Wednesday, June 25, 2008

a tale of two heroes

This has been a good summer for Marvel. The Marvel universe is getting bigger (though, from another point of view it’s becoming a rather small world—those of you who know, know what I am talking about.) One of the deprivations of my childhood was not reading many superhero comics. This is one reason why I am welcoming the famed heroes’ entrance onto the big screen. On top of being great action filx—which I enjoy as much as any man—superheroes intrigue me. They are the contemporary myths and metaphors, the portal through which the imagination and subconscious attractions or fears of the modern mind can find a place to live and thrive.

But I digress. I was going to talk about Hulk (or el Hombre Incredible, as the theatre down here advertised it), which I saw this week. But I find it difficult to talk about Hulk without talking also about Iron Man. The two are intertwined—and this way I can take care of two reviews at one time. (btw, spoilers ahead. You are warned.)

Hulk is a more serious drama. Better actors, more emotion, more impact. The fight scenes were both stunning, and powerful tools to keep the story going. I really liked seeing the way Bruce and Betty interact—it’s a painful relationship with all sorts of unfulfilled hopes and desires, but they persevere. Beautiful and tragic, and well done.

Iron Man was lower on the drama, but higher on the humor and overall fun. The main reason for this is that Tony Stark does not have Suffering Hero Syndrome (SHS), a malady which is almost ubiquitous with being a superhero. Symptoms of SHS often include moodiness, paranoia, schizophrenia, compulsive lying, compulsive need to be near a phone booth, an obsession with spandex, and the tendency to have relationships with a girl who has a crush on your alter ego. Batman has it; Hulk has it; Superman and Spiderman have serious conditions. But Tony Stark has found a cure: sarcasm. Laughter may be the best medicine, but a wry smile and a witty comeback seem to be a miracle drug.

Returning to the Hulk, I have to say that I’m disappointed that they changed his malady. From the first movie, Bruce Banner only became the Hulk when he got angry. The Hulk, therefore, was a metaphor for the power that someone has when they lose their temper: super strength and endurance but inability to think or act rationally. A favorite quote from the first movie: “the worst thing is that when it happens, when IT takes over…I like it.” This is a very human experience: the power, the thrill, the regret, and the fear of anger. But in the latest movie, there was a very definite switch. It was no longer anger, but simply excessive physiological stimulus, i.e. when his heart rate speeds up. That’s a very different thing than anger, and I am sorry for the change. It still makes for a powerful, tragic, and heroic tale, but lacks the metaphor that, to me, is at the heart of the Hulk story.

And in speaking of hearts, let’s talk about Iron Man/Tony Stark’s glowing “heart”. Ok, it is not actually his heart, it’s the super-powered electro-magnet that keeps him alive. The image, however, is obvious: Tony Stark/Iron Man has a heart made of super-technology. Traditionally, this has been a terrifying image: Man slowly being devoured by Machine, ala Darth Vader or the Matrix. But Iron Man takes a different twist. During Stark’s conversion, he does not abandon technology. He does not run from the monster that he has created or naively pursue a nostalgic vision of the ‘good old days’ before industrialization. Instead, Stark takes responsibility for his actions and he uses technology to pursue that goal. Being the technophile that I am, I applaud his stance. I believe that it is a superior answer to the lingering question of Man vs. Machine.

Neither of the movies excelled in the Villain category. In both cases they simply fought with a bigger version of themselves: a bigger monster, a bigger mecha. Now before I go any further, I will now publicly acknowledge my ignorance of the Marvel Universe. I don’t know much about Iron Man or Hulk, and I know even less about the villains they fought. I presume that they have a host of despicable bad guys to chose from, as is the case with most superheroes. But I don’t really know, so I will restrain from attacking harshly on that front.

If you pushed me and asked me which one I liked better, I would have to go with Iron Man. They were both good, and I will unhesitatingly attribute higher marks to Hulk in certain areas. But the action, the wit, the powerful imagery in Iron Man is genius and definitely goes on my “A” list.

And so, let me leave you with a story which I hope that you will find diverting. I was still in Cove when Iron Man came out and so we decided to go see it at the local theater. Prior to the beginning of the movie, one of the theater employees welcomed us and wished us a pleasant time at their theater. As she began to exit the stage she dropped a pen from her apron and said “oh drat! I dropped my pen again. and my back hurts. I wish someone could help me.” And suddenly, from beyond the curtains, a voice shouted “I’ll help you!” and onto the stage jumped a young man wearing a cape and brandishing his favorite tool for pressing shirts, proudly proclaiming “I’m Iron Man!”

1 comment:

Jeffrey Kinney said...

and now we get to the good movies!

Y'know Matteo, I've always appreciated your gift for finding great metaphors. You have two great ones here and I'll take a moment to elaborate on them.

First, the Iron Man with the golden heart. Good metaphor. Intriguingly, he is one of the heroes that leads with his heart almost all the time. He'll run hot and cold on someone, but always follows what he believes is true. Hence, his 'change' in the movie is much easier. Much like in his normal life, he follows no moral or social mores that he feels should not apply to him. This serves him as a playboy, and serves him as Iron Man. There's nothing more annoying that a conflicted superhero trying to figure out whether their good is not pure enough. Tony Stark does what is right (in his mind) without second guessing himself. Even when he sees him failure as a weapons creator, he does not cry in a corner. He makes MORE weapons to correct the problems! Its a refreshing deviation from the normal SHS.

Next, Hulk's anger issues. Its true that his transformations were more directly related to his anger issues in some of the comics. While this is not 100% canonical in Marvel (ret-conning is a double edged sword) is the popular way of recalling the old TV show catch phrase: "Don't make me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry." Ang Lee's Hulk (2002 movie), while adhering to this more faithfully, was widely panned for spending too much time reliving the gamma bomb and psychological stress. More "Hulk smash!" was needed to meet the other persona. I'll freely admit that I liked that Hulk movie though it dragged on. Was the baby thrown out with the bathwater? Potentially. Could we have gotten a better movie? Unlikely, because it breaks one of the rules listed below (Ed Norton didn't like it).

Marvel Studios has now produced two blockbusters right after another following a simple formula.

(1) Hire a passionate geek director, someone who doesn't need a consultant to tell them what the hero's super powers are.

(2) Get a great actor (not a name actor) for the lead that believes in the character. Look at the truly great comic movie leads over the last several years: Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man), Ed Norton (Bruce Banner), Christian Bale (Batman) and the Joker (Heath Ledger). Serious actors who actually contributed in building up the story. Now look at the 'faces' that were plugged into comic book movies: Brandon Routh (Superman), Toby Maguire (Spiderman), Nic Cage (Ghost Rider) and half the cast of X-Men. Its not that they're bad. Its just that they are lookalikes to the character. Can you imagine what would have happened if Marvel had gone with Iron Man option #2: Tom Cruise? I shudder!

(3) Give the actor some creative control over where they want to take the character. The word is that RD jr. (tired of typing names) was allowed to ad-lib lines and was very close to the director creatively. Mr. Norton was very close to getting credit as a writer for the movie because he literally redid the script after they felt it was dumbed down. Chris Nolan and Mr. Bale consult all the time on all things Batman. The theme rings true: give great actors a chance to showcase what they feel is the true character of the hero, and goodness abounds. Sometimes things are retconned, but the end result is a better performance by a strong actor.

Now, I'm not saying that this is the ONLY way to make such movies. Toby is a good Spidey but you could never turn him loose creatively. He's not that kind of actor.

Note that above I indicated that this was Marvel Studios. Marvel took a high risk/high reward strategy about three years ago. Up until then, a studio would buy he rights to a character for some years and allow Marvel veto rights on some creative stuff. Spidey movies were based on Marvel stories, but only loosely approved by Marvel staff. Now Marvel has refused to give out licenses to anyone and will do their own (except for those already sold off). They can create things with continuity and feel more tied to keeping these characters fresh and fun as opposed to having some studio using them for 5-10 years and casting them aside (see: Batman movies, 1993-2002).

This brings me to my final point (yes, I have one). The pending team-ups and crossovers. You can clearly see them setting these things in motion for the 2011 Avengers movie. Note the following references:

* On Tony Stark's workbench, there is a (barely visible) Captain America shield.
* Gen. Ross (from Hulk), before giving the serum to Blonsky, states that they gave it to someone else long ago. The serum is clearly the Super Soldier Serum. Given to Steve Rogers before becoming Captain America.
* Nick Fury (played by the immortal Mace Windu, I mean, Sam Jackson) doing his best 'cat who caught the canary' smile, talking about the 'Avengers Initiative'
* Stark, pulling the same gimmick on Gen. Ross.
* Banner (at the end of the movie) acting like he's CHOOSING to embrace his Hulk and master it, as opposed to avoiding it. This is essential for any team-up, because crazy Hulk is not a team player.

Marvel clearly has a long view here. And I am a sucker for good epic stories. Hence, I approve.

A final word on villains, since I did not address this anywhere else. Yes, these villains were not great. Many villains have difficulty translating well into movies. They chose reasonable villains that were more vehicles of the movie than anything else. Of the two, I preferred Emil Blonsky/Abomination. Slade's Iron Monger was almost unbelievable. Unfortunately, some of Iron Man's other arch enemies take much more time to introduce. I would not have wanted to spend less time on Tony to get more of, say, the Mandarin. He's a better 2nd or 3rd movie villain when Iron Man is more skilled.

But I am giddy that I am about to see an Oscar level performance for the Joker. Pardon my joking blasphemy but clearly the comic books gods (Stan Lee, Jeph Leob, Jack Kirby etc. all) are smiling upon the year 2008.