Cloverfield and the future of critical movie disclaimers.
By Burbanked on Jan 22, 2008 in Movies | 2,061 views |
I managed to get out to see Cloverfield this weekend past, and as I was standing in line to buy my ticket I was amazed to see a little display on the ticket counter with the following disclaimer:
Due to the filming method used for “Cloverfield,” guests viewing this film may experience side effects associated with motion sickness similar to riding a rollercoaster.
No, really. This dude took a camera phone picture of the disclaimer at his theater (I’m not hip enough to carry a phone with a camera; my pockets barely have room for my “Sony Walkman”). Jeff Wells mentions that the picture-taker snapped the photo at an AMC theater - which is only relevant because I went to see it at an AMC as well. I wonder if other theater chains ran similar disclaimers or if AMC is the only one afraid of 1) idiot lawsuits and 2) cleaning up belly spurtle.
For my money, the shaky nature of the film didn’t bother me in the least. I knew what I was in for and had pretty much figured that portions of the movie would be frantic and chaotic in terms of the way it was shot. I’m not being sarcastic when I tell you that I experienced a headache of visual disorientation the likes of which I’d never known after watching Armageddon and I thought that the technique was a bit overused in The Bourne Ultimatum - but Cloverfield didn’t bug me at all. The camera slowed down just enough, when it needed to, and throughout the movie the technique served the story.
Let me say that once more for those of you - and I’ve been reading your posts and comments elsewhere - who couldn’t understand why the movie was shot this way: It serves the story.
Still, seeing the theater’s disclaimer got me thinking that more movies should really come with warning signs and other kinds of cautionary language for today’s overly litigious, popcorn-munching audiences. I think that we might have avoided any number of diseases, fist fights and various other behaviors inevitably leading to alcoholism if we had only seen a few of the following on the ticket booths of our nation’s box offices:
(click ‘em to read ‘em!)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Some spoilers follow.
For what it’s worth, I had a blast with Cloverfield. The criticisms you’ve no doubt read by now are all pretty valid: the characters are thin and their motivations are shaky. We’re expected to buy into the conceit that this story has a kind of hyper-reality to it by virtue of the fact that we’re watching it “first-hand” - yet at the same time the characters make unrealistic choices that are much more conventional to this genre.
And by the way, I’ve read a lot of people complaining that Rob’s decision to go rescue Beth is a foolish thing that no person in reality would actually do, let alone dragging his best pals along with him. That’s crap. What people seem to forget is that the main characters are all on their way to safety by crossing the Brooklyn bridge, and it’s only the fact that Rob takes Beth’s phone call - right at the moment that the monster attacks the bridge - that they survive at this point. Having seen what happens when they seek rescue, why wouldn’t the characters set off on a suicide mission? They’ve seen the most likely result of this hellish night and they’ve got nothing to lose; why not set out to help out Rob - who they obviously all care about - and rescue a trapped friend?
Besides, I’m convinced that Lilly really had a thing for Rob. Am I alone in that one?
Ultimately, it’s simply a damn good time at the movies. The setup is brief and efficient, the monster attacks are terrifying and devastating, the characters’ plight - and flight - is paced excitingly and well-delivered and in general I just sat there kind of grinning and gritting my teeth the entire time. I’ve read a lot of blogs and critics claiming that Cloverfield has no rewatch value, but I’d go do it again in a minute, just like I would a rollercoaster. In many ways, it becomes exactly the movie that the idiotic ticket booth disclaimer identified it to be.
(disclaimer signs created mostly via the Warning Sign Generator)
Okay, now I’ll just admit that I’m trying to freshen up my sidebar a little. But this is a nifty piece of Batman-themed editing:
© Copyright
Tina | Jan 23, 2008 | Reply
These are genius! My fav? The first one.
Siddhartha | Jan 24, 2008 | Reply
I don’t know about Lily having a thing for Rob. That sister-in-law brother-in-law bond is pretty tight sometimes (in a family sense - not sexual though I’m sure it’s like that sometimes too, especially on Cinemax). Plus, she had just lost her fiancee so she must have felt closer to Rob.
Had a question though, did the actor that played Hud actually film the movie or did he just walk alongside the cameraman and jump out whenever the scene called for him to be in frame?
Burbanked | Jan 24, 2008 | Reply
I don’t think Hud shot the movie. If anything, the actor playing him had the easiest job in the cast. Jump out in front every so often and add all your lines in post-production. That’s the kind of job I’d like.
Piper | Jan 25, 2008 | Reply
I love these. I stole them and am going to put them on my blog and I’m going to say that I found them and don’t know who they belong to and by associating my name with them, I suddenly will be the one who created them and you will get no credit.
I think J.J. Abrams should go into advertising, because the shit he creates around the films he is associated with is pretty amazing. Much better than the movies themselves.
Piper | Jan 25, 2008 | Reply
Whoa! Hold The Phone! Asking the question was beth worth it is crap? It’s genius. It’s the most brilliant question ever asked. Ever! It’s so brilliant that I had the TM added after it so I get royalties when everyone writes it or says it. So you owe me .035 cents. Pay up Bitch!
Anyways, I can’t imagine that if I try to get out of somewhere and my first time fails that I would stop trying and go on a suicide mission instead. On the other hand if all the friends would have left Rob, I would have been yelling “go ahead, who needs you, you chickenshit bastards!” So it’s a no win situation really.
Burbanked | Jan 25, 2008 | Reply
Speaking as a crazy person, I was exactly referring to you. So you be the judge.
And again with the “bitch”?
Piper | Jan 25, 2008 | Reply
I have used that a couple of times with you, haven’t I. It’s not personal though. Just funnin.
Burbanked | Jan 25, 2008 | Reply
What are your feelings on “shitcake”?
Piper | Jan 25, 2008 | Reply
Shitcake is aces with me.
parson | Feb 2, 2008 | Reply
Serves the story? How? By making it unwatchable?
You want a camcorder technique that ACTUALLY serves the story, try Blair Witch Project. Wonderful gimmick 10 years ago that actually lent itself to quite a convincing hoax.
There was no hoax with Cloverfield. Just a gimmick.
To me it could have benefited more from a technique more similar to Saving Private Ryan. Comes with all the chaos of actually being in a war zone, but there’s method to the madness. And the camera actually stayed still during the calm parts. Even in the calm parts in Cloverfield like the subway, it still was moving around. It got really annoying to me.
I mean, it’s not fooling anyone. We all knew it was a big budget movie going into it. And there’s a reason Uncle Bob with the crappy Christmas home videos doesn’t work a camera in Hollywood.
I won’t lie. I hated the camera in the movie. I thought it took away from what could have been a fun movie.
All I can really say is what I watched of the monster was kinda neat. Good special effects. And that’s kinda . . . it.
Burbanked | Feb 2, 2008 | Reply
Blair Witch is great, too, and had a terrific viral marketing effort behind it, but Cloverfield isn’t meant to be a hoax. It’s simply a fun, more Hollywood-type movie, shot in a non-traditional Hollywood style. It’s unique and conventional all at the same time, and I award big points to filmmakers who get away with doing something innovative within the studio system. It simply doesn’t happen often enough.