Search for a film:

April 16, 2008

Cloverfield

Panic, confusion and rampaging, murderous creatures

By Michael

So often, people critique a movie by stating that it employs “style over substance,” as if this piece of information is enough to entirely dismiss a film’s merits. Obviously, movies that lack good characterization and logical storytelling are highly unlikely to become classics but there are certain cases where the details of the story have to take a backseat to the style in which the story is told. Matt Reeves’ Cloverfield is a prime example of this. In fact, it may be one of the only films I’ve seen where this approach was absolutely necessary.

If you missed the marketing blitz and the viral web tie-ins, Cloverfield is essentially a first-person monster movie. New York City is attacked by a very large creature of unknown origin and design. We only see and hear events through a few characters’ eyes and ears. No one in the movie ever really objectively examines the situation like we’d see in an Independence Day or a Godzilla. Instead it only focuses on 4 people desperately trying to survive the attack and the warzone that NYC has become and find a way to rescue one of their friends. That’s pretty much it. The plot was deliberately kept unclear before the release, I assume, because it’s really just that simple. Of course, the obvious comparison for many people is between this and The Blair Witch Project. They aren’t really that similar. The main difference is that, in Cloverfield, things actually happen. And they don’t stop happening.

Cloverfield was produced by J.J. Abrams, perhaps best known for his creation and direction of the TV series’ Lost and Alias. The viewers of those programs are quite clear that Abrams deals more heavily in mystery than exposition. Questions are more interesting than answers for him, perhaps. For many, this style of storytelling is gimmicky and even infuriating. In fact, if this describes you, there is no way on earth you will see Cloverfield and enjoy it. This is not a film with a neat or even clear resolution. In much of Abrams’ work, that is simply not the point. Instead, a riskier gambit is utilized. His work puts all of its faith his characters are so likeable, or at least intriguing, that you will remain engaged in whatever situation they find themselves in. While that may be a successful strategy for his television shows, this strategy is precisely what makes Cloverfield a polarizing film.

There are many who strongly disliked this film mainly and explicitly because they just didn’t give a shit about anyone on the screen at any time. And that’s fair enough. As I mentioned before, the actual characterizations are pretty weak. We only get a snapshot of the main characters before disaster strikes. The first 15 minutes or so of the movie take place at a party where the only real conflict is a messy, awkward romantic entanglement. The litmus test for whether one is engaged in this movie is if you even care about the pre-horror socializing. If not, the rest of the movie is just a tedious exercise in shaky camera work and an exhausting journey with 4 people you can’t stand. I personally believe this movie succeeds because I found the characters endearing. Endearing and funny and complicated and infuriating and basically like everyone I know. The creators of this film get away with only lightly sketching their characters because they’re so plebeian and ordinary, the viewers can easily project their own experiences onto them.

Of course, there’s not all that much time for that because panic, confusion and rampaging, murderous creatures take over the film at about the 15 minute mark and essentially continue, non-stop, for the rest of it. This is why, stylistically, the moviemakers made the right decision. The mood of the film is stressed panic. Not just uncertainty, but panic. Things happen onscreen very quickly and there is simply no time to stop and explain or to gawk at others’ misfortunes. If there were more exposition, it would only have served to distract. It would have taken us “out of the moment,” which is certainly highly counterproductive to a movie like this. And despite clarity being sacrificed, there is no logical explanation for a lot of events in the movie anyway. Any explanation of the presence of a 100 foot lizard rampaging through New York would be patently ridiculous anyway. Once you rid yourself of the notion that these details are relevant, the experience of the film becomes more enjoyable. If enjoyable is the right word. Maybe “exhilarating” is better. Honestly, I didn’t feel great after seeing it. It’s not a pleasant film, but its non-stop adherence to its established mood is astonishing and laudable. This is certainly a niche film. I can’t imagine the filmmakers had aspirations of making an all-time classic. It is certainly no clinic in how to write a screenplay. Instead, to their credit, they have produced a successful experiment in pacing, mood, style and strategic special effects. If you can bring yourself to care, you’ll enjoy it.

Back to Top