MOVIE ANALYSIS: Cloverfield
January 31st, 2008 by Dave Duggins
Short one this week, folks. But then, you just heard from me last week. I’d hate to end up being too much of a good thing.
So. Cloverfield. Finally saw it.
I’ve only been talking about since last summer, right? Since the first time I saw the trailer, featuring that beautiful, long shaky-cam shot of the Statue of Liberty’s decapitated head flying through the air. Since I saw those wonderful “propaganda” promotional websites. Since the buzz began.
Hey, I’m a sucker for a good ad campaign. Sue me.
Actually, I’m a sucker for a good monster movie. I don’t think I’m giving anything away by saying it’s that kind of movie – it’s been well-publicized. Besides, if the Statue of Liberty’s head goes flying down the street, something must have ripped it off, right?
Ripped it off … and threw it.
That moment is only one of many wonderful and innovative moments in Cloverfield, and the fact that it is featured so prominently in the trailer does not diminish its impact in the slightest. If all you know about the film is what the trailers show you, you’re in for a treat – there are twists, turns, and surprises aplenty.
I didn’t want to have to plaster a huge SPOILER ALERT warning at the header of this post, so I won’t give away plot points. You’ve no doubt heard many of the descriptions (my favorite is that it’s The Blair Witch meets Godzilla – that is priceless).
Your biggest surprise may be this: it’s a character piece.
Oh, there are visual tricks aplenty. There’s loads of style. It’s a design philosophy: if you can’t tell a different kind of story, tell the same kind of story a different way. A lot of people will be talking about the approach. Some love it, some hate it.
We here, who look at story from the inside, may appreciate it for the intimate perspective it gives … which is perfect for a character-driven story. There will be cynics who claim it’s a gimmick, but I can’t help but think the visual style was chosen because it helps keep you close to the people. That’s where the story really is.
Which brings me to my point. It always takes me at least half a page of rambling to get there.
Well, you’re still reading, so I guess I’m not that boring.
Story is about people. People you end up caring about. Period. There’s a spot on my manuscript critiquing form for comments about plot – whether it works, if it needs help. I nearly always leave it blank. You can tell a story about anything. Literally anything.
You need a compelling narrative … and people a reader cares about.
Cloverfield is careful to be effective on that level before the fireworks start. Once they do, there’s little time for character development. But it doesn’t take a lot of time or long speeches to define character. One brief scene, one carefully considered line of dialogue, and you’re in his head. That’s all it takes. Once you have that connection, you can do anything.
Is Cloverfield a monster movie? I say no. You may think differently.
Comments, anyone?
I’ll definitely check it out, Dave. And I’ll keep my eye on that clever characterization. A few friends of mine have seen the flick and when I asked them what it was about, they said, “That’s the thing. You really don’t know.” Hmm. Intriguing!
I’ve gotta be honest–I was waiting for this review to see what others (not-critics) would say. ‘Cause I saw it looking for a monster movie and felt sorely disappointed. I wanted nothing to do with Rob’s party. I just wanted some heads (human or otherwise) to roll. That did taint my experience. Further, handcams are not my cup of tea and I hadn’t realized the entire thing was done this way. I was expecting it to be the first 10 minutes. I think, partially, my expectations ruined the movie. But the surging, free-wheeling visuals did leave me a little sick since my eyes were begging to be able to focus on something.
Well I’d add it to my list, but I suspect that I won’t quite get around to it until it’s out on DVD or TIVO.
Cheers
I went to see that movie with no expectations. Of course I imagined it had a monster somewhere, but really, I was just curious.
I can say I agree with all you said, Dave, and I really enjoyed the film. But reading NS Foster’s reply I believe that people who wanted to see a monster film may have got a bit disappointed…
Character-driven monster film? Then maybe I’ll check it out. After watching Eastern Promises (Viggo’s brill in it, fyi), my gore-tolerance level took a hit. But I’m curious to see how they pull it off.
Plus my DH will be thrilled he won’t have to negotiate a chick-flick paydown.
I didn’t like it. It was Godzilla done Blair Witch style. A lot of people complained about feeling sick because there’s so much shaky cam.
I didn’t feel invested in the characters. They’re the ultra elite spoiled rich children throwing parties in $2 million dollar apartments and making decisions that only the dumbest insane person would make during that kind of situation. They tried to pass off the insane as heroism, but I didn’t buy it.
They’ve already decided to make Cloverfield 2. Without all the buzz and mystery of “What is it?” — who cares?
Easily one of the biggest disappointments of the last few years for me.
Kathleen RE Eastern Promises: The violence was too much? It’s David Cronenberg — you think that’s bad, watch A History of Violence or his cheesy 80s movies like Scanners or Videodrome.
I got so sick watching this movie, I had to go to the toilet and throw up.
I spent the rest of the movie in the back row intermittently looking down at the floor to calm my stomach and to let some of the green drain out of my face.
I am a Monster move fan, my favourites are Them, Godzilla, Tremors and Blair Witch, so I had high expectations.
Unfortuntatley, I agree with Eric. Camera sickness aside, the movie was more like a bad spoof of Godzilla meets Blair Witch.
If they pushed the unrealistic reacations of the headonist characters they set up bit further, they might have been able to pass it off as a send up.
I saw the movie last night - it was really amazing to watch.
At the beginning I simply couldn’t identify with film because it was so far fetched in terms of it being a reality based monster movie. However it seems to me that this whole movie is a statement about the war on terror and that the monster (i.e al qaida) cannot be stopped through military might. This made the movie so much more compelling.
There were so many references to 9/11 and even suicide bombings that it just seems that you can watch this film on another level.
Jurgen Wolff has an interesting take on Cloverfield this a.m.! Link HERE.