Comments for Reviewing the Arts Class Blog - Summer '08 http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com Reviewing the Arts Class Blog - Summer 2008 Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:25:25 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Assignment for Tuesday, July 8th / RA # 10 by Danny A http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/thursday-july-3rd-no-class/#comment-165 Danny A Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:25:25 +0000 http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/?p=25#comment-165 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. 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.

]]> Comment on Assignment for Tuesday, July 8th / RA # 10 by Saraphina http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/thursday-july-3rd-no-class/#comment-164 Saraphina Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:58:46 +0000 http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/?p=25#comment-164 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. 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.

]]> Comment on Assignment for Tuesday, July 8th / RA # 10 by Ashley http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/thursday-july-3rd-no-class/#comment-163 Ashley Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:48:17 +0000 http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/?p=25#comment-163 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. 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.

]]> Comment on Assignment for Tuesday, July 8th / RA # 10 by Michael Miles http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/thursday-july-3rd-no-class/#comment-162 Michael Miles Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:34:38 +0000 http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/?p=25#comment-162 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. 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.

]]> Comment on Assignment for Tuesday, July 8th / RA # 10 by Nancy http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/thursday-july-3rd-no-class/#comment-161 Nancy Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:28:54 +0000 http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/?p=25#comment-161 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. 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.

]]> Comment on Assignment for Tuesday, July 8th / RA # 10 by Nate http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/thursday-july-3rd-no-class/#comment-160 Nate Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:54:37 +0000 http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/?p=25#comment-160 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! 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!

]]> Comment on Assignment for Tuesday, July 8th / RA # 10 by Jordan http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/thursday-july-3rd-no-class/#comment-159 Jordan Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:49:13 +0000 http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/?p=25#comment-159 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. 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.

]]> Comment on Assignment for Tuesday, July 8th / RA # 10 by Toi http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/thursday-july-3rd-no-class/#comment-158 Toi Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:11:22 +0000 http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/?p=25#comment-158 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. 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.

]]> Comment on Assignment for Tuesday, July 8th / RA # 10 by Samantha H. http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/thursday-july-3rd-no-class/#comment-157 Samantha H. Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:33:02 +0000 http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/?p=25#comment-157 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. 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.

]]> Comment on Assignment for Tuesday, July 8th / RA # 10 by Samantha H. http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/thursday-july-3rd-no-class/#comment-156 Samantha H. Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:26:16 +0000 http://reviewingarts.wordpress.com/?p=25#comment-156 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. 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.

]]>