, facebook is one of the wonders of the world and we should all thank Mark Z for his work on it on a daily basis. That being said, Professor Cowen, I'm not sure if this is because you are so worldly or not, but I think you may have missed the real point.
Yes, we can be cynical and analytical in looking at Cloverfield, or we can be realistic: it's a simple film with a small budget crafted to do very simple things. I think it rather succeeds at all its goals. The main theme is that we should take time in our lives to take care of what really matters because time, and people, never come again. Period. That's what the whole artifice of the monster is about.
No doubt, there are some moments casting light on the superficial and the vacuous. One moment near the beginning with everyone taking phone camera pics at a moment when, well, they should be scurrying for cover is a perfect moment. But this isn't nearly the point. The moral discourse? Umm... I don't think anyone's talking about Kant when huge monsters are rampaging through NYC. Am I missing something or isn't this just a simple, fun, interesting movie?
=/\=
Posted by: Admiral at Jan 20, 2008 1:18:19 AM
As I recall, Beavis and Butthead also excoriates its target demographic. Cloverfield, Beavis & Butthead, what else can we use to fill out this new genre? Maybe we could round things out with those works featuring American ninja, or perhaps those crafted by forward thinking auteur Uwe Boll.
Any ideas on how we should christen this marvelous new genre?
Posted by: Thomas B. at Jan 20, 2008 5:15:01 AM
For some reason this reminds me of The Simpsons where Lisa takes a slacker infested college class devoted to reading Really Deep Things into Itchy & Scratchy cartoons.
Posted by: Jason Malloy at Jan 20, 2008 6:20:33 AM
I should add there are many other parallels with Godzilla, for instance both monsters rise out of harbors and following their nations having fought wars. The ending deserves more serious consideration than it has received, though I can't say anything here without spoiling it all.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Jan 20, 2008 8:07:26 AM
"The most unrealistic aspect of the movie was the ease of making cell phone calls in mid-crisis. Surely capacity would be overloaded as everyone tried to call at once, to say nothing of expected destruction of base station infrastructure and the electrical grid"
Wasn't one of the plot points that he could only get his cell phone to work for a minute?
It was interesting as a concept, though the conceits needed to have the constant filming got old basically as soon as the stuff hit the fan. I also wish they didn't have the full monster money shot at the end. A little mystery worked better.
Posted by: Wugong at Jan 20, 2008 9:52:21 AM
Thanks for the review. I wasn't planning on seeing it, but now I'm intrigued.
Posted by: Nick M. at Jan 20, 2008 12:16:20 PM
Here's an idea kids, from an old animation fart. I thought the movie was a lot of fun. I never waste time criticizing movies: it's like explaining a song. But, this one's sequels should all be about the same event, but from a different points of view, thus different kinds of movies that eventually answer the unanswered questions.
Posted by: Luminary at Jan 20, 2008 1:36:09 PM
That's a great idea. Like Rashomon. Also do it from the monster's point of view. This is the sort of rhetorical invention we're going to see a lot of on web video.
Posted by: Lee A. Arnold at Jan 20, 2008 2:12:03 PM
I also enjoyed it, for some of the reasons Tyler noted. Mainly, I thought it was an interesting approach to tell the story of a monster attack movie from the perspective of trivial participants. One of my favorite comic books now is Powers, by Michael Bendis, and he does something similar in it, as it's a police procedural story about the police department that investigates super-hero related crimes (usually murders of super-heroes, or kidnapping situations, or whatever might trigger their attention that would not be covered by superheroes themselves). It's a way of taking a traditional genre - the police procedural - and defamiliarizing. I thought this was a bold and ambitious film, and will be remembered for a long time. It was made for $25 million, and as of this morning, Boxofficemojo.com puts it's weekend (domestic) take at $41 million. JJ Abrams has shown himself a genius at helping us re-enter old stories in fresh ways. I'm very excited about his take on STar Trek (a franchise I hate).
Posted by: jason voorhees at Jan 20, 2008 2:39:22 PM
I didn't like how it broke genre. There are rules to Monster
movies, as there are in Westerns and Mysteries. In a mystery, for
example, we expect to find out who done it and for some form of
justice. If our expectations aren't met we feel cheated, as I did in
Cloverfield.
The ideal format is: strange and terrifying monster attacks,
understanding of the danger and anxiousness rise, doom seems
inevitable until protagonists learn strategies to defeat/survive the
monster, release of tension.
Genre fiction can act as a common dream; a sort of training
exercise in how to survive fear and hopelessness.
There were some tense and scary moments and the film was well
written and cleverly made. But it's a ride without the resolution and
release essential to the Monster movie experience.
Posted by: Walt at Jan 20, 2008 8:04:50 PM
Reading just one review (in this case the NY Times' review) means you could be reading an outlier among the critics.
That's why I like looking at Metacritic.
http://www.metacritic.com/
According the Metacritic, Cloverfield received "generally favorable reviews."
Posted by: Tim at Jan 20, 2008 9:57:25 PM
That's a great idea. Like Rashomon. Also do it from the monster's point of view.
In one sequel, Samuel Jackson's character proclaims "Enough is enough! I have had it with this motherf*cking... whatever it is... in this motherf*cking city!"
In another, the monster delivers a Shakespearean soliloquy: "If you prick me, do I not bleed? If you bomb me, do I not die? Nope, I guess not. I rock!"
In the final chapter, they take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Posted by: at Jan 21, 2008 12:53:24 AM
Any ideas on how we should christen this marvelous new genre?
Idiocracy.
Posted by: 8 at Jan 21, 2008 12:52:37 PM
The ending deserves more serious consideration than it has received, though I can't say anything here without spoiling it all.
I'm curious. Do you mean the (seemingly) final government response, confirming the film as unconscious wish fulfillment? Or Beth's last line, as ironic commentary on the movie? I really hope you don't mean this.
Anyway,"this was a remarkable cinematic event" doesn't necessarily follow from "this is a movie about how the young'uns have no tools for moral discourse" or even from "I can't recall any other movie that so completely devastates its intended demographic." The fascinating economic/sociological implications of the latter statement are outweighed (IMO) by the embarrassing Old Fogeyism of the former.
Posted by: Jared at Jan 21, 2008 5:00:55 PM
FWIW: Director Matt Reeves in an interview:
"I said to [J.J. Abrams], 'Why do you want me? It's such a heavy visual effects thing.' And he said, 'Because I know that you love character, and that's what we want. We want a sense of realism.'"
Posted by: Jared at Jan 21, 2008 5:33:10 PM
I can't recall any other movie that so completely devastates its intended demographic.
Starship Troopers?
Posted by: Jesse at Jan 21, 2008 8:50:50 PM
Jared: There's a moment in the final scene (the innocuous film footage that was being taped over) that has some huge meaning, or so I hear.
Posted by: Emily at Jan 22, 2008 1:56:49 PM
It's a fun way to goof on the audience by reflecting the audience within the film. It's done intelligently if most people don't get it. "Orange County" was too blunt in its goofing, so it didn't work too well because people knew when they were being laughed at.
But if the filmmakers can target the same audience that it shows in a not too flattering light, and get away with it as evidenced by box office numbers, kudos to them.
Posted by: Joe Branca at Jan 23, 2008 2:02:20 PM
This movie is all about love and mortality in the face of entropy.
If you don't get it, go watch Blade Runner.
Posted by: JB at Jan 24, 2008 12:30:25 AM
Watch in the background near the end, where the film skips out and they're riding the ferris wheel on Cooney island. It's fast, small, but it's falling into the Ocean from the sky. The director actually gives out A LOT of information in some interviews.
Posted by: Oshii at Jan 24, 2008 1:15:56 AM
The best review I've seen comes from one member of the "intended demographic" group, and I'll copy it here -- enjoy:
(http://www.killerfilm.com/articles/read/The_Funniest_Cloverfield_Review_Ever-220)
"got to see Cloverfield Monster Goes Apeshit two weeks ago. We’ve been on double shifts at Wetzel’s Pretzels because we’re selling these goddamn frosting and cinnamon pretzels that are supposed to look like a snowman waving at you and guess what all our retarded customers like biting the heads off of?
The movie starts off really shitty though, with all this stuff about a young couple that’s in love, and she’s hot and he’s hot and I’m all like, “Who’s filming this? The Ambercrombie and Fitch catalogue designers?”
But then it’s like the movie heard you calling it a pussy so it puts on its dick-stomping boots and then surprises your dick with a punch from a fist wearing a cock-punch glove.
Things just don’t get scary – they get FUCKED UP. And I mean fucked up like the whole movie’s shot through a hand-held video camera, so you feel like this is happening to you (apparently, the video camera was recovered by the government, so at the beginning of the movie, when you’re told this, you think, “Man, something bad must’ve happened to whoever filmed this”, and you imagine a lot of shit, but then when you get to what ACTUALLY HAPPENS you’re like, “Fuck you, imagination, this was ten times worse than I thought” and then to get back at you your imagination makes you think about 2 Girls 1 Cup if Rhea Perlman and Edith Bunker were the girls)
So here’s the story: a monster attacks News York City.
But that’s not the fucked-up part.
The monster RIPS THE LIVING SHIT out of the city, and everyone in its path. It’s like the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina and Kathy Griffin’s vagina combined and turned into a giant murder-beast and it’s hungry for every hip person in Manhattan.
Which is another cool thing about the movie – everyone that’s getting eaten are like characters you see in those annoying movies that are always on IFC and Fagdance. Movies with titles like Thinkin’ ‘Bout Being Sad and Zoe Gets a Latte and 2 Bedrooms, 1 Bath and a Whole Bunch of Cock-fucks Running Their Mouths.
And if that wasn’t bad enough, the giant monster starts rubbing itself on buildings, and then stuff falls off it’s gross body and crawls the fuck away – only the crawling-away stuff doesn’t stay away for long, if you know what I mean.
And then – and THEN – and I mean, at this point, the movie’s like a speed freak yelling at you, as if the giant monster and the things crawling away weren’t bad enough, there’s a third, even more messed-up thing the monster can do to a person, which I won’t spoil ‘cuz it made me kind of sick and the people on this website are the kind of assholes who’d come in to the W.P. at two minutes before I have to clean the cinnamon nets and order ten Sal-Tees so fuck everyone, so maybe you’ll see it and get sick and not want a Sal-Tee and I can go the fuck home.
Also, I don’t know if the movie-makers are looking for poster quotes, but this movie is like a pussy that eats YOU out."
Posted by: The Charters Of Dreams at Jan 25, 2008 11:48:46 PM
cloverfield was original to say the least, impactful as well
wish they would have shown more battling with the monster, though
Posted by: patrick at Jan 28, 2008 2:34:09 PM
"Also do it from the monster's point of view."
Great idea! Now THAT I'd pay to see, especially in light of the amount of backstory J.J. Abrams has given out on the monster (of whom he seems quite fond).
Posted by: David at Jan 28, 2008 7:42:28 PM
Fantastic movie! Amazingly realistic. Great acting, great effects. Triggers your "fight or flight", so much so its nauseating. Really puts you there. Frightening, and intense. I loved it!
Posted by: Jackson Capper at Jan 29, 2008 10:25:44 PM
I just think Tyler's a sucker for pop culture that drops you in and let you figure out what's going on. That's what led to me wasting $28 bucks on The Traveler a few years ago. Oh well, I keep coming back.
Posted by: RL at Jan 30, 2008 3:21:01 AM
Cloverfield Ending Credits - Spoilers
At the credits ending of Cloverfield, *spoilers* the audio from the video cam says, "Help us!". But when played backwards, it says, "It's still alive!" This happens after the end credits of Cloverfield. Assuming the speaker was Rob, he suggests Cloverfield (the monster) is still alive. This also suggests a sequel for Cloverfield 2! *Spoilers*
The Japanese oil company TAGRUATO drops a satellite (Chimpanz III) into the ocean as part of viral marketing (shown at the end of the movie when Rob and Beth were on the ferris wheel). TAGRUATO works with SLUSHO (a slush company), as the main ingredient for SLUSHO is found at the satellite dropzone (deep ocean). While searching for satellite and ingredients, they woke Cloverfield (the monster).
People who were at the party in the beginning of the movie, were seen wearing SLUSHO shirts. Rob apparently was going to be the Vice President of TAGRUATO in Japan.
The main ingredient of Slusho apparently turns a tiny fish into a HUGE whale in Ganu's (he found the nectar) dream, which explains the size of Cloverfield. *Update* The main ingredient is a deep sea nectar.
*Update* Because the ingredient was discovered on the deep ocean floor, under amazing pressure and in the most extreme cold, Ganu knew he had to serve the ingredient in a near frozen state to preserve its freshness. Thus the idea of Slush (Slusho)!
For animals/fishes/insects to survive in the deepest ocean (very high boiling temperature), they naturally have very high heat resistance. This explains how Cloverfield is able to withstand numerous bombs and attacks from the army.
Cloverfield refers to the field formerly known as Central Park. Clovers are usually prone to grow at places after bombing. Thus the term "Clover" and "field" referring to park.
*Update* Slusho is a very addictive drink, with signs of steroid drug like effects. Makes people stronger, constantly happy, have happy dreams and finally... "SLUSHO makes my stomach explode with happy!!" (Remember Marlena's stomach?)
Taken directly from: http://www.cloverfieldendingcredits.com
Posted by: Smith Alana at Jan 30, 2008 10:05:36 AM
They say it's good cos of interesting camera angles and a feeling of being involved.but no matter what angle you shoot it 4rm, this is just another movie about NY being attacked by some monster. The opening scenes were far 2 long and awkward. The script was non-existent, u didn't really care if they lived or died. When there wasn't action it was just plain dull. Too much hype 4 a plot that can't even be sustained for 85 mins. Akin to watching paint dry. I can't believe i payed 4 this.
Posted by: Maxine Balkisson at Feb 16, 2008 6:04:24 PM
Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Boring
Posted by: Steve at Apr 6, 2008 9:18:25 PM
Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Boring
Posted by: Steve at Apr 6, 2008 9:20:52 PM
The movie made a few really poignant points and it made them very well. Did anyone notice a few parallels between the impact of Stampy the unknown monsters attack on NY and another once unknown monsters attack on NY? One of them dropped spiderdogmonsters the other dropped air liners, both had the same impact on the people of the city. As someone has said before, the movie documents a disaster, a disaster that would once have been thought impossible. I think the ultimate response to Stampys visit is more then a little allegorical also, would a video recovered from Central Baghdad carry the same fear and loss as the one recovere3d from Central Park?
Posted by: will at May 31, 2008 2:30:29 AM
