7.30.2008

Cloverfield


Luke

Rating: 3

This was a great scary movie, but I didn't feel uplifted after it (I don't know that there are any inspiring scary movies). There were some heroic people throughout it saving other people's lives from the monster ravaging Manhattan. It did not feel evil, a light humor was trickled throughout it to keep you interested in the movie without being overwhelmed with the constant destruction/bloodshed.

Part of the reason it wasn't evil, in my opinion, was that the monster(s) was(were) very unrealistic. A lot of times when one can realistically imagine the "bad" from the movie in their own real world (e.g., as possibly being pursued or having loved ones in danger), the "bad" can be more lasting in the watcher's mind causing nightmares or other fearful images. Evil can also be advocating or displaying sin in a way that glorifies the sin and does nothing to denounce it or display the consequences of such actions.

3 comments:

  1. I'd have to agree with Luke's rating of a 3 here. For a scary movie, it really wasn't that scary. In fact, it was almost silly. The redeeming factor was the creative presentation as a home-made film of actual events. It was fun to watch, but nothing amazing. No real moral message and not uplifting, though not much on the flip side either. Two unmarried characters sleep together and it is not portrayed as bad nor are there really any negative consequences (unless you count being attacked by a monster). It's difficult to comment on other issues such as violence and profanity since we saw it filtered. It did seem that there could have been lots of swearing, but the violence was mostly related to the creature.
    --Carr

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like the fact that you put movie previews in the posts instead of just a picture. A movie blog should have movies on it!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm going to differ a little from your assessment (if that's alright), and I'm going to use LOTR to do so. LOTR uses orcs as enemies, because orcs are unquestionably evil, and we need feel no guilt to slaughtering them and spilling their brains on the ground. By using orcs as the the enemy, it allows the movie to depict massive, bloody battles that seem much more mild than they would otherwise be.

    If humans had composed most of Saruman and Sauron's armies, the movies would have been R-rated or worse, because then the battles would have revealed war for what it really is: the widowing and orphaning of thousands of women and children. Real war, even if the enemy is unquestionably evil (as in the case of Hitler), is tragic because both sides are being fought by men with wives and children, who will forever lose their loved ones in mass graves. War is evil. War is sad. War should leave us with a pit in our stomach just thinking about it.

    That's why we don't depict real war all that often. Instead, we depict unrealistic war with inhuman enemies (orcs), so that we can enjoy battle sequences and warfare without burdening our conscience with real costs of war. That way we can cheer the protagonist's victory unhaunted by the costs of that victory. Because nobody sheds a tear for the orc-wives. In a way, this is masking the truth of the matter, desensitizing us to the consequences of bloodshed in a fictional context where the costs are much lower (because one side of the battle is composed of non-human monsters).

    For this reason, I don't think movies are less bad because "that the monster(s) was(were) very unrealistic." Rather, it may just be that this makes movies worse, because it insulates us from the truth of the matter. I agree that "evil can also be advocating or displaying sin in a way that glorifies the sin and does nothing to denounce it or display the consequences of such actions." But this is why making monsters and enemies unrealistic, inhuman creatures can potentially be damaging: it allows us to root for protagonists without asking serious questions about what they are doing and whether it is justified.

    ReplyDelete