Cloverfield & Michael Clayton

Cloverfield poster

*Don’t read on if you haven’t watched the movies, contains spoilers*

So yes, Cloverfield is headache inducing, but i think it is an interesting experiment. Its not the first time this DV thing has been used (think Blair Witch, or something more relevant – 28 Days Later which was also shot on DV) …. and the greatest logical fallacy is how does a DV tape last for over 90 mins? and why doesn’t the battery go flat?

The film producers must be laughing their way to the bank, imagine the cost saved by shooting a film on DV in semi natural lighting – you don’t even have to pay for the DP (i guess) since the actor is holding the camera most of the time.

Several people walked out during the screening, i guess its not such a great idea to watch the shakiest movie in recent times on the biggest screen in Singapore (GVMax). I’ve got a friend who felt like vomiting long after the movie ended.

But still, for those who can take it, it is still an interesting 90 mins if you do go in with an open mind. I guess the best and worst bits of story telling came from its gimmick – that of being a “found” tape. Pros and Cons as follows:-

The Pros: This restriction allowed the interesting splicing of the protagonist couple against the current crisis they are facing – as the tape gets overwritten. Because of its real time nature, it also allowed for very ‘realistic’ heartfelt moments, in fact the best point in the movie, when the protagonist’s mom called and he had to tell her their brother was killed.

The Cons: The restriction of such a limitation meant the movie had to be told in real time and in a linear form. It also didn’t allow for any other viewpoint for the crisis, the only opportunity we had some semblance of the crisis was whenever the cameraman shot news footage on TVs. Hence we had a somewhat myopic view of things, and the protagonist couple’s chemistry didn’t quite cut it for me to make me feel them worthy of my undivided attention. Things were of course unexplained – or unable to be explained because of the limited world view of the protagonists, and we – like them, are seeing only what they see.

***

The first few minutes of Michael Clayton set up the tone of the movie quite well. Verbose, long, poetic philosophical lines….existentialist… pretty much tells you that this ain’t going to be your conventional conspiracy theory flick.

And it doesn’t set out to be, i guess those people who walked out or fell asleep in the middle of the movie like the uncle in the seat beside me expected some action thriller car bomb movie.

I guess that’s the movie’s marketing problem – it’s defies classification… a bit arthouse, a bit action thriller – in the end people that come in for either get neither.

George Clooney, Sydney Pollack gave convincing performances. But i was most impress with Tilda Swinton – as always. Being used to seeing her casted in power women roles, her delivery of a CEO susceptible to vulnerability actually made me feel pathos for her character – even when she plays a character which is so difficult to like.

The movie’s pace sags a bit in the middle, i was attributing it to the editing – but i realized being the calculated movie that it is, its editing must have been thought through quite a bit and it can’t be that to be at fault….. i still haven’t figured out what exactly veered the movie off course.

But as with any other flick, the movie started off with a great beginning to lure the bait in, and ended off with a satisfactory “answer all questions / oh so that’s why that happened” kind of ending which film goers will take home – and that’s really all that matters isn’t it?

Explore posts in the same categories: Film and Theatre