InsaneJournal

Ten Foot Monsters

So today I went and dragged Mat out to see Cloverfield. The reactions I’ve seen to the film have either been really, really positive or gut-wrenching hatred so I wasn’t exactly sure what to think going in. I’ve had a poke around the marketing for the film and as I’m sure you know I’m a bit of a fan of ’supplemental’ viral marketing, so I enjoyed all that stuff but, well, that’s not the film.

The thing I think is important to remember here is that I’m a fan of monster-disaster films. Godzilla, aliens, zombies; whatever, it’s all good. So long as there’s screaming and explosions I’m usually pretty happy. And as far as those criteria go, Cloverfield makes a good effort. Not stellar, since it’s hampered by its format a bit, but enough to keep me watching. The second thing you all should know is that the other type of film I like is first-person cam horror flicks. Sure, there aren’t many, but I thought Blair Witch worked well (disclaimer: I saw it a couple of years after it came out, and I really wasn’t expecting to like it) so I was curious to see how Cloverfield handled being the second ‘big name’ first person screamer.

First things first; no, they didn’t go the Blair Witch route with regards to the monster, something I was debating with randomredux. It’s a bit of a ten foot bug issue here, because it’s been kept such a ’secret’ that the reveal on the beast threatens to undermine the rest of the film by being, well, not as scary as you’d been imagining it in your head. I was fairly pleased with how the film handled this, which was essentially by simply not being shy on showing us the Big Bad; you get to see it fairly clearly fairly early on, and by the end there have been some really vivid poster shots. However at the same time, I think most people would have a hard time actually remembering what the damn thing looked like. Sure you see a lot of the ‘bits’ but they tend to be presented in a way that focuses less on the glamour of the thing itself (think of the titular monster from the US version of Godzilla posing and roaring for the camera) and more on the visceral horror of, “Oh fuck, it’s a giant monster!” So you get the impression that it’s huge and scary, but there are still enough ‘blank bits’ in the design to keep your mind interested. What does it actually look like? Well, not like this, I was somewhat disappointed to discover, because that design is hella cool. There’s nothing cool or aesthetic in the monster at all and after some thought it occurs to me that that works for it. I mean, Godzilla is obvious a kind of dinosaur/lizard thing, the pic in that link is like some kinda whale, but the actual monster? It just looks… wrong. It looks, in fact, like some horribly mutated biological mess, which if I’m reading the backstory correctly is exactly what it’s supposed to be. It’s kinda a bit like a crab and a kinda a bit like some sort of viperfish and kinda a bit like an octopus… and also nothing like any of those things at all. It’s just ugly. And that works for the film, but I’m not sure if it works as part of the ‘vision’ to turn it into an American Godzilla. Godzilla is iconic precisely because it is memorably familiar. The Cloverfield beast isn’t, and whether it’s design can overcome that limitation to become as ubiquitous as, say, the xenomorphs from Alien remains to be seen. To be honest, I’m not sure it can; H.R. Geiger gave the xenomorphs a sleek, fetishistic look that makes them memorable. They’re grotesque, but they’re… sexy grotesque, and that’s why they work. Cloverfield’s monsters don’t really have that — the little parasite bugs look like the sort of zerglings that we’ve seen before, so nothing really new there — and that’s ill-thought out, in my opinion. But we’ll see.

So, is the film actually any good? The thing is, I don’t know. I did enjoy it but as I told Mat afterwards I enjoyed it from a ‘meta’ perspective. I remember sitting in the theatre thinking, “Gosh this certainly is an interesting perspective to take on a monster disaster film.” Most monster disaster films are focused on the monster and the group of zany scientists and military guys trying to smash it, but there’s none of that here. It’s just four kids running around screaming, so it feels ‘real’ in that regard — if you’ve watched any of the 9/11 street footage a lot of the second quarter of the film will feel eerily familiar — but I supposed the almost non-narrative doesn’t necessarily make for good, popcorny fun. Forget your traditional expectations for character development and conflict; there’s not a lot of that and understandably so. But that being said the film does tend to be a bit schizophrenic in trying to decide whether it wants to be ‘documentary’ style or an actual really real movie, and it’s when it starts slipping into the latter (the camera-man character’s filming ability gets suspiciously a lot better during ‘poignant’ scenes) that the film stumbles over itself a bit. That and the first twenty minutes or so, which are essentially just a row of references for people who’ve been following the backstory on the ‘net.

Thing is, I don’t think we’re opening up a new genre here. I can’t imagine that this kind of first-person, camera-at-the-floor filming is going to really take off en masse which is good, because it’s a bit of a one-trick pony and it’s been trotted out twice already now. Of course, this is going to make a sequel damn near impossible without pissing all over the first film and we really should’ve learnt that lesson in this post-Blair Witch world. So again, that doesn’t speak wonders for the longevity of the monster itself. I mean, if you want to make a film about a monster, you really have to make a film about a monster, which this one really isn’t.

All that being said, the filming technique leaves you with some interesting side-effects, most notably the fact that the camera is often not pointing directly — or deliberately — at the action. This is exploited well for a good monster-shot early on, and it also serves for cheap obfuscation during the exploding scene, which really isn’t as bad as your mind thinks it is. It’s also not entirely true that there’s no musical score. Because, well, there isn’t but the ‘hole’ is filled in by ambient noise — wind, screams, footsteps, groaning buildings — instead. Which is clever. The lack of traditional film techniques also means there are a blissful lack of jump chords, and thank Christ it’s about fucking time. There’s probably about one ’shocking’ moment — when we accidentally get a glimpse of the monster’s face during a scramble, and then it’s only shocking in that it’s completely unexpected so consider it ruined for yourselves — and the tense moments were more a product of me knowing what was coming up next than anything else. Still, I’d take that honesty over cheap loud noises any day.

So there you have it. I’m still not sure whether this film was any good or not, but I enjoyed it and I’m glad I saw it. Still, I can see how it would royally piss a lot of people off, so don’t take that as a ringing endorsement or anything.

And now, as a DVD bonus extra, I will attempt to summarise the supplemental material for those of you who can’t be arsed trawling the ‘net look for it.

• There’s a Japanese company that gets into activities like deep-sea drilling (the company main character guy is off to work for).
• While doing so, it’s uncovered an edible substance it calls ‘deep sea nectar’.
• It’s marketing this as an all-purpose food additive, especially in a new drink called Slusho (note the brother’s t-shirt).
• The mystery additive — and Slusho — appears to give people a ‘hit’, then withdrawal symptoms of the depression and rage variety. It’s probably addictive, and there’s some controversy on whether it should be marketed for sale.
• The company has also recently had a series of disasters, including the destruction of an oil rig and the loss of some ships (the tanker in the harbour). These appear to have been hushed-up.
• There’s a group of activists who think the Japanese company is evil and that they shouldn’t be allowed to market Slusho. They seem to have some moles within the group.
• A chick in the US has a boyfriend who is working on some mystery project in Japan, and she makes videos for him. He sends her a box containing a mystery object which she is instructed not to eat. She eats it, and starts displaying side effects similar to withdrawal from the deep sea nectar. (She’s the blonde chick passed out on the couch at the party.)
• There’s also a few pages of a tie-in manga that seem to be about a kid with a dead mother who’s considered ‘weird’, bullied, and locked in a room. Meanwhile, some guys out on a boat dredge up a pair of scary eyes from the bottom of the ocean; it’s implied that these things are connected, but not necessarily happening congruently.

So there you go. To be honest, I’m half of the opinion that the ‘mystery’ in the viral stuff is more interesting than the film. It’s a game, and of course that’s the whole point.

Comment?

This post has been mirrored from void-star.net β. You may comment there using your LiveJournal/Dreamwidth/OpenID URL instead of an email address. Randoms and lurkers are more than welcome.