(Deeper Underground) But I Got To Go Much Deeper

»Spoilers From The Outset«

B0000609, ghackettny, 2001

Looking for something to watch on Sunday night, I put on Cloverfield again. Last year I wrote a short review after first seeing it, in which I thought it was underrated. As I was munching through a packet of crisps the Brooklyn Bridge collapses killing Jason and many unknown others. People are screaming names and fleeing in abject terror, and I suddenly felt uncomfortable. Indeed, some reviews criticised it as September 11th pornography - making entertainment out of tragedy as the horror genre does with fear. In my mini review I saw it as a contemporary framing of the monster/disaster movie genre but lacking depth or social commentary. That unease prompted me to question whether it really was without merit, leading me to watch it yet again on Thursday.

Prior to 2001, the most destructive act of terrorism in the US was the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 - as referenced in the opening scenes of The X-Files Movie (1998). That incident is well known but largely restricted to that city in terms of impact. September 11th, on the other hand, was a game-changer, broadcast live as it unfolded - its effects on American culture are profound and long-lasting. Before it, the American public was only familiar with terrorism on the evening news. It had never struck home on such a large scale. With the thousands of people who died on that day, how could Hollywood ever make a disaster movie again? To make a popcorn disaster movie with a massive body count would be grossly insensitive.

Cloverfield's first person camerawork and location is frequently recognised as invoking the memory of what happened in New York City. For this it is often criticised as 9/11 exploitation. But look at the preceding equivalent - Godzilla (1998). It's zoomed-out third-person view of the siege of NY by a giant lizard is a genuine spectacle of disaster. Yes, there are some characters for the audience to relate to as it unfolds, but just enough to form a narrative vehicle for the special effects. Cloverfield, on the other hand, opens with fifteen minutes dedicated to character setup - primarily the exposition of the relationship of Rob and Liz. It is their relationship that is the real reflection of 9/11 - that ordinary people were caught in the middle of a massive event that overwhelmed them, and that many lost family members and loved ones. Clover (the monster) is simply the event that befalls them - the frame for that character drama.

Clover gatecrashes their party and we are given no clues as to the origin or purpose of its appearance, as befits the street-level viewpoint - a personification of 9/11. This is much to the irritation of the morons who wanted, ironically, a film in which Matthew Broderick gives you the monster's back story. Point is, this bewildering and shocking event causes Rob to re-evaluate his deteriorated relationship with Liz. As Rob is in the process of leaving the city with some friends from his party and just before his brother is killed, he is called by her pleading for help as she lays injured in her apartment. Having seen his brother fall to his death when Clover destroys the bridge, Rob decides he has to rescue Liz, crossing the city to see her again before it's too late to make amends.

Despite effectively being the titular character of the film, Clover is barely seen at all throughout - only once being seen in full and clear view five minutes from the end. This is the same tactic Spielberg used in Jaws, which is not actually about the shark. Jaws is just the thing that brings the three main characters (Brody, Hooper, and Quint) together. The human drama is at the heart of that classic. If Cloverfield was just an updated Godzilla posing as a 9/11 parable, the final shot of the film would be a CGI-fest in which Clover is hit by the military's last ditch bombardment - like in Godzilla. Instead the final shot (of the attack footage) is of Rob and Liz cowering under a bridge as hell is unleashed, professing their restored love for each other before their presumed deaths. I've always interpreted the ending as depicting their deaths given that the footage is found in what the opening title-card says is "the area formerly known as Central Park", which would indicate the vicinity was obliterated beyond recognition.

I found Cloverfield much more rewarding after a closer second and third viewing. Whilst I still think the script and characterisation is weak in places and could have been executed better (still an 8/10 rating), I feel it is not a monster movie in United 93 clothing, but a human drama dressed up as a monster movie. Popularly unappreciated.

[808]