FREN

Garoo


7 apr. 2008

Cloverfield  

I can’t imagine how painful it must have been to watch this in a theater.

It’s an interesting filmmaking experiment: what if you made a big-budget Blair Witch? Well, it would fail in the same way the original did: I don’t see how anyone could ever care about those characters. It’s not just that the “realism” conflicts with our expectations about what we’re gonna see in a movie; the problem is that the movie techniques we’re expecting have a purpose — they show us several perspectives and emphasize certain moments so that ten minutes of surprise-party footage allow us to know much more about the characters than we just would by spending ten minutes in the party, or watching the beginning of Cloverfield.

Not that the director made it easy for himself: the decision to use unknown actors, as obvious as it sounds when you’re developing the concept, actually harms it; using recognized faces would create the connection that’s missing between the audience and the characters (that’s what famous actors are for). And I don’t understand why Hud has to be the most obnoxious character in the whole cast (not to mention a poor acting performance). Sure, you’ve got to be an asshole to be dutifully carrying a camera around while the city around you is destroyed; but I really don’t think that would be the kind of asshole who screams OH MY GOOOOOD at the top of his prepubescent lungs every two seconds, among many other things that made me want to slap my screen.

Plus, the girlfriend rescue plan is completely unbelievable. And the monster’s ugly. Which I would probably put in the “pros” column if I enjoyed the movie, because designers don’t usually go for the truly repulsive, gross (lack of) aesthetics.

Want to know when I post new content to my blog? It's a simple as registering for free to an RSS aggregator (Feedly, NewsBlur, Inoreader, …) and adding www.garoo.net to your feeds (or www.garoo.net if you want to subscribe to all my topics). We don't need newsletters, and we don't need Twitter; RSS still exists.

rhino75, 6 years ago:

mmm, I think you're being a little bit harsh. I saw it in a movie theater and rather enjoyed it - it does EXACTLY what it says on the packet. You're not supposed to get too emotionally involved with the characters in this kind of movie (because you know there's quite a strong chance they won't make it to the end of the film) and using unknowns actually made it easier to suspend my disbelief (that a monster would attack Manhattan - and yes, same monster was very disappointing). I thought there were quite a few elements of black humor in there though - for example, the people standing round taking pictures with their cellphones of Liberty's head. And while I agree that the "I gotta go back and rescue someone I slept with once" conceit is a bit rubbish - if it ever happens in Paris, don't bother ringing boys! - how else are you going to get them back into the city? I would have given it an extra star, mainly because I was actually quite scared of those spidery things :)

garoo, 6 years ago:

"I thought there were quite a few elements of black humor in there though - for example, the people standing round taking pictures with their cellphones of Liberty's head."

I didn't take it as black humor but simply an attempt at realism :)

"while I agree that the "I gotta go back and rescue someone I slept with once" conceit is a bit rubbish"

See, that's where it would help if the actors were Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie :) (They haven't "just slept together once," IIRC they've been friends and kinda secretly in love forever.)

Maybe it was scarier in a theater, I don't know.

Legal information: This blog is hosted par OVH, 2 rue Kellermann, 59100 Roubaix, France, www.ovhcloud.com.

Personal data about this blog's readers are not used nor transmitted to third-parties. Comment authors can request their deletion by e-mail.

All contents © the author or quoted under fair use.