Cloverfield, memory, and time.

Last updated on: January 19, 2008 at 8:34 pm by Peter T. Chattaway

Cloverfield, memory, and time. 2008-01-19T20:34:00-08:00 Peter T. Chattaway

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

It’s not a very scary film, and it has its share of implausibilities — would a cell phone really work underground, in a subway station, when the city aboveground is being trashed? — but there is something about Cloverfield that really, really works. And that is the way the film makes use of its central gimmick, whereby we are supposed to believe that the entire movie unfolding before us is something that was found on a memory card or a video tape (it’s not clear which) in the ruins of New York City’s Central Park.

The gimmick itself is interesting, and more challenging than what The Blair Witch Project (1999) attempted nearly a decade ago. Back then, we still needed to suppose that the “found footage” was the work of documentarians, i.e. people who lug cameras around and film everything they do for a living; but now, we are asked to believe that a regular average guy would keep his home-video camera running even as he is fleeing for his life — and given that we are now living in the age of YouTube and Google Video, etc., this is not as big a stretch as it might seem. What’s more, Blair Witch was edited together from the footage left behind in two cameras, whereas Cloverfield consists entirely of footage that was found in one camera — and that imposes certain limitations on the filmmakers.

But the filmmakers do something really brilliant with this limitation: they create a back-story, indeed a series of flashbacks, by supposing that the monster attack has been accidentally recorded, in pieces, over another video that was recorded by one of the characters about a month before the monster attack takes place. So even though we are supposedly watching an unedited video, we still get a form of non-linear storytelling, and this pays off in a spectacularly poignant way at the very end of the movie. (Don’t worry, I won’t say how.)

I’ve been thinking about this aspect of the film ever since I saw it last Wednesday. I have written articles and given multi-session lectures on the subject of “memory at the movies” — and how memory is related to identity, free will, the afterlife and movies themselves — and I can sense that this aspect of Cloverfield is resonating with me strongly on that level. I’m not entirely sure how to put it in words yet, so consider this blog post a first-draft attempt.

The original recording, which we see at the very, very beginning of the film, is made by Rob Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David) after he and Beth McIntyre (Odette Yustman) have slept together for the first time, and it goes on to depict their romantic trip to Coney Island. The movie that is recorded on top of this takes place about one month later, when Rob is about to move to Japan, and his friends throw him a going-away party — a party that is briefly attended by Beth, who apparently doesn’t get along with Rob so well any more. Beth leaves the party. And then, some time later, the monster attacks New York City, and the rest of the movie follows Rob and at least three of his friends as they try to dodge the monster and the havoc it is wreaking on the city. However, instead of simply fleeing the city, Rob goes back to rescue Beth, who has called him and told him that she is stuck in her apartment. And his friends — including the wisecracking Hud Platt (T.J. Miller), who is almost never seen because he is the one actually holding the camera — join him in this rescue attempt.

Every time Hud stops recording what is going on around them, he inevitably starts up again several seconds later on the tape, or whatever memory device is being used here — and for those few brief seconds, we get a glimpse of the happy day that Rob and Beth spent together barely one month before. In a way these scenes are “flashbacks”, but in another way they are not; the past itself is popping up into the present and reminding us of the way things used to be. These happy scenes are not being spliced into the home-made disaster-movie footage; instead, they are all that remains of a happy memory that is progressively being obliterated by a much nastier one. The past was here first; it continues to assert its presence; it begs not to be forgotten.

But the film’s central gimmick runs even deeper than that. At least twice in this film, characters look at the camera and record words for posterity; and when the attack first starts, Hud says he is keeping the camera running because people who weren’t there when the monster attacked will need to know what it was like to live through that experience. So this film has been consciously filmed for the benefit of other people. But who gets to see it in the end? Almost nobody.

The opening title cards tell us that the movie we are watching was found in the ruins of New York City. That, right away, tells us that the characters failed to take the camera with them out of the city — possibly because they failed to survive, period. The opening title cards also tell us that the video we are watching is now the property of the American government. That, right away, strongly suggests that no one has been allowed to watch this video except for a handful of people who have the right clearance. If you’ll forgive the analogy, it is as though our protagonists had aimed for Heaven and now found themselves stuck in Purgatory, or even Limbo.

The old story, the happy day recorded one month ago, is undone by the new story that unfolds at the going-away party before the monster strikes. And the new story is undone by the fact that the recording has ended up in the hands of those who almost certainly will not honour the characters’ intentions. So on at least two separate levels, this movie is about thwarted memories.

Whether our experiences are happy or sad, we typically want them to have meaning — and we give them meaning by holding them in our memories and by encouraging other people to remember them, too, not only in this life but in the life beyond, as well. (Jesus tells his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood “in remembrance of me”; the thief on the cross tells Jesus to “remember me when you come into your kingdom.”) Cloverfield is a documentation of memories both positive and negative — and a documentation of how those memories are either obliterated or prevented from finding their proper resting place.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 19, 2008

Newsbites: Batman! Harry! Justice! Gangster!

Next Post

January 20, 2008 Oliver Stone to tackle George W. Bush biopic

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anglican Planet Articles BC Christian News BC Report Bible Movies Bible Review Blog Books & Culture Campus Times CBC Radio Christianity Today ChristianWeek Essays Faith Today Festival Cinemas Guide Film Journals Georgia Straight Interviews MB Herald National Catholic Register Salvationist Today's Christian Two Chairs Ubyssey Uncategorized Vancouver Courier Vancouver Sun

Select a Month August 2025 April 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 May 2024 February 2024 December 2023 May 2023 March 2023 November 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 July 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 January 2012 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 November 2003 October 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 March 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 January 2000 October 1999 August 1999 May 1999 April 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 April 1998 March 1998 January 1998 November 1997 September 1997 July 1997 June 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 October 1996 September 1996 June 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 April 1995 November 1994 September 1994 September 1991

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was Moses' brother?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Joshua Caleb Aaron Eleazar