PDA

View Full Version : Matt Reeves: Cloverfield (2008)



Chris Knipp
03-05-2008, 07:44 PM
MATT REEVES: CLOVERFIELD (2008)

"Are you still filming? People will want to know how it all went down"

Cloverfield is an astonishing piece of verite. Carried to an impossible extreme, as verite can be sometimes, this movie pretending to be shot with a cheap video camera takes us right into a New York City Armageddon where giant serpents or trolls start out by duplicating the feel of 9/11, only all over midtown, with buildings collapsing or bursting into flames and people rushing around madly in extremis.

But it doesn't happen right away, because it's verite--it really happened, you see--so a guy just happened to have a video camera in his hand and a goodbye party in a downtown loft for a young corporate yuppie man who got a cool assignment to Japan. It's the clever conceit of this movie that a good twenty minutes go by before the Godzilla stuff happens, just long enough so you're actually getting vaguely interested in how it's coming out that something is going on between the party boy Rob( Michael Stahl-David), and his girlfriend Beth (Odette Yustman), or something, and you've relaxed and almost forgotten what you were waiting for to happen, when it does. Wham!

And then everything is collapsing and somehow the strong survive all the way down to the bottom of the building--this is where 9/11 really echoes in your mind--and out onto the street, with cars and cops and people every which way and pieces of bulidings falling into themselves and lights all red and orange, and the camera always a-tilt and running.because somebody has handed it to Hud (T.J. Miller), Rob's not-too-smart but faithful and determined best buddy, at the start of the party with instructions to record people, which he went around doing, till now. And Beth is up on the West Side, and Rob has the crazy notion that they've got to get up there to save her.

This being the post-modern media world, it's all a movie-within-a-movie-within-a movie. We are watching a film retrieved by the government from "the area formerly known as Central Park” after an "incident" code-named "Cloverfield," so this is the government's archival film now, and every so often it glitches back to an earlier film Rob shot, where he's on a first date on Coney Island falling in love with Beth. So you've got the halcyon past, the beyond-hellish present, and the unknown future all right there--in 74 minutes. This is another beauty of a movie that has not garnered enormous critical praise (though Edelstein of New York Magazine likes it and so did the witty Nathan Lee--let's just say it plays well in Manhattan) but has the beauty and extraordinary cachet of being as intense as any horror sci-fi monster movie you will ever see, and in a form utterly concise. And utterly true to Manhattan. The locations are quite vivid and specific and real, and these are 73 New York minutes, full of energy and speed and in-your-face.

And there is a monster--of the kind that's gigantic and terrifying but also so Japanese Fifties looking even though in color I tried to look away, because it broke the spell--which gives rise to or sloughs off more human-sized giant spider things that make a deliciously creepy crackling sound, like a giant crunchy rattlesnake, clattering and sliding around in people's faces and if it bites, watch out! You'll have a big bloody wound and after a while you won't feel too good at all.

Even though 28 Weeks Later took us down into a Tube station in similar circumstances, the stay down there in the Spring Street station with Rob and Hud & Co. stays with me. So does the first chaos on the street when they make it down from Rob's loft. This is a moderately high-budget grunge picture; it has the best of both worlds. It has tons of extras and special effects, but it doesn't dazzle you with their glitz, because you're just sort of glimpsing them through the terrified shaky hand of the, well, hand-held camera.

But I really can't remember much of it because, well, I was there, man. It all happened too fast. In fact many of the incidents that occur have been seen in other disaster movies, but still, this is what Nabokov meant when he spoke of transcending the tradition in one's own way. Reeves--and bless him, he's already planning a sequel--is a director who makes it all look and sound different, constant, non-stop, and intense. You couldn't take more than 73 minutes; it would be unbearable. And even before that the novelty wears off, and again and again you realize that Hud's still having the camera in his grip and working is wholly implausible. But the style, the look, and the feel of it are compulsive and hypnotic. This may be a bad movie. It is not a movie to take seriously. But it is a good bad movie, a very good one. It will fill you up. And like Chinese food, it will leave you feeling empty two hours later. But it will have been worth it.

You don't care about these people. They're shallow, emptily up-to-date, going nowhere. But that makes this all the more verite. There are no heroes. No (human) villains. No human interest, really. Just stuff happening. Drew Goddard's screenplay deserves credit for that. And kudos to Michael Bonvillain’s cinematography with its endlessly chittering video effects and the FX flow, aided by Kevin Stitt’s lively cutting, which keeps things moving in and out, in and out, like a dying heart.

tabuno
03-06-2008, 12:29 AM
A new word for me, "verite." Cloverfield , is a pretentious A Blair Witch Project wannabe draped in special effects and attempts to be an action thriller at the same time. Unfortunately, this is a pretend verite movie that tries hard, excessively hard to be verite but ends up a loose parody of a verite movie without intending to. Better theatrical versions of verite on film, not videotape include Black Hawk Down (1991) and United 93 (2006). The size and scope of the nature of this fantastic monster movie cannot be adequately captured on videotape from a singular person's perspective as the more intimate and focused The Blair Witch Project. A lot of the important action and thrills are missed because of the need to portray reality of a hand-held video camera. Unfortunately, Cloverfield is an example of attempting to make something look real by deliberately making sure the shots look real, but it ends up just that - an appearance of some director's attempt to make something look real when it isn't.

Chris Knipp
03-06-2008, 01:50 AM
Don't agree. It looked pretty real to me, a lot of the way through. Allowing for the monsters. Except that Hud could hardly have kept the camera and himself working as long as he did. Verite has two accents, but this site does not support them. A common enough word. Would not think Black Hawk Down in style is at all cinema verite. The term is from the Sixties the time of the Nouvelle Vague.

The Blair Witch Project definitely is in the same category and so is Romero's new Diary of the Dead.

tabuno
03-06-2008, 02:02 AM
What spoiled the realism and thus being able to become immersed into the visceral emotional rollercoaster of Cloverfield was what appeared to me to be an overt attempt to include the common, amateur mistakes of home videos. There were what to me appeared to be exaggerated angled shots, more than even most ordinary people would angle the video camera - there was the shots of nothing and nobody, there was the gag shots, playful shots. There were the necessary shots that had to be in the movie in order for the audience to get a sense of what was going on. There was so much going on that a lot was lost because the movie was restricted to the singular one person, one video camera perspective. Unfortunately for me the movie didn't feel real to me. Perhaps its because I couldn't be in the movie because I wouldn't have used the video camera in this way. It wasn't me. So therefore I was just watching something that was apart, separate, could have been shot in an alternate universe for all I cared.

Chris Knipp
03-06-2008, 10:50 AM
Okay. The angled shots are because they are running around terrified and in constant danger of their lives in crowds of people with pieces falling off buildings the head of the Statue of Liberty crashing down into a street and clattering monster spiders jumping at them. Try keeping your little video camera squared off and horizontal when all that's going on. "There were the necessary shots that had to be in the movie in order for the audience to get a sense of what was going on." Yeah, and you object to that too? What would you have had them do? "Unfortunately for me the movie didn't feel real to me. Perhaps its because I couldn't be in the movie because I wouldn't have used the video camera in this way. It wasn't me. " There's no answer to that. "So therefore I was just watching something that was apart, separate, could have been shot in an alternate universe for all I cared." I'd've kind of thought that was why we go to movies like this one.

tabuno
03-06-2008, 12:46 PM
I agree somewhat with Chris Knipp's comments about angle shots, those that he is referring to, but those are not the angle shots I'm talking about. Unfortunately, in being able to suspend my disbelief, I had my faith in what I was seeing broken early on during the beginning of the movie...not during the terrifying, monster, scary scenes. During the beginning of the movie when the videocamera was just handed over to the apparently new novice video historian, there were too many shots that, were for me, designed to let the audience know that this was a reality perspective and included in what in my mind were all the amateur mistakes one experiences in using a videocamera. It was during this part of the movie that, unfortunately, became disenchanted with the director's need to demostrate to the audience that this was a reality perspective because look how real this is because this guy can't hold the camera right and of course he's going to focus on the female breasts instead of the primary subject material.

I admit part of the problem in viewing this movie is me...I'm super sensitive as to how a reality is presented on screen and my own feelings about how real people actually videotape live scenes having looked at reality television. It just seemed to me that the director had this need to exaggerate and highlight reality's videocamera foilbles in the first fifteen minutes of the film. Sometimes less is more. It's a very fine line between perceived reality and reality and each person is different. Perhaps for me my balance between perceived reality and the demand for it on screen is my curse.

Chris Knipp
03-06-2008, 01:17 PM
During the beginning of the movie when the videocamera was just handed over to the apparently new novice video historian, there were too many shots that, were for me, designed to let the audience know that this was a reality perspective and included in what in my mind were all the amateur mistakes one experiences in using a videocamera. It was during this part of the movie that, unfortunately, became disenchanted with the director's need to demostrate to the audience that this was a reality perspective because look how real this is because this guy can't hold the camera right and of course he's going to focus on the female breasts instead of the primary subject material. Well, there's just no pleasing you. You are saying that because the images are realistic, you refuse to believe them. Maybe because , though experienced in still photography (see my website), I have literally zero experience using a video camera, I simply accept as quite possible whatever comes in the way of manufactured amateur video footage, and the action in this movie is so intense and compelling it's quite a while before I would even think about the issues you bring up. That said, if you read my review I was obviously aware what kind of movie I was watching, so when Hud got the camera thrust into his hands (and why not assume he is inexperienced in using it and would do all the things an amateur does wrong?) I knew sooner or later all hell was going to break loose.
Sometimes less is more.Indeed. A favorite principle of mine. But that would be another movie. Matt Reeves' principle--one that I think works for him here--is that nothing succeeds like excess.
Perhaps for me my balance between perceived reality and the demand for it on screen is my curse.I wouldn't go that far, but a little more capacity for 'willing suspension of disbelief' is a prerequisite for enjoying a movie like Cloverfield, for sure, and I guess I have that more than you do, maybe even more than the average person sometimes. That said, this movie is something I look on as fun, but scary, scary disturbing fun--as for horror movie fans, gory Freddy Kruger stuff usually is. Horror movies don't work as well for me. I suppose Cloverfield worked for me because the approach seemed fresh to me. The length of the boring young lower Manhattan yuppie party footage to start out with is a plus. It's real clever to make you wait so long for the action to begin that you're caught by surprise when it does.

Cloverfield is a verite tour de force. If the technical visual style doesn't work for you, if you start thinking up objections to it the minute it starts, the movie's a bust.

tabuno
03-06-2008, 01:42 PM
Chris Knipp:


You are saying that because the images are realistic, you refuse to believe them.

What I intended to say is that the images aren't realistic because from my perspective they are forced images made up to appear to be realistic. The precarious boundary between illusion that what we are seeing is real and the illusion was made up was violated by the director during the beginning scenes of this movie in how the video shots were made. One of the better uses of this verite technqiue was made a number of years ago in Brainstorm (1983) Natalie Wood's last movie (she drowned towards the end of shooting) where the images are sharp, clear, and some of the best big-budget vicarious movie scenes to date even after neary a quarter of a century.

Chris Knipp
03-06-2008, 02:25 PM
I'm sorry, I oversimplified. I see what you mean. But it's finally just a matter of opinion. "Reality," Nabokov always used to write, is a word that should only be written in quotation marks.

I'm not sure about Brainstorm, and it's nice you brought in that example, but there's a difference, of course, between "verite" in the sense of rigorous p.o.v. shots, and "verite" images that are presented as actual footage shot during an event, which requires a "patina" or on-the-scene rough look. If you prefer images to be sharp and clear, fine, but then the on-the-scene archival footage effect is lost--and that particular sense of "reality" is lost with it.

But it is a fact that the harder a filmmaker strives for "realism" the more obvious the artifice will tend to become.

The one-line IMDb description of Brainstorm is:
Brilliant researchers Lillian Reynolds and Michael Brace have developed a system of recording and playing back actual experiences of people... For me, that would require far more 'willing suspension of disbelief' than what propoerts to be archival footage from a consumer grade video camera.

tabuno
03-08-2008, 01:46 AM
I agree. Thanks for pointing me into the more refined art of verite. It helps to put things in perspective. What an "free" education I get on this website.