Hi folks — There is no class on July 3rd – so enjoy your long July 4th weekend!
For those wanting/needing to revise your first review, please bring updated copy to class by Tuesday, July 8th.
Mini-reviews for next class (to quickly read):
Sent in by Toi: “Sex in the City“‘
Sent in by Rachel G. “Iron Man Packs a Punch as Cinema’s Newest Superhero“
Sent in by Samantha: “History Now“
CLASS: For next Tuesday’s class, please read the following and be prepared to discuss how you navigated the fictional story “My Body,” what you thought of the narrative structure, etc. For your last blog response (yes, this is the last one!), please discuss your thoughts about the film we saw in class, Cloverfield, and how the film possibly reflects contemporary concerns, issues, desires, etc.
Readings:
- Shelley Jackson, “My Body“
Also, PRESENTATIONS begin next THURSDAY – please note that half the class will be expected to do their oral presentations on REVIEW # 2 next Thursday, the other half on Tuesday, July 15th. The actual written review is due on July 17th (the last day of class) BY EMAIL – your email w/ attachment should be time stamped no later than midnight! You should, however, already know who you plan to review and therefore have thoughts (and media examples) to show for your presentations. For guidelines on what is expected for both your written review and the presentation of that artist’s work, as well as the schedule of oral presentations, please click here.
Also — while there are no more blog response assignments, please do continue to check the blog for any announcements or updates in the schedule.
16 responses so far ↓
rachel Galicia // July 3, 2008 at 11:55 am |
I had seen Cloverfield before and the second time was better. I saw it in the movies and I enjoyed the movie but I had to look away more than a few times to settle my stomach. They used the hand held camera effect, which I thought worked great because you never get to see the Godzilla movie from the ground. It gave a whole new perspective on what would be happening to the people of the city being destroyed. It also gave you a real feel that it was real or that you were there. The shakiness was a bit much on the big screen but when on a smaller screen it worked well, giving you the story of a bunch of friends trying to survive. Although, I would have to say, if I were about to die and people are dying around me, I don’t think I would still be holding onto the camera recording everything that happened. What I think this film reflects of contemporary concerns and issues was the fear of New York, or the “heart” of America as we stated in class, being destroyed or attacked by terrorists or whoever. Probably the fear of war on our own turf. Desires that I think the film reflects is a hard one but I think it might reflect the desire to see war and destruction. Like we talked about in class, people like to see destruction when we are not in a time of war because it doesn’t actually affect us. We actually enjoy it, although I am not that clear on why. Maybe it fills our desire to save the ones we love or to be saved by the ones we love even though that didn’t happen in the end, which I did not like at all. I am sorry but I have to express that I hated the ending. They escaped the bridge being destroyed, they got away from the small bug things, they made it to the top of the fallen building to save the guys lover, then made it through the city to the helicopters, then they survived the helicopter crash, and escaped form the monster eating them at the end, ony to get blown up by their own people. Boooo!
April // July 7, 2008 at 5:48 pm |
I had seen Cloverfield before, and I thought that the idea for the movie was really cool. It made everything that happened seem more real, which in my opinion, brought me into the movie more than I would have if it was just filmed the way that all monster movies were filmed. After I watched the movie with my ex, I asked him and his friends what they liked about it. They all said that it made them think about what they would do in a situation like that. They told me that sometimes they wish crazy shit would go down, just so they can prove how heroic they would act. I looked at them as if they were insane because when I watched the movie it filled me with fear and the question of “who would save me if this crazy shit went down?” So, right there it proves that guys enjoy destruction more than girls.
No just kidding. I think that if the destruction takes place in a movie, we all enjoy watching it because it is not happening around us. But the same can be said for even watching 911 on t.v. the images of the planes going into the buildings, and the people jumping out of windows just to escape, was awful, but I couldn’t turn away. That stuff was happening on our own American soil, and it was hard for a lot of people to handle that idea.
Cloverfield supplied our minds with destruction, some romance, and an idea that “this can happen to anyone, anywhere”, and that’s why I believe the movie was so succesful. It’s kind of sad that now there’s another movie coming out, filmed in the same sort of way, and I think that everyone’s just going to associate this new movie with Cloverfield. I just feel bad for the people who can’t think of new exciting ideas, and just have to copy off of other’s.
Rachael Harter // July 7, 2008 at 10:20 pm |
Cloverfield…um not impressed. I have to preface that I am not really into sci-fi thrillers or thrillers in general so I did not have that high of expectations. The sad thing is that even those expectations were not met. It was my first time seeing the movie and I felt a complete disconnect from the movie, the plot (was there one exactly) and any since of reality. For a movie to have any kind of terror effect there has to be some reality, something to connect with. Though the camera technique tried to bring the movie into a sort of ‘reality’ by making it seem as though it was a home video, it did not bring me ‘there’ at all. I will give a little credit for creativity but then again has this not been done before. I just had no feel for being brought into the story. We were at a party and then some thing (which was never figured out what in the world it was or why it was there or what it was doing besides creating chaos) started to create havoc. One by one people die, blah blah blah the same old thriller movie sequence. The only real difference was that they all die, every last one except maybe one that escapes by helicopter that we are not so sure of. And what happens? Is the creature destroyed? Is the word destroyed? How did all of this start? Why in the world was there no redemptive ending at all, no glimpse of any light at all, no real conclusion? (Sorry that last question is personal, I am not a big fan of hopeless movies). To me this lack of any kind of hope at all in some ways is unrealistic in itself, but maybe that’s just my life outlook. So over all, to say I wasn’t that impressed would be an understatement. Some of the camera shots were impressive but as the same style was dragged on through out the whole movie I lost my ‘impressed’ feelings half way through. At least I can say that was an easy one. It did not take much to disappoint me about this film.
Torreyanna // July 8, 2008 at 12:54 pm |
I have no idea why this movie was called cloverfield, I guess I missed something. I thought it was great. I liked how everyone died in the end, how there was no hope. I’m tired of hope. I thought the monster was unbelievable, but something about the personal hand-held camera made me suspend all disbelief. What is this movie commenting on…? I think perhaps it speaks to us now because of the natural disasters that have recently been escalating and because of the fact that so many more of us are aware of the rapidly changing environment. In the movie this monster seemed to come from the water…like it had been awakened or something. Our earth is changing and species of animal are dying out at the same time as “new” species are being discovered. As we learn more about the planet we inhabit it seems to me we find out that it is more mysterious than we had previously imagined.
No matter what, the movie speaks to fear. The media, the news and lots of our conversations as well gravitate not towards what we are excited about doing, becoming, creating or completing, but what we are afraid we won’t be doing, etc. Human beings are afraid. We are afraid of each other, ourselves and of death. The funniest, or strangest part of this for me is that we revel in it, we eat up fear like it’s cupcakes or something. Strange creatures, we. Perhaps the monster in the movie symbolized all of the ills in human society and inter-relations. Our bullshit had accumulated and personified in a huge, weird elboed, invincible dinosaur-dog-fish monster. I can see it happening! It makes perfect sense.
Isabel // July 8, 2008 at 1:08 pm |
When the movie started I kept hoping that we wouldn’t actually have to watch the entire thing. I’d seen it before (unwillingly) and tolerated it but I didn’t think I could muster the patience to see it twice. Yet somehow I was once again able to get past hating all the characters and everything that comes out of their mouths and get sucked into the action.
I guess the handheld camera is one of the main things responsible for Cloverfield’s ability to draw in the viewer. We’ve come to trust raw, unprofessional footage over polished, edited film. (Though it’s weird here to think of how engineered and edited this movie actually is). Even though anybody can edit and manipulate film on their laptop now, I still feel like a YouTube video is more genuine or at least more like real life than what we might see on the news. When I watch the news I’m always suspicious of what I don’t see and why. Even sometimes when I’m watching movies I’m annoyed at their contrived slickness. So even though I know this is another fabricated blockbuster monster movie, Cloverfield’s story seems more terrifying and urgent than others of its genre because of the crude camera style.
I thought the message of the movie is about holding on to what’s important to you. Maybe that was just the superficial message. We’re distracted by all the clutter in our lives and we let the important things slide too often. There was a scene right after Rob’s brother’s death where Rob is standing grief-stricken in front of a big illuminated Sephora makeup sign. The juxtaposition of death, destruction, and monsters against little things like cosmetics and lovers’ quarrels puts life back into perspective for the viewers.
Laura // July 8, 2008 at 1:13 pm |
I remember when Cloverfield was first released back in January, I remember sitting in the theater waiting to see what I think was Juno (which I got my money back from), watching the previews and being utterly amazed at the fact that two NYC disaster films were being released during all this Bush redemption/primary bullshit (the other being I am Legend). Aside from pointing out the blatant humanistic manipulation, I actually recall turning to my friend next to me and commenting on the fact that it was certainly a point of notation that not one, but two apocalyptic-esque films about New York were being shoved down our post-9/11 throats (and previewed before a subversively pro-choice “indie” film, nonetheless!). While this doesn’t exactly comment on the Cloverfield itself, I feel as if there is some importance to the timing of the release of certain disaster films, because as unfortunate as it is, sometimes Hollywood has political ties, and sometimes they happen to use them. Godzilla’s release during the cold war probably only elevated the fears festering in America’s minds, magnified by the lacking sense of control or expectation of what was thought of at the time to be an apocalyptic possibility. What does a disaster film do to us? What state of mind does it leave us in? Films like Cloverfield are little reminders of our own mortality, and even if they are COMPLETELY far-fetched and fantastical, they place us into a temporary reality where our real-life fears and paranoias are tapped-into and manipulated under artificial contexts. What I’m trying to say is that often, disaster films are used as a vehicle (as I suppose many genres are these days) to instill a certain responsive sense of awareness when sometimes that awareness is less than productive in our everyday lives.
Samantha H. // July 8, 2008 at 1:26 pm |
Though my critical mind holds great disdain for these disaster flicks, something in me always really enjoys them. And Cloverfield did not seem so riddled with nationalistic propaganda as many others that I have encountered. And thinking back on it, it seems difficult to really pull out anything the filmmaker would have been trying to say! The crisis doesn’t seem symbolic–the true nature of the nebulous monster is never revealed. We have no idea how it got there, or why it realeases giant spiders–no idea what the hell that monster is throughout the whole film. So it is difficult to really assign it social meaning. In the end, no one really comes together, aside from a group of friends (not out of the ordinary by any means), and in the end they all die–as well as a majority of New York City. This does not mean the end of times, however, because we learn in the very first shot that the U.S. government was able to declare central park a disaster zone. Later we learn that the U.S. government chose to deal with it by isolating the island of Manhattan and essentially, wiping it off the face of the map with fire power. Fairly realistic in this strange scenario I would say.
I am not sure what to make of this film. I am tempted to say that the filmmakers actually made an attempt at a mindless thriller that is no more no less. The only social commentary you could draw perhaps is that ultimately we all will die, there is no hope, life is completely random and all is meaningless. Which ain’t so depressing. It just is. Of course, Cloverfield attempts to make our guts wrench in the final scene as it takes us to a flashback to a day at Coney Island.
Oh–and finally, one fairly explicit, likely unconscious example of social relations seeping into the film is the scene where the protagonist enters the electronic store for batteries. The place is being looted, and if you look closely–all the looters are black. I don’t think this is accident, and it perpetuates negative and in fact, incorrect racist stereotypes. In light of the Katrina coverage of “looting” make me cringe a little when I see this in a contemporary film.
Samantha H. // July 8, 2008 at 1:33 pm |
One last thing- I am so tired of watching these supposive heart-wrenching stories about the wealthy! It seems that the protagonists of these films are always loaded, and we always get a skewed perspective. For instance, with the “looters”–I am more interested in where they are coming from. What is their story? How will they escape? What were their lives like before and how will they be now? See the problem often is that if films were to explore the truth about the way this country’s oppressed actually live, it wouldn’t sell and it certainly could not serve as a bourgeois propaganda tool.
Toi // July 8, 2008 at 2:11 pm |
Cloverfield was a really good movie and I was surprised that I liked it. As a TV major I never gave it much of a chance because all of my peers would bash the aesthetics of the camera work! I felt like I was their and that it was a real event that took place and that could go into history books. The main character annoyed me because he was selfish and putting others in danger for the a female whom he wasn’t sure he loved until tragedy hit. Everyone died because of his journey trying to find her and then they didn’t even live to the end of the movie. It love that harsh or is that love! He didn’t even care about his brothers death to me nor about himself staying alive for his parents, if not for himself. Overall the whole idea was cool and had me on edge while watching it! I would love to see it again to see if I get anything else from the movie.
Jordan // July 8, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
I did not hate nor did I love Cloverfield. First what I liked. I thought they did a good job of holding you in suspense the entire time. At the end, even though everyone died, I was just kind of relieved that it was over, not in a bad way, I guess I felt really stressed out watching the characters running scared throughout NYC. I always feel that if I am stressed out while watching a thriller, then it has done its job. Ok, now what I did not like. The whole hand held camera thing was stupid. Like someone else said, there is no way I would be holding a camera for 2 whole hours while running for my life. In the Blair Witch Project, they were actually making a documentary so it was a bit more believable that they would have the camera with them. The whole set-up in Cloverfield was unbelievable and stupid, especially the part where they are crossing over from one building to another, yeah dude, thats when you just say “Screw this camera!” and put it down. Something else that was so cliche that Samantha H. pointed out was how the main characters were all loaded and beautiful. I agree with her point about the looters, and how that would have made for a more “real” and interesting story. The most irritating part of the whole movie was the group trying to get back to the injured love interest. That was soo dumb. For one, you know she is injured and probably wont live given the circumstances, and two, why did they ALL have to go rescue her? Call me unloyal or an ass, but I believe I would have said “good luck, but you are on your own.” I was actually shocked that this movie did not recieve more publicity or criticism with respects toward 9/11. (Maybe it did and I just did not hear about it.) I can imagine if you were actually in Manhattan and witnessed 9/11 , it would have been hard to watch Cloverfield, even though in the movie it was a monster, just the chaotic street scenes were reminiscent of news footage we all saw after 9/11. Like we talked about in class, people love to see destruction. As I said before, the “stress” factor is kind of like an adrenaline rush when watching these movies.
Nate // July 8, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
So Cloverfield… awesome (and I know you hate that word) but the movie was awesome! I captured what I imagined an attack on a major metropolitan city would feel like through my eyes. I have always been a fan of the Godzilla movies and really any kind of movie that involves gigantic mutant creatures attacking a city (King Kong, The Host, The Blob, etc.); no matter how corny they may be (Godzilla). The handheld camera technique I think worked really well for the movie, and gave it a completely different feel from other “disaster films” that have been produced. Everyone (and I’m using that term loosely) knows how and why Godzilla came to be, but no one knows where this creature from Cloverfield came from, which gives the characters in the film more reason to act the way that they did. If some creepy creature rose from Lake Michigan and started to demolish Chicago, I wouldn’t know what to think, I certainly wouldn’t be given the information and history of the creature like all of the characters in a Godzilla flick would (they all seem to be super scientists) and if I was at a going away party for a friend of mine I sure as fuck would not be sober enough to care! The character recording the whole thing was hilarious for the simple fact that he was the weakest link in the party of friends; he was trying to hit on some chick the entire time (even in times of peril) and kept on repeating “I’ll document” throughout the film. As for what the greater social/ economic message that is underlining the film… I don’t know, Hurricane Katrina? September eleventh? Rudy Giuliani? I don’t know, and I frankly don’t really care, what I saw was a huge (creatively designed) monster destroying NYC while all of the characters in the film slowly but surely got fucked up, which was awesome!
Nancy // July 8, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
I agree with Torreyanna on the whole “Cloverfield” title. Where did this come from? How did they get this name for the creature? I know at the beginning it stated that the film was found in (formerly known as) Central Park and the “case” itself was called Cloverfield, but I always wondered why.
I had seen this movie in a theater back when it first came out and I have to say that I’m glad that I did. Thankfully, I don’t get motion-sickness, so the hand held camera work didn’t bother me. I watched it again for the blog assignment and just didn’t get the same impact.
I enjoyed the fact that this story was shown from the first person and that not all of our questions are answered. A person really has no idea what is going on, what happened, or who’s involved… you really don’t know anything except that “something terrible” is out there. This reminded me, somewhat, of hearing first-hand accounts from 9/11 survivors. People on the street had no idea what was happening. If they hadn’t seen for themselves, planes crashing into the buildings, then they really didn’t know what was going on. I also felt that the parts of the film shot on the Brooklyn Bridge were pretty eerie when you remember the real-life massive panic and exodus from New York several years ago. It was kind of shocking to see and my stomach did a little flip.
Just like alien/creature films done during the “red scare” you could assign the “evil of our day” to the creature in this film, too. Depending on your view, it could represent something political, or even possibility. Who’s to say that a creature like this couldn’t be real? Crazy things are being thought up in labs everyday, why not something like this? A genetic experiment gone awry, perhaps? Who knows.
Regardless, I was shocked and pissy when the movie just ended with the assumption that our hero and heroine die. But you know, as I thought about it more, that’s real-life. The good guys don’t always live and I appreciated that in this film.
Michael Miles // July 8, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
Cloverfield is nauseating bullshit. I have seen it before we watched it in class, and when I saw that we were going to watch it, I immediately became a bit sour. To me, the film is a generic copy-cat. It steals every single idea it uses, and ultimately, to what effect? Seriously, the movie seems like a few 20-30 year old males sat down in a room, got stoned and watched Godzilla and Blair Witch Project and thought it would be “wicked cool” to combine them. Heck you can hear this being pitched in a Hollywood studio office, and see the dollar signs in the Execs. eyes as their hear Godzilla done with a Blair Witch Aesthetic.
There is no higher purpose or calling here. No, it seemed like the filmmakers wanted to just prey on the countries Post-9/11 terror, and shock us by showing an even greater street-level symphony of destruction in New York. However, like I said, it does it so generically with the monster that its bland as hell.
Even worse, the characters are obnoxious whiney yuppies who i could care less about.
As far as the aesthetics involved, the shakey camera has been done and used to much more interesting effect. Here, it’s nothing new, its derivative as sin, and completely over done. I mean, the filmmakers want me to believe some clueless yuppies are going to run around filmming basically nonstop and that the lighting will be perfect enough and the camera will survive non-stop carnage. However, they don’t think that we would believe they could do anything near a competent job. It’s bullshit technique.
I’m sorry, but nothing here even comes close to touching the upper echelons of social commetary. There is no discussion of terrorism, or fear. There is not even much to relate to in the sense of “what would I do?” The movie is an excuse to pull gullible teenage boys into the theatre and make a shit load of money. It’s lame, it’s boring, it’s tedious, it even made me literally physically ill. I have nothing positiv to say here.
Ashley // July 8, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
Well I thought Cloverfield wasn’t anything spectacular. I was never really surprised or scared. Emotionally it didn’t pull me in. I actually found it hilarious especially the scene where Malenda blows up, I had a hard time not laughing out loud. Like seriously how ridiculous was that? Anyway I can see why it was a hit, blood guts destruction we American’s love it, there is some sort of sick pleasure we get from seeing those who are less fortunate then us which is probably why I laughed when that girl from Means Girls blew up. Man if Lindsey Lohan were in this I probably would have enjoyed it more. I mean as much as I hate those Hollywood movies full of hot girls and violence the two work well together. Here we have the violence but where are the hot girls? I mean if I have to set through aliens eating people I might as well see Paris Hilton or Denise Richards running through the screen half naked. Not those overly dressed girls who just run, cry and scream. But I appreciate the film for making that choice, it was nice to see a film where there is extreme violence and people are reacting appropriately. Not suddenly falling in love with someone and having sex in an abandon building while aliens eat people around them which is something a lot of Hollywood films would do, so mad props Cloverfield for that. But yeah like I said it wasn’t my type of film. I didn’t find the hand held camera to be ground breaking or stylistically brilliant or surprising and for me if you didn’t like the style which I didn’t basically the whole movie is a loss; cause the plot isn’t anything new.
Saraphina // July 8, 2008 at 4:58 pm |
Cloverfield had already been buzz killed for me. I knew already what was going to happen at the end because my friend so generously forgot to put spoiler alert on her forehead. I left after the girl blew up because I felt nauseated and spent the remainder of class in the bathroom resisting temptation to hurl. I saw no artistic aesthetic or controversies that were brought up. I found it to be unrealistic and depressing. The movie was nauseating literally. The plot was boring. They ran from aliens for an hour. There was lack of character development and I was not impressed at all with the reactions or the acting in the begging. The handheld dynamic took the realistic approach away from me because it seemed curiosity that is developed when one is actually trying to figure out the film. The dialogue was screaming and unoriginal. The plot was unoriginal, boy meets girl, gets mad at girl tries to save girl (who we don’t really care about anyway because of the lack of depth). Then everyone dying seems almost pointless, because sitting through that much screaming and yelling, some one has to reward the audience by living. Also why was it called Cloverfield? I suppose that it could be a metaphor for the fact that our planet is just a small clover in a much bigger field and that there is a possibility for life on other planets, but the unbelievable men in black aliens also kinda killed it for me. I was exhausted and bored almost halfway through, and the intensity hit so early on in the movie that there was no climax. Everything shitty that could of happened to these people happened. They were shit out of luck in the beginning. And I didn’t even care. Call me insensitive to an alien attack, but it kinda made me want the aliens to get it over with. The movie was almost a joke on earth. Because in all honesty if aliens do plan on attacking us, we are kinda well…it wont be good. If this was to oppose the generality of Hollywood alien movies, it did succeed. It was worse.
Danny A // July 8, 2008 at 5:25 pm |
I saw Cloverfield when in first came out in theaters. There was definitely a big difference between seeing it then and in class. Obviously the picture quality was better at the theater because of the problem with the overhead display, but the sound difference was very dramatic as well. I’m an audio major, and so the sound is a big deal to me. There is no comparison to the quality that a theater affords.
In this movie especially, as it’s a monster-disaster flick, the sound plays a large part in directing and invoking the emotions of the audience. What I found particularly interesting was the choice of using spider-like ticking and crawling noises to represent the ‘baby’ monsters as they crawled through the subway rails. With the way the scene was shot, only showing the audience a glimpse of the creatures and then going mostly black, the sound worked for invoking a creeped out and fearful feeling.
At the same time, even though I did enjoy the movie, there were part that I thought could have been done better. During the scene in which the group gets separated on two sides of the street as the military is firing at the monster in between them, I felt that the sound should have been much more distorted as the mic on the camera he was using wouldn’t be strong enough to handle the decibel level. It took away from the sense of realism they were trying to create. I also don’t understand how a creature as enormous as that had such a high pitched roar. If it’s vocal chords were big enough to make it’s roar audible from a mile away, there’s no way I could create those pitches. I know it’s nit-picky, but it still bothered me.
Overall, it doesn’t make the film any less entertaining, and that appeared to be the director’s overall goal. It’s a modern day, American Godzilla movie that you’re supposed to just sit back and snarf down popcorn to, and in that respect it does a very good job.