Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Better make it worth it, “Lost” Previous entry: Because women don’t get to have “man caves”

What about laughter and joy?

Movies

There’s a lot of things you can say about superhero movies and sucking, mainly involving bad pacing, boring characterization, bad motivations for super villains, and cliches. But Matt Zoller Seitz shoves all that aside in his denunciation of the form to make what is, to my mind, one of the most tediously wrong assumptions about what makes something artistically valuable or interesting, the assumption that something’s worth can be measured by how grim or horrific it is.  The main thing that superhero movies do wrong, in his book, is they don’t make you sad enough.  This is equated with bravery. 

The death of Rachel Dawes in “The Dark Knight”—a visually sloppy, exposition-choked saga that at least had the courage of its source material’s grim convictions—is a rare example of a superhero film daring to make its audience hurt.

Since we didn’t actually see Dawes die in the movie, I’m going to suggest that Seitz is going to be pissed when she comes back, probably as Catwoman.  But this is just a minor example of this fallacy wound throughout the piece.  He makes it quite explicit here:

The superhero movie too often avoids opportunities to summon tangled feelings, lacerating trauma and complex characterizations—qualities that make genre films worth watching and remembering for reasons beyond their capacity to kill two hours and change.

And because of this, he suggest that “Superman Returns” was somehow better than the infinitely superior “Iron Man”, because it had a mean streak and a bunch of sad stuff in it, whereas “Iron Man” was all charm and entertainment.  Being thoroughly entertaining is almost a drawback, really, because then a movie goes into the dreaded “time waster” category.  You’re not educated by it, or enlightened to the darkness of the world.  But I have to ask, why is goofy joy not considered a respectable emotion for a movie to invoke?

This is the same fallacy that allows half-baked dramas to vie for Best Picture Oscars while perfectly made, amazing comedies get no credit whatsoever, even though it’s probably harder to make someone laugh than cry.  I’m not saying “Iron Man” was a contender for Best Picture or anything, but I think that it’s perfectly great for what it is, which is a popcorn movie.  And I admired it, because I’m on the opposite page from Seitz. Nothing makes me roll my eyes harder than a movie that has nothing to say about the darkness of the human spirit choosing to shoehorn that in as a cheap grab at pseudo-edginess.  “Iron Man” was a tall drink of water, because it respected that charm is a legitimate filmic achievement.  The only time it really started to drag was when Tony Stark was working out his daddy issues with the villain.  Other than that, it seemed a respectable wedding of screwball style to the superhero genre, a much more interesting choice than trying to raise the stakes through pathos, which are easy enough to dredge up.  (Just kill someone the audience likes.) 

Seriously, what accounts for this knee jerk assumption that sad is more artistic than happy, that tragedy is deeper and more interesting than comedy?  My experience in the world has often been the opposite—-sometimes you can say and do more with a joke than by trotting out sadness or darkness.  Nor are the two mutually exclusive.  I’m a big fan of dark comedy, and I think that “Iron Man” pulled that off better than most superhero movies, which veer more from light to dark.  Stark wasn’t a hero’s hero, and that was by far more interesting than whatever the hell Superman’s paternal heartbreaks are.

Anyway, the plan is to see the sequel this weekend.  My hopes are low; sequels are rarely so good, with the exception of X-Men and Spiderman.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 11:31 AM • (133) Comments

“The superhero movie too often avoids opportunities to summon tangled feelings, lacerating trauma and complex characterizations”

Well, duh. That’s kind of the whole point of a superhero. When I feel in need of pathos, I only need to turn on the news. I don’t go to comic book movies to get that; I go to escape that. The world is hard and complicated and full of complex people stuck in fucked-up dramas. Yes, it’s important to tell the hard stories, but it’s also desperately important to offer respite from that.

I sometimes think that these people who insist that sad and bad is the only art live in way too comfy worlds. Their life is soft, so they look for entertainment to give them some facsimile of hard. If they really had to deal with the hard stuff, they’d appreciate the beauty of something like Iron Man.

And I plan to see it this weekend, too. I figure it’s highly likely to suck, but I just have to see it anyway.

Comment #1: Phoebe Fay  on  05/06  at  12:22 PM

“even though it’s probably harder to make someone laugh than cry”

Why is Bill Murray so captivating in Lost in Translation, while Robert De Niro is painful to watch in Analyze This? (Disagree about De Niro? Accept as evidence the countless comedian-drama transplants, and very few that go in the other direction.) It is exactly that… pain is funny because it is so universal. Dramatists bludgeon you with it. Comedians wield it like a scalpel.

Watching a super powered alien deal with isolation and the consequences of his trip to Krypton and stuff is kinda lame. Watching an alcoholic grapple with the realization that he’s done nothing his entire life except make the world a more horrible place, and have it be funny? Priceless.

Comment #2: humanadverb  on  05/06  at  12:24 PM

Also, Rachel Dawes can’t be Catwoman. It is a clever idea (I wanted Vicki Vale to return as Robin) but the fanboy backlash would nuclear.

Comment #3: humanadverb  on  05/06  at  12:26 PM

Seriously, what accounts for this knee jerk assumption that sad is more artistic than happy, that tragedy is deeper and more interesting than comedy?

A former professor of mine argued that Americans just don’t take comedy seriously as art. He had lots of examples, but not an explanation. My best guess is that it’s a holdover from protestant, and in particular, puritanical understandings of the nature of life and of art.

Anyway, the plan is to see the sequel this weekend.  My hopes are low; sequels are rarely so good, with the exception of X-Men and Spiderman.

Add The Dark Knight, as I certainly would, and I think you can build a strong case that superhero movies are often the exception to this rule. I suspect this is because, freed of the need to do all the establishment of character, background and setting that an origin story requires, directors and screenwriters are free to explore their worlds in more interesting ways.

Comment #4: Evil Bender  on  05/06  at  12:27 PM

His logic is fusty. What a silly person. Thanks for calling it out.

That said: I think being a film geek who was also raised on comic books and graphic novels makes superhero movies extra-painful when they are (as 95% of them are) mediocre at best, even when all I want and all they’re aiming for is a great ‘popcorn-movie.’ I think I can count on one hand the number of comic/GN adaptations I actually love (and that held up on second viewing), and I’m going back to the 1970s to find that many. Best of luck at IM2.

/given up

Comment #5: Ranylt  on  05/06  at  12:29 PM

Oh, for Dawes: one rumor was she was going to return as Harley Quinn, Joker’s sidekick. I suspect that tragedy made such a plan moot, if there ever was one. They’re likely to go away from the Joker storyline for the time being.

I suspect the plan was for her to return, but I doubt that’s still the case. I hope I’m wrong!

Comment #6: Evil Bender  on  05/06  at  12:29 PM

Don’t forget Superman II, especially the Donner cut!

Comment #7: norbizness  on  05/06  at  12:29 PM

Speaking of sequels, reboots, when in the hell is Back to School (Downey, L) going to get some love?

Comment #8: norbizness  on  05/06  at  12:30 PM

Don’t forget Superman II, especially the Donner cut!

Damn it! How did I forget that one? Time to hand in my nerd card.

Comment #9: Evil Bender  on  05/06  at  12:31 PM

Loved Iron Man for the same reason- it felt fresh. The humor was smart, sharp, and based in character. It was satisfyingly well-crafted, the origin itself got more than a training montage, and I really enjoyed every minute of it. And yeah, I don’t like the common conceit that laughter and goofball antics are for plebes and drama and angst are for smarties. (Steven Moffat, I get what you’re going for, but “sad is happy for deep people” only sounds good to me on paper.) Humor can be high-brow, and even when it isn’t, it can be immensely satisfying, connecting, enriching; hell, amusing. It’s okay to be amused!

I was just arguing a similar point about tv and films evoking emotion with Mr. Orange; he has the baffling view that if something tugs on your emotions, it’s “manipulating” you and shouldn’t be trusted. I agreed that sometimes a blatant tear-jerking moment can feel cheap, but why is there anything wrong with feeling joy, elation, excitement, or whatever over a piece of fiction? Isn’t that the whole point, to connect emotionally with the material?

Comment #10: other_orange  on  05/06  at  12:32 PM

TVTropes, as it often does, summed this whole phenomenon up in a single pithy phrase: “True Art Is Angsty”.

Comment #11: Tobasco da Gama  on  05/06  at  12:35 PM

Oh, I hate that idea. I don’t see movies to be depressed. Mostly I see them to laugh at the jokes and be awed by the ridiculous fighting/explosions.

P.S. My favorite superhero movie is Batman - the original one, with Adam West and Bert Ward.

Comment #12: rivki  on  05/06  at  12:38 PM

don’t hope for too much, Iron man 2 felt rushed, and didn’t have nearly as much wit and verve as the first one

Comment #13: Leah Jaclyn  on  05/06  at  12:39 PM

I don’t know…sometimes a story can be sad and happy at the same time, like this one about Electron Boy, a young cancer patient who wanted to be a superhero.

Comment #14: Blue Jean  on  05/06  at  12:40 PM

Seriously, what accounts for this knee jerk assumption that sad is more artistic than happy, that tragedy is deeper and more interesting than comedy?

A lot of it has to to do with gravitas—traumatic events (death, divorce, etc.) are life-altering things that serious intellectuals (like Matt Zoller Seitz or his even more humourless fellow critic, Armond White) are supposed to take seriously. For such lofty thinkers, comedy is a lark, ephemeral.

“even though it’s probably harder to make someone laugh than cry”

In fact, comedy is also a bigger challenge for an actor. Edmund Kean is credited with saying (and every great actor is attributed as saying) saying “Dying is easy. Comedy is hard,” but anyone who’s tried to make people laugh for a living understands this instinctively.

Like you, I prefer dark comedy and black humour in my movies. In real-world tragedies, there’s little to laugh at. But the poet Horace captured what I like in entertainment in one of my favourite quotes: “A jest often decides matters of importance more effectually and happily than seriousness.”

Comment #15: Gracchus.  on  05/06  at  12:42 PM

@humanadverb - I kept arguing for Vicki Vale as Robin, too!!

@Amanda - Adding to the Superman II pile on.

And I see Joshua N beat me to True Art is Angsty.

Comment #16: LC  on  05/06  at  12:43 PM

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but isn’t one of the most widely noted films by film critics of the last umpteen and a half years been a feel-good romp with a mostly happy ending and a long sappy flashback? I.e. Casablanca? Hell, there have been a number of “Best Picture” Oscar winners and “Greatest movie of all time” contenders that have been unashamedly upbeat or happy or at least possessing of a happy ending.

But yeah, as Joshua notes, TVTropes has already summed up the fallacy.

And yeah, Iron Man was delightful. I probably won’t be able to see it while it’s in theaters, but I’ll definitely rent it and Kick-Ass when they come out on video.

Comment #17: Cerberus  on  05/06  at  12:44 PM

Don’t forget Superman II, especially the Donner cut!

Kneel before Zod!

Comment #18: Gracchus.  on  05/06  at  12:44 PM

“sequels are rarely so good, with the exception of X-Men and Spiderman.”

While I did enjoy all of the X-Men movies, I actually thought the 2nd & 3rd Spiderman movies weren’t as good as the first. Haven’t thought too deeply about why, I just didn’t find them as enjoyable.

Also, I am definitely in favor of a movie being a “time waster”. The comic book movies I generally take seriously because I am a comic geek, but I love funny silly movies that make me smile as opposed to movies that make me sad.

Comment #19: Mark  on  05/06  at  12:47 PM

Totally with rivki at #12. Also, the new Star Trek sucked. It just isn’t the same without Scott Bakula.

Given that they shot most of Superman II during the first Superman shoot, does it count as a sequel?

Comment #20: humanadverb  on  05/06  at  12:51 PM

Blue Jean @14

That story was great. I first saw it on a Seattle Sounders blog and even rereading it makes me tear up. What a beautiful story.

I think the “art is pain” crowd greatly underestimates the power of pathos, the power of healing from the darkness. Yes, while to the privileged, getting a reminder of what life is like for so many down in the whole can be illuminating, the world doesn’t revolve around the privileged. And people in the hole need something to remind them of the flip-side of the coin, that there is always light in the darkness and there are good things that can happen and small ways in which we can be triumphant and push back against that darkness.

Days when the good guys actually do get a win.

Comment #21: Cerberus  on  05/06  at  12:51 PM

Iron Man 2 is already out in Britain. Thought it managed to follow up what the first film did well whilst inevitably being a bit less fresh. It’s also got subplots that are largely there to set up the Avengers film, though they’re entertaining enough that I don’t mind. I’d certainly be interested to see your review if you do one.

Comment #22: dayraven  on  05/06  at  01:13 PM

My comic book geek friends (said with the utmost respect - and truth, in that they actually work for comic publishers) saw a preview last night and had positive things to say.

For comparison, they liked the first one; hated what Watchmen turned into; were lukewarm about the later X-Men, especially the most recent Wolverine one; and mock Fantastic Four to this day.

Comment #23: Manhattan Transplant  on  05/06  at  01:13 PM

As a side note, I really hope the new Batman series takes on the whole Catwoman and Harley Quinn storyline, because that would be awesome.  I realize that was mostly in the animated series, though.

Comment #24: Blitzgal  on  05/06  at  01:14 PM

I’ve always maintained that Blazing Saddles is the most effective anti-racism movie ever made. Screw portraying evil as dark and heavy, portray it as laughable and moronic and it’s much more biting.

As for comic book movies… the deconstruction of the superhero was done two decades ago. It’s why Watchmen produced a big ‘meh’ from so many. It’s a deconstruction of the superhero produced during as period when the REconstruction of the superhero was well under way. We all know Batman is a psychotic now, the trick is making his insanity work in a modern setting rather than simply pointing the fact out.

Tony Stark is, basically, half of Bruce Wayne; The billionaire gadgeteer half rather than the psychopathic ninja half (which would be Matt Murdoch). This limits his pathos a bit. Historically Tony Stark’s darkness revolved around his alcoholism but that always felt forced. More recently they’ve played him as an authoritarian dickhead which could work but they really need to wait until the Avengers flick is released before they even contemplate going that direction in the films (and Dark Knight has already played that riff anyways).

Comment #25: Sarcastro  on  05/06  at  01:15 PM

Iron Man only suffered from being released the same year as the steller Dark Knight. It was a good flick but not one I was willing to see a second time. That still makes it infinitely better than Superman Returns, which did not get a full viewing (I stopped the DVD in disgust and returned it to my rental place).

Comment #26: BlackBloc  on  05/06  at  01:17 PM

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but isn’t one of the most widely noted films by film critics of the last umpteen and a half years been a feel-good romp with a mostly happy ending and a long sappy flashback? I.e. Casablanca? Hell, there have been a number of “Best Picture” Oscar winners and “Greatest movie of all time” contenders that have been unashamedly upbeat or happy or at least possessing of a happy ending.

Sssshhhh…This is the post-90s cynical society, we can’t admit funny things are funny anymore! Nine in the first decade of best picture were upbeat.  For every “How Green was my Valley” which if you have ever seen it is probably the most cynical movie ever made there are atleast 3-4 upbeat or atleast neutral movies that won best picture.  From the 1980s on it seems to be pretty even with the upbeat films having a slight edge.  People want to take cynicism as intellectualism and it’s something that has bothered me really since a child.  Why does the main characters lover dying make it a better movie?  What is the filmmaker really trying to say by doing it?  It adds fictional weight without actually doing the intellectual work to add it right.

Having not seen the Hurt Locker I can’t comment on whether its weight is real or not but if Iron Man 2 is a well written comic book movie why shun it?  If the movie feels like a good Iron Man comic book arc why complain and gripe that it doesn’t deal with the emotional pain of Stark’s alcoholism?

Comment #27: Xeranar  on  05/06  at  01:18 PM

steller = stellar.

Comment #28: BlackBloc  on  05/06  at  01:18 PM

I once read an interesting theory that drama is more revered in Western culture than comedy because we have existing portions of Aristotle’s treatise on drama, but lost his treatise on comedy during the upheaval of the Dark Ages.  This is also a minor plot point in Umberto Eco’s “The Name of the Rose”. 


Also agree with #15 about the enshrinement of gravitas.  A lot of trouble in this world is caused by people taking themselves too damn seriously (e.g., World War I).

Comment #29: dillene  on  05/06  at  01:21 PM

What, a critique of the military-industrial complex’s profits-over-patriotism mindset isn’t serious enough for Seitz?

Comment #30: Maureen  on  05/06  at  01:26 PM

One of the things that bugged me most about Superman Returns was that Kate Bosworth was ridiculously too young to play Lois Lane.  We were supposed to believe that this 23-year-old was not only The Greatest Reporter Evah but also the mother of a 7-year-old?  WTF, did she get a gig on “60 Minutes” when she was 13?  Did she and Supes start dating when she was 15 since she had to have had that baby by 16 for the ages to work?  If Bosworth was supposed to be playing older, then it was total fail because she never seemed a day older than her real age in that film, and often younger.

It was especially annoying because they had the perfect Lois Lane for that story in the very same movie:  Parker Posey.

Comment #31: Mnemosyne  on  05/06  at  01:28 PM

And Dark Knight was okay, but maybe I waited too long to see it, because it really didn’t live up to the hype for me.  Heath Ledger was probably the greatest Joker ever, but other than that it seemed draggy and preachy to me.  Which was sad, because Batman is probably my favorite superhero.

Comment #32: Mnemosyne  on  05/06  at  01:30 PM

I noticed this in high school where our presentation of Shakespeare focused almost entirely on the tragedies (Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth) to almost the exclusion of the comedies.

I do tend to enjoy dark/cynical movies, and that’s always going to be coded as more intellectual, but you’re not going to catch me disdaining fun action movies and well written comedies in favor of feeeeelm.

Comment #33: Tyro  on  05/06  at  01:33 PM

Manhattan: Any self-professed comic book fan who was lukewarm about Wolverine loses his citizenship. Sorry, but that piece of crap was so horrible on its own merits, and such an affront to some of Marvel’s best characters, that I would use my time machine to kill everyone involved’s mothers before they were born.

And I can say that because I honestly believe the Watchman movie was better than the book.

Comment #34: humanadverb  on  05/06  at  01:34 PM

The elevation of tragedy over comedy really bothers me. I am reminded of Reginald Hill’s (character’s) commentary on Shakespeare (Cymbeline is the play in questions, FWIW):

“It’s like he’s saying, this one isn’t for the wits, crits, and media twits, this one’s for the folk who live and work at the sharp end. Let’s take a look at this arty-farty drama business and see how it really works. Okay, I’ve done slick, I’ve done elegant, I’ve done well-constructed, you know I can do them standing on my head. But why should I bother with that stuff when real stories and real feelings will always shine through muddle anyway, like they do in real life? And like in life, poetry’s usually accidental and comes in brief flashes rather than in great elegant preordained chunks. As for the happy ending, tragedy’s easy ‘cos tragedy’s the norm. It’s happy-ever-after that sorts out the men from the boys. He would of course be sexist.”

Comment #35: arielibra  on  05/06  at  01:35 PM

Also, Superman Returns sucked in part because they tried to make Lex Luthor, along with Parker Posey’s character) part of the comic relief. Comedy might be disdained because it’s hard, and thus less good quality examples available. That and idiots find poor quality humor to be funny.

Comment #36: Tyro  on  05/06  at  01:36 PM

I agree 100%, and that is one reason—although I adore the man—that I have concerns about joss whedon directing Avengers.

Comment #37: Siobhan  on  05/06  at  01:46 PM

Tyro @ 33:
We covered monologs from As You Like it in &th;grade.  The class behind me did Midsummer’s Night Dream as their freshman play.  My 7-10th grade prep oriented school went way over towards comedies for Shakespeare.
Maureen @ 30:
My thoughts exactly.
humanadverb @ 20:
I like pretty much everything Scott Bakula has done, at least him in it (including that horrible football/back to school after saving the family farm by giving up college dreams flick set in Texas); but give me a break.

Comment #38: helen w. h.  on  05/06  at  01:48 PM

The elevation of tragedy over comedy really bothers me.

I once told someone that The Code of the Woosters was the greatest work of literature in the English language and he insisted that I had to be joking.  After all, it’s merely a funny book, not a Great Book like his choice, Heart of Darkness.

Really, though, which of those two books are most people going to want to read over and over again?  I know what my choice is.

Comment #39: Mnemosyne  on  05/06  at  01:50 PM

ok, #35, NO.  Not Cymbeline.  NO.  I don’t care WHO praised it how, NO.  ANY of the comedies are better than fucking Cymbeline, NO.

Comment #40: Siobhan  on  05/06  at  01:53 PM

Tyro @36-

And here I thought Kevin Spacey was the only good thing in that hideous movie. I think the problem was really the pathetic script, horrible casting for lead and Lois Lane that were more about getting actors who “looked right” rather than actors who could evoke the essence of their characters, and some horrible plot twists and turns that revealed how much of it was just a set-up for amazing special effects.

Xeranar @27-

Oh sorry, my mistake. And yes, a thousand times yes to your comment about the MC lover’s dying. Hell, during the comic industry’s collapse into cynicism for the sake of cynicism, it ended up prompting the wonderful takedown: “girlfriend in the freezer” about the number of superhero girlfriend’s who were dismembered or otherwise killed off and put in an icebox or otherwise left in front of them in order to evoke cheap pathos and “weight” to a story.

I’ll admit that there are a number of “death scenes” in movies, games, or plays that moved me to tears, but there were also movies, games, or plays that moved me to tears in happiness. And just killing off a character for “grittiness” can make a work suck more often than it can be used well (like who gave a shit about Kratos’s dead family).

Comment #41: Cerberus  on  05/06  at  01:56 PM

Seitz neglects to notice that there’s an entire body of work that, in attempting to prove his premise, actually upends it: The ‘90’s Anti-Hero trend.  Angst?  You got it.  These guys have more issues than a downtown quarter bin.  Emotion ranged from teeth clenched in barely-suppressed rage to howling in bleak despair as yet another supporting character (usually female) took it in the neck.

Making the audience hurt?  These things were usually drawn either by Rob Liefeld or someone trying to BE Rob Liefeld.  That made for a lot of hurtin’.

Comment #42: damnedyankee  on  05/06  at  02:06 PM

(like who gave a shit about Kratos’s dead family)

Well, I believe Kratos did. However, the motivation behind why Kratos was a murder machine is quickly lost and forgotten after you’ve ripped apart with bare hands the 100th mythical being.

I expect GoW4 to show him destroying the universe because a cloud blocked the sun. (Whereas the King of All Cosmos does it because he got a bit drunk…)

Comment #43: Santa Claustrophobia  on  05/06  at  02:08 PM

@ 40 & 41: I’d say The Tempest, but I’m willing to put Code of the Woosters fairly high up the list. (I think “The Great Sermon Handicap” is funnier though.)

Comment #44: arielibra  on  05/06  at  02:09 PM

Seriously, what accounts for this knee jerk assumption that sad is more artistic than happy?

Sad is more artsy than happy, and artsy can easily slide into “artsy-fartsy”. The tone of comedy needs to be established or funny things won’t be funny. But one person can be successfully dramatic in a movie where everything else fails.

Drama is too often big and showy and the audience sees how hard someone’s working. (Contrast to Billy Wilder, who told Jack Lemmon to “Do less” to the point of “If I do any less I won’t be doing anything at all”, followed by “Great! You’re almost there!”)

Good comedy is hiding the work.

Comment #45: ThresherK  on  05/06  at  02:09 PM

Seriously, making Lex Luthor the comic relief was what was *good* about Superman Returns.  And about Superman, for that matter.

Gene Hackman’s a genius, basically.

Comment #46: Ferox  on  05/06  at  02:15 PM

I once told someone that The Code of the Woosters was the greatest work of literature in the English language and he insisted that I had to be joking.

And if someone can’t see the sublime and multi-layered craft at work in the whole school-prize giving sequence of Right Ho, Jeeves, I can’t take them seriously as literary critics.

I don’t know if I’d agree that Code of the Woosters or any other Wodehouse books is the greatest work of literature in the English language, but for a well-read person to dismiss it as a contender would tell me a lot about his narrow view of such things.

Comment #47: Gracchus.  on  05/06  at  02:19 PM

X-men, Batman, spiderman… all of ‘em are just UGH!!!. (Except The Fantastic Four, that’s DOUBLE UGH!!!) I was never a big fan of Superhero movies. Maybe because I never really “got” comic books as a kid. I went over a list of superhero movies at Wikipedia and out of 67, I saw Four, tops, that I actually halfway liked. Though I have yet to see Kick-ass, I have heard the most glorious praise and the deepest darkest condemnations. That makes me think it will be pretty bad.
But I can’t say I saw a truly great Superhero film since… Mystery Men. In 1999.
as for Ironman? A watery, thinned out series of plot devices and horrible CGImixed with lame humour to make a thin oatmeal like substance…
Oh, sorry, rant over.
Plus. Man, am I sick of the Blatant marketing moves. The BK tie in ads are nauseating!

Comment #48: alcoolworld  on  05/06  at  02:23 PM

I think it’s part of the lingering legacy of the Modernist revolt against Victorian/Edwardian sentimentality.  That revolt, and the art and criticism that expressed and emerged from it and became institutionalized as High Art, still define the trajectory of much even that could be described as “postmodern.”  Setting an emotional tone of making the audience “hurt” is another expression of the impulse to “challenge” the audience through formal experimentation that is at least in part calculated to make a work frustrating and inaccessible to noninitiates.

Comment #49: curtp  on  05/06  at  02:24 PM

Iron Man only suffered from being released the same year as the steller Dark Knight.

In retrospect, I enjoyed Iron Man more.  I went to see it again, and the idea of watching the Batman movie again depresses me.  Both movies were buoyed by being built around great actors who breathe life into roles that might be tepid, but Robert Downey Jr. is just way more fun to watch onscreen.

Comment #50: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/06  at  02:33 PM

bullshit. how many times a day do you laugh, how many times a day do you cry?

This would be a legitimate criticism if:

a) All emotion was injected into me by art and media
b) The only reason to feel an emotion is that it’s easy
c) Laughing and making someone laugh were exactly the same thing

I promise you, as a writer, it’s a lot more brain strain to write something that is genuinely funny than to write something that’s full of pathos.  I could do the latter all day standing on my head while half my brain thought about something else.  When I’m trying to write funny stuff—-like much of my book, for instance—-I have to work my ass off.

Comment #51: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/06  at  02:39 PM

alcoolworld: definitely skip Kick-Ass if you’re not into superhero stuff. The movie really hinges on some in-jokes. Making Batman into a gun-toting psycho who basically weaponizes a child (child abuse, essentially) is probably the best critique of Batman I’ve ever seen, even more so than Night Owl/Rorschach. But if you don’t have an emotional investment in Batman, I imagine it’ll just be creepy. And if you didn’t like Punisher: War Zone, you’ll be reaching for a barf bag in exactly those moments where I was busting a gut.

Everyone I talked to enjoyed Iron Man more than Dark Knight. Dark Knight was just… an emotionally destroying marathon. Awesome, epic, but kinda painful to watch. What a great year for super hero movies, though. Probably the two best entries in the genre to date, and yet completely different from one another.

Comment #52: humanadverb  on  05/06  at  02:52 PM

Oh how precious. I read Tolstoy’s “What is Art?” when I was in college, but thank goodness I never got hung up on academic trivia.  I LOVED Iron Man.  It was fun.  Anyone who thinks fun is a waste of time is someone I don’t want to spend any time with at all ever.  Can’t wait to see Iron Man 2.  Hope it’s as much fun as the first one.

I used to read the Iron Man comics when I was in college, too.  Enjoyed them as much as I enjoyed Tolstoy but not as much as I enjoyed Dostoevsky.  Downey was a great Tony Stark.

Comment #53: DBK  on  05/06  at  02:55 PM

I feel the problem with Superman Returns was that they tried to make it a follow-up to Superman II (nos. III and IV being wisely ignored).  Taking up the vision of Luthor as the homicidal landgrabbing huckster again after years of the character being portrayed in the comics and on TV as a brilliant, amoral captain of industry didn’t feel right.  Add to that the dopey Captain Whitebread depiction that has dogged Superman forever (this from a character who started as an avatar of the New Deal, a “champion of the oppressed” who doesn’t seem to get around to that side of the street anymore), and it all fell kind of flat.

I mean, I was able to enjoy it for what it was (Superman 2 1/2?), but I was expecting a little more.

Comment #54: damnedyankee  on  05/06  at  02:57 PM

Nerd Alert: Rachel can’t come back as Catwoman.  Catwoman is a lady named Selina Kyle.  It would take some pretty fancy messing with the canon to reinvent her as Rachel.  Might as well have Batman living with his still-alive parents.  smile

Comment #55: weenertron  on  05/06  at  02:59 PM

The Dark Knight seemed a right-wing wet dream to me. After all, Batman is a Billionaire who gets to play Daddy to all of us in his free time and Decide what is best for his business and world at large by day. All very Pro- Kyriarchy I thought.
Batman scolding the “Batman Lites”. the standing Bruce has, and especially the hijacking of the Videophones in Gotham to use as “Radar” all just made me furious at the internalization most people have of heinous anti-freedom ideas.
Yes the Joker was great as played by Heath, but he was in the movie with what, two other Baddies and seemed to get the Badguy-of-the-week treatment. I would like to have seen a Joker centric film where the resolution was more ambiguous. But, since Heath Passed, I will not get to see anything of the sort. I even think that as shown, the film was setting up Heath for a return stint, the only thing I would really have liked. Blah, what a shame…

Comment #56: alcoolworld  on  05/06  at  03:10 PM

That revolt, and the art and criticism that expressed and emerged from it and became institutionalized as High Art, still define the trajectory of much even that could be described as “postmodern.”

There’s an extra aspect in American film, where movies were pretty much forced into a straitjacket of “happy” endings from the start of the enforcement of the Production Code in 1934 all the way to the establishment of the MPAA in 1968.  When the Code was finally abolished, people went a little too hog-wild with the “downer” endings in the 1960s and 1970s.  And, being Americans, we swung too far in the other direction and had too many forced “happy” endings in the 1980s.

Basically, forced endings suck, whether it’s a forced happy or a forced unhappy ending.

Comment #57: Mnemosyne  on  05/06  at  03:12 PM

There can be no conversation about the Superman character without a link to Superdickery.  Because as established through decades of comics, Superman is a dick.

Comment #58: Mnemosyne  on  05/06  at  03:14 PM

@58 Mnemosyne:
Production Codes. The Hayes Code. I have been thinking a lot about these things over the last few years.
A lot of B-Movie tropes today evolved from these. I.E. The couple engaging in premarital casual sex at the beginning of the flick invariably are among the first to be slaughtered by Freddy-Jason-Michael in particular gruesome manner. I would love to work up a collection of Code derived Tropes and lampoon them in a B-movie setting.

Comment #59: alcoolworld  on  05/06  at  03:19 PM

I would use my time machine to kill everyone involved’s mothers before they were born

Why not their fathers? Or go 50/50? wink

Also, killing Hugh Jackman’s parents seems like it would be bad. I think the whole resurgence of the superhero movie phenomena is mostly due to the fact that the first X-Men didn’t suck. You might just result in cancelling the existence of the Watchmen and V for Vendetta movies through the time domino effect, and I won’t stand for that.

Robert Downey Jr. is just way more fun to watch onscreen

Personally I thought Heath Ledger was more fun. (Christian Bale? Who’s that? There’s a reason I own Dark Knight but not Batman Returns.)

Comment #60: BlackBloc  on  05/06  at  03:23 PM

Don’t forget Superman V: The Revenge of Otis.

Comment #61: norbizness  on  05/06  at  03:35 PM

Alcoolworld; you thought the MOVIE was pro-kyriarchy and authoritarian? From the tone of the post, I assume you’re familiar with the Batman character. He’s more or less ALWAYS an authoritarian big father who always knows best. That’s the character—even as happy Adam West Batman, he’s a billionaire vigilante who on occasion beats up hippies.

Comment #62: Mark Temporis  on  05/06  at  03:47 PM

Christian Bale is sadly underrated, I’ve loved him since he was a child actor and he was my first choice for Batman for years before it happened. I’ve never understood the criticism of him. Whether you like him or not, there’s no doubt that he was Batman, probably the best live action Batman (only Keaton comes close)

Comment #63: typist  on  05/06  at  03:47 PM

Seitz is behind the times.  The comic-book industry has been doing Dark and Disturbed Superheroes for twenty years now, and it sucks and is boring.  DC just launched their “Brightest Day” company-wide rebranding, which will supposedly return their titles to Silver Age-y optimism and heroics.  So far these comics also suck, but everyone’s pretty sick of the constant tragic deaths and “dark” heroes and women in refrigerators.

The best treatment of superheroes in recent years has been in the WB cartoon shows, starting with the Batman cartoon in the ‘90s and running through Superman, Teen Titans, and Justice League.  Those cartoons deal with some complex and troubling ideas (more interestingly than the new Batman movies, for my money), but with wit, quirky characters, and a sense of fun.

Iron Man was a big hit because it’s the only recent superhero movie that seems to realize that having superpowers might be, you know, kind of fun.

Comment #64: Shaenon  on  05/06  at  03:51 PM

By the way, the secret to a good movie, whether it be action adventure or thriller or superhero, is a good bad guy.  The better the bad guy, the better the film.  The bad guys are always more interesting.  The best Rocky?  The one with Mr T.  The best Batman?  The one with Heath Ledger.  Iron Man was a fun movie, but it would have made it into greatness if Bridges’ bad guy was better.  Not Bridges’ fault that the character wasn’t that great, but that’s the secret to making a great film in those genres.  That’s why I have high hopes for the second Iron Man.  They’re advertising the bad guy with the good guy, so I am hoping it’s a great bad guy (though so far it looks like the bad guy is just another metal suit).

The first Spiderman’s greatest strength was Defoe.

Comment #65: DBK  on  05/06  at  03:55 PM

I’ve never understood the criticism of him. Whether you like him or not, there’s no doubt that he was Batman

Um, no, just no.  I suppose his brooding is satisfactory but “millionaire party boy” is completely unbelievable.  It’s like a wet mop doing a Steve Martin impersonation.  Also don’t get me started on the “voice”,  I couldn’t watch the first movie because I was laughing out loud in the middle of the theatre whenever he spoke in the bat suit.  It is absurd and distracts from story.

Comment #66: hypatia  on  05/06  at  03:58 PM

All superheroes have an authoritarian streak, but Batman is the purest expression of the fantasy.  There’s a Batman show up at the Cartoon Art Museum right now, and recently I looked it over and noticed that all the recent art on the walls was by Libertarians.  They love the guy.

Comment #67: Shaenon  on  05/06  at  03:59 PM

They’re advertising the bad guy with the good guy, so I am hoping it’s a great bad guy (though so far it looks like the bad guy is just another metal suit).

If you’re referring to the black-and-silver Iron Man-like armor, that’s actually War Machine, another good guy.  He was another part of the ‘90’s anti-hero trend, where new characters were “created” using the phrase “like ___________, only badass!

Venom: Like Spider-Man, only badass!
Thunderstrike: Like Thor, only <i>badass!<i>
War Machine: Like Iron Man, only - eh, you get the idea.

Comment #68: damnedyankee  on  05/06  at  04:09 PM

Crap.  Fumbled my HTML-Fu.

Comment #69: damnedyankee  on  05/06  at  04:11 PM

By the way, the secret to a good movie, whether it be action adventure or thriller or superhero, is a good bad guy.

That’s one of the reasons I really liked Spiderman 2—I thought Alfred Molina as Doc Ock was a great villain with the right balance of pathos and evil.  Heck, even his evil arms had their own pathos since, in their little transistor heads, they were just doing what he (secretly) wanted them to do and weren’t intrinsically bad.  (Amoral is not the same thing as bad.)

Comment #70: Mnemosyne  on  05/06  at  04:20 PM

Batman IS an authoritarian wet dream. Alan Moore injected tons of right-wing bile into his Batman critique with Rorschach. The only way to get past it is Adam West candy coating. He runs around breaking purse-snatchers’ bones. Tell me that’s not right-wing?

That said, the right wing shows just how desperate they are to have a piece of the media pie, projecting George Bush onto Bruce Wayne, and even more so with the Obama/Joker thing. That’s really not what the movie is about, even if some of that content is there.

Comment #71: humanadverb  on  05/06  at  04:20 PM

@ Mark Temporis
I certainly am aware of the Right wing tendency in The Batman. But the Adam West version was Goofy and irreverent. I always thought of it as a classic send-up of the serious Libertarian minded Superhero. So when He beats up Hippys, even though I share a lot of Hippy traits, I can laugh.
Mike Keaton as Batman was a gutsy move. I was all “Beetlejuice” is playing Batman? Dude that is so gonna be HILARIOUS!!! but I was actually blown away by his performance. Hey- I was only 19 at the time.

@Hypatia
that stupid Constipated voice! Indeed! That WAS hilarious. The Dark Knight, Tedious, Didactic, overly Patriarchical, about 1&1;/2 times too long and to top it all off, Unintentionally Hilarious!
Both of the C. Bale versions horrible tho- My Date for the first one got so bored she literally started a fight with other people in the theater… I quite that relationship soon after….

Comment #72: alcoolworld  on  05/06  at  04:23 PM

err extra ; and quit, not quite… D’oh!

Comment #73: alcoolworld  on  05/06  at  04:25 PM

But I’m willing to claim writing something that will get a snicker is easier than writing something that get you teary eyed, if only because you can generally use the mud slinging approach to comedy and as long as nothing you throw specifically angers some one, you can still get a laugh later; if you break the emotional connection at any point, because it’s to heavy handed, or it’s too numbing, or it’s to light handed or showy or what ever, those tears don’t come.

I disagree with you—I think drama (or, more specifically, pathos/sentimentality) is more universal than humor, which is one reason why American comedies don’t do very well overseas and foreign-language comedies do very poorly here.  Just about any audience will respond to the emotion of a child dying in a film, but not everyone will laugh at a banana peel slip.  That’s why people talk about whether a drama “earned” or “didn’t earn” the emotion in it—the filmmakers can make you respond on a visceral level even if that response isn’t justified by the film.

I think it’s also because humor is generally more cerebral than drama (even dumb physical comedy) because it requires the writer to reverse audience expectations on some level.  Even, say, the old trope of the guy in a top hat getting a cream pie in the face requires a reversal of the audience’s expectation that a guy in a top hat is dignified.  Add in the fact that so much humor depends on wordplay and it makes it even more difficult to translate it from one country/language to another.

Comment #74: Mnemosyne  on  05/06  at  04:28 PM

In my fantasy world, The Dark Knight is remembered as tragically overrated and hobbled by script-by-committee screenwriting that didn’t fulfill its potential. That will never happen, though. I liked Batman Begins, though.

Insofar as comic book movies don’t allow for complexity, I think that’s just an artifact of the limitations of film. Melodrama always seems affected, anyway. Movies like Spiderman II and X-Men are best-of-genre: hit on the big themes, present compelling villains, have interesting heroes, and show them off with good special effects.

I would be up for film-noir adaptations of superhero/comic book movies, though.

Comment #75: Tyro  on  05/06  at  04:35 PM

@damnedyankee: I’m really interested in seeing how the film plays War Machine for very much that reason. Which is to say, they weren’t setting Rhodie up to be “Tony Stark but more badass” in the first film, so I don’t think they’re gonna go all 90s with him in Iron Man 2. I mean, there’s a lot of potential there, in that Tony is very clear that nobody, nobody gets to use the Iron Man tech… except Rhodie, because he trusts the guy that much. In a lot of ways, it seems like Tony sees him as a better version of himself, or at least an idealised version of himself, with Tony’s narcissism replaced by duty and conviction. I hope we get to see that in the film.

Comment #76: Tobasco da Gama  on  05/06  at  04:39 PM

though so far it looks like the bad guy is just another metal suit

To be fair, a lot of Iron Man’s better villains are people in metal suits—partly because villains who have a theme that complements the hero are usually a good thing, and partly because any fight with Iron Man vs. a villain who doesn’t have a battlesuit or superstrength generally involves lots of special pleading on behalf of the villain.

Comment #77: dayraven  on  05/06  at  04:40 PM

Because I have struggled with depression and anxiety for most of my life, comedy is something I take very seriously. It’s easy to make me cry, but things that make me laugh I treasure like Gollum treasures his Precious.

It’s always irritated me that great comedies are considered to be drama’s slutty, dumb sister. Truly great comedies are transcendent. Nearly all my “comfort movies”—movies I watch over and over because they are funny and, well, comforting are comedies.

30 Rock is a show I think is so funny I almost feel like it should be illegal. Arrested Development…but you know what these shows have in common? How dark they are, if you really choose to pay attention. Now, don’t get me wrong. I love just straight-up goofy, silly comedies. But that fact is that most comedy is rooted in misery. If you really pay attention, you’ll almost always find it. (That being said, I wouldn’t care if weren’t; I think silliness is good for the soul.)

But, yeah, I treasure comedy. I treasure levity. And “Iron Man” was, as far as superhero movies go, really good stuff.

Comment #78: Vacuumslayer  on  05/06  at  04:52 PM

I think revering drama over comedy also has ties to our beauty issues. Comedy isn’t pretty. But drama has lots of long loving shots of hair whipping in the wind and a pretty girl crying without running her mascara. That’s why everyone lined up to call Halle Berry and Charlize Theron “brave” for trying to play down their looks (as if Halle Berry without makeup is sooo unattractive) for their Oscar Winning roles. It doesn’t seem that brave to me when you absolutely know people will bend over backward and jump up your ass to pat you on the back. Not to mention, when you know you can easily jump back into the Most Beautiful People Ever category.

I’m not slamming their performances, just the industry’s rush to congratulate Berry, Theron and themselves for not playing up the hotness in a movie. I remember Susan Sarandon thought it was silly that she was considered brave when she didn’t go for the hot sexy nun look in Dead Man Walking. I can’t find the quote right now.

Comment #79: shakahi  on  05/06  at  04:59 PM

villains who have a theme that complements the hero are usually a good thing

Eh. I think that this is pretty lazy when this happens. The Hulk movie had the same problem: the villain in the climactic battle was just an uglier looking version of The Hulk who used the same formula. In the first Iron Man movie, the villain just dressed up in an uglier kind of battle armor. I realize that with extremely powerful characters, it is hard to come up with a comparable adversary that doesn’t have the hero’s same strengths, but the writers should at least try instead of resorting to, “just like the hero, but uglier, so the audience will know he’s a villain!” The first two Spiderman movies did a good job in this regard.

Comment #80: Tyro  on  05/06  at  05:03 PM

@Tyro: Which is why it’s a shame that the Final Fantasy movies ruined Dr. Doom.

Comment #81: Tobasco da Gama  on  05/06  at  05:05 PM

Err… Fantastic Four. Got my FFs mixed up. wink

Comment #82: Tobasco da Gama  on  05/06  at  05:06 PM

Nothing makes me roll my eyes harder than a movie that has nothing to say about the darkness of the human spirit choosing to shoehorn that in as a cheap grab at pseudo-edginess.

Welcome to the last 20 years of comic books.  The disappointing legacy of Alan Moore’s 1980s work is that rather than prompting comic writers to produce richer narratives, it prompted too many of them to produce more violence and unlikeable protagonists and general “darkness.”  (Not unlike Tarantino’s legacy.)

Comment #83: Cris  on  05/06  at  05:06 PM

Comedy’s gotten a short shrift since the Greeks - if memory serves they would have performaces of three tragedies (all linked) and one comedy which comment in some way on the themes in the other plays. Love to see what the comedy they showed with Agamemnon. Try briging the room back after that one sometime.

I can understand why the awards aren’t given to comedies - awards are a serious busness, they bring prestige, fame,  more jobs and what not. You’re not going to give that out to a comedy no matter how well made it is.

Comment #84: professorfate  on  05/06  at  05:07 PM

villains who have a theme that complements the hero are usually a good thing
Eh. I think that this is pretty lazy when this happens.

Don’t you talk smack about Sinestro!

Comment #85: Cris  on  05/06  at  05:10 PM

villains who have a theme that complements the hero are usually a good thing
Eh. I think that this is pretty lazy when this happens.

Goodbye!

Bizarro Damnedyankee Number One am loving you for not saying that!

Hello!

But seriously, it’s a pretty long-standing tradition, having a villain with the hero’s powers.  I could run off a list, but won’t out of consideration.  I think I’ve established my geek cred enough in this thread. wink

Comment #86: damnedyankee  on  05/06  at  05:36 PM

I sometimes think that these people who insist that sad and bad is the only art live in way too comfy worlds.

Maybe that explains Scandinavian cinema?

My opinion on this subject can best be explained in Sullivan’s Travels.

The death of Rachel Dawes in “The Dark Knight”... is a rare example of a superhero film daring to make its audience hurt.

Was I the only one who didn’t give a shit that she died?  Her character was hardly well developed.  The circumstances of her death were dramatic and an obviously important element of The Dark Knight’s plot development, but still.  I really didn’t care.

Comment #87: keshmeshi  on  05/06  at  05:36 PM

“I sometimes think that these people who insist that sad and bad is the only art live in way too comfy worlds.”

YES. I don’t need drama in my cinema. I’ve had drama in my life. What kind of easy lives are these drama-junkies living?

Comment #88: Vacuumslayer  on  05/06  at  05:39 PM

So is Rachel Dawes dead dead, or only comic book dead?  Or will she just regenerate again after a quick kip in her TARDIS?

Comment #89: damnedyankee  on  05/06  at  05:42 PM

But that fact is that most comedy is rooted in misery. If you really pay attention, you’ll almost always find it.

Was it Woody Allen who said, “If I stub my toe, it’s tragedy, but if you fall off a cliff and die, it’s comedy”?  There’s a huge element of “poor bastard” in a comedy, as in, “Jesus, I’d hate to be that poor bastard right now.”

Comment #90: Mnemosyne  on  05/06  at  06:05 PM

“All superheroes have an authoritarian streak,”

Nooooo? At least not more than “All humans have an authoritarian streak.” One superhero who show delight anyone who loves a good comedy was Speedball—a series about a boy who gets the power of being surrounded by super-bouncing energy bubbles when he’s hit. He’s also got his parents constantly fighting as they divorce over whether he should be an artist/actor or a lawyer, ignoring his desire to work in a science lab as he tries to ignore them. Goofy power, real life, funny.

Nomad, now that was kind of a dark series, but extremely anti-authoritarian. Nomad was one of the guys who’d gotten some of the super-soldier serum in him (I think he substituted for Captain America). Back in civilian life, and sick of America’s tendency to ignore its underclass.

Among the better known ones, I have trouble seeing Wolverine as being authoritarian. Spiderman’s a little iffy, too—does the fact that he believes in the system enough to leave criminals for the police to find instead of roughing them up make him authoritarian?. Couldn’t really sit through the Blade movies, so I don’t know if there’s an authority figure he respects in them. In his original book appearances, he was part of a loose association of vampire hunters and had no one to give him orders, while being outside of mainstream society, and he was an atheist. 

There are a lot more, but I’ve listed some off the top of my head that weren’t working for the government in any way, shape or form in their books, have adventures where they aren’t part of a team to take or give orders, and no inside man in the police to help, and don’t present themselves to the public as some kind of authority. I mean, Quicksilver is misanthropic and would like to spend very little time interacting with other people, period, but he did accept a job on a government team, so does his tendency to do his own thing anyway buck categorizing him as an authoritarian, or are your definitions too tight for that?

Comment #91: Samantha Vimes  on  05/06  at  06:05 PM

One of the reasons I’ve always loved Roger Ebert was he wasn’t afraid to give high ratings and gush over a film that wasn’t arty as long as he ENJOYED it.  If he enjoyed it, on whatever level, he’d tell you and recommend it.  This was all the way back in the seventies, too, when every other movie was a “message movie” that spent 2+ hours telling you bad the world sucked.

Comment #92: Geeno  on  05/06  at  06:07 PM

Hey, as long as we’re all talking about What’s Wrong With Comics Today, there’s an interesting piece of Comics Alliance about the institutionalised racism of comics nostalgia, specifically in reference to DC’s Darkest Night/Brightest Day story.

Comment #93: Tobasco da Gama  on  05/06  at  06:19 PM

ell, during the comic industry’s collapse into cynicism for the sake of cynicism, it ended up prompting the wonderful takedown: “girlfriend in the freezer” about the number of superhero girlfriend’s who were dismembered or otherwise killed off and put in an icebox or otherwise left in front of them in order to evoke cheap pathos and “weight” to a story.

I was trying to think of the term for it when I was writing it this morning.  Isn’t it girlfriends in refrigerators?  Something to that effect.  It’s a cheap convenient plot twist that takes no effort to do and adds artificial weight to the story.  It’s seeped into pop culture of dramas now.  How often do they kill off a character in a larger drama to replace them with a replica the next season?  It’s dramatic lies and artificial weight to seem interesting. 

As for Batman being right-wing, I find it hard to believe.  You’re confusing justice with civility and fairness.  Their three different things, justice doesn’t have to be handed out by a group but what is just to the one person doing it.  If you look at RoboCop’s three prime directives from the first film (barring his 4th hidden corporate one) you’ll see the perfect cop.  He is upholding just and fair laws with no perception of race or gender inequality.  He’s a bigot, but he’s a bigot for the left.  The superhero is the perfection of such ideals.  Superman doesn’t go around destroying poor neighborhoods and doing less-than perfect things.  The argument of one’s agency is never is question when batman breaks the arm of a purse snatcher, but you forgo your privilege of privacy and self-control when you break the rules of society.

Comment #94: Xeranar  on  05/06  at  06:40 PM

This is the same fallacy that allows half-baked dramas to vie for Best Picture Oscars while perfectly made, amazing comedies get no credit whatsoever, even though it’s probably harder to make someone laugh than cry.  I’m not saying “Iron Man” was a contender for Best Picture or anything, but I think that it’s perfectly great for what it is, which is a popcorn movie.

It’s good to see someone standing up for “popcorn” movies. Especially during a bad recession, that’s exactly when we need those movies the most! If you want darkness, turn on cable news.

Comment #95: Ben D.  on  05/06  at  06:51 PM

The argument of one’s agency is never is question when batman breaks the arm of a purse snatcher, but you forgo your privilege of privacy and self-control when you break the rules of society.

Except that one is entitled under the law to a fair trial to determine that one actually has broken the rules of society before giving up the right (not privilege) of privacy and self-control.  In America that means incarceration, not having one’s arm broken in Batman’s “court of the streets.”

BTW, it’s “Women in Refrigerators.”  I linked to it upthread.

Comment #96: damnedyankee  on  05/06  at  06:52 PM

Keep digging, Ony.  You’re getting incoherent. 

Writers, producers, and actors have known for a long time that good comedy is way harder to pull off than high drama.  We all know what’s sad, but what’s funny is a little more elusive.  Not just “ha ha kitten fell off a counter” funny, but actual comedy comedy.

Comment #97: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/06  at  06:55 PM

Was it Woody Allen who said, “If I stub my toe, it’s tragedy, but if you fall off a cliff and die, it’s comedy”?

I’m thinking it was Mel Brooks, and perhaps Woody quoted it on the frontispiece of one of his books.  We could Google it, but that’s not very sportsmanlike.

Comment #98: Cris  on  05/06  at  07:28 PM

Robert Downey Jr.‘s tuchus made me VERY happy in Iron Man.
I look forward to seeing it again in Iron Man 2.
/perv

Comment #99: Danica Lefse Queen  on  05/06  at  07:30 PM

Iron Man only suffered from being released the same year as the steller Dark Knight.

I’ve watched Iron Man a few times now and I don’t have any desire to watch The Dark Knight ever again.  Christian Bale completely fell flat as Bruce Wayne, in a way that’s just painful to watch.  Christian Bale can’t pull off charismatic billionaire playboy or ultimate detective.  He does a good haunted and driven man act, but that alone doesn’t carry the character.  (Well, unless you’re talking about Frank Miller’s Dark Knight of course. He’s the goddamn Batman.)

It wasn’t just that Iron Man was more fun as a movie, it’s that they cast someone who can make being charming and quick-witted look effortless.  I wish they’d done half as well with the casting the Spiderman movies, Tobey Maguire completely failed to deliver the ultimate smartass that Spidey is supposed to be.

I don’t have high hopes for the upcoming Green Lantern movie, but they did manage to get someone who has some blood in his veins to be Hal Jordan. Ryan Reynolds was a passably good Deadpool in that awful Wolverine movie, so I figure he can handle actually making Hal Jordan fun to watch.  (Not that I like Hal Jordan. John Stewart, FTW!)

Comment #100: Godless Heathen  on  05/06  at  07:39 PM

Oh, you called me “Mandy”.  So you’re just a right wing nut who trolls for the sake of it.  Good to know!  I had a feeling you needed to be written off, because your understanding of art was so weak.  But I didn’t realize it was wingnut weak.  Of course you don’t understand different kinds of humor—-that would require having a sense of humor.

Comment #101: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/06  at  07:43 PM

Batman is not right wing. He’s apolitical. He’s psychology explored in metaphor. The Id of our selfish impulses directed at the evil of the world. Batman is the embodiment of our desire to shout into the darkness, to curse the injustices of existence and do whatever it takes to manifest justice, even if it means becoming a monster. It’s entirely a psychological parable about becoming the thing you fight. Which is why he’s dark by necessity.

Iron Man is something else. The wish fulfillment fantasy of having infinite resources, infinite intelligence and finite perspective. It’s the clash of this last one against the other two that creates humor and characterization. Tony stark isn’t a brooding obsessive lunatic. He’s Bruce Wayne without the daddy issues who decides he still wants to do good, but finds that this is far more complicated than he thinks it should be. “Hay, I’m rich and brilliant, what could go wrong?” Wham! He falls off the cliff. It’s Whyl E . Coyote with a moral center and cooler toys.

Comment #102: Keith  on  05/06  at  07:47 PM

I’m sorry if this is JAQing off but why do wingnuts go to calling you Mandy when you won’t bow to their superior knowledge? Is it because they want to infantalize (is that a word?) you? to remind you that you’re just a woman so what could you know? or is it because some of them seem like cyber stalkers and have the delusion of familiarity?

Comment #103: shakahi  on  05/06  at  07:51 PM

Now that I reread that I realize it could be all of the above. Now I’m curious how many fall into which categories.
What would they do if your name was something without a well known nickname, like Amy?

Comment #104: shakahi  on  05/06  at  07:55 PM

I think it’s like when movie villains/stalkers try to establish intimacy with their victims with nicknames.  That they see themselves as evil movie villains is kind of alarming, but really tells you a lot about the power fantasies of wingnuts.  The whole “everyone thinks they’re doing good” thing really isn’t in play with them.  They’re really more in the vein of men whose masculinity is bolstered by imagining themselves as threatening, scary men.

Comment #105: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/06  at  07:55 PM

Maybe the banhammer should be in play with anyone who calls me “Mandy”?  The movie villain faux intimacy is basically a threat, and a threat for having the nerve to know more about art, drama, and comedy than some humorless wingnut!  If he threatens me for that, what happens when it’s a more serious topic?

What do you guys think?  Banhammer, or am I just overreacting to a threatening comment that’s basically an expression of his fundamental childishness and impotence?

Comment #106: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/06  at  08:02 PM

He’s getting boring and repetitive, so I say banhammer. When I’m the one with the finger on the trigger, at least, I only suffer the amusing trolls. wink

Comment #107: Tobasco da Gama  on  05/06  at  08:13 PM

Also, he doesn’t understand the difference between shortening a pseudonym and using a derogatory form of someone’s real name. So between that and failing to understand the nature of comedy… Well, yeah.

Comment #108: Tobasco da Gama  on  05/06  at  08:14 PM

I wouldn’t just because he reverted to childish arguments like “You started it” once you called him out. That would indicate to me that he’s a brat that just wanted to flex. It doesn’t seem threatening to me.

I don’t think it’s overreacting to want to get rid of him, just impatience with “his fundamental childishness and impotence.” After all, this is a blog aimed at adults, not 6 year olds.

Comment #109: shakahi  on  05/06  at  08:28 PM

No idea if it’s been said or not (115 comments is a lot to get through) but if they were grim, they’d only be matching the source material. Superhero comics have become increasingly bleak the last few years and for the same reason. Death, debasement, sorrow, betrayal, etc. = depth. But then the readers are a lot older than they used to be too. Who else has the disposable cash to buy four or five titles a month at $4 a pop, plus collectors editions?

Comment #110: Stubborn Kind of Fellow  on  05/06  at  08:36 PM

Xeranar, Robocop is not a left wing figure, he’s the figurehead of an anti-corporate satire. The entire point is that Robocop is the invention of a right-wing, corporatist organisation who won’t provide decent working conditions to human policemen. That’s what ‘directive 4’ is, a metaphor for the control of law enforcement by entrenched powers, and it’s apparent that even at the end Robocop doesn’t break free of it. He’s finally free to kill Dick Jones (no trial for him) because he’s no longer part of OCP andd is therefore just another citizen.

Comment #111: Stubborn Kind of Fellow  on  05/06  at  08:43 PM

Gracchus: Kneel before Zod!

“Lay down on your back before Zod! Now! Using your lower abdominals, raise your legs and hold on a five count before Zod! One before Zod! Two before Zod! Three before Zod!”

Comment #112: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/06  at  08:52 PM

SKoF: Actually, I think they’ve brightened up rather considerably from the 1990’s (in addition, sadly, to whitening up as the article Joshua N. cited points out).  Ever since 1996’s Kingdom Come there has been an attempt to return the protagonists to something of a heroic ideal (Batman being one of the last holdouts, his unilateral tendencies and incipient paranoia having now been walked back somewhat).  The self-absorbed nihilism that used to drive the action is now mainly confined to the villains.

While anti-heroes can still draw readers, there has been a decided shift in how they’re perceived.  The Punisher, for example, has gone from having semi-regular team-ups with Spider-Man to being regarded by the hero community as a murderous, unhinged lunatic (which he is).

And as for the decided tilt to older readers: I like to think of mainstream superhero books as having hit adolescence in the 90’s, all frustration and senseless angst, only to run straight into middle age in the Aughts, poring over high school yearbooks and sighing heavily for glory days past.

Comment #113: damnedyankee  on  05/06  at  09:11 PM

And PiatoR wins the thread.

Comment #114: damnedyankee  on  05/06  at  09:12 PM

I’ve been reading Pandagon for years, and I love Amanda’s take on things, but this is the first time since registration was required that I’ve been moved to comment.

I think you’re misreading Seitz’s essay. He’s not asking superhero movies to be dark, he’s asking them to try something more complex than they’ve been trying, something riskier, something beyond just trying to ape the essence of the source material. He’s asking them to reflect life in some way or another, any way they want to do it. The zombie movies he mentions offer several different ways to deal with expected genre restrictions - all he’s suggesting is it would be nice if superhero movies tried something like this, too.

Seriously, Iron Man was fun, largely because of Downey, but it’s not a movie I’ve thought about since I saw it, nor one I’ve felt like watching again. There’s nothing wrong with that, but wouldn’t it be nice if one of these flicks did try something new?

Comment #115: Steve Pick  on  05/06  at  09:13 PM

I’m thinking it was Mel Brooks, and perhaps Woody quoted it on the frontispiece of one of his books.

What can I say, I can never keep those writers from “Your Show of Shows” straight.  Neil Simon wrote “The Producers,” right? 

wink

Comment #116: Mnemosyne  on  05/06  at  09:18 PM

Damned yankee, if anything comics are currently reflecting an existential angst reminiscent of the paranoia of 70’s post-Watergate cinema. If you look at all the big ‘event’ plotlines of the last two or three years they all involve heroes becomingif not explicitly evil than unable to trust each other, at war with their values and their former allies. That to me, an environment where you can’t be sure who’s heroic or not and where the most revered heroes can be at each other’s throats while others die around them, is far bleaker than anything that went before. All-Star Batman and Robin and Civil War being just two of the clearest examples.

Comment #117: Stubborn Kind of Fellow  on  05/06  at  09:55 PM

Comics books is serious business! Or should that read ‘pop culture entertainment’?

Officially, I liked both Iron Man and The Dark Knight. And tomorrow I’m going to watch the hell out of IM2 because it’s there. Because <strike>Gutter is a Tool!</strike> Jon Favreau has earned my support and Robert Downey Jr. is super-cool. And then when the next Batman movie comes out, I’ll watch that too.

And chalk my name on the list of people dissatisfied when comedies get snubbed during awards season.

Comment #118: Santa Claustrophobia  on  05/06  at  10:02 PM

Iron Man was fun, but I worried that the beginning, set in Afghanistan, was so grim and realistic that it would be hard for veterans to watch.  Seriously, that was some grim shit.

Downey’s a treasure, glad he got his shit together.

Comment #119: Eric_RoM  on  05/06  at  10:50 PM

Steve Pick:

There’s nothing wrong with that, but wouldn’t it be nice if one of these flicks did try something new?

No, I’m sorry, but Seitz is a pretentious twit. His article is self-serving selection bias dressed up as prescriptivist film criticism, and he fails on both counts. He bitches and moans about superhero movies all being basically identical, then studiously ignores pretty much every superhero movie that bucks the genre stereotypes. If you’re not even going to mention Mystery Men or The Incredibles, you don’t get to complain that all superhero movies are the same.

Comment #120: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  05/06  at  11:00 PM

I didn’t care tremendously if Dawes died in Dark Knight Returns, but that was partially due to exhaustion.  Again, I thought that was the point—that I was supposed to be emotionally wrung out by the movie, due to the Joker’s ability to intuitively control everyone around him by bringing out their darker natures.

The thing I like about Batman that makes it feel less fascisty to me is its rejection of popular support.  Batman isn’t looking for power.  He’s looking to act according to his code.  If he is successful doing it, that was the plan.  If he gets killed doing it, so be it.  It’s just not . . . hierarchical the same way.  He’s not looking to be in charge of my life; indeed, he would much prefer not to interact with me at all.

Comment #121: Punditus Maximus  on  05/06  at  11:52 PM

Eric_RoM:  I was amazed at the power of the opening sequence in Iron Man; the helplessness which Stark obviously felt, and his slow walkback from that helplessness (as well as his failure to come to grips with it) was just amazing.

Stark’s a hard character to write for.  If I were trying, I’d use the “hedonism as a cover for misanthropy and self-loathing in swift alternation” approach.

Comment #122: Punditus Maximus  on  05/06  at  11:56 PM

Batman is not right wing. He’s apolitical.

Scratch anything that claims to be apolitical, and you’ll find right-wing under it.

(South Park, ‘apolitical’ oi/punk music, etc etc).

Being apolitical = following the status quo by default = conservativism, mild (at best).

Comment #123: BlackBloc  on  05/07  at  12:36 AM

Except that one is entitled under the law to a fair trial to determine that one actually has broken the rules of society before giving up the right (not privilege) of privacy and self-control.  In America that means incarceration, not having one’s arm broken in Batman’s “court of the streets.”

Privacy in public is a privilege.  I believe 90% of batman’s actions occur in a public or semi-public location.  The fact that he breaks the purse snatchers arm isn’t an act of politics.  The act of breaking the arm is a consequence of resistance.  In this case, an unjust resistance because the purse snatching stole a purse.  The act of incarceration is a consequence for stealing the purse.  Debating single-solitary judge/jury/executioner is something I shy away from because justice is blind.  How is it “liberal” if you order 12 people to decide?  In Strauder v. W. Virginia it makes it clear that 12 people can be utterly bias and hand a bad decision in.  The justice system is fundamentally designed to create more hung or dismissed cases than convictions which is fair, because a fair amount of convictions are questionable.  But as our ability to observe increases jury tampering is pretty much the last frontier left for those seeking to elude justice.  But now I am just painfully rambling.  Maybe I am just a bit more law & order than I should be.  I grew up in a cop household.  To me the laws as they are currently written are just, but the failure of the judiciary system to implement them correctly and the cops failure to apprehend and not use bias as an excuse for power abuse. 

Xeranar, Robocop is not a left wing figure, he’s the figurehead of an anti-corporate satire. The entire point is that Robocop is the invention of a right-wing, corporatist organisation who won’t provide decent working conditions to human policemen. That’s what ‘directive 4’ is, a metaphor for the control of law enforcement by entrenched powers, and it’s apparent that even at the end Robocop doesn’t break free of it. He’s finally free to kill Dick Jones (no trial for him) because he’s no longer part of OCP andd is therefore just another citizen.

I was actually talking more about the series as a whole but his directives are only truthfully mentioned in the first movie with a series of “PC” directives listed in the 2nd.  By the third he is without directives and able to deal with corporatism has he saw fit.  I understand the movie is a satire of corporate power, but Robocop as an entity, acts on behalf of the people, in fact even in the first movie while unable to harm the OCP director he still holds disdain for them.

Comment #124: Xeranar  on  05/07  at  01:10 AM

Hmm, I really enjoyed Iron Man quite a bit when first I watched it, but upon rewatching the “OMG SHINY” turned into “OMG… that’s actually kinda super sexist…” While I liked having Stark characterized by his disdain for that female reporter in the beginning, for example, I wasn’t keen on Pepper’s obvious disdain for her, which seemed like the movie agreed with Stark that the reporter was just kind of an unimportant lay (coughslutcough) and set up that whole catfight vibe that I hate so much. I would have preferred for that scene to be an example of Stark’s self-centeredness rather than just establishment of his pimp cred.

So that (and poor Pepper’s goddamn heels) tainted my enjoyment somewhat. Still planning on seeing number 2, natch. :p

As for The Dark Knight it was still extremely male-centric but it seemed more self-aware about it. The Joker was blatantly killing women to hurt men (he didn’t give a crap about the women themselves) and the movie didn’t even pretend that the victims were anything but a message to Batman/Dent. And it was made very obvious that using women as disposable tools to wreak emotional havoc was a fucked up thing to do. (And, thank god, no tacked on “catty” moments for the women either.) So it was more wrenching to watch than (most of) Iron Man but also somewhat less objectionable to me from a feminist perspective.

Comment #125: Bagelsan  on  05/07  at  03:23 AM

I wonder if the Mandy thing is connected to how they call Obama “Barry”.

Comment #126: typist  on  05/07  at  07:18 AM

What’s great about EE’s banhammer is you get to delete everything they’ve posted.  Just really creates a major disincentive to post bile here, knowing it will soon disappear.

typist, yes.  It’s both a vague threat and a suggestion they “know” something about you.

Comment #127: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/07  at  09:27 AM

Been a while since I saw it, but isn’t one of the key plot points of Dark Knight the fact that Wayne/Batman wants to hand over responsibility for Gotham’s crime problem to Harvey Dent, a legitimately elected and (more important to Wayne) competent enforcer of law and order? This doesn’t seem to be the kind of right-wing message Bat’s Libertarian fans want to hear.

Not that the movie has anything approaching a consistent political point of view. It’s more of a Rorscharch (heh) blot with something to please everyone (i.e. a Hollywood product). If there’s any message, it seems to be that selfish, deeply dysfunctional societies like Gotham ultimately get the kind of criminals and heroes they deserve (this is stated explicitly).

In the first movie, Gotham starts out with a hapless and corrupt police bureaucracy, so Batman, a psychopath with good intentions, steps in to stop crime(rugged individualists say yay!); Batman’s activity puts enogh pressure on traditional organised crime that elected officials (Dent and Gordon) start to get traction (good-government types nod happily); organised crime turns to ultra-competent chaos-addicted psychopath they don’t really understand (per Alfred’s Burma story); chaotic psychopath, having destroyed or perverted both the criminal and civil order, leaves no-one to combat crime except Batman—himself now an outlaw—and his dodgy methods. That’s a very rough and simple analysis of what happens, but rough and simple analyses are what Hollywood likes.

Batman was always my favourite superhero, and had the best and most grotesque villains. However, as the years have gone by I’ve been more and more fascinated by the environment in which they operate: a highly inequitable society where a self-involved and media-addled citizenry can’t get their civic act together. I don’t think I’m alone. For example, whatever else you might say about Nolan, he and his art directors have paid a lot of attention to the look-and-feel of Gotham in both movies.

Comment #128: Gracchus.  on  05/07  at  10:57 AM

Been a while since I saw it, but isn’t one of the key plot points of Dark Knight the fact that Wayne/Batman wants to hand over responsibility for Gotham’s crime problem to Harvey Dent, a legitimately elected and (more important to Wayne) competent enforcer of law and order? This doesn’t seem to be the kind of right-wing message Bat’s Libertarian fans want to hear.

That’s the whole point of the movie.  Wayne is supportive of Dent precisely because of that, he tries to keep him from going over to the dark side (the scene where Dent is threatening to execute a mook in cold blood, which also incidentally shows the audience that Dent isn’t as quite sane as everyone thinks), and he allows himself to be branded the suspect in the murders Dent committed precisely so Dent’s reputation, and by extension the concept of legitimate law and order, remains clean.  Even forcing Gordon to turn on him officially, even though he’s just saved the Gordan’s family, is a means to the same end because he doesn’t want the good, honest cop sullied by direct association.

Nolan and Bale’s version of Batman is somewhat different from that of a lot of other portrayals of the character.  In many recent incarnations, Batman is Batman because he feels that he’s the only one capable of standing against the darkness and must always be there to do it.  The current film version is one who’s sure there’s others out there who can push back the darkness, and if they showed up he’d be happy to fade away.

To bring in another iconic character, if Superman showed up on screen in his current normal persona (wildly respected by everyone and recognized as a symbol of hope, as opposed to someone who relies on fear), the current film Batman would retire in a heartbeat.  The comic and animated Baman…enh, not so much.

Comment #129: KeithM  on  05/07  at  07:07 PM

Gracchus:  Armond White, humorless?  But he loved Norbit and Meet Dave!

I just got around to reading this review of the Henri Cartier-Bresson exhibit at MOMA, and the reviewer’s crankiness fits in nicely with the theme of this post.

Comment #130: NY Expat  on  05/09  at  04:49 AM

And PiatoR wins the thread.

PiatoR swiped it shamelessly from “Robot Chicken”.

Comment #131: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/12  at  02:45 AM

Rachel should have just been Girl Two-Face in the first place really.

They spent so much time in the first movie making her basically Girl Harvey Dent, then for whatever reason you get to the second one and it’s like btw so here’s Harvey Dent. Having him die and then Maggie Gyllenhaal gets face-scarred / goes crazy would have been like, the best twist.

Comment #132: Dan  on  05/12  at  04:44 PM

Seitz is behind the times.  The comic-book industry has been doing Dark and Disturbed Superheroes for twenty years now, and it sucks and is boring.  DC just launched their “Brightest Day” company-wide rebranding, which will supposedly return their titles to Silver Age-y optimism and heroics.

Not a chance in hell. They do a head-fake like this every couple of years to rope in the punters before they go back to churning out the emo gorn that the hardcore market craves.

Comment #133: Dan  on  05/12  at  04:50 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.