Reaction to Untitled JJ Abrams Project

So, my one faithful reader, sorry to have been absent for some time. I read two books, Tom Perrotta's The Abstinence Teacher, and Sherman Alexie's The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian. Both were fine, if not really good, I just don't have much to say about either. I did however, see Cloverfield yesterday. Let me preface by saying I'm not fanatical about J.J. Abrams, in fact I've never seen a single show that he's worked on (to my knowledge). But, a giant monster movie does call for some excitement, althoughI didn't have the highest of hopes for its success going into it.

Let me note though, that although I find the red herrings of fake websites and fake spoilers pretty unnecessary, (although still a little cool) Abrams' use of modern technology and the lack of actual spoilers until only a week before the movie's release is pretty new and exceptional. And since the release, of course there are a lot of speculations regarding clues in the film: possible spaceships, a whispered 'it's still alive,' etc. But, Cloverfield isn't really a movie where you care about where the monster's origin, or what happens to it. It's also not a movie where characters develop or even that you care about them or their motivations. In other words, it's no Host. What is most compelling about the movie is its theme of modern documentation, the everyman as journalist simply because the technology exists. This investigation is not simply expressed through Hud's attachment to the handycam throughout the ordeal. The use of camera phones as documentation devices used first at Rob's party is parallelled on the street as stunned bystanders take photos of the Statue of Liberty's head. Toward the end, Rob and Beth don't speak to their friends and family on film, but speak to authorities, giving their names and names of those who died.

The disappointment that many in the theatre expressed by the film's conclusion is extremely interesting. The constraints of the film as recovered footage mean that there will be no conclusion. Or at least one which gives answers to some viewers' questions. But it's an odd reaction when this style of footage is coveted in an actual event of interest. The shots of the monster(s) are pretty good, by the end the viewer has seen it from all angles and distances; for a few seconds one even sees the inside of the thing. So, ultimately, the disappointment expressed by some begs the question: Has the proliferation of this sort of everyman journalism not grabbed the attention of the populace in an entertainment context yet or is the perceived need for a filmic narrative that follows the classic story arc that strong?

In either case, I'll be interested to see how George Romero uses this formula in Diary of the Dead. I doubt he'll be as strict as Abrams, but that could be less a directorial decision, and one unfortunately based on public reaction to Cloverfield.