CLOVERFIELD warning and 9/11 DEBATE
CLOVERFIELD has swallowed up an estimated $41 million over the weekend making it the most successful January opening ever with a 76% fresh rating on RT and 8.1 rating on IMDB after 4,635 votes at the time of writing.
Basically it’s a mega hit. Though it might not be good for those feeling a little under the weather as that above picture shows and from some of the feedback from the general movie going audience.
Because we live in the U.K. and won’t see this movie for a little while and we don’t have any U.S. writers at present to cover the review, I thought I thought I would upload the thoughts from Richard Roeper and Michael Phillips on this week’s Ebert and Roeper…
Cloverfield (2008) - Roeper & Phillips’ Review
Are they right about the 9/11 imagery now being used as entertainment? It was only two to three years ago that controversy went out over the 9/11 re-tellings UNITED 93 and WORLD TRADE CENTER… did those movies break the barrier and it’s now ok to use imagery that invokes the disaster for our enjoyment value?
And if so, does anyone have a problem with that? I thought it might make for an interesting poll…
Loading …Thanks for visiting us at Obsessed With Film, we update several times a day, so if you haven't done so yet you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. You can also sign up to receive updates via e-mail.
I really don’t think the fact that Cloverfield takes place in New York City has anything to do with September 11th. It could just as easily been set in LA, London, or Boston, but New York is a recognizable city and a movie industry favorite. No one said anything about a possible connection to September 11th when the Brooklyn Bridge was destroyed in I Am Legend.
Comment by Christine | January 20, 2008
Yeah, it seems like a pretty big stretch. NY getting destroyed in movie (again) equals making fun of 9/11? Okay. Strange thought process at work there. Every action movie that takes place in London must be making fun of IRA bombings then? Continued James Bond films in the wake of the 7/7 bombings makes a mockery of it. People died! It was a traumatic event for London and the world. There should never be movies with shoot outs or explosions set in London, ever again.
Comment by Hellen | January 21, 2008
Damn lazy Americans refusing to get off their rear ends and make an unorthodox film like Cloverfield the hit it deserves to be . . . oh, wait a minute!
Comment by Despacio | January 21, 2008
The idea that invoked 911 similarities never even accured to me. I think people are seriously reaching with this.
Comment by Tino | January 21, 2008
@ Tino - Absolutely not. There is a shot near the beginning of the film which shows people in the streets as a building collapses nearby, sending a huge, billowing cloud of dust down the street toward them. You simply cannot allude to 9/11 any better than that.
I was really surprised at how much 9/11 informed my impressions while watching this film. I don’t necessarily think that is a good thing, either; no film should be given a pass by trading off of tragic memories. However, I thought it had something meaningful to say about our collective memories of that event, as well as how we document those tragedies today.
I think you’re missing the point.
http://www.therecshow.com
Comment by Ray | January 21, 2008
Um, that’s what usually happens when a building falls. A lot of dust. People will run if they’re near it. No allusion to 9/11. People are definitely reaching with this.
Comment by Lencho | January 21, 2008
From the trailer, it would certainly seem to me that the film is a prodigy of the post-9/11 world and they are playing with our fear of a terroist attack for our entertainment.
The disaster from the P.O.V. of the people witnessing the event at first rather than being in the middle of it, the fact that New York is being destroyed which we see in amateur footage and more I’m sure if I had seen the film.
I’m not so sure the film would have been made in 2003 or 2004.
Though I do think that’s to the film’s credit and although I did instigate the debate, I don’t think CLOVERFIELD is manipulating the “imagery” from 9/11 (though that shot Ray does sound as in that case it was), I simply think it is manipulating the “feeling”, which is to it’s credit.
Comment by Matt Holmes | January 21, 2008
After watching Cloverfield, I couldn’t believe how so many “shots” were designed to look like the WTC 9/11 “amateur” footage shots, we are so used to seeing. Especially, when the pyroclastic cloud of smoke chases our heroes into the little market, STRAIGHT from 9/11 footage. Also, the view in the ad, of the smoke going onto the water, another view Straight from 9/11. Dust on people, paper flying around. The “event” happens in Ground Zero’s neighborhood, lower Manhattan! Predicitive programming, has set New York up for another destruction! , @Christine, Plenty o people are making comments about I Am Legend as well. There are similarities in that film too.
Comment by murrayfurry | January 21, 2008
Matt, you’re right about this … and you haven’t even seen the movie yet. How are these other guys missing something this obvious?? I cannot believe anyone can sit through this and NOT think about 9/11. This movie is an allegory about the EXPERIENCE of 9/11 - PERIOD. Abrams planned it that way, and as murrayfurry brought out, it’s hammered home time and again by the choice of shots.
Wake up, kids.
Comment by Ray | January 21, 2008
Hey, i saw cloverfield over the weekend. It was very good. I dont understand the hype of the whole 9/11 deal. Big deal. its a movie. The movie poster is a picture of the statue of liberty with no head,which no one seems to find offensive, because its not, because its a movie, so why the stink over a little dust cloud down the alley? People just need to lighten up a little. This movie was made to entertain, so relax a little, grab some pop corn, and enjoy the show
Comment by Donald Murray | January 22, 2008
i have never felt the way i did after seeing this movie. i’ve been sad or disturbed after watching a film, but i have never felt traumatized (literally). i really don’t understand the people pooh-poohing the 9/11 imagery because it was very much there – the smoke plume and dust-covered people walking away through the street with little bits of paper fluttering to the ground could have practially been live news footage from that day… seeing people trying to get in touch with their loved ones on cell networks jammed with other people doing the same thing… the blind terror of not knowing what in the f**k was going on but just trying to get the hell away from it. it was all i could do to keep from sobbing through most of the movie after the initial attack and honestly, if i had seen a shot with people jumping from skyscraper windows i would have probably had to leave the theater. i ended up watching most of it post-attack with tears rolling down my face. the only break i got was when during the monster shots where it felt less real.
after it was over, i was so freaked out i could barely talk. i really don’t know why more people haven’t been experiencing this. i feel kind of wussy, but clearly i have some kind of low-grade PTSD. i felt like someone had condensed the day of 9/11 with the weeks and months that followed and added a little of katrina into about an hour and a half and made me watch it. i don’t know how other people could watch it and not be affected emotionlly beyond “scared” and “exhilarated.” i was crushed – for the rest of the whole day.
all that said, i thought the movie was a good concept and pretty well done. but i don’t think i could sit through it again. i don’t necessarily think 9/11 was exploited, per se. especially not in the name of “fun” (because the movie wasn’t fun at all to me). it was really just about experiencing the worst possible thing that could happen from the POV of someone experiencing it.
Comment by em | January 24, 2008