And I love it.
Sorry all, this an in-depth review of the film; mostly because I am so peeved over the NY Times review for Cloverfield. Warning: I read *way* too far into the film; also, I spoil *everything*, so don't read if you haven't watched. I hope you do enjoy though.
For those with little time, here's my quick review (stolen from ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
dj_jonny_flash): if you love a great monster flick, go see Cloverfield. As a co-worker asked, "So, it's like Godzilla meets Blair Witch?" Bingo. A little campy at parts, a little heart-pounding and scary at other parts, it's, overall, a great movie.
My Beef With The NY Times' Review
I feel that to describe my feelings and thoughts over Cloverfield, I need something against which to push and pull. So I chose a review that I believe wrongly maligned this movie: I feel that Manohla Dargis wrote what is the worst review of the film I have come across.
The title to her review, "We’re All Gonna Die! Grab Your Video Camera!" reveals, what I feel, is a gross misunderstanding of the current "young" generation of American culture. With the rapid growth of digital technology capabilities, along with the wide availability of such technology to consumers in the West, we have arrived to what may be the cusp of a revolution in how we experience the world. For instance, watch the video "Bringing The Iraq War Home via YouTube" for a better understanding:
At one point a soldier speculates that if armed forces in Vietnam had digital cameras, they would have filmed themselves as well. Interesting that it is through these homemade, grainy uploads Americans can see a different side of the war that is not present within mainstream media. Even with a project as powerful and moving as The War Tapes, the viewer is subjected to censorship: towards the end of the movie, one of the soldiers relates a story about his officer not allowing certain footage to be shown because of the graphic nature of what was filmed. Thus, it is with this generation that we are put into the most horrific of circumstances to understand the Other's point of view.
Okay, So YouTube Can Be An Exercise in Narcissism, But...
My capital "O" in the previous section is intentional; it is not a typo. It is a nod to Levinas, in that maybe filming our lives can help (although not completely) the responsibility we have to others, because seeing it from (something that is closer to their) point of view is critical. As there is no way around human community, we want to share our experiences with others; as Ferdinand De Saussure wrote, (paraphrasing here) "We want to know others and be known." Now why am I going off the deep end with post-structural theory? Because Dargis takes a stab at the same thing in her review: she feels Cloverfield itself is spawned from the "simulacrum syndrome in the post-Godzilla age at the intersection of the camera eye with the narcissistic 'I'." In that small quote I hear echoes of Jean Baudrillard, Jacque Lacan and even Gayatri Spivak. Hence, I am trying to respond with the tools that she herself uses. And in this case, I'm trying to say that if she applies post-structural theory to this film and walks away empty-handed, I find it interesting, because I feel I (briefly) did the same and came back with something worth ruminating about. Especially at the very end, when we watch two desperate people record their last message; a last minute where we watch two people desperately plead to let their voice, their lives, be heard.
Just Because The Story Is Simple Does Not Mean It Was An Stupid Film
What I find rather ironic is Dargis' simplistic reading of the film. She states that "the film is too dumb to offend anything except your intelligence." To her it is a vapid monster flick with utterly-annoying young adults with too-pretty faces. On one I level agree. It is a genre-flick. A popcorn movie that, despite 9/11 references, does not pretend to be anything else. But it can be enjoyed on more levels than that. Immersing yourself in adrenaline-pumping action of the last part of the film, you can come back the the deeper structure and story of the film. What is that underlying story?
As Dargis writes, "this new monster is nothing more than a blunt instrument designed to smash and grab without Freudian complexity or political critique, despite the tacky allusions to Sept. 11." Do we always need a King Kong? Do we always need a monster with which we can sympathize, so that we in turn can face the monster within us? No. In fact, I feel disappointed by the assertion that the monster itself should be a complex metaphor for something other than a giant killing machine. That is not the point of the story for this film; rather, the monster is a means to reach the the larger thrust of the narrative: the destruction of the main characters' lives. .
Ok, ok, if you really want a metaphor, let's try this: as the monster mindlessly destroys Manhattan, it points to the larger destruction of life, seen through the tiny lens of five friends. Does that work? Sure, maybe there is no "depth" to that, but that does not mean it is emotionally empty: we feel attached to these character's; we do feel pity in spite of their stupid bravery... because of their mindless bravery. As for annoying allusions to 9/11: many people rushed backed into those towers to rescue others. Despite the demands of police and fire officials to evacuate. People lost their lives running into a building that everyone else was running out of; do we call them stupid? No, they cared for the Other person. Rob cared for Beth, and although I cannot exactly account for why his friends followed (maybe, just maybe they cared about Rob, too? a possibility), they thought it wise to be available for the Other, to be responsible for the Other... because let's face it, who was going to be? The military? They were evacuating...
Moreover, to attempt to insult Rob by writing "heroism without a fully realized hero proves [...] a dead end" misses the twist in this story: for a glamorous Hollywood big-budget action flick, audiences expected a happy ending, a successful good-has-overcome-evil, the-world-is-saved-let's-rejoice-over-the-fact-that-Will-Smith-has-saved-us-again type of film. We did not get that. Therein, lies the rub. We saw a group of people act heroic, only to die for their attempt. That sounds a lot more realistic (so much for simulacra???), a lot more like real life.
Yes, It Made References To 9/11... And This Is Why They Weren't Vulgar
At the end of the film, we see two people fail at their attempt to survive. Realizing this, they record their last moments, and we see Beth break down and cry, "I don't know why this is happening." I feel this reaches further into the tragedy of 9/11 than many other films, the reason being the mindlessness of the monster. Being (briefly) trained in post-colonial theory, I can see other people's objections immediately: I am not saying that the attackers were mindless (they have their reasons... reasons that we, stuck within the hegemonic discourse of Western culture may not ever be able to understand), but rather that the victims cannot know why this tragedy befell them. Why do we need a driving motive derived from Freudian theory for the monster? (besides, have you read Deleuze and Guattari? Why do we need a mommy-daddy-me Oedipal triangle so as to lend "credence" to the film???) This film is only a(n action-oriented) record of six people's suffering... nothing more.
All suffering contains an impenetrable element of mystery; from Job to theVirginia Tech Massacre, many people will always be left wondering, "why," with no semblance of an answer. Even in the viral marketing campaign for the film we are not clear on what the monster is. But do you notice what effect this has? The audience is thus inscribed within the narrative of the film: we also are left wondering, simply, "Why?"
The answer is we will not know. For a film that is ONLY about recording the suffering of six friends, albeit through the means of an action-genre flick, this movie does a good job at showing the lives of these people (literally) fall apart. And that you are disappointed that this film doesn't make conclusions for you is mind-boggling. This film doesn't pretend to be a entirely political polemic on 9/11 even though you wanted it to, is mind-boggling. Yes, it makes references, but those references were not the end goal: the movie, to reiterate my point yet again, was only to show the suffering (at an adrenaline charged pace, nevertheless), and, as I also mentioned before, that reaches further into the events of 9/11 than many other films I have watched. Feeling horrified after Marlena's stomach exploded, I left the theater with that same feeling of horror. I walked down 42nd Street to the Q line, and even after reaching home in Brooklyn, the horror of watching these people die stuck with me. That is powerful.
In Ending
Okay, enough with my rant. From the first earthquake to the credits, my heart raced. The action was great, and the special effects stellar. Sure some of the comic-relief was a little annoying, but it was still fun ("Oh my God?! Are you aware of 'Garfield'?"). And some of the acting a little campy. But how kick ass was it? The action was intense (like when tanks and army men firing bazookas appear out of nowhere? I almost want that sound designer to win some kind of award), the story was sad (everyone died right? Or was Lily the only one to make it out alive?), and it was different: no happy ending. And, honestly, I liked that.
18:06
