Comments

1. Alicia wrote:

   Yes. A resounding yes.

   (Though I didn’t enjoy the movie at all.)

   Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 9:40 am ¶

2. Wendi Muse wrote:

   omg i thought the same exact thing when i saw it! at first, i just noticed a ton of black young men stealing from the electronics store…
   then i looked closer and noticed that there were a few white young men within the group too. our eyes focus on the black guys because there were more in number, but then if you think of the scene as a whole, it puts it into perspective, especially considering that the main character enters the store to loot as well. although his situation is shown to be one of desperation, with him stealing a battery for his phone to contact a loved one, the other stories are not explained, and the writers leave it up to the viewers to either assume the young black guys did the looting out of desperation too or to just assume that they were stealing for sport. it’s unclear, though i bet that more people assume the latter than the former.

   Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 9:42 am ¶

3. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

   Yeah I felt like there were noticeably more black/brown people in that scene than any other scene in the movie.

   Plus, it was so freakin unrealistic. I lived in NYC through 9/11 and the big blackout, and as far as I know there was no looting during either of those incidents.

   If there’s a big-ass monster on a rampage through Manhattan, just a few blocks away, the last thing on your mind is breaking into a store to steal a flat-screen. Let’s get real.

   Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 9:56 am ¶

4. Wendi Muse wrote:

   though…kudos to the casting people to having a darker skinned woman as one of the main characters and a love interest. i was pretty shocked to see that, especially considering her boyfriend in the film is white. i was also happy to see that the party scene was so diverse. clearly, there were more white people, but it seemed like they had made an effort to include actors of color for that scene.

   Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 10:00 am ¶

5. Cynthia wrote:

   Wendi,

   I thought the party scenes were pretty realistic , even for a big city like New York. I live in Toronto, a city that is 50%+ non-white, yet generally, people’s friends still tend to be predominantly of one race. A classmate of mine recently got married, and though she grew up in Toronto and works in a diverse company, I’d say that 75-80% of her wedding guests were East Asian…and this is the case even if you exclude family and friends of the parents (of the bride and groom) And her reception was pretty big. This is also not an isolated case as I’ve been to several weddings in the past couple of years. With the exception of interracial weddings, all were quite similar.

   Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 10:08 am ¶

6. Gregory A. Butler wrote:

   Carmen’s right, we didn’t have any major looting in any of the major post-Giuliani disasters (9/11, the 2003 blackout).

   But, in the era between Lindsay and Giuliani, we DID have major looting in the one big disaster of those years, the 1977 blackout.

   We also had a couple of urban uprisings (Crown Heights in 1990, Washington Heights in 91) and there was some looting as well.

   Giuliani’s mass arrests of low income inner city Blacks and Latinos (which, for the record, was merely a continuarion and expansion of a policy begun by one term mayor David Dinkins, our city’s only Black mayor ever), did a lot to end petty crime in our city - but at a huge civil liberties price.

   Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 10:36 am ¶

7. deb wrote:

   Maybe the scene in Cloverfield was an homage to the NYC blackout of 1977?

   I didn’t see it the show, but I remember the blackout. I especially remember how the shopping area on Broadway (in/near Bushwick) was severly hit. Stores were ransacked and burned out. I’m sure many merchants went out of business, it was horrible!

   Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 10:53 am ¶

8. Dennis wrote:

   Not only did they have a darker skinned woman as a love interest, Wendi, but [SPOILER!] she survived! I was sure she was going to be the first to die.

   Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 11:32 am ¶

9. Wendi Muse wrote:

   true! normally the brown person gets knocked off first in horror films

   Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 11:36 am ¶

10. Lauren wrote:

    The looting scene rubbed me the wrong way, but I was even more bothered when, during the looting scene, a group of kids seated behind me said, “Here come the niggers to steal everything.” But I guess it all ties together, doesn’t it?

    Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 11:49 am ¶

11. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    OMG! Lauren they seriously said that?

    Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 11:53 am ¶

12. Real Ality wrote:

    Being that was the only screen time black/brown characters had in the film, its questionable. To bad actors don’t say no I’m not interested in this scene since we aren’t represented anywhere else in the film. I guess they have to eat. It made me a bit uncormfortable…those guys look like they could really afford to live in Manhattan. I was a shot at minorities.

    Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 1:08 pm ¶

13. EvilAngelfish wrote:

    Even though I LOVED the movie, that scene certainly gave me pause, partly because I was thinking “Aw man, why does it always have to be black guys looting ffor no reason?” but at the same time, I was thinking, “Am I the only person in this theater noticing this?”

    Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 1:17 pm ¶

14. 2BTru wrote:

    Oh I did. It bugged.

    Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 2:22 pm ¶

15. Black Canseco wrote:

    i blogged about this very thing last week after watching Cloverfield on opening night in California. As a Black male having lived in SOHO, I found the looting scene to be a hilarious underhanded display of soft bigotry, but i found that what few characters of color in the flick seemed to be little more than “beige versions” of the white characters. Then again, none of the characters were really all that fleshed out.

    Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 2:56 pm ¶

16. Aaminah wrote:

    “To bad actors don’t say no I’m not interested in this scene since we aren’t represented anywhere else in the film.”

    True… but you have to understand how films are made. Chances are those actors were not privy to what else was going to be happening in the movie. Extras are not given complete scripts or opportunity to judge the quality of the film.

    Also, it is extremely common to film numerous scenes that end up cut from the film. You know when you buy the DVD and it has deleted scenes? That’s not even all of them, just the ones they were willing to show. So at the time that the actors were filming this scene, they may have also filmed other scenes that would make them feel that they were represented in the film and perhaps represented in a better manner even (depending on what those other scenes were, not just the number filmed). They might be yelling as much as the rest of us when they see the film and find out that scene is all that ended up in there of them!

    Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 4:21 pm ¶

17. Black Canseco wrote:

    Aaminah, i’ve done enough commercial work over the years to know that it’s not uncommon to have parts chopped, recast, etc. at the last minute. But 17 years in the biz has taught me one thing: when stereotypical roles show up in the final cut of a film or commercial, 9 times out of 10,it’s because at worst–they were intentionally meant to be that way or at best it’s simply cultural arrogance on the part of the project’s creators.

    Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 5:15 pm ¶

18. Versai wrote:

    I didn’t like the looting scene at all. It made me think that the writer knew nothing about what NY was really like during 9/11 or the blackout.

    However, it’s the only way that Rob could get that battery for his cell phone, right?

    It was like a Katrina moment–black people are stealing, the white guy is regretfully taking something that’s vitally important. (he did take it, right? I don’t recall anyone putting any money on the counter.)

    However, by the end of the movie, I was so happy that the black woman didn’t sacrifice herself for somebody else, I was ready to overlook all of it’s faults.

    Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 6:53 pm ¶

19. Cynthia C wrote:

    Wait…I thought everyone died at the end of the movie. Sorry….I was a little dizzy from the camera and sitting so close to the screen.

    Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 7:05 pm ¶

20. Cynthia C wrote:

    ^^^^

    Sorry about the spoiler!!!!!!

    Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 7:06 pm ¶

21. Torontonian wrote:

    @Cynthia: I disagree with your assessment of social circles and wedding attendee demographics in Toronto. Maybe it’s something about the people you associate with.

    Some circles I associate with are segregated like that, but other circles are very diverse. The last wedding I attended was very diverse.

    Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 8:50 pm ¶

22. lacy wrote:

    WOW. So glad I wasn’t the only one. I didn’t say anything to my friends after the movie because they were so excited, I knew they’d ignore me/get pissed at me and then we’d never end up talking about it.

    Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 8:54 pm ¶

23. Cynthia C wrote:

    Torontonian, I’d like to know what your definition of “very diverse” is, because a wedding that is 75% + Chinese and 25% everyone else isn’t diverse. What part of town are you from? You can send me an e-mail via my blog if you like.

    Posted 24 Jan 2008 at 10:32 pm ¶

24. Gouw wrote:

    Holy shit Lauren where do you live? More importantly what theater do you go to because some kid in front of me said something exactly like that and all his friends started giggling. I was about to pour my drink on them but there were 6 of them and just me and a friend

    Posted 25 Jan 2008 at 3:45 am ¶

25. OW wrote:

    “when stereotypical roles show up in the final cut of a film or commercial, 9 times out of 10,it’s because at worst–they were intentionally meant to be that way or at best it’s simply cultural arrogance on the part of the project’s creators.”

    Amen.

    I thought the scene was wack…and moreover, didn’t make much sense given -as others have noted - there wasn’t major looting during the last two opportunities for people to do so. It’s kind of a slap at New Yorkers but then again, the whole film is a slap at New Yorkers.

    “Independence Day” had a very similar looting scene - also in NYC. Surprise, surprise.

    Posted 25 Jan 2008 at 4:06 am ¶

26. Aaminah wrote:

    Black Conseco, you completely misunderstood me. I agree 100% that it is intentional on the part of the producers etc. What I said was, don’t blame the bit-part actors and extras for taking roles that they may very well have believed would not be the only 10 seconds of “color” portrayed and done so in such a negative light.

    Posted 25 Jan 2008 at 8:47 am ¶

27. bdsista wrote:

    Gouw, you still should have said something, maybe its the teacher in me that comes out, but when I hear something near me that is inappropriate, I turn around or lean over and say, that was very inappropriate for you to say something like that. You know full well this is a stereotype so use your brains and think intelligently. But you must invoke the TONE of voice and sound indignant! That usually brings silence. ditto for Lacy, if your friends get pissed when you express your opinion, then you may need to recheck your friend criteria. A real friend will let you be yourself regardless of whether they agree with you or not.

    Posted 25 Jan 2008 at 10:25 am ¶

28. cvalda wrote:

    I thought the whole film fudged sociology a bit. Where in Godzilla you’ve got Hiroshima as a cause, Broderick Godzilla you’ve got French nuclear testing, in the viral marketing for Cloverfield the monster occurs naturally.

    So an extended 9/11 reference conflates any foreign threat as a creepy Other that couldn’t have been avoided, hindered by the US military as it obliterates NY. And black men arbitrarily loot in any context.

    I thought it was good at playing on fear, but also prejudice.

    Posted 25 Jan 2008 at 4:16 pm ¶

29. Karl wrote:

    I remember shouting BROOOOOKLYN!!!!!!!!! really loudly when the looting scene started (was in a predominately black theatre in my brooklyn neighborhood)…a bit of levity on my part I suppose. The ish was bigoted but hey, that’s what whites from those areas of NYC (yuppie/melanin girl bangin/hip hop listening/ethnic food eating/world travelin cosmopolitan mac users or not) believe about blacks with penises. Period.

    Posted 25 Jan 2008 at 8:15 pm ¶

30. Torontonian wrote:

    Cynthia,

    All right, maybe my example doesn’t count, because I haven’t attended many weddings at all. The last wedding was an interracial marriage, a small one, and excluding the families but including the bride and groom, I guess it would be 4/10 white, 3/10 East Asian, 3/10 South Asian. But it was really small, so the ratios aren’t really that meaningful.

    I’ve moved around and lived downtown as well as in the GTA.

    Now the reason I suggested that it may have to do with the people you associate with is that you said “people’s friends still tend to be predominantly of one race,” and focused on predominantly East-Asian weddings. Basically, you are contributing to the East Asian wedding guest demographic yourself, and your race is the same as that of your friends who are getting married, generally.

    My question to you is: What percentage of the weddings to which you have attended were the bride/groom connected with you non-East-Asian? If 75-80% of the weddings you attended were of an East Asian friend, then there would be a selection bias. If most of those people know each other, then it may be reflective of that circle of friends.

    Posted 25 Jan 2008 at 8:19 pm ¶

31. Cynthia C wrote:

    Torontonian:

    I’ve never been to any wedding where South Asians make up more than 5% of the total guests. In other words, I’ve never been to a wedding where either the bride or groom is South Asian. The weddings I’ve been to are East Asian or white. Probably more than 60% of these weddings are East Asian (all Chinese) and yes, the guests are predominantly East Asian, even if the both the bride and groom were born and raised here. As for white weddings, I’m usually one of a handful of non-whites. Even interracial weddings usually aren’t all that diverse. The guests will generally reflect the cultures of the bride and groom. Hope this helps.

    Posted 25 Jan 2008 at 11:57 pm ¶

32. Torontonian wrote:

    Hmm, where in Toronto are the demographics predominantly white and East Asian?

    I see East Asian and South Asian areas, South Asian and West Indian areas, and also West Indian/South Asian/East Asian areas. There are also the white areas. White and East Asian seems like an odd combo.

    I’ve been to a wedding where both the bride and groom were Chinese, but many/most of their friends were white. However, they were very upperclass and went to private school. I don’t know them that well, though.

    Anyway, for the last wedding I attended, I was not the same race as my friend the bride, but I was also not the only East Asian person there, either. The groom was not East Asian, and also not the bride’s race. I was not surprised, knowing my friend’s personality and being acquainted with her other friends.

    On the other hand, there are some social circles where I would expect that if they got married, 75% of their guests would be Chinese.

    Posted 26 Jan 2008 at 2:48 am ¶

33. Cynthia C wrote:

    Torontonian:

    These are wedding guests who come from a variety of different parts of the GTA, Ontario, Canada and the world. As for areas that are predominantly East Asian and white, I agree, I don’t think there are places that are approximately 50% East Asian and 50% white, but the Bayview and Steeles (and the Bayview Village area too) area is definitely predominantly white and East Asian (I think the Asian population is slightly higher.) Of course, there are other ethnicities there too.

    Also, just because one is upper classish and went to private school, it doesn’t mean that all or most of one’s friends is white. Most schools these days, especially those with boarding are usually close to 40% of the students in the upper grades are non-white (and has been since the mid to late 1980s)

    (LaToya and everyone, apologies for getting off topic…….Torontonian, if you want to continue this discussion, please contact me via my blog.)

    Posted 26 Jan 2008 at 11:57 am ¶

34. Angel H. wrote:

    Just saw the movie: Loved it! Loved it! LOVED IT! (Fave scene: In the medical triage, “She’s got a bite! She’s got a bite!”)

    I’ve got to agree with the looting scene, though. It really didn’t make sense when there wasn’t any lotting during the real disasters that happened in that city.

    Oh and one thing: It’s not about the monster! It’s about the people!

    Posted 26 Jan 2008 at 8:01 pm ¶

35. Roxie wrote:

    TBH, I didn’t even notice who was looting. I guess I was too swept up. Andre 3000 and Bonecrusher showed up to see it, so I was kind of trippin’.

    I don’t doubt y’all at all. I’d just have to see it again.

    Posted 28 Jan 2008 at 12:37 am ¶

36. justin wrote:

    What bugged me was when the camera would skip and the smiling couple would say
    “it’s Japanese, it’s Japanese.” talking about his job. It’s like a Godzilla reference. In hundreds of monster movies there is a random cut where Asian people are reacting or running away, because movies like Godzilla were poorly edited or restaged so that white people would watch them. All those references just add to the countless situations where Asians are acceptable victims.
    It’s the opposite of every film where a scientist comes up with a contrived plan and saves the day, but when they make that reference, and not one of the main characters is Japanese or Asian, they totally loose my sympathy.

    Posted 28 Jan 2008 at 2:16 am ¶

37. Steve's Mom wrote:

    My 18-year-old son went to see Cloverfield last night, and I mentioned the looting scene to him before he went. When he came home, he told me that he definitely saw two black and two white looters and that the rest of the group was shot from behind wearing hoodies or from such an angle that he couldn’t determine their race. He also said that one black looter had a TV, but other than that guy, you couldn’t really tell what people were taking. Most of them were in the store watching TV.

    We’re brown folks, and pretty attuned to racial depictions in the media. Steve thinks that had he not consciously counted people in the scene, he may have a different opinion of it. Also, he said that there weren’t enough people of Asian descent in the movie — I think he said there was only one.

    Posted 28 Jan 2008 at 2:40 pm ¶

38. reed wrote:

    I saw the movie and liked it but the looting scene was disturbing. Their was a lot of diversity in the movie for the most part. I think the problem is even if we try not to be racist the fact that this is a racist country starts to leek out. We can cast diversity and send overt messages of unity but until we really deal with the racist under tones and beliefs in our culture there will always be scenes like in the movie.

    Posted 31 Jan 2008 at 9:40 pm ¶

Post a Comment