|
Want to be notified when new articles are posted? Send us email saying "SUBSCRIBE ME." | ||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Your vote of confidence. CLICK HERE.
| ||||
Some movie critics sneer at a well-done film because it is well-done--even as they give a cynical free pass to clunky and mediocre fare because it's clunky and mediocre. Why do they do that, unless they think that the particular kind of story at hand can only be treated with ironic snorts and bellows?
"Next to the baroque postmodern pseudo-sophistication of the 'Matrix' movies [another and triple critical misjudgment], which similarly explore the fate of humanity under threat of machine dominance, the new 'Terminator' has a lumbering, literal-minded old-style feel," writes A. O. Scott of The New York Times about "Terminator Three: Rise of the Machines." Sounds like a jab, doesn't it? Except that Scott then adds: "Which is not, on balance, such a bad thing."
Oh no, no, not at all. Not unless you prefer fresh and interesting to prefabricated and dull. Better movies to worse movies.
Scott reports that the director filling the shoes of Terminators One and Two director James Cameron "lacks Mr. Cameron's unusual gift for finding human drama amid all the explosions, chases and collisions." So Scott does observe, and accurately, that the rise of the machines coincides with a decline in artistic execution. But the impression you get of his attitude about it all is, "Eh, so what...no big deal."
Meanwhile, this same Scott pans "The Hulk," a far better movie, as a shambling hulk of "witless writing [and] hectic, inconsistent acting," even while conceding all the directorial virtues of Ang Lee. No, "The Hulk" is not a perfect movie--perfect movies, like perfect New York Times movie reviews, are rare. And Scott's critical eye is right about at least one thing, that Lee's use of split screens to evoke the comic book is uneven (albeit not the utter bungle Scott claims of it). However, A.O. is out to get this particular movie regardless of any evident virtues like story and acting and similar type things. He even goes so far as to claim that Ang and friends "condescend to their material," a mode of accusation the psychologists call projection.
Now, I think it's okay to argue that "The Hulk" fails artistically, if that is one's actual if erroneous view. Though in that case the movie should be deemed a noble failure, not a flat-out bust. It's even legitimate to say, "You know, the Hulk isn't really my type of superhero, all that spasming, vengeful rage; I much prefer the cold and controlled vengeful rage of Batman." But why ooze angry, stop-right-there-fella contempt for "The Hulk" as artistic effort when one is willing to blandly wave on through such canned and familiar stew as "T3"?
Critics who dislike certain kinds of movies--for example, fun movies--should leave the reviewing of such movies to others. They should not wax condescendingly indulgent when that type of movie is done badly, while getting all aggrieved and bitchy when it is done well. It is a critical sin that whether flawed or not, a heroic action flick that's fresh, thoughtful, engaging and ambitious--i.e., that is too artistically successful--is less acceptable to the Scott/Maslin mentality than the same kind of flick done by routine and unimaginative formula replete with wooden and imitative dialogue, all I'll Be Back and You're Terminated, Hasta La Vista, Baby, ha ha ha.
The sneering attitude toward comic-book lore--lore that is a 20th-century American equivalent of ancient Greek or Norse mythology--infects even those who have made reincarnating that lore their life's work. An example is Gale Anne Hurd, the producer who brought both "Terminator Three" (inherited from ex-husband James Cameron) and "The Hulk" to the screen. Apparently she does not attempt to interfere in the writing-directing side, which shows in each case.
"It's arrested development," Hurd tells reporters in explanation of why she's doing this stuff. Which is a way of saying "please don't kick me in the groin for bringing to cinematic life the dreams of childhood." Of course she is just kidding around, she doesn't really believe she is a stunted adolescent. But she wouldn't have to buffer herself in that self-deprecating way if there weren't something to buffer herself against, if the Scotts and the Maslins weren't out there, growling and prowling. "I liked books that took me places," Hurd says. "I liked being transported." Hey, what's your problem, lady? Why can't you be the twisted, bitter, unhappy, foiled, nine-to-five shmuckeroo that all the rest of us are?
Some critics disparage the first half of "The Hulk" as "talky." This means they're pursing their lips at the fact that the movie has a story, that the special effects don't commence from frame one, that the makers are willing to build the dream, erect it, confect it, persuade you, not just chuck it at you like a prize out of a Crackerjacks box. The fantastic dreams were made flesh by giving Bruce Banner and his father reasons for being, and for acting as they do. (But jeez, did it have to be Nick Nolte as the demented Dad? Why go with relative unknowns through the whole casting and then screw it up with Nolte?) Eric Bana, who plays Bruce Banner, is fabulous. (For Scott, Bana's portrayal is "mopey and indistinct"; while Banner's love interest is "weepy," and sure, she does cry in a scene immediately after one in which she believes Banner is about to die; has Scott even watched the movie?) Bana plays a man who is supposed to be cut off from all his most chaotic emotions. He is supposed to be flat, contained. But it's all roiling just underneath the surface, and comes seeping, then bursting through. It's not just the Hulk who's angry, it's Banner. He's simmering all along. And there are reasons. But for such as Scott, what Bana accomplishes is a blank.
Scott so dislikes the fact of an involving origin-story that he also affects to be shocked, shocked, by the inherent scientific implausibility of any superhero's origins: "I'm far from an expert in such matters," he allows (as why should he be, right? a superior guy like him), "but I would have thought that a combination of nanomeds and gamma radiation would be sufficient to make a nerdy researcher burst out of his clothes, turn green and start smashing things. I have now learned that this will occur only if there is a pre-existing genetic anomaly compounded by a history of parental abuse and repressed memories." Perhaps the origin-story of a man who is an ordinary mortal under Krypton's red sun but who under the influence of the earth's yellow sun becomes impervious to bullets, can fly, and has x-ray and heat-ray vision is much more plausible (see, it's the yellow sun now, not the red sun). Here's my idea, see what you think: A. O. Scott doesn't like comic-book superheroes, and/or he doesn't want them to get too big for their skin-tight britches, or both.
A certain species of movie critic--for example, A. O. Scott--is way too jaundiced about the fantastic and transcendent in cinema. Scott is at least insightful enough to know that while comic-book superheroes "may be larger than life (quite a bit larger, in the Hulk's case)...they survive as mythical beings because we can identify with them," which means he is not totally tone-deaf to the source of their appeal. But this concession renders his relentless battering of "The Hulk" all the more inexplicable, unless he is simply being vicious. Am I conjecturing wildly? Well, here, from a different article, is his one-two punch at "pretentious" summer superhero movies like "The Hulk" and "Matrix Reloaded":
"The Hulk, you see, is Oedipus, and his dad is, um, Prometheus, but in any case it's obvious that the green monster's anger-management issues represent a parable of the id. As for 'The Matrix,' well, that's a whole different syllabus, since Neo, in his fetching leather trench coat, must karate-kick his way through a series of ancient philosophical conundrums about the nature of free will, the ontological status of reality and the metaphysical endowments of Italian actresses.' " Get it? You can't have karate chops and a philosophical theme in the exact same movie, especially if the two are seamlessly and hypnotically integrated. Why, that would just make for a too-enjoyable cinematic experience, wouldn't it? Both mind and retina engaged?
I'm not, um, opposed to the other end of the cinematic spectrum that many critics find so much more worthy of precious kudos, i.e., the hyper-nuanced character studies with stories that drip like crenelated molasses, with lots of white subtitles on white background, best made in Europe. But I do want some kind of story. Actually what I want is the whole package, character + story + wondrous-cinematic-effects-insofar-as-proportionate-and-consonant-with-story. Likeable characters, involving story, fresh and innovative treatment. Is that so wrong?
"The Hulk" is about rage, and how rage liberates us and makes us strong, until that outsized emotion is expended in a waste of shame. It is about falling, falling, falling into deep recesses of spirit from which we must later try to emerge--represented here by the five descending notes of Danny Elfman's score. (Five notes!) The Hulk is interesting because he's out of control. But also because even though he's out of control he has limits, an ethic. There is enough of Banner in him for the Hulk to want to avoid killing the people attacking him, and to save those he loves. And if you watch the movie carefully, you'll learn that the Hulk never starts anything, he only retaliates. He's a peaceable guy, really. So is Banner. Just don't provoke him.
You don't like comic books, fine. I grew up with them. I like heroes in cool costumes with special abilities that make them above normal, yet still human, and I want to see Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, Iron Man, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and Green Arrow and all the rest made into persuasive, thoughtful, effective, thrilling film, film that captures something of the best spirit of the comics, but as adapted and enlarged for a new medium. I also like "Star Wars" when done right and "Star Trek" when done right.
If you don't, fine. Let somebody else do the reviews, let somebody else pursue critical justice. Let somebody else have fun. To borrow one of those unfortunate Arnie iterations: "Get--out!"
--David M. Brown, 7/23/03
_______________________
Buy Hulk: the Incredible Guide, Tom DeFalco. "Created with unlimited access to the Marvel comic archives, The Incredible Guide traces the legend of the Hulk's entire career since the character was created 40 years ago." GET IT
Rate this article! Give this article a Lifetime Value Score. CLICK HERE.
Sign up to receive occasional notices of updates to this site. Send us email at crunchreport@lycos.com saying SUBSCRIBE ME in the header.
Hire David M. Brown as writer or editor. CLICK HERE.
Read an excerpt from The Case of the Cockamamie Killer--the murder mystery Eric D. Dixon calls “A helluva ride!”--at webnetlet.net.
More commentary archived at http://www.davidmbrown.com/columns/index.html.
|
Want to be notified when new articles are posted? Send us email saying "subscribe me." Your vote of confidence. CLICK HERE. Editor: DAVID M. BROWN
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||