Teeth (M. Lichtenstein, 2008)

(Spoilers ahead)

Ever since I decided to blog my opinions on every 2008 release I see, I've been trying to figure out how to deal with the titles that are...less than deserving of detailed thoughts. Unfortunately I was left to confront this problem a lot sooner than I would've hoped with Teeth, a promising but ultimately underwhelming indie horror flick that was a breakout at last year's Sundance Film Festival.

Perhaps what is most disappointing about Teeth is that for such a brilliant concept, its screenplay is sorely underdeveloped. One major giveaway to this is the initial motivations of our main character Dawn (Played as well as the material will allow by Jess Weixler). We are first formally introduced to Dawn at an seminar for abstinence, and they drive it home quite heavily that she firmly believes this. However, I never felt as though we were really given an adequate reason for her strong beliefs. Her passion for the issue seems to point towards religious reasons, but the film never really touches on her beliefs, and her household seems fairly indifferent to it. I'm not saying she should be a crazy Christian or anything, but it just feels as though Lichtenstein felt that it would be great to make her an abstinence advocate but left it at that.

Then there are the plot issues, or more the way Lichtenstein goes about executing them. The film just doesn't feel complete, more like the origin story for a saga that probably won't be continued in cinematic form. We brush along the mythology of vagina dentata and how it must be conquered, but ultimately never is over the course of the film. The film's climax with Dawn's evil stepbrother also feels too sudden and too insignificant. The main reason for this would probably be that for the majority of the film the stepbrother Brad never feels like that much of an adversary, outside of his open romantic feelings for stepsister Dawn. The decision to have him suddenly release his vicious dog on his own dad and then getting the blame for his stepmom landing in the hospital seems like the movie is trying to hard to create a villain for the film to end on, kinda like Nick Nolte in Hulk.

Not all is bad or disappointing in the film though. The much-discussed gynecologist scene was worth the hype in its disturbingness and hilarity, with a memorable bit role played by John Pias as the unfortunate gynecologist. Weixler turns in a fine breakout performance, and I would love to see her more often now. Also, the above problems about plotting could probably be corrected if there was ever a sequel made (Which might be hard, since it was such a blip at the box office). In the end, a disappointing spin on a promising idea.

Cloverfield (M. Reeves, 2008)

(Spoilers ahead)

Cloverfield is somehow at once one of the most frustrating, one of the dumbest, one of the smartest, and one of the most thought-provoking films I've seen in a while, leaving my mind in a constant state of thought both positive and very negative that would lead to thoughts of why these thoughts are so negative. To put it as simply as possible, it is about as good a way to kick off the movie year for me as possible.

Now, first I want to get to the biggest flaw of the film, which would be, quite simply, its style. I have never seen The Blair Witch Project, so I have no movie to really compare it with, but by downgrading to the simplest of filmmaking techniques, the film leaves itself at a disadvantage in a genre known for logic problems. What I'm saying is, by trying to put itself at the simplest point of view (An amateur video diary), one should expect slightly more...sporadic filming techniques. Now, I will admit at times it gets almost sickening to watch it, but the film gives itself too much mise en scène to fully let go of the idea that what we're watching was totally on the fly as the unprofessional cameraman tries fighting for his life with his friends. In perhaps a more picky area of opinion, it also gets distracting how clean the lapses in time are, how nearly 12 hours of activity were condensed so easily into just little over an hour of tape, appearing to turn the camera off and on just seconds before the next big event. Again, it's picky, but these are the problems filmmakers must consder when they choose such a POV, no?

Another problem that arises from this filmmaking technique is the thematic issues of the film, which are brought more alive by the camcorder perspective, yet in doing so reveal the flaws more so than if the film took a more traditional route. The main arc of the film is nothing new (Off the top of my head I know at least The Day After Tomorrow used the "loved ones of trapped individual go on quest to save them" plotline...I'm sure there are more), but again, there's a certain air of "whywhywhy?" to scenes like the one where the group climbs 50 flights of stairs to jump from one building to the collapsed one right next to it.

And yet, in spite of all of these leaps of logic, I found myself enthralled and intrigued by this world, one that is essentially meant to be 9/11 times thousand, except there is no hope to be found at the end. Perhaps the best way to come to terms with the little -isms of the technical aspects is in how similar leaps in logic must almost always be applied to types of literature that go for a similar perspective, such as a diary, with its perfectly paced entries making for good storytelling.

As for the thematic areas of storytelling, for me even the moments where these characters go and make slightly crazed decisions are balanced out by the very large story that surrounds them, and how, in the great scheme of it all, the only thing that sets their story of doomed escape from other stories is that their's has been taped. The concept of putting a disaster story on a personal scale is still almost always dwarfed by the larger story at hand, one that the filmmakers seem to easily prefer. Here, the personal story is both very much at the forefront of the film, yet in the end, how much will their story matter? Who will care to watch their story of a futile rescue, outside of whoever gets the job of viewing evidence from Incident Site U.S. 447? Now, that's not to say these guys really deserve to be remembered. The fact that I only remember the name of the camera guy (Hud?) speaks volumes about how these characters work on a personal level, but most of these these feelings about the film arise not from the characters themselves, but what surounds them and what it means to the millions of likely dead in Manhattan. If one is willing to contemplate it, the film gives service both to the dreams of heroism during a great tragedy, and the nightmare of being forgotten among the many.

Cloverfield is not without flaws. But it does have certain things going for it, if you're willing to look for them. It is unfortunate that the hype earlier this year has buried it under an avalanche of bad reactions, and that it'll be a while before it can recover. However, as it stands right now, Cloverfield is that rare find from this early in a film year, a film that intrigues the cinematic mind technically and thematically, and I will be pleasantly surprised if it doesn't stay near the top of my favorite films for the year for the next few months.