Cloverfield - J.J. Abrams Project

[megladon8]

But then the severity of the situation wouldn't be as incisively expressed and deeply felt.

I guess I just disagree with you here.

I don't think you need to have people drained of their blood fairly brutally to get the idea across that the situation is severe.

The scene of the bodies floating down the river would have been enough. I also thought it was dramatically much more effective.

[Spinal]

I figured that this went without saying by now.

It did not seem to be a given in this particular conversation.

[Rowland]

It did not seem to be a given in this particular conversation.

True. I just figured we were discussing the movie from an entirely literal perspective.

[Rowland]

I guess I just disagree with you here.

I don't think you need to have people drained of their blood fairly brutally to get the idea across that the situation is severe.

The scene of the bodies floating down the river would have been enough. I also thought it was dramatically much more effective.

The movie is a horror-show, no doubt. That you were so disturbed illustrates how effective it is. Do you like horror movies that actually shake you? If so, do you believe they must legitimize themselves with a message?

[Spinal]

It's a great review and it makes me want to watch the film in its entirety again.

I just remember being thoroughly disturbed by the film, and leaving the theatre thinking "was all that really necessary?"

I hear ya. If you group War of the Worlds in with films like E.T. or Close Encounters, then it seems kind of vicious. But considered as a part of Spielberg's post-9/11 output, the sorrow and pain in the film makes sense.

[Spinal]

True. I just figured we were discussing the movie from an entirely literal perspective.

Well, OK. But sometimes that's like looking at just the flat version of a Magic Eye picture.

[Rowland]

Well, OK. But sometimes that's like looking at just the flat version of a Magic Eye picture.

But it's still one worth considering. Post-9/11 allegory is something we mostly think about after watching the movie. I'm talking about the very experience of taking in the movie and our direct response to it (because that's what Meg was responding to), which I think is at least as important as any "grand scheme" approach.

[Spinal]

But it's still one worth considering. Post-9/11 allegory is something we mostly think about after watching the movie. I'm talking about the very experience of taking in the movie and our direct response to it (because that's what Meg was responding to), which I think is at least as important as any "grand scheme" approach.

But I do think about it while I'm watching the movie. That is the stuff that I respond to. Otherwise, it's just a movie with monsters and 'splosions.

[Mysterious Dude]

There is.

I have heard the theory that Spielberg intended the film as a parable of U.S. militarism, and I think it's a plausible thoery (and H.G. Wells' book was likewise a parable of British colonialism). I don't think it's very successful, though, because Spielberg is too concerned with a minor story. Metaphors are great, but too much of the story has nothing to do with the metaphor.

I will point to René Laloux's Fanstastic Planet as an example of a far more successful parable, though it is almost exactly as unpleasant as Spielberg's film.

[Rowland]

But I do think about it while I'm watching the movie. That is the stuff that I respond to. Otherwise, it's just a movie with monsters and 'splosions.

The visceral reaction to movies is one that can only be so tempered by a conscious filter. Yes, I was aware of all the allusions to 9/11 being made and the insurgency metaphor being developed while watching the movie, but I think that is secondary to the direct experience of engaging with what is expressly occurring while watching a movie like this. If it doesn't fully engage and "work" on that literal level in the moment without needing to be justified through allegory, then it's hardly a success. One of the reasons I like WotW as much as I do in spite of its glaring faults is that it's so experientially transportive, which I don't think is anything to sneeze at, unless you hold movies featuring aliens in such contempt that you won't allow yourself to be transported.

[Spinal]

I don't understand why something has to work twice. If it works as allegory and it is meaningful and moving to you while watching it, then it is working. I don't try to imagine how I would respond to the film if it only had a literal layer. Perhaps this is why I like Land of the Dead and no one else seems to.

[Rowland]

I don't understand why something has to work twice. If it works as allegory and it is meaningful and moving to you while watching it, then it is working. I don't try to imagine how I would respond to the film if it only had a literal layer. Perhaps this is why I like Land of the Dead and no one else seems to.

I don't mean to argue that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, but you seem to be arguing that WotW wouldn't work without the allegorical perspective. During the brilliantly staged introduction of the first tripod, were you actively thinking about what the sequence meant as subtext?

Regarding LotD, are you suggesting that you are the only person who caught on to Romero's hilariously barefaced political/social allegory? In that case, I'd argue that it was detrimentally in-your-face... though I did like the fireworks metaphor.

[Spinal]

I don't mean to argue that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, but you seem to be arguing that WotW wouldn't work without the allegorical perspective. During the brilliantly staged introduction of the first tripod, were you actively thinking about what the sequence meant as subtext?

Well ... yeah.

Regarding LotD, are you suggesting that you are the only person who caught on to Romero's hilariously barefaced political/social allegory? In that case, I'd argue that it was detrimentally in-your-face... though I did like the fireworks metaphor.

No, absolutely not. I'm not saying that I was the only one or that it is even that hard to pick up on. I'm just saying that, for me, that's enough. Others seemed to have other expectations for a zombie movie that were not important to me.

[Rowland]

No, absolutely not. I'm not saying that I was the only one or that it is even that hard to pick up on. I'm just saying that, for me, that's enough. Others seemed to have other expectations for a zombie movie that were not important to me.

And on that note, I suppose that obvious political rhetoric isn't enough for me, which is probably why LotD didn't work too well, given that it is at best a moderately effective, and at worst a terribly lame movie, the latter partly because of how Romero often appeared more interested in his Socialist grandstanding than telling a wholly involving cinematic story.

[Bosco B Thug]

The visceral reaction to movies is one that can only be so tempered by a conscious filter. Yes, I was aware of all the allusions to 9/11 being made and the insurgency metaphor being developed while watching the movie, but I think that is secondary to the direct experience of engaging with what is expressly occurring while watching a movie like this. If it doesn't fully engage and "work" on that literal level in the moment without needing to be justified through allegory, then it's hardly a success. One of the reasons I like WotW as much as I do in spite of its glaring faults is that it's so experientially transportive, which I don't think is anything to sneeze at, unless you hold movies featuring aliens in such contempt that you won't allow yourself to be transported.

All this makes sense, but you wouldn't be defending the film if you didn't buy the film's "filtering of the carnage through a human lens" with directorial technique clearly sensitive to the film's tonal aspirations - which is pretty much justifying through allegory the existence of the film's brutality.

War of the Worlds definitely impressed and thrilled me viscerally, but I can't say it hit me with any lasting emotional resonance. Jaws remains Spielberg's best effort in infusing a horror effort with pronounced yet subtle humane pretensions. War of the Worlds is a bit too clear in its efforts.

I give Land of the Dead (which I like/love?) points because it's more idiosyncratic than WotW.

As for Cloverfield... I really don't know what to expect from this. Certainly no more than a satisfactory monster movie, I'd guess. Perhaps some half-hearted attempt at political commentary... maaaybe, it wouldn't be hard to shoe-horn something in a la Transformers. I hope it turns out to be a giant sea creature. Salt-water creature. Though I'd accept a giant mutated turtle... though they have already done that!

[Mal]

Unless this movie gets earth-shattering reviews, I doubt I'll care in two months time.

[jenniferofthejungle]

I don't know how long the bandwidth on this video will hold up, but it's the moster in slow motion.

http://s221.photobucket.com/albums/d...nt=monster.flv

[Raiders]

I must've looked at that slo-mo shot fifteen times. I got nuthin. Doesn't look like Godzilla though.

EDIT: Actually, kinda looks like a turtle. So, maybe it is a Godzilla-like movie and that is Gamera?

Apparently this is not new news about the potential for Gamera. So, maybe that shot that appears to have a shell comes close to confirming this as a Gamera project.

[Mysterious Dude]

But Gamera is a friend of all children. :sad:

[Scar]

But Gamera is a friend of all children. :sad:

He sure is, but his middle name is 'Collateral Damage'.

[megladon8]

I must've looked at that slo-mo shot fifteen times. I got nuthin. Doesn't look like Godzilla though.

EDIT: Actually, kinda looks like a turtle. So, maybe it is a Godzilla-like movie and that is Gamera?

Apparently this is not new news about the potential for Gamera. So, maybe that shot that appears to have a shell comes close to confirming this as a Gamera project.

I don't see a shell, but I definitely see a leg.

I have no idea what it's going to be.

But we better see it :evil:

[Watashi]

Why does it matter if we see the monster or not?

[Raiders]

I don't see a shell, but I definitely see a leg.

Look at the top of the screen. That doesn't look like a shell on top of its back?

[Rowland]

Why does it matter if we see the monster or not?

And even if we do, how good of a view can we possibly get when the entire movie is shot through someone's video camera?

[megladon8]

Why does it matter if we see the monster or not?

...because I want to see the monster?