The critical phrase that bugs me beyond all others is "transcends the genre." To me, this smacks of an inherent snobbiness a little like what you lay out here: that genre is a limit, and that if something operates within a genre it is inherently limited. Scott and Tracy personified this argument in the quotes Jim posted, and I kind of wanted to strangle the both of them. (why would you willingly limit the kinds of movies you enjoy and learn from?) I prefer to say a given movie personifies its genre.
I don't necessarily equate seriousness with greatness--behold my defense of SPEED RACER primarily because it is so daringly visual--but I do think there's plenty of material to explore with Batman that TDK does, and does very well. Yeah, it's very serious, but if it was merely pretentious and self-consciously "dark" it would fall flat.
What we may be missing in these surface skirmishes (that a few people point out in Emerson's post) is that what makes TDK work is actually pretty conventional: A precisely calibrated crime story, a great cast giving excellent performances, virtuoso direction, excellent set design, well-choreographed action, parallels to modern times, and (yes) the willingness to treat the material as if it's worth doing.
I feel like TDK has changed things for superhero movies, or anyway it should. But I also think filmmakers (and more importantly, studio execs) are going to walk away from TDK with the wrong message... just as comic writers and publishers did when Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and Alan Moore and David Gibbons' Watchmen hit in the mid 80's: that folks just want grim-n-gritty right down to the bone, and never mind all the conventional merits listed above. I hope I'm wrong, but frankly I have no reason to think I am.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 12:34 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, well, I don't know where to begin, because this is a topic near and dear to my heart.
I suppose I'll start with The Dark Knight, a film I loved, and have seen twice now. As far as I'm concerned, it does stay very true to the genre, because the Batman comics I read growing up were full of the same sort of darkness and seriousness that Nolan brings to his film. I'm not well enough versed in comics history to know if that has pretty much always been how Batman was supposed to be portrayed, and people who think otherwise are simply confused by the few times the comics veered from that (I'm looking at you, the 1960s!), or if Frank Miller really is the guy who kicked it off, but even if the latter is the case, it's been an important part of the character for over twenty years. But given what I do know about comics, and Batman, I suspect that darkness was always at least meant to be there.
The comments for the Scanners article are very interesting, and pretty heartening for the most part, because most of them agree with you, Jonathan (and me). But one guy does say about the Spider-Man films that the line "With great power comes great responsibility" is "pretty unforgivable". His reasoning is that at that point the filmmakers are stating their theme, which this commenter views as a giant sin. Well, I'm sorry, but that line is Spider-Man, it's one of the iconic lines from the comic, and it's one of the things that comic books do. If you're making a movie about Spider-Man, and you choose to cut that line because you think it's gilding the lily, then you shouldn't be allowed to make a Spider-Man movie in the first place.
And Jonathan, I absolutely hate it when a critic says something "transcends the genre". Oh, how it steams me. And I truly believe that it can only be said by people who don't understand the genre (whatever it might be) they're dealing with. Any genre you can name is potentially far more rich than pretty much any critic realizes. Here's a list of movies that reside very comfortably in the SF genre: 2001, Soylent Green, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Planet of the Apes, A.I., Blade Runner, Alien, Forbidden Planet, Solaris, A Clockwork Orange, Dark Star.... All of these are completely of the genre, and are firmly in SF's long tradition. There's no "transcending" going on, just because a critic happens to like one and dislike another, or because the critic is ignorant of SF as a whole.
Stepping out of what is generally perceived to be a genre's formula also doesn't count as transcending, because by and large I believe that the idea of a given genre having a formula is bogus. If someone reading this rambling comment disagrees with me, then please, tell me, what is the "formula" for SF? Or horror? Or Westerns? The only genre I can think of that does seem to legitimately have a formula is the detective story (the detective story specifically, as opposed to Crime, the umbrella genre beneath which there are numerous sub-genres). And ironically, it's the detective genre that probably has gotten the most critical love over the years.
Finally, Jonathan -- and this is probably a bit off-topic -- while I wouldn't have picked Eugene O'Neill to plug into your "________ of Horror" formula, the idea behind someone trying to aim that high in horror is one I whole-heartedly support. As I think I've made clear, I don't believe in the idea that genre equals formula. While I readily acknowledge that brilliant work can be done within formulas, I think that in the case of horror the belief that there is a formula that must be adhered to is slowly killing the genre. In literature, there are a few people stepping up to the plate to show what horror can do and be. In film, I don't think there's anyone. If someone out there wants to be the Eugene O'Neill of Horror, then I say "Have at it."
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 12:53 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken - I knew you were the right man for the job. Since I haven't seen it yet, but am very much looking forward to, I can only go by the current fray I'm reading about and it seems that so many are going about it the opposite of how you and I are: that somehow it's great because it's so "above" the genre itself.
One thing I have always liked about the DC adaptations over the Marvel ones is a lack of fear in the face of brightly colored tights. When DC puts up Superman he's got the cape and the red underwear. When Marvel puts up X-Men it's got to be dark leather rather than blue and yellow (which they even derisively make fun of in the first movie). Now Marvel has done the costume thing too (Spiderman) but for the most part I get the feeling from Marvel adaptations that they're a little embarrassed that these are "only" comic book characters whereas DC doesn't seem to give a damn. Of course, as such, Marvel, with the exception of the Batman character, has the "cooler" reputation but I think DC, in both comic and movie form, sticks closer to the true spirit of the genre.
So I think my fear is that DC will start falling into the Marvel psyche and start making everything "serious" until we get Superman just wearing a tee-shirt and torn jeans.
Anyway, that's all a little off topic in a way, but it's in line with what you're saying, that the wrong messages are going to be taken from the new crop until we've got nothing but down and dirty and no more fun.
P.S. - Along the costume lines, another thing Marvel does is make the costume "realistic" ala Iron Man, where everything has a purpose and that's why Stark created it. With Batman, there's really no reason to have a cowl with pointy ears but they do it anyway and don't try to justify the look or feel of the costume to make it more realistic to the audience. Even though this fray centers around TDK I think it's the Marvel adaptations that have led us here due to their general unease with the fact that their comic book characters are in fact, comic book characters.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 1:05 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill - I've always felt, like you, that people who say something "transcends" the genre don't understand the genre in the first place. I guess one of the things that bugs me is a fear I detect in certain films of embracing the genre, and when they don't, people who don't understand the genre start calling it a masterpiece. The impression I get from you and Ken is that TDK does not shy away from the genre at all (like some of the Marvel examples I gave above) but it seems there are a lot of bandwagon jumpers who are praising it for the opposite reasons.
Since I was writing the first comment while you were writing yours, tell me, do you get bothered at all when a comic book movie is afraid to be just that? I still remember the X-Men line about the blue and yellow suits and for some reason it really bugged me. First of all, it's a slap in the face to the original creators and secondly how unlikely are the suits worn by Superman and Spiderman? Yet, if you put it in a movie and don't make fun of it in any way the audience accepts it but if you have Peter Parker wear a hoodie instead and make some flippant remark about a blue and red webbed leotard then the audience is going to look at the classic Spiderman costume derisively as well.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 1:17 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill: I'm no scholar, but I'll attempt to address your assessment of Batman's seriousness. And yes, since the early 70's (but kicked into high gear with the Miller book, and his later book Year One, which HEAVILY influenced story elements in both Nolan movies) Batman has been a pretty grim guy, and his "Dark Knight" persona was really created. He was a goof in the 60's, but comics history is so convoluted from the late 30's to the 60's that it's hard to pin down any real "canon" interpretation of the character up until... well... the 70's.
Marvel is indeed seen as the "cooler" company of the two; DC is older (more or less) and its tentpole characters are more nakedly mythical in nature. Marvel has the advantage at seeming more immediately contemporary, but the DC stable is archetypal. The two most-jazzed audiences I have ever been apart of--in ANY movie--were the original Burton Batman film and TDK... and the latter was a critic's screening, where the audience more typically looks like the population of a morgue, not psyched-up fans.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 1:22 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I loved your comments about the difference between the DC and Marvel movies, regarding costumes, and, with the exception of the Spider-Man films, you're absolutely right. But what I loved about Sam Raimi's first two films (and I'll even confess some affection for the third one) is that they're so unapologetic about their comic book roots.
I think the two Fantastic Four films are so bad for pretty interesting reasons (at least, interesting in the context of this discussion). On one hand, they do sort of revel in their comic book roots. But unlike The Dark Knight you never get the sense that anyone involved felt that those roots were ever worth taking seriously. Dr. Doom is changed from probably the best villain in Marvel comics to one of the limpest, least interesting villains I've seen in a really long time, because nobody cared to engage with the character as he already existed, because that would take time, skill and respect. It's far easier to just tear out his guts.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 1:30 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, my previous comment was directed towards Jonathan.
Ken - I don't know 1970s Batman, so I'm surprised to learn that the darkness we now see as inherent to the character started then. And yeah, Year One -- a great and largely unknown (outside of comic fandom) comic -- was clearly the unofficial source for Batman Begins, while Moore and Boland's The Killing Joke takes that spot in this sequel.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 1:34 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think, having not seen it yet, that what you said is probably the best explanation. When you talk about The Fantastic Four failing because it didn't bother to take the subject matter seriously I think that nails it on the head. TDK seems to take its subject matter seriously and Spiderman did as well. And going way back to Superman and Superman II it was the same. There were plenty of jokes at Clark's expense but it's evident from the first frame that everyone concerned took the comic book roots of Superman very seriously indeed. Almost reverential at times.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 1:42 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see that on Dennis's "marquee" sidebar that he gave The Dark Knight two stars. I wasn't expecting that. When are you going to be able to weigh in? After it comes out on DVD?
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 1:55 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken and Bill - Either of you ever watch the Batman serials from the forties. I've seen a few on YouTube - my god they're awful.
As for Batman's darkness I don't know much of anything before Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. But then it wasn't just Batman then. I remember reading all kinds (my roommate was an avid collector) and from The Watchmen to V to even DC Death of Superman in 92 everything in comics seemed to go darker.
I never cared much for the Burton films to tell the truth, although nothing - NOTHING - could be worse than the Schumacher films. Oyyyy!!!!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 1:57 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When are you going to be able to weigh in? After it comes out on DVD?
Here's a quote from Seymour Skinner: "Now she wants to get out of the bath! I'll be back in three hours. Maybe sooner. But almost certainly longer."
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:00 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't seen TDK, but I was a comic book collector (Spider-Man mainly) in my teens and went to my share of Comicons, which weren't the grand affairs they are now. What's happened to comics, IMHO, is that they've become big business and with that, aspirations for them are higher.
I was very good friends with Mike Gold, one of the founders of First Comics, which helped pioneer the graphic novel concept. I can tell you, with love, that Mike was a very ambitious fellow who wanted respect. He's got it, too, and I'm glad. But he took a kids' fantasy world too far into the real world. And now, just like the comedies that never get Best Picture Oscars, movies like TDK want to be considered more than fluff.
All the seriousness of purpose, however, will not overcome the desire for studios to reward their prestige projects, to burnish their own legacies as people to reckon with. And they won't want to do it with a comic-book movie.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:01 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really enjoyed Burton's first film at the time, and I would be very interested to see it again now, after so many years.
I know that nowadays Burtons Batman Returns is enjoying something of a critical renaissance, for lack of a better word, due to Pfeiffer's performance, and the "gleefullly" dark tone (not sure who I'm quoting there, but I'm sure it's someone). I, for one, think it's one of Burton's worst films (and I think he agrees), and don't understand what movie these people are watching.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 2:04 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn - That's exactly the problem with so many genre films. In aspiring to be great they end up being not good at all. Things like My Man Godfrey or The Thin Man (two William Powell favorites of mine) never, at least as far as I can see, aspired to be masterworks of the cinema but instead did comedy and did it well. And we all know that they are plenty of Best Picture winners that can't hold a candle to them but history has recorded their excellence nonetheless. So I think you're right - too many people try too hard to make their films or comic books "important" whereas if you just let it flow naturally from the genre you could produce something great - and who cares if it doesn't win Best Picture and tackle the meaning of life?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:14 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But he took a kids' fantasy world too far into the real world."
But what does that mean, exactly? It's like saying that Ralph Bakshi or Katsuhiro Otomo (or whoever) took animated films too far into the real world. Comics are a medium, not a genre.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 2:14 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill - I remember sort of liking both movies when they came out then re-watching on DVD years later and being thoroughly disappointed. I too thought "Batman Returns" was the better of the two until watching them again and seeing it as a mess - a big, stinking mess. And the first one seems quite ramshackle in it's exposition. It doesn't spend any time having fun with Batman's origins. None.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:17 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But he took a kids' fantasy world too far into the real world."
Great tagline (or trailer line) for a horror film in which some fantastical beings enter our world due to some comic collector's hubris.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:19 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hubris is always getting people into trouble. You'd think they'd learn.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 2:22 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Know why they don't learn? Hubris.
It's a vicious cycle.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:26 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great topic here Jonathan-
I agree that seriousness is not a qualifier for greatness. In fact, I think The Dark Knight (a film that I think is terrible, btw...) would have benefited had it NOT taking itself so seriously.
By trying to get weighty with us by drawing on a story about the bat man, Nolan just comes off as condescending. Not that a director CAN'T accomplish weightiness with such a cartoonish subject, but Nolan is a hack.
My beef with Nolan is that he doesn't FEEL like a Stanley Kubrick does, or, for that matter, as a Roger Corman does.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:29 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox - You may not like Nolan, but I can't see how he qualifies as a hack. Or condescending(?).
I agree that Nolan doesn't feel like Kubrick or Corman (I think he feels like "Nolan"), but why does it have to be one or the other? Are those sensibilities the only vald approaches to...I don't know, movies, I guess?
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 2:36 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dark Knight (a film that I think is terrible, btw...)
I think someone just fired an opening volley. I haven't seen it yet but now I must and soon. I've heard and read some underwhelming reactions but terrible? Really? What felt terrible about it? Did you like the performances? How about the set design? Editing too herky jerky? Fill me in.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:39 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are those sensibilities the only vald approaches to...I don't know, movies, I guess?
I sure hope not. Hooray false dichotomies!
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:47 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know my blog partner Rod faults Nolan for having no talent for directing action sequences. The only part of the film he really liked was Ledger.
As for taking a kids' fantasy into the real world, I guess I mean that the mythology of comic books is meant to help children deal with their lives. That's my theory of stories, in general. We need different stories at different times of our lives to negotiate new challenges (marriage, getting old, etc.). Comic books help the child who is told what to do most of the day feel powerful and more able to negotiate some of the frightening things that come his or her way.
I don't object to changing a form to something else, but doing so runs a risk of leaving the audience for comic books with nothing helpful to turn to.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:49 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nolan condescends specifically in the "boat sequence" when he places a prisoner as the moral center of a life or death moment. He doesn't dare reflect on the torn emotions of the guard holding the button, just goes to the wise old convict for truth. Lame, lifeless soap-boxing.
I think he's a hack because he hasn't made a quality film, yet he fashions suit jackets and comeovers like he's the next big thing. His skills are avergae, at best. I'm still waiting to feel something when I watch one of his films.
I didn't say Kubrick or Corman were the only valid approaches. I was simply naming two different artists who have accomplished greatness through serious (Kubrick) and goofball (Corman) formats.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:57 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn - I don't share your theory of stories, though I certainly believe there's a place for that sort of thing in comics, and "Spider-Man", which you say you collected almost exclusively, certainly fits that bill. But what if a comic reader gets older, and grows out of that type of storytelling, but still enjoys the medium of comics? Any artistic medium needs variety, and comics has certainly achieved that, after much struggle.
I don't really read comics anymore, but I'm pretty sure the kinds of comics you talk about still exist. They also have to struggle in this new market, where darkness rules all, but they're out there.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 2:59 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox - That boat sequence is an example, to me, of the film embracing its comic book roots, and I completely bought it. And if you buy the concept of the scene (and maybe you don't), why should he focus on the guard? The fact that one boat is made up almost entirely of prisoners is part of the point.
If you haven't been moved by any of his films (I've been moved, to some degree, by all of his films, save The Following, which I haven't seen), I obviously can't convince you that you should have been. But not liking someone's movies and thinking they're a hack aren't necessarily the same things. I can dislike someone's films, not be moved by it, and acknowledge that it's not hackwork. I can't understand how you can watch Nolan's films, whether you like them or not, and dismiss them as such.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 3:04 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea about the boat sequence so I can't say. Dammit! I knew I was going to end up shortchanging myself by starting this before having seen it. However, to aid in the conversation, here is Larry Aydlette's
take on the film. For those of you who've seen it, what do you think of what Larry says?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:07 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have The Following at home. This may prompt me to slide it into the DVD player.
And I hope some comic books like I grew up with still exist. I'd like to think there was some innocence left in the world.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:07 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey comics is still out there, or is Richie Rich now raping people?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:11 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please, Richie's the reason gentrification has taken over everywhere!
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:17 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To my knowledge, Richie Rich comics continue to be rape-free. But even though I don't read comics anymore (not through a lack of desire, but rather, after a decade's absence from them, because I don't know where to begin), I still read about them, in blogs and so forth. One blogger, Chris Sims, frequently champions children's comics, though his website covers all bases.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 3:19 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anybody read Larry Aydlette's piece? It talks about Nolan's skills (or lack thereof) as a director. It's pretty short so it's a quick read. That's why I like Larry - knows how to say things quickly and cleanly.
And I just had a conversation not long ago with Neil Sarver about Harvey Comics (we both actually like their story telling brevity) oddly enough.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:23 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan - regarding Larry's take: well, I disagree with him, too. There's plenty of visual poetry in the film, my favorite example being the shot of the Joker hanging his head out of the window of a police cruiser. Another moment I really like is the very first helicopter shot of a glass skyscraper: as the camera moves in closer, one of the window's explodes outwards. I've never really seen that before.
And I love Michael Mann, but Larry compares The Dark Knight to Miami Vice...eeesh. No one will ever convince me that that one's anything but a giant, dull mess.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 3:24 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn - Your comment just sunk in with me. Takes me a little while sometimes. So I should now start postulating on how Richie Rich has "raped" the lower classes of the inner city. I smell a dissertation!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:27 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well now, just like with No Country for Old Men, I feel I need to see this sooner rather than later. And here I figured it could wait. Stupid me.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:29 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill: I'm actually internet pals with Sims -- he's going to be tickled to be mentioned here.
I don't object to changing a form to something else, but doing so runs a risk of leaving the audience for comic books with nothing helpful to turn to.
This is a very narrow definition of what comics are and can do, and hundreds or thousands of comic artists from the 1930's onward would disagree with you in the strongest possible terms. You seem to be conflating Marvel superheroes with ALL comics, which is simply false, like saying all movies are Michael Bay pictures. Check out what DC/Vertigo is publishing sometime.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:37 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken - That was not my intention. I read all of them until I outgrew them. That's the salient point. I outgrew the need for those types of stories. I'm not sure I could connect with the comics of today because my childhood experiences formed my ideas about comic books. If they ARE serving the kind of storytelling purpose that I feel should be part of our formative years, then that's a very good thing. It seems, however, that TDK may be an indication that men aren't willing to put away their childish things (as the saying goes), but rather would like these superheroes to go with them into the future to keep instructing them on their lives. This may be more than the genre can take.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:43 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For which types of stories? The superhero stories aimed at kids? That's fine -- there's also superhero stories (and various kinds of stories told in the comic medium) for adults, too. The Super Serious Grim n' Gritty superhero comics we've been bombarded with since the mid 80's are a bit much to choke down, but to say there's NO NEED for them -- or that they only serve people who refuse to "grow up" -- does a massive disservice. If it's more than the superhero genre can take, it's been stretching its bounds almost since its birth.
And yes, there are still plenty of kids' comics. Plenty.
Jonathan: Certain sequences, some of them seemingly quite innocuous, stayed with me for days. Nolan is a perfectly fine "visual poet."
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:46 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been reading Sims for a long time now. I never comment, because I never have anything say, but his site is great, he's incredibly knowledgable about comics, and he's hilarious.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 3:47 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bill: I completely kick his ass at GTA4 online.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:49 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken - You certainly know more about the new generation of comics than I do. Perhaps, from the film world, a movie like Hancock is meant to be an adult superhero. I'm sorry, but I just don't relate to this concept. If I could get some idea of what purpose, besides entertainment, these adult-oriented superheroes serve, why people become fans, I'd understand.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:52 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn - You read comics because the ones you read helped you through your childhood. That's great. But why on earth do you believe that an adult who still reads comics is somehow searching for "instruction"? I don't get that.
Another visual moment from TDK that I loved: Batman racing through the underground mall. That had a Michael Mann quality to it, now that I think about it.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 3:54 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could just C&P what I said at Emerson's...
Superheroes are archetypes. They are meant to represent ideas that literally duke it out for dominance, which is why it blows me away when people say superhero stories are too "on the nose" -- that's like saying slasher movies are just too darn focused on people dying. It's a mark of the genre.
If the idea of entities representing ideas interacting sounds familiar, it should! It's a notion that's been with us for a long, long time... which I think Hancock was actually going for, in its awkward way.
As for the insistence on "instruction," I share bill's bafflement. Superhero stories can have as many goals and uses as any other kind of story.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:00 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granted, I read very few superhero comics these days... not because I believe the genre as a whole to be unworthy, but because most of the people writing them just aren't doing a very good job at it.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:03 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said it yourself, Ken. Superheroes are archetypes. As a Jungian, I view archetypes a very powerful entities that instruct, not only on a conscious level but at a very organic, visceral level. Identification with an archetype--or its rejection--has a lot of consequences for how we conduct our lives. That's where I'm coming from.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:08 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wowee!!! I walk away for 45 minutes and you guys are up to 43 comments!!
Jonathan, you went away on purpose so you could make a big re-entrance like this, huh??
Haven't read Larry's take yet, but I will.
What I can say about Nolan visually is that I find him dull, repetitive, emotionless. Where Bill finds poetry I find mass market paperback.
To me Nolan stages his action and violence simply b/c he wants the audience to mouth "ooooh"s and "ahhhh"s. I feel nothing when his camera moves. It see nothing expressive in his designs. And Bill, respectfully, when I call him a hack, it is that... that there is nothing uniquely there about Nolan's vision yet people praise him as some new auteur. Maybe he's David Fincher jr, but I don't particularly care for Fincher, so...
I just don't want a well-oiled handyman, I want a handyman that has some soul, some juice, some life up under those fingernails!!
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:11 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW... I hate to link drop on Jonathan's blog, but to maybe make this easier, my full take on TDK is here:
http://fox-tractorfacts.blogspot...ark- knight.html
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:15 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does Little Lotta fit into all of this?
My brother collected comics from just shortly after Stan Lee came up with Spidey and quite frankly I can tell you from reading them (he bought every Marvel comic available - every damn character) that they were just as innocuous as Harvey comics were in their own way. It wasn't until the late seventies that any kind of darkness or adultness started to creep in. I still remember reading the Spiderman where Stan is the guest host on Saturday Night Live and Spidey shows up - oh brother.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:17 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call it the creators growing up and the new blood in comics companies were those who had grown up on them. They "aged" the comics, but this was the silver age -- the Golden Age had already occurred, with plenty of maturing going on there, too. They just done got rebooted.
FACT ABOUT CHRIS SIMS: 2 or 3 nights of any given week, he IMs me at 11:30pm with "Ken, what should I post tomorrow?"
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:20 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox - "Where Bill finds poetry I find mass market paperback."
Well, it all depends on which mass-market paperback you're talking about, doesn't it? Is "mass-market paperback" a genre now? You obviously see it as a mark of low quality, whereas I see it as a publishing format.
Most of what you say I can't argue against, because it's about your gut reaction versus mine. You see no soul, and I see plenty.
And Fox, are you now, or were you ever, a reader of comic books?
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:20 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"FACT ABOUT CHRIS SIMS: 2 or 3 nights of any given week, he IMs me at 11:30pm with 'Ken, what should I post tomorrow?'"
That doesn't surprise me at all. Most days, you can practically smell the desperation.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:22 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox, you link dropping bastard! Just kidding I don't care. By the way, back in the day they used to have this little fact feature (does anyone remember that) where Stan Lee would write these little blurbs about the characters, sometimes within the story itself. Anyway, I still remember his blurb that Spidey was the strongest of all Marvel superheroes, even stronger than the Hulk. I don't know why I always remembered that but I thought it was pretty cool. And... uh... it taught me a lot about life. Yeah, there we go.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:24 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS ABOUTS THE SIMS: I've never played it.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:25 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS ABOUT WHIMS: I do things on them often.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:32 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan - I remember one time, back in the 80s, Marvel did this thing called "Assistant Editor's Month". The joke was that all the real editors were for some reason off-duty, and their assitants took over, which resulted in all sorts of wackiness, not to mention zaniness, getting into the comics. In that month's issue of "The Avengers", the Avengers were guests on Late Night with David Letterman. So they all went on the show and Letterman made fun of them. Then they got attacked. I don't remember by who. Arcade, probably.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:32 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill - I remember that too! Ever read the Defenders? Man, Marvel really did come up with some wacky ass characters when you think about it. Dr. Strange still looks like the host of a Saturday late night horror serial to me.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:37 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Mariner anyone? The guy wears a fish scale speedo. And his name is Namor. Uh huh.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:39 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill -
I don't read comics, and I can appreciate that may help explain the separation in our opinion. I certainly don't expect (or want) to change your feelings about TDK. In fact, having not liked it I am curious to hear more about why people DID like it.
Still, if I don't think it should matter what readers of novels think about their beloved once they see the film it's based on, basing the quality of a comic book film on how accurately it portrays it's source material rings false to me. The movie is the movie, the book is the book.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:39 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I read "The Defenders" a little bit. I bought that one if I liked the cover, but never on a regular basis. I remember Gargoyle, and Valkyrie, and...Moon Dragon? Was that one?
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:39 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were about a billion Defenders at one time or another, including Moon Dragon.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:42 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox - That's true, but some of the things you object to about The Dark Knight, such as the boat sequence, are the kind of thing that fits in perfectly with a comic book world, and if you're not used to it, or haven't developed a taste for it, from years of reading comics, then the chances of it not working for you on film increase. But that's not the movie's fault, or yours; it's simply the nature of the beast.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:43 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan - Oh, I used to love me some Sub-Mariner. You never knew whose side that guy was on! The giant sea robots or Captain America? Sub-Mariner could go either way.
Honestly, Sub-Mariner was (is?) an interesting character. All he cared about was protecting Atlantis and the oceans. If, in doing so, he helped the rest of the planet, fine. If doing so hurt the rest of the planet, fine.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:45 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to mention he was one of the original superheroes. Namor's been around a long, long time.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:46 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lapper-
Why don't you go see TDK now so you can join the fray?
In fact! If you hit 100 comments on this - your unofficial first day back! - then I will pay your way.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:50 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh yeah, like I said my brother started collecting these things before I was born. When I was in college I found the comics our mother hadn't thrown away and one of them was Spidey #7. Even in tattered condition the comic book store gave me a few hundred for it and several others I had (well, my brother had and I stole). My roommate had the comic guide that we took with us to make sure we weren't ripped off. And then I probably blew it on pizza and beer for the next semester. Oh well.
Time for my stupid commute home now. That sucks.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:50 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken - Really? I knew that he's the one who discovered Captain America frozen up there in the Arctic, but I think I'd always assumed he was created some time in the 60s. How old is that character?
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:51 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox - I shall see it soon I promise. Once something hits a fever pitch like this I find a way to ignore life and see it.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:51 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill - According to Wikipedia Namor was created in 1939. So he's up there with Superman in age.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:53 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. I had no idea.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:53 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest, me neither until now. I thought he came about with The Defenders. Okay now I really have to go get my damn bus.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:54 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment count is what you get when you talk about comic book stuff, man. I should've warned you.
You know who was a great mass-market paperback writer? Charles Dickens.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:54 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken - So true on both counts. I'll pick it back up later.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:56 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken - My point exactly.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:57 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All right, chill on the "mass paper-back" guys. It was intended to mean that you can find many copies of them all over the place. If it was a poor analogy... my hands are up!
Sheesh... apparently, when you start a comic book thread you also attract sensitive fan boys. (And let me pre-emptively catch you here... THAT'S INTENDED AS AN INSULT!)
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 5:05 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry -- I thought Bill and I were challenging your argument on its merits.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 5:07 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argh... I meant that's NOT intended as an insult.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 5:11 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, too late. Ten paces at dawn.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 5:11 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, but..."sensitive fan boys" is kind of condescending anyway, isn't it?
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 5:14 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me add: Ken and I really are challenging your argument on its merits, Fox. We liked the movie, you didn't, and we're discussing the whys and why-nots. I don't know where sensitivity comes into it. I don't know where "fan boy" comes into it, either, unless the fact that we are, or have been, comics fans is all it takes to get that label.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 5:17 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is, bill.
I'd also contend that I was "attracted" here... considering Jonathan asked for my input in the opening graf.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 5:20 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I'm here every day, assuring Jonathan that he's not alone. So I was going to be around whether his post was about The Dark Knight or consisted entirely of an old photograph from Life magazine showing Nelson Rockefeller goosing Myrna Loy.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 5:24 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And to be clear, the mass paper-back "argument" was meant to imply that Nolan's brand of cinema can be found everywhere and often.
Beyond that I feel I made enough of my argument - you can read my review of it for more detail. Basically, like Fincher, Nolan is technically proficient but artistically deficient.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 5:36 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Fan Boys and Condescending Foxsters. Ken, you saying you wouldn't have shown up had I not mentioned you - I'm hurt, I thought you liked Cinema Styles. Hold on a second, I have to go cry. ... ...
Okay I'm back. Bill - I'm doing the Myrna Loy goose photo next week; thanks for giving it away!
Fox - I'll see it as soon as I can and make my FINAL JUDGMENT FOR OR AGAINST YOU! How will I rule? Only time will tell.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 7:11 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill - I checked out Larry's post again and Dennis had commented saying he liked it "much less" than Larry did and will be putting up something soon on it so we can carry the argument over there.
Fox - Keep your eyes peeled for it. Sounds like Dennis is on your side so you'll have more company.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 8:20 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds good... perhaps we can send a friend request to Chris Nolan and see if he'll join us too! No?
Actually... you know what would be fun? Have you ever been to Bloggingheads.tv where political bloggers do debates/discussions over a little camera attachment? They're usually chummy and not obnoxious like cable TV debates. It would be a blast to see that reach into the film blogger world.
However, I barely know how to download a MP3, so figuring out a camera might take me well into Batman 3 (v 2.0).
Lastly, I don't mean "fan boy" in a disparaging way. I consider myself a geek, nerd etc. so I would never call someone a fan boy as an insult... I might use it to power-up a dis like, say, "elitist fan boy!" but...
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 12:04 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and ... OHHHHH.... it's 12:05 and you didn't hit the 100 mark Jonathan!
Good show, though, good show.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 12:05 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if you'll ever get all the way down to the 88th comment, but I just needed to tell you that this post is phenomenal for a few reasons.
First, I agree with everything you say. Second, you said it all so well. You kept it simple, you kept it clear, and you got all your points across. Third, you ended with a kick ass quote. Love it.
Just thought I should let you know how much I enjoyed reading this.
Scott
he-shot-cyrus.blogspot.com
Scott | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 2:06 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox - You elitist fan boy, thank you for the comment. I would love to do a little "tv show" for the blogs just as soon as I can figure out how to do it with my face blacked out to protect my identity from co-workers. And my voice - we'd have to use one of those voice modulaters so it would sound like Darth Vader was in on the debate.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 7:55 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott - Thanks so much, I'm glad you agree (it's always better when we all agree). And nothing, NOTHING, can beat the string of quotable quotes that stream from Chuck's mouth in Planet of the Apes: "It's a madhouse, a madhouse!!!" "Get your stinkin' paws off of me..."To hell with the scarecrows" "My name is Taylor" and so on. What a movie - a great sci-fi movie! All hail genre!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 7:57 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HA! You've given me the idea to use Christian Bale's awful Batman voice for debates.
Ooo... and you could just put on one of those cheap, plastic Joker halloween masks to hide your identity.
The theatrics of this will totally "attract" the fan boys!
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 10:21 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't seen TDK yet. As far as genre films in general, too often the people who rave about a film transcending its genre have little knowledge or appreciation of the genre. Sometimes the self-importance of certain films makes me want to run to see something without pretensions. It's harder for me to even want to step into a multiplex when every movie is suppose to be "an event".
Just a thought rattling in my brain: With comic book films being the rage, and Stan Lee having a certain amount of power in Hollywood, why isn't he finally making the film he wrote with Alain Resnais? Maybe turn the directorial reigns to Michel Gondry.
Peter Nellhaus | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 11:13 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why couldn't Resnais still make it? He's still around, and he's still making movies.
But I don't think Lee really has any power in Hollywood. He pops up in cameos in all the Marvel films, but he has nothing to do with the making of them.
bill | | Email | 07.29.08 - 11:30 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe not but he's got tons of money. And I'm totally out of the loop on this one Peter: What movie did Stan Lee write with Resnais? What's it about?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 12:12 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan, it was going to be called The Monster Maker, and it sounds like it was going to be a little bit like Sullivan's Travels. From what I can tell, through skimming articles, is that it was going to be about a low-budget horror film producer who became fed-up with the work he was doing, and, in an attempt to gain the respect of the adult world, decides to make a movie about pollution. The main difference between this film and Sullivan's Travels is that the hero of the Lee/Resnais film would not discover that his monster films did have worth. It atually sounds really preachy.
Here's the article I found:
http://www.tcj.com/253/f_stanlee.html
bill | | Email | 07.29.08 - 12:42 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the link Bill. I read the article and wow, Stan should stay out of show business forever. The closing narration for The Monster Maker is just plain awful and the Godspell-like Thor musical? Or that Silver Surfer production - "I've caught the ultimate honky"??!!?! Oh vey!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 1:00 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I didn't even read about the Thor or Silver Surfer projects. I just scanned the article until I found information about The Monster Maker.
So, yeah, it sounds like Stan Lee should probably not do...things.
bill | | Email | 07.29.08 - 1:08 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Lee's a mascot, nothing more. The only good ideas he really had he came up with in conjunction with someone else.
Sorry we didn't get you over 100 comments.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 1:13 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, yes, the ending to Monster Maker would need to be reworked, but I like the basic premise, especially if the film took place in the Seventies. The reason I suggested Gondry is because Resnais' most recent films suggest he wouldn't be interested in revisiting this project. Gondry's Science of Sleep is something of a goof on Je T'aime, Je T'aime, plus he loves what appears to be low-tech special effects.
Peter Nellhaus | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 1:25 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the polution theme alone would probably get it some interest today so I think they could have it take place in the present but it does sound preachy like Bill said. If someone took the basic premise and then redid all the writing, throwing out Lee's stuff, it might work.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 1:32 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100!!!!
bill | | Email | 07.29.08 - 1:49 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan -
You should just keep updating your blog in this one comment section. It's turning into an extraordinary scroll of commentary at this point so why stop it???
Think of it... Cinema Styles entire second year all fit into one post. It would be groundbreaking!
p.s. I kinda like Peter's idea of Gondry doing a comic book film/action film. His Boyz N' The Hood looked better than Singleton's. Using a large pizza as a pool of blood was revelatory.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 2:30 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey I was 100 on my own post. And I didn't even know until after I woke up. You think I'm joking but I'm tired and so I just closed my door and totally took a chair nap here at work. Hey when you're exhausted you're exhausted.
Fox - As soon as I can figure out how to post banners and videos in this comment section I'll update from here. Now I think I need to go back to sleep for a bit.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 2:36 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely agree, and on a related subject: Have you noticed that "dark" has become a synonym for "good" recently in reviews? It's driving me crazy. Everyone seems to want their children's flicks to have some death in it now. I'm fine with darkness and despair (more than fine) but sometimes whimsy and wonder can be just as satisfying, sometimes even more so.
More on topic, saw the Dark Knight, liked it a lot (mostly for the villains and psuedo-philosophy of said villains) but the first two Spider-Men are still the top of the super-hero heap for me. And, just for the record, Spider-Man 3 is damn good.
Krauthammer | | Email | 07.29.08 - 4:04 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the first two Spideys a lot but I never saw the third for whatever reason. And yes, you're totally right in that "dark" is good which is why I brought up the much more lighthearted Superman movies in the post, to show that you can make a comic book movie without utter despair. And besides in even Superman and Spiderman you had madmen killing people, just with a light touch.
I'm really excited to see TDK now. Need to see it this weekend.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 4:26 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you two in principle, but a movie like TDK does need to be dark. I find it odd that all this talk (this isn't the only place I've encountered it) about how "dark" doesn't mean "good" is being thrown around in relation to a movie that couldn't be done with a light touch.
bill | | Email | 07.29.08 - 4:57 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Adam West was in it it would have a light touch. Or if it was done with sock puppets or something. Why couldn't they have done it with sock puppets? Why is the comic book world so against sock puppets?!?!!??
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 6:02 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I'm not bashing the dark touch, Batman certainly needed a nice dark interpretation on film. I am definitely not knocking "dark" so much as reacting to "light" being turned into a pejorative.
Let me reiterate: I REALLY liked the movie. Probably my favorite superhero movie other than the aforementioned Spider-Man flicks.
Krauthammer | | Email | 07.29.08 - 11:30 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a great post! I haven't read all the comments, at 108 & counting I probably never will, but let me add my own 2 cents.
You nailed it with your analysis of the pompous way genre films are forced into "seriousness" nowadays, and it brings to mind the image of a gawky teenager stuffed into an ill-fitting tuxedo for some adult affair. He doesn't like right in it, can't pull of the gravitas, and it the same time loses the unpretentious naturalness that is his primary charm.
I liked The Dark Knight because it's the rare genre film to pull off its dark themes and mythic overtones. It isn't perfect (and it's certainly not the all-time masterpiece people are making it out to be) but it's excellent entertainment with generally thought-provoking moments.
The unfortunate side effect of Dark Knight's success will probably be a kickstart to the already-tiresome attempt to gussy up genres. The damage done is twofold: one, as you point out, it often robs the genre films of the very qualities which make them valuable; two, it increasingly limits the appeal and hence the creation of films with a genuine complexity and dramatic base, because if producers think they can be "serious" with their explosions-and-chases films, why bother to make anything else? After all, they're killing two birds with one stone, right?
MovieMan0283 | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 12:59 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if producers think they can be "serious" with their explosions-and-chases films, why bother to make anything else? After all, they're killing two birds with one stone, right?
That's a big problem for me. I hate to sound both doom and gloom and snobby at the same time but I really don't want all genres to merge where every action adventure film contains enough seriousness that no one bothers making small dramas anymore. I know the independent producers still will but I don't want the studio system to become all about these types of movies. And I like genre movies because they are different.
In an earlier post Bill and I talked about how you don't expect or require grand emotional scenes in a horror film because the confrontation of horror is, in fact, the emotional catharthis of the character.
Anyway, I go into TDK with high expectations but not high enough that I'll feel cheated if it's not the culmination of 100 years of genre cinema.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 9:10 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skipping over to Iron Man as an example, what I liked about it was its coherence of tone - "coherent" sounds like weak praise but it's not. Every dark moment, every light moment, every action scene, felt appropriate to the story and they flowed in an unforced way.
Sarah | | Email | 07.30.08 - 7:56 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good point. It really doesn't matter what the movie does as long as it's appropriate to the story. I gather from most of what I hear that TDK stays true to story and genre as well, it's just that people who don't know or understand or appreciate genre and what it means look for something else to justify its excellence, instead of just accepting it as a great example of genre filmmaking.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 8:43 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think, having not seen it yet, that what you said is probably the best explanation. When you talk about The Fantastic Four failing because it didn't bother to take the subject matter seriously I think that nails it on the head. TDK seems to take its subject matter seriously and Spiderman did as well.
What the hell? THE FANTASTIC FOUR didn't take itself seriously? What the hell for? They were "comic book" movies. Not every comic book movie has to engage in the deep psyche of the hero or villain. I just want a movie about one person or a group of people with exceptional abilities that become involved in an adventure. Is that too much to ask for? And guess what? THE FANTASTIC FOUR movies provided just that.
Yes, I'm well aware they were not as good as SPIDER-MAN or the last two Batman films. So what? They entertained me. That is all I asked for. That is all I ask for any movie. And there is one thing I can say about the two FF4 movies is that both of them didn't end up annoying me with contrived writing in their finales, like THE DARK KNIGHT did.
Rosie | | Email | 07.31.08 - 5:07 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you saw nothing contrived about the F4 movies, we must have been watching different films.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 6:17 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosie - I think a movie can be pure fluff but still take itself seriously. That is to say, the filmmakers, while having a good time, still trust in their material and engage in it despite the movie being on no emotional or intellectual consequence. For instance, think the original Bad News Bears. That's not an important film in any sense of the word but everyone in it took it seriously and gave their best. In the Fantastic Four films, it felt as if they thought it was crap from the beginning and didn't bother to try and make it work. That's what I mean by the film not taking itself seriously.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 6:59 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken - Maybe you saw the shelved F4 movie that was never released. By the way, I think here in America, instead of tea time, 4 o'clock should be "Clobberin' Time."
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 7:00 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you saw nothing contrived about the F4 movies, we must have been watching different films."
I never said anything about whether FF4 was contrived or not. As to whether we saw the same films or not . . . who cares? I liked it. If the FF4 films are guilty of being contrived, then I can say the same about the last half hour of TDK. Because I found it as contrived as you found the FF4 films.
"I think a movie can be pure fluff but still take itself seriously. That is to say, the filmmakers, while having a good time, still trust in their material and engage in it despite the movie being on no emotional or intellectual consequence."
So what? There is no law that the FF4 films still have to take itself seriously, while being fluff. Why do moviegoers and critics insist that certain movie genres should adapt a certain set of rules in how the stories are approached? That strikes me as narrow-minded.
Rosie | | Email | 08.05.08 - 10:38 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosie - I don't insist on any set of rules. I'm saying that the F4 films felt half-assed and thus unenjoyable. They half-assed to me because it appeared no one was putting any effort into it. That's all I'm saying. I didn't enjoy them and that's why. It could certainly feel different to you or others I'm just explaining why I felt they didn't work.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 10:51 am | #
