Showing posts with label Spider-Man. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spider-Man. Show all posts

Monday, 5 October 2020

On Multiverses and the Return of Jamie Foxx's Electro


This past week it was announced Jamie Foxx was in talks to reprise his role as Max Dillon/Electro in the next Spider-Man film starring Tom Holland. The question I have is whether Foxx will be playing the same Electro seen in  The Amazing Spider-Man 2- since Marvel Studios is establishing a multiverse via the Sam Raimi-directed Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness- or if he'll be playing a completely different version of the character- similar to J.K. Simmons returning as an alternate J. Jonah Jameson in Spider-Man Far From Home (which I still haven't seen). Foxx posted on Instagram, teasing he won't be blue this time, implying this will be an Electro unique to the MCU.

TASM 2 wasn't a beloved film-though it does have its fans-and Foxx's take on Electro was compared to the Joel Schumacher Batman villains. By starting over with the character Marvel doesn't have to worry about bringing in that baggage. They can also give him a different character motivation that doesn't have to revolve around Spider-Man. The film can then focus on Spider-Man rather than the larger universe/multiverse.

I still believe a live action Spider-Verse movie could come to fruition. Tobey Maguire returning would have the nostalgic value Michael Keaton will bring to the upcoming Flash film with Ezra Miller. That film will also bring back Ben Affleck's Batman, making it somewhat of a Bat-Verse film. A Spider-Verse film could also give Andrew Garfield the send-off he never got due to the TASM series being cancelled.




The idea of a multiverse is the next stage in building upon the cinematic universes of DC and Marvel, albeit the DCEU is a more loose continuity than the MCU. Miller has already cameoed on the CW Network's Crisis on Infinite Earths crossover event. Said event established that all the previous versions of the DC universe are part of a larger multiverse. The problem, of bringing a multiverse to the big screen is the risk of these kinds of crossovers becoming too gimmicky, though in fairness gimmickry is ingrained in comic book storytelling. The further the movies go with this conceit the more convoluted and alienating it may get for general audiences who may not want to keep track of everything. By the 80s DC comics' continuity became so complicated they needed to fold in everything in to one universe. This was the basis for  the Crisis on Infinite Earths storyline.

As comic book movies become more like their source material audiences may yearn for the earlier films that didn't require as much homework. Comics can often feel very niche and if these movies still want to be the reigning blockbusters they'll have to keep their audiences engaged rather than confused. The idea of a cinematic universe was a gamble that paid off. The question of when the superhero movie bubble will burst- if ever- has long been pondered. The multiverse will be a test of how far this genre can go in replicating the weirder and convoluted aspects of its source material.

So, how do you feel about Jamie Foxx coming back as Electro? Were you a fan of the TASM series? And what are your thoughts about comic book multiverses being brought to the big screen? Comment and let me know.



Tuesday, 10 February 2015

Thoughts on Spider-Man Joining The Marvel Cinematic Universe


Well, it finally happened. Late Monday night it was announced that Spider-Man will now be part of Marvel Studios' shared universe. Marvel and Sony (who have produced the previous five Spider-Man films and retained the film rights to the character for over a decade) reached a deal in which Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel film in 2016 and then get his own solo film in 2017. And as part of this deal Sony will still finance and have creative control over the films.

First off, I feel Spider-Man being in the MCU would've been better a situation if  it had been a clean break. With Sony still having a major role in making these films there's a huge chance Marvel's plans could get muddled. Still, this is a game-changer for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I've long believed it was odd that a shared universe based around Marvel characters didn't include Spider-Man- being Marvel's most iconic character. It's almost equivalent to not having Batman in a shared DC cinematic universe. I understand why Spider-Man couldn't appear in a Marvel movie- rights issues and all- but it still felt like something was missing. So I'm glad that the MCU- while already fleshed out- now feels a little more complete. That, and the prospect of Spider-Man interacting with the other established characters is pretty exciting. Sharing zingers with Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark, sharing his experiences with Chris Evans' Steve Rogers- it'll be fun to see.   

I had mixed feelings on the Amazing Spider-Man films- directed by Marc Webb and starring Andrew Garfield. I wanted to love those films but I think the backlash against the original Sam Raimi films starring Tobey Maguire soured me on that franchise even before the first film came out. Ideally we can finally get pass the bile spewing towards Raimi's films now that we're one more step removed from his trilogy. 




I initially liked elements of the first Amazing Spider-Man but in retrospect I don't feel the film really works. It has major  structure and thematic issues as well as too much studio manhandling. These same problems plagued its sequel as well. While I think Marc Webb is a competent director I don't believe he ever had much creative control over these films- contrary to the claims made by some fans that Webb has a distinct vision for this franchise. At the same time it's unfortunate that plot threads left hanging at the end of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 will likely never be resolved.  Also, is it possible to get Felicity Jones in the MCU as well? If you remember she played Felicia (Hardy) in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. It was only a small role but the film was clearly setting her up to be Black Cat in a later film. She's a lovely actress and I was looking forward to seeing her take on that role.



It's believed that Spider-Man may show up in Captain America: Civil War, since Spider-Man was a major character in that storyline. Though I don't think Peter Parker can reveal his identity to the world in the character's first MCU appearance. Peter revealing he was Spider-Man was impactful because the character had so much history in the comics leading up to the reveal.  However, it's not a bad place to bring Spider-Man. I assume this Peter Parker will have only been Spider-Man for a short period. He's still learning the ropes- or the webs- and he'll be caught between two giant figures- Tony Stark/Iron Man and Steve Rogers/Captain America. He'll have to decide who he wants to side with- or maybe he'll choose further independence rather than any political ideology. Then again, his role in the film may only be a cameo of sorts.




I know many people want Miles Morales to be Spider-Man in the MCU. Miles became Spider-Man after Peter Parker's death in the Ultimate Marvel Universe. I haven't read any of the comics in which Miles appears but many fans love him. Personally- whether they bring in Miles Morales or someone else- I feel Peter should be always be the first Spider-Man.  I understand the need for diversity in these kind of films- something Miles would bring, being Black Hispanic. Still, there's no reason Peter couldn't be African American. That way we can have the original Spider-Man while also having a major hero be non-Caucasian.

As major a deal as this is, it's still hard for me not to feel a tad cynical. This will be the second time Spider-Man has been rebooted and the third cinematic incarnation of the character in only 15. While it's good to keep things fresh- can you imagine going on Spider-Man 6 with Maguire still in the role?- we need a Spider-Man series that can continue beyond 2 installments.  Ideally this deal between Marvel and Sony will help Spider-Man thrive on screen again.  

Thursday, 6 March 2014

Some Thoughts on My Mixed Feelings Towards Marc Webb and "The Amazing Spider-Man" Franchise








Just this past week it was announced that Marc Webb- the director of 2012's Spider-Man reboot The Amazing Spider-Man and this year's sequel The Amazing Spider-Man 2- had signed on to direct the third installment in this new series. This wasn't a huge surprise since this series is so obsessed with universe building- Sony definitely wants to keep on the same director for at least one more film to keep things consistent. But if you remember, Webb almost didn't return to direct The Amazing Spider-Man 2 due to his contract with Fox. For me, this announcement brought my conflicting feelings towards Webb being the director of this franchise-for now- to the surface. Unlike a lot of people I am not really on board on the Webb love train.






Now- to be completely clear- I don't have anything against Webb personally or professionally. I remember really enjoying his debut feature- 2009's (500) Days of Summer- and he deserves a hearty congratulations for breaking in to Hollywood in such a big way. The reasons I'm not in love with the idea of him directing Spider-Man films are somewhat paradoxical. For one, I don't exactly like the idea of a upcoming director wasting the first stage of his film career directing sequels- particularly when they're essentially films that aren't personal works but are films essentially made for Sony. I'd like to see him take on more interesting projects and forge his own path apart from Spider-Man. Of note is that Webb- aside from signing on to The Amazing Spider-Man 3- has also been linked to the project Cold Comfort, based on the book How to Catch a Russian Spy co-written by Ellis Henican. The project sounds interesting and it'd be nice if we could see a non-Spider-Man film from Webb before the third Amazing is released.






My other problem regarding Webb directing the Spider-Man franchise- and this is where things get contradictory- is I don't find Webb that exciting or interesting a director. This isn't to say he's a bad director- he did fine work on (500) Days and there were certain directorial touches in The Amazing Spider-Man I really liked- but overall I just wasn't blown away by his direction in that film. To be fair I don't think The Amazing Spider-Man was ever going to be a director's film. Due to the circumstances regarding its inception the film was always going to be mostly a studio controlled film. That- and the fact it was Webb's first Blockbuster. He likely wasn't confident enough to really bring forth a particular vision-nor would Sony let him.






I am glad, however, that Webb got another go at this universe. With superhero franchises the first film is more of a test run while the second film emerges as a stronger effort- think Bryan Singer's X-Men United and of course Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 does look more promising- more colorful, more action-packed and we're past the origin story stuff. Moreover, people have suggested Webb has more control over this film than the previous installment. Ideally Webb will bring more of his own ideas in to the mix and the film will have a more confident feel. Still, while The Amazing Spider-Man 2 will likely be a good film I get the sense from watching the trailer that'll still feel like it came off a conveyor belt and be more of a  Hollywood product than a singular vision from a great artist.  






Maybe it's superhero fatigue or that I shouldn't be watching trailers. I just can't help but wonder what someone Alfonso Cuaron or Edgar Wright (who's directing Ant-Man with Paul Rudd and Michael Douglas for Marvel) would do with this franchise. When Cuaron came on board the Harry Potter franchise for the third film- Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban- he made what is- in my eyes- the most imaginatively directed and re-watchable of all the Harry Potter films.






For the sake of transparency my mixed feelings towards Webb and these films have a lot to do with the backlash against the Sam Raimi-directed Spider-Man films. I'm okay with seeing someone else's take on the character and universe but the hatred towards those films has turned me off this new franchise to a large degree. Especially when it comes to Cinemablend critic Sean O'Connell being the walking definition of "conflict of interest" as he has become practically a "cheerleader" (his words) for this franchise and acts like The Amazing Spider-Man was completely his vision. I feel O'Connell's love for The Amazing Spider-Man has to do with certain things absent from the Raimi films being present in this new franchise- mechanical web shooters, Gwen Stacy as Peter Parker's first major romance and more sarcastic jokes from Spider-Man. But I don't think these elements being present in the film makes Webb a brilliant auteur. Nevertheless, Raimi is now seen as the man who butchered Spider-Man, the man who couldn't less about fans while Webb is a man of the people who can do no wrong.The film gave what certain fans wanted and now Webb is hailed as some sort of visionary.


The Amazing Spider-Man 2 could be a truly mind-blowing and great film. But it'd have to reach that level for me to get completely excited for a third Marc Webb-directed Spider-Man film. Webb is a solid director and may grow in to a great one in time. But first I think he needs to get out of the Sony/Spider-Man wheelhouse before he can truly bloom.

Friday, 6 December 2013

Trailer Talk: "The Amazing Spider-Man 2"


 

Rejoice true believers. As you all pretty much know, the first official trailer for Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man 2 dropped yesterday. I had, a little shamefully, already watched the leaked Comic Con trailer from this past summer, so I was unsure if I wanted to watch anymore footage, especially since the CC trailer had already shown quite a bit of footage. Still, I was curious to watch the official trailer since it'd be better quality- and when it comes to something like Spider-Man, I just couldn't resist.

The official trailer is actually strikingly different than the CC one. The biggest difference for me is the focus on Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan), childhood friend of Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), than Max Dillon/Electro (Jamie Foxx). While Electro is said to be the main antagonist of the film, this trailer gives me the sense Electro may only be a pawn in a larger plan, a plan that'll lead to the Sinister Six in either the third or fourth film in this franchise. Before the trailer debuted, we pretty much got confirmation that Harry would be the Green Goblin before his father Norman Osborn (Chris Cooper), who we learned in the previous film, and see in this film, is dying. This confirmation came in the form of the close-up of the new poster for the film:



And the trailer also confirms Harry will be our first Green Goblin. DeHaan looks very good in the role, conveying a slightly sinister vibe- though I wonder if it was a little too soon in the series for Harry to go down the bad guy route, particularly when he already had a Harry as GG two movies ago. I know Harry eventually becoming GG is part of the Spider-Man mythology but he wasn't the bad guy right off the bat. Then again, maybe Harry won't be that evil but another pawn of his father Norman and the "evil empire" (as Webb calls it) known as Oscorp.

Cooper has confirmed that this is an introduction to Norman, and I'm starting to get the feeling that Cooper will only have a brief part. The only footage we've seen so far is him in the hospital bed, talking to Harry and telling him, when asked about Peter, "Not everyone has a happy ending." Will this be his only scene?




I'm also getting the feeling the film will go down a route vaguely similar to that of The Dark Knight. Remember in that film the Joker was the main antagonist but once he was out of the picture the film concluded with the confrontation between Batman and Harvey Dent/Two-Face, who was manipulated by the Joker. I think that while Electro may be the central villain, once Spider-Man defeats him, the film will conclude with the confrontation between Spider-Man and Harry/GG. However, it'll be the reverse of The Dark Knight since, as I mentioned, earlier, Electro will the pawn.

I do wish we got more of Electro's back story in the trailer since if you're not aware of the backstory we've been told by Foxx, we don't get much context for Electro's speech near the end of the trailer about a world without Spider-Man.

Amazing Spider-Man 2 trailer screencap

 

I'm still wondering how much of a threat Aleksei Sytsevich/Rhino (Paul Giamatti) will present in the film. I previously assumed he was only there at the beginning of the film but I think that after Spider-Man defeats him the first time he may come back with his mechanical Rhino suit, which will tie in to Oscorp.



In regards to Oscorp, I think the biggest take away from the trailer was this image of who I presume is the shadowy figure from The Amazing Spider-Man's mid-credits teaser walking past some familiar items:


Those do appear to be Vulture's wings and Doctor Octopus' arms, which is pretty awesome. Colm Feore was rumoured to be playing Adrian Toomes some time ago. It was never confirmed but I think it's a possibility. I don't know how I feel about all these villain being connected to Oscorp however. I understand they're trying to create an interconnected and expansive universe but somehow, and this has mentioned by others, having everything connected to Oscorp makes this world feel smaller rather than larger. It also somewhat betrays the fun and randomness of those early Spider-Man comics, when the creators would just make up random and bizarre characters without much connection to each other. Also, I hope this series isn't just about eventually making a Sinister Six film. While the concept of the Sinister Six have been around since the early Spider-Man comics, this isn't like The Avengers where they're a central part of the Marvel Universe. Spider-Man stories should never put Spider-Man in the background.

The trailer also brings back Peter's father, Richard Parker (Campbell Scott). My biggest criticism of the previous film was how the film didn't do enough with the story of Peter's parents disappearance, but rather shamefully made it a mystery to be played over the course of the series. Ideally I would hope the mystery gets closure in this film.

I wrote an article a while ago concerning why it'd be wise to keep Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) alive throughout The Amazing Spider-Man 2: http://whatculture.com/film/amazing-spider-man-2-7-reasons-makes-sense-keep-gwen-stacy-alive.php, though I assumed that without Norman as GG she'd probably live until the third film. While I still stand by my points, I have a feeling Gwen may meet her iconic fate in this film since we are getting an actual GG. There's a shot in the trailer, which I assume is from the fight between Spider-Man and GG at a clock tower, where Spider-Man shoots his webbing downwards, as if to catch something, or someone:



Could he be trying to save Gwen? I think so. While I think Norman's presence in this series may be weakened
if he's not the one to actually knock her off a great height, I could see Gwen's death actually working in this film.



We also get our first, brief, look at Felicity Jones' role unnamed role, said to be someone with a romantic relationship with Harry. I feel Jones's role will be small. Unfortunate since Jones is a splendid actress. I hope I'm wrong and she gets some significant screen time.

Amazing Spider-Man 2 trailer screencap
 
 
So, the trailer definitely has me intrigued, and that final sequence between Electro and Spider-Man does look cool. Though I wonder if the movie will just be "cool" or if it'll be something that'll be a genre classic. I sometimes wonder if the great irony of the superhero movie boom will be that not many of them live on in 50 years. Anyway, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 opens on May 2nd, 2014. See you there.




 

Sunday, 26 August 2012

Oscar Season Ponderings: "The Dark Knight Rises" and The Superhero Barrier




The superhero genre may be the last barrier that needs to be broken in terms of the academy awards. Despite being critically acclaimed, films like Spider-Man 2 and even The Dark Knight have failed to snag Best Picture nominations. Though to be fair, Christopher Nolan's first two Batman films have a combined nine Oscar nominations, eight of those belonging to The Dark Knight, including wins for Heath Ledger's iconic turn as the Joker as well as sound editing. Ledger's performance was rightly honoured but The Dark Knight missing out on both Best Director and Best Picture nominations and were perceived as snubs in many circles. Some feel the Academy's decision to expand the Best Picture field to ten nominees was in response to the criticisms regarding the film not getting a nomination, or at least to allow genre films like The Dark Knight to get a nomination. The following year the sci-fi film District 9 actually received a Best Picture nomination and Nolan's next film Inception, another sci-fi film, received a nomination for Best Picture.

Now the final film of Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises, has been released to strong critical support. The question is, can The Dark Knight Rises be the first superhero film to receive a Best Picture nomination? While I can't say it's a done deal but I do feel it has a chance. Why I feel it has a chance can be boiled down to a few select reasons. First, the expanded Best Picture field allows for films that may have got lost in the shuffle if there were only five nominees. Even if the film doesn't score directing or acting nominations, it could still score a nomination, similar to Inception.

Second, while The Dark Knight Rises still has a guy dressed up in a bat suit, it's not as self-consciously "comic booky" as The Avengers or even The Amazing Spider-Man, which actually takes some inspiration from Nolan's Batman Begins. Not that "comic booky" is a bad thing, just that it may turn off certain members of the academy who may not be enamoured with the superhero genre. The Dark Knight Rises, similar to the previous film, is stripped down and more stylistically realistic, which allows it to just exist as a movie about a city unconsciously living a lie and an outside terrorist force using economic crisis as a means to divide the city before destroying it. It's not that The Avengers or The Amazing Spider-Man can't be enjoyed as standalone movies, just that The Dark Knight Rises may allow certain academy members to put aside their biases and see how Nolan's universe relates and parallels our own world.

Then there's Nolan as a possible Best Director contender. While Nolan has received nominations for his screenwriting on Memento and Inception he has yet to be nominated for Best Director. If there's any feeling among the academy that he's overdue, it could lead to him getting nominated and that may also go hand in hand with votes for a Best Picture nomination.

The Lord of the Rings is usually brought up in situations like this, with this being the final film of Nolan's trilogy. The final Lord of the Rings film won Best Picture and that is usually seen as the academy honouring the entire trilogy. The Lord of the Rings, however, had received Best Picture nominations for the first two films in the trilogy, while Batman Begins and The Dark Knight did not. The academy really has to be brought on board in terms of this being the final film and the culmination of a very epic and ambitious saga. Warner Bros., which has produced all the Batman films since Tim Burton's Batman in 1989, definitely has to campaign hard for this film.  Unfortunately, something's telling me The Dark Knight Rises may be the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 of this year: the solid and satisfying finale that won't get honoured due to there not being enough academy support for the franchise leading up to the finale.

The superhero genre is still the final barrier in terms of getting a Best Picture nomination. This is not to say a film has to receive Oscar nominations to be considered a great or important film. Nolan's trilogy stands pretty tall amongst the superhero genre and getting or not gettng a Best Picture nomination won't change that. It'd be nice to for the film to be among the Best Picture nominees this year especially since it's a film of the moment and the ideal Oscars are always ones where the nominated films represent how filmmakers are interpreting the era we live in.

I'm not certain The Dark Knight Rises deserves a nomination for Best Picture over some of the films coming out this fall but I feel it still deserves consideration due to how it ties together all the themes and ideas of the previous two films in a cohesive and exciting and yet ambitious way- as well as its ambition and willingness to create a blockbuster entertainment that can be both grim and terrifying as well as being a thrilling action epic.

Monday, 9 July 2012

Some Thoughts on "The Amazing Spider-Man 2"



With The Amazing Spider-Man being a solid hit, both critically and commercially, it's inevitable that nothing's going to stop a sequel from going forward. I want to talk a little about what plot points and characters will probably be in the film and how I'd like to see them developed.

Mary Jane and Harry Osborn

Both Mary Jane Watson and Harry Osborn were absent from The Amazing Spider-Man, making it the first Spider-Man film the characters didn't appear in. No doubt they'll be in the sequel since Harry's father Norman Osborn will most likely also make an appearance. Harry is Peter Parker's best friend and that adds some dimension to the fact Harry's father transforms in to Peter and Spider-Man's arch nemesis the Green Goblin. Peter also didn't seem to have any real friends in The Amazing Spider-Man aside from Gwen Stacy so it'll be nice to see Peter establish a relationship with another guy. I would have Harry feel a little weird being a wealthy kid at a regular high school. He wouldn't know if people liked him just because he was rich or because he was a decent guy. Peter would be the only one who wouldn't care either way if Harry was rich or not.

If I was introducing Mary Jane in to the mix I wouldn't want it to be an automatic love triangle. I don't want Gwen being "Get away from my man bitch" right off the bat. I would have Gwen and Mary Jane be friends at first, only for things to be complicated when she becomes attracted to Peter. That way, what's at stake isn't merely Gwen and Peter's relationship but her and Mary Jane's as well. Peter would ultimately feel Mary Jane was a little too superfical for his tastes and would eventually reaffirm his love to Gwen. This would be the start of Mary Jane's arc from a carefree and flightly teenager to a mature young woman. Gwen's death in the comics is what brings her and Peter closer together and eventually leads to their romance. Mary Jane needs to be developed really well in order for us to believe Peter could fall in love with her after Gwen's death. The first film established a really strong bond between Peter and Gwen, thanks to strong performances from Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Whoever is cast as Mary Jane will have to have a similar chemistry with Garfiled as well as with Stone. Stone was a fan favourite for the role and was even thought to be playing Mary Jane before it was confirmed she'd be playing Gwen. I'd still give anything to hear Stone purr the line "Face it Tiger, you've just hit the jackpot." It'd actually be funny to have Stone play both roles, with the running joke being that no one notices Gwen and Mary Jane look alike. It'd also be very Vertigo-ish. Hey, Peter already has a Rear Window poster in his room, so it'd be another Hitchcock reference. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is also a big fan favourite and I'd be all for that casting.

Villains

A superhero film is only as strong as its villain, particularly for a sequel. After the using a major villain like the Lizard,
who'd be strong enough to carry the movie? I don't think Doc Ock should be used in another second movie. We don't want to rush the black suit/Venom plot line again. Mysterio would be a fascinating choice because he attacks Spider-Man mentally with illusions. Two villains could work, especially if you use the Lizard, who's already been established and has a special connection to Peter.

It's almost inevitable and unavoidable that the Green Goblin will be the villain. Norman Osborn is mentioned but never seen in The Amazing Spider-Man but he'll definitely make an appearance in the sequel. What's already interesting about this interpretation of Norman is he's dying. Curt Connor's research was being used to cure Norman. What cured Connors turned him in to the Lizard and will probably warp Norman's mind and create the Green Goblin personality. In the Ultimate continuity of the Marvel Universe, Norman actually turns in to a Goblin creature rather it just being a mental transformation. It'd be hard to do this since we've already have a creature villain. That is unless they wait until the third movie to have Green Goblin as the villain.

The Death of Gwen Stacy

The moment the Green Goblin shows up in this series, we know that Gwen will have to die. It's not something to look forward to but it feels necessary for the development of Peter's character. Even Stone feels it needs to happen. At the end of The Amazing Spider-Man Peter goes back on his promise to Gwen's father to stay away from Gwen in order to protect her. While Peter's turnaround has received criticism, it's a good foreshadowing of what Peter's recklessness will bring upon Gwen and the guilt he'll feel. Garfield and Stone have already made us love Peter and Gwen as a couple and I feel if done right, Gwen's death will have an emotional impact as powerful as it was in the comics.

The question is, will Gwen die in this film or will her death occur in the third film of what is reportedly going to be a trilogy. I feel her and Peter's relationship will have to be developed a little more before she dies. If that can happen in the second film without being rushed, I think her death in this film could work. You also don't want the series to get bogged down by the same romance. Shifting focus from Gwen to Mary Jane will keep things fresh.

J. Jonah Jameson

Old J.J.J is a very important supporting character in the Spider-Man mythology. He's constantly trying to turn the city against Spider-Man while unknowingly employing the very man he despises. Back when Jameson was going to appear in this film, John Slattery from Mad Men was rumoured for the part. I think if anyone could take the reigns from J.K. Simmons and do Jameson justice it'd be Slattery. Slattery can be the arrogant blowhard who you find yourself loving anyway.

The Untold Story

The Amazing Spider-Man was heavily promoted as "The Untold Story," referring to the mystery behind Peter's parents disappearing when he was a child. While that angle is still in the film, much of that subplot has also been cut out. From my understanding, we were going to get a twist similar to Ang Lee's Hulk film regarding Peter's genetic background. I would love to see a Director's Cut of this film but I have a feeling the cut material will be retconned for the sequel.

Thursday, 5 July 2012

But Those Are The Best Kind: "The Amazing Spider-Man"



I think it was always a controversial decision to reboot the Spider-Man franchise. I remember how anti-climatic it felt in early 2010 when the reboot was announced. It did feel a little soon to be hitting the reset button but now 2 and half years later, there's more of a distance between the previous trilogy and the new film, The Amazing Spider-Man. I also said to myself that I would judge this movie only when I finally saw it. Now that it's out, what do I think? Well, I'm a little divided. It's a pretty solid reboot of the series with a wonderful and sexy romance at the center but I felt there were elements that could have been fleshed out and once it reaches its last act, the action and spectacle is not as thrilling as it could have been.

Essentially, the film is a retelling of Spider-Man's origin story. This film doesn't have the advantage of reboots like Batman Begins or Casino Royale, both of which had a lot of leg room to flesh out their protagonists' origin stories. In Tim Burton's Batman, Bruce Wayne had already established himself as Batman. We got flashbacks to the night his parents was murdered but we didn't see the process of him becoming Batman. I think Batman Begins did a great job of showing us what Bruce Wayne had to go through, mentally and physically, in order to become Batman. Casino Royale, based on the first James Bond novel by Ian Fleming, showed us Bond's first mission, how he earned his 00-status and how he was betrayed by the woman he loved, cementing his cavlier attitude towards women. Both films went behind the mystique of these characters, giving us greater insight than what had come before. I don't think Spider-Man has that same kind of mystique, and since Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man film already gave us pretty much all we needed to know about Spider-Man's origin, The Amazing Spider-Man can't have first dibs on the origin story. I was weary going in to this film of having to see the origin story once again. Surprisingly, despite re-telling this story, the film makes it enjoyable.

 This has to do with how the film's overall atmosphere. While Raimi's first 2 Spider-Man films allowed for plenty of humane and grounded moments, this film takes this one step further. It essentially does for Spider-Man what Christopher Nolan did for Batman- but in its own way that suits the character. While Nolan's Batman films are stripped down and gritty, they're not really grounded. "Grounded" is a word Andrew Garfield, who plays Peter Parker/Spider-Man, used when discussing the tone of the film. He said if him and the filmmakers tried to be too much like Batman, they'd fail. Fortunately the movie understands you can be grounded wtithout being overly serious and gritty.

The film is at its strongest when it's just about Peter Parker and his relationships to the people around him. The relationship that comes through strongest is probably the one between him and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). Garfield and Stone are really wonderful together, really making you believe these two kids are falling in love- one of hardest things to do in film. What I liked most about their chemistry was how sexy their romance was, which sometimes is lacking in super-hero romances. As everyone probably already knows, Gwen Stacy dies in the comics. The Green Goblin throws her from a bridge and Spider-Man catches her, breaking her neck. If played pitch perfectly in the next film, it'll truly be one of the most heartbreaking and powerful moments in a superhero film. Garfield does a fine job of not overdoing the brooding young teenage rebel. He brings a lightness of touch to the role that lifts him out any possible stereotype. Stone is a lovely actress and always makes it believable that a man could fall in love with her. But Gwen's not just a delicate flower but a confident young woman who knows what she wants. Denis Leary plays her father Captain George Stacy, who feels that Spider-Man is a dangerous vigilante. Leary is convincing as a strightlaced authorial father figure and he has a nice bit with Stone in the middle. It seems

The main marketing ploy of this film involved telling audiences this was "the untold story," meaning that it would explore the mystery behind why Peter's parents left him. Early in the film Peter discovers a briefcase that belonged to his father Richard (Campbell Scott). He discovers a connection between his father and Dr. Curt Conners (Rhys Ifans), who works at Oscorp (and we all know what Oscorp is!). Conners was his father's partner, and both him and Richard were working on cross genetics within species- experiments that would have allowed Connors to grow back his rght arm. Essentially, Peter helps Connors continue he and his father's work, creating the formula that helps Connors grow back his arm. Of course, Connors is the ultimate "Side effects may include" cautionary tale. Connors, aside from growing back an arm, also grows a tale and becomes a giant lizard.

I would have liked for the film to've played up the relationship between Peter and Connors. This is a man who may have the key to Peter growing up without parents and I wish there were more scenes, even a scene, where Peter really tries to find the truth behind their disappearance. Connors being a mentor figure to Peter would've also been an a good angle to play up. In the comics and animated series Connor also has a wife and son. It would added something to Connors' arc if we saw how his transformation affected his family.

One element of Spider-Man's origin that I think should have been emphasized more is how Peter uses his powers for selfish reasons before he indirectly causes his Uncle Ben's (Martin Sheen) death. While Peter is still responsible for Ben's death, his decision to become Spider-Man seems based more revenge than on knowing "With great power comes great responsibility." I'm okay with Peter wanting revenge but I feel there should have been a moment where he acknowledges the responsibility he has to help people. Okay...to be fair, he does say it's his job to stop the Lizard. Speaking of Uncle Ben, Sheen brings a good balance of warmth and sterness to the role. Sally Field is underused as Aunt May and I hope she's developed more in the next film.

This film uses more practical effects than the previous trilogy, allowing a more realistic sense of Spider-Man swinging  through the air. I have to say though, while the action sequences are well staged, I don't feel any of them actually blew my mind. That, and all the Spider-Man action seemed jammed in to the final act. The whole final act isn't as well paced as the rest of the film.

Some of the "untold story" aspect of the film seems to have been cut out of the film. I understand this mystery surrounding Peter's parents will probably be an overarching story in a supposed trilogy but I kind of wish the mystery would have been resolved. I think it would have made for a more fully rounded film. So, as I said, I'm divided. Garfield and Stone are so good and the beginnings of Peter becoming Spider-Man started to convince this was probably the best Spider-Man movie yet. And I think that's still a possibility if we get a director's cut of the film. Maybe we have to wait until The Amazing Spider-Man 2 to get that film. Ultimately, this is a solid and enjoyable film that shows potential for the return of the Spider-Man franchise.

P.S- For all the gushing about how "witty" Spider-Man was going to be in this film, he doesn't make that make any more jokes than in the original trilogy.    

Thursday, 28 June 2012

I've Always Been Standing At Your Door: "Spider-Man 2"


I find that superhero franchises occasionally follow a certain patter, which is their first film is usually a solid first go-around with the character(s) but one that, on retrospect, feels like a set up for bigger and better things. This is what it's like watching Bryan Singer's first X-Men. I even find Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, which I think is one the best depictions of an origin story on film and is a good standalone movie, only scratches the surface of Nolan would do in The Dark Knight. Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man film is another example of a director and franchise finding their legs (in this case eight of them), doing a straight forward origin story and setting up the blocks for future stories. Spider-Man 2 is the payoff to the set up and a wonderfully relatable and energetic superhero epic. It's the best of Sam Raimi's trilogy and the one of the strongest superhero films of the last decade.

I like when we can just jump in to the action in a superhero film. I don't nescessarily mean action sequences, just that we're jumping in to the character's life as a superhero, which we do in Spider-Man 2. I like this because it feels like when we read a comic book and are shoved right in to a story with already established characters. Spider-Man 2 gives a sense of what's it like being a superhero after a while, once the awe of discovery is over, and you've settled into a rut where you're just trying to balance being a superhero while still trying to live a normal life, and despearately just wanting a normal existence, particularly so you can be with the person you love. Spider-Man 2 opens with a billboard of Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) staring down at Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), and Peter tells us "She looks at me everyday." This opening image and narration personifies Peter's guilt over breaking Mary Jane's heart at the end of the first film, unable to tell her the truth about why he couldn't be with her- as well as his crushing desire to be with her. It also puts her high above Peter, where he's always metaphorically put her, like Cleopatra, Joan of Arc or Aphrodite. Yes- I just made that joke.

Peter loses his job as a Pizza Delivery man after he has to save some kids before finally getting the pizzas to their destinations. The patron (Emily Deschanel from Bones) won't pay because Peter works for one of those 30 minutes or less places. It's a nicely relatable situation that the film specializes in. If you were a superhero you would probably lose your job because you'd always have to save a kitten or something. Okay...probably something more extreme than that but you get the idea. The film, despite its giant spectacle, is all about these kind of down to earth conflicts. Peter can't get to class and his grades are slipping, he can't get to Mary Jane's play on time, she's going to marry someone else, his best friend Harry (James Franco) hates Spider-Man because he believes he killed his father Norman, who of course was also the Green Goblin. On top of all this, Peter starts to lose his powers. In one very funny scene, he has to, in his Spider-Man suit, has to ride an elevator with another passenger. Adding insult to injury, the passenger doesn't even realize it's actually Spider-Man next to him. This deflates any kind of confidence Peter has while in the suit and makes the suit an embarassment to him in this situation. It's a funny scene but also one that emphasizes how, despite Peter's remarkable powers, he's still a guy who can't catch a break.

One of the most quietly powerful scenes in the film is when Peter tells Aunt May that he was responsible for Uncle Ben's murder. It captures beautifully the pain of having to tell someone horrible secret and how Peter's guilt also extends to robbing his aunt of her husband.  It's around this time that Peter has quit being Spider-Man- essentially going back on motto of "With great power comes great responsibility." While it may seem like the film is having Peter learn this lesson again, it's a little more complicated this time around. Peter begins to feel he was never meant to be a hero- that's he just not up to it, which has a lot to do with his losing his powers. It's only when Aunt May tells him that everyone needs a hero, that he realizes it is his destiny to be Spider-Man-maybe even regardless of Uncle Ben's death.

Of course, you always have to have an atagonist in a superhero film. In this film, it's Dr. Otto Octavious (Alfred Molina), a brilliant scientist, who, after a science demonstration gone wrong, has his mechanical tentacles fused in to his body, making him Dr. Octopus. I love how J. Jonah Jameson remarks about the odds of a guy named Otto Octavious having extra arms like an octopus. Now, fans have criticized the film for making Doc Ock sympathetic rather than just an evil scientist like he is in the comics. I like how Doc Ock does get more of an arc in this film-from good to evil to redemption. I also really enjoy Molina's performance as well. He goes from the warm, mentor figure to Peter to a man out to achieve his goals at any cost.

The fight scenes between Spider-Man and Doc Ock are terrifically staged and I think an improvement on the action in the first film. The train sequence is a highlight, especially when Peter has to stop a train after Doc Ock has destroyed the control panel. Using just his webbing, Peter is able to slow the train down. It's a great moment because it shows how powerful Peter can be.  At the same time, we see how this takes a great deal out of him. The people on the train pass him down over their heads before setting him down. When he wakes up, he's maskless. Many fans don't like how often he's unmasked in the films but I think this is a beautiful moment. Peter is afraid that everyone can see his face but ultimately what the people see isn't "Peter Parker" but a hero. When a child gives him back his mask he calls him "Spider-Man." That's who he is in that moment.

Mary Jane's motivation in this film seems to be to make Peter her boyfriend. Looking back on the film, I wish she'd had more scenes to herself to breath as a seperate character. She also becomes the damsel in distress...again. I do however really like how she takes initiative at the end of the film and tells Peter she can live with the risks of him being Spider-Man. This is after she learns the truth during the final fight between Spider-Man an Doc Ock. It's a strong character moment. She brings balance to Peter's life, allowing him to be with her but still be Spider-Man. She tells him to "Go get'em tiger" to which he dons his costume and goes out the window to fight crime. The final shot of Mary Jane, looking out the window, knowing he could die, takes us by surprise, particularly after the excitement of Spider-Man swinging by helicopters. It reminds us the difficulties that lie ahead for this couple, a very relatable idea regarding being a superhero. You can have love but there will always be risks.

Monday, 25 June 2012

With Great Power...: "Spider-Man"



With The Amazing Spider-Man swinging in to theatres pretty soon, what better time to revisit the series that brought the webslinger to the big screen in the first place, the first movie of which, along with Bryan Singer's first X-Men filmled the charge for the superhero films of the last decade. Today, it's easy to take a film like Spider-Man for granted- especially the younger generation. We live in a world where cinema seems to be dominated by superhero films. We have three Spider-Man films and a fourth is on the way. Heck, we got The Avengers this year, which is more than any comic book fan could ask for. But back in 2002, getting a Spider-Man movie was a big deal. I remember being so excited to see it and when I did I absolutely loved it. There's been a lot of criticism directed towards Sam Raimi's original Spider-Man trilogy with Marc Webb's new film coming. I knew watching the first film again after several years, I'd be affected by those criticisms and admittedly I was worried I would have to admit that the film wasn't very good.

I was pleasantly surprised that I still enjoy this film. While it's not as strong as it's sequel, Spider-Man 2, and feels a little too boxed in by being an origin story, it's still a funny, humane and visually exciting film that does a good job of embracing its comic book origins while still trying to tell a down to earth romance.

The film is essentially a origin story- two to be exact. The primary origin is that of Spider-Man- Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), a smart but shy high school student who gets bitten by a genetically enhanced spider, which gives him spider like  powers. The second origin belongs to the film's antagonist, the Green Goblin. Norman Osborn (Willem Dafoe) is the CEO of the manufacturing company Oscorp, who, after testing a performance enhancing chemical on himself, becomes a Jekyll/Hyde character, the Green Goblin being his Hyde.

Having these origins play out simultaneously, albeit with a stronger focus on Peter, emphasizes an important archetype of not just the superhero genre but literature itself, which is that the hero and antagonist are mirror images of each other. Both Peter and Norman are brillant men who have something freakish happen to them. In Peter's case, he uses his powers to help people after being responsible for his Uncle Ben's (Cliff Robertson) murder. In Norman's case, the Goblin wants to help Norman by taking revenge on Norman's enemies. Norman's relationship to Peter and the Goblin's to Spider-Man are also similar. Norman is the father of Peter's friend Harry (James Franco) but treats Peter like the son he never had. Goblin wants Spider-Man to join forces with him. I would have like for them to've played up the surrogate father angle between Peter and Norman. When Norman tells Peter at the end "I've been like a father to you, be a son to me," it's kind of a bizarre line because there aren't enough scenes between Norman and Peter. Maybe it's just a ruse by the Goblin to throw Peter off but I still would have liked that angle fleshed out.

On this recent viewing I actually found a lot of the Norman stuff was shoved in to the background, particularly when he starts becoming aware of the Goblin personality inside of him. I wish more scenes were dedicated to this transformation as well as his relationship with Harry.

The real focus of the film is the romance between Peter and Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). Spider-Man is essentially a love story-Peter even sets this up in his opening narration, telling us "it all started with a girl," which looking back at it now makes me think, "No Peter, it started with a spider bite." The romance is very sweet and Maguire and Dunst make you feel there's a connection between these two people that can't quite be spoken. What's interesting about the relationship between Peter and Mary Jane is while it's Peter who's always been in love with her, the movie is secretly about Mary Jane falling in love with Peter. The irony is by the time she learns she loves him, Peter feels he has to push her away in order to protect her. It was quite a bold move to end the film on such a bittersweet note- but it's the right one for Peter Parker- a guy who has to sacrifice a lot in order to be a hero.     
One element of this film, and the Raimi films in general, fans are disappointed by is that Spider-Man isn't as sarcastic and snarky as he is in the comics. I think this is because Raimi is homaging the 1960s era of Spider-Man and by my memory of recently reading those early comics, wasn't as sarcastic as we usually think of him. Also, he's still jokey and goofy in the film.  During the wrestling match he tells his opponent "That''s a cute outfit. Did your husband give it to you?" I also like when the Goblin asks him if he's in or out, regarding joining forces, and Spider-Man with "It's you who's out Gobby. Out of your mind."

In the comics Peter builds mechanical webshooters but some people prefer the organic webshooters and feel it makes sense they'd be part of Peter's powers. It's actually a pretty funny debate and I don't mean that in a mocking way. I like the old school webshooters and am looking forward to seeing them in the new film.

Maguire seems to get a lot of hate which is unfortunate because he gives a pretty solid performance. He goes from the shy outsider who only wants to get with Mary Jane to the man who walks away from her at the end with a stoicism that suggests a man who has accepted he can never go back to living a completely normal life. Dafoe and J.K. Simmons, who plays J. Jonah Jameson are the actors who are clearly having the most fun, especially since they get the most "comic-booky" roles. Dafoe, even behind a big greeb helmet creates a wonderfully sinister voice and attitude and I love the scene where Norman is having a conversation with the Goblin personality through a mirror. Simmons is one of the most spot on castings in a superhero film. Simmons gets the insufferable blowhard known as J.J.J down to a tee. I also liked Cliff Robertson and Rosemary Harris as Uncle Ben and Aunt May. I wished there was a few more scenes between Uncle Ben and Peter but I think Robertson exudes the warmth and wisdom needed to show why his death matters so much to Peter and haunts him when he realizes he's responsible.

Visually, it creates wonderful comic book visuals like Spider-Man's first fight with the Goblin and Spider-Man's dodging of Goblin's razors. I think my favourite shot in the film is when Peter climbs a wall for the first time and the camera tilts as he's climbing, making him look horizontal on the wall.

The movie does try to condense a lot in to its running time. As I mentioned before I would've liked more Uncle Ben and more Norman leading up to his transformation. The film's also held back by being an origin story, meaning that much of the film is going over stuff we already know from the comics. It's only when we get to the sequel can we jump right in to story about Peter Parker being Spider-Man. Still, I can't undervalue how important this movie was in my life- and to the decade of costume crimefighters it was part of.   

Sunday, 29 April 2012

James Bondifying the Superhero







                                                         


In a recent interview, Kevin Feige, the President of Marvel Studios, discussed the future of the Iron Man franchise once its star Robert Downey Jr. decides to bow out. In the interview he references the character who has gone through the most plastic surgery in 50 years, James Bond:

"I think Bond is a good example. Let’s put it this way: I hope Downey makes a lot of movies for us as Stark. If and when he doesn’t, and I’m still here making these movies, we don’t take him to Afghanistan and have him wounded again. I think we James Bond it."

Now, the whole idea of superhero franchies going down the James Bond route has been brought up before on the internet and thinking about it, I really like this idea of superhero franchises having a long running continuity like the James Bond franchise has, or had pre Daniel Craig. In fact, the James Bond film franchise has been like a comic book in that James Bond doesn't really age, and if he does, he gets a little younger once a new actor comes in.

A James Bond continuity would also benefit these franchises by allowing characters to develop over a long period of time and, unlike superhero trilogies like Spider-Man and X-Men, not feel like they're only scratching the surface of these characters' universes condensing every villain in to three movies.

 I wouldn't nessecarily want this approach taken with the Iron Man franchise though. I'm not familar enough witity h the Iron Man comics to be attached to that particular part of the Marvel Universe. That, and I think it'd be really hard to recast Tony Stark when the time comes. I don't know how close Downey is to the Tony Stark of the comics but for me, he is Tony Stark. There's also the problem of the continuity set us as a lead in to The Avengers- if there's more Avengers movies after the inevitable sequel, it'll be a jarring casting change, particularly for one of the lead actors.

For me, I'd most like to see a James Bond like continuty with the post Christopher Nolan Batman series and the new Spider-Man series. Those two universes I think deserve to develop over time. I want to see Peter Parker move past being a teenager and a college student. I want to see him fall in love with Mary Jane after the death of Gwen Stacy and eventually marry her. Now, to be fair, I'm not ready for a Batman reboot quite yet, and may not even be ready by 2015. I do really wish Warner Bros. would just let the Nolan Batman films be the Batman films for another ten years or so. But when the new franchise comes, I think the James Bond route would be ideal.

Of course, theres's a problem with re-casting Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne. The pre-Craig Bond films, despite a loose continuty, are self contained adventures, with Bond always sort of being Bond. If Peter were to lose Gwen in a third Spider-Man film and then Andrew Garfield leaves the role, only to have a new actor mourn her in a fourth film, it'd be jarring. If  we're to really grow to love these characters, an actor has to be committed to the role for a while.

It's a little exhausting thinking about the future of superhero franchises but also fascinating. With a long form continuity within films, which we've already begun to see in the years leading up to The Avengers, comic book movies genuinely seem to becoming more like the comics that spawned them.






Wednesday, 18 April 2012

The Movies of the Decade: The Dark Knight (2008)



This is a new series I'm starting up where I'll talk about some of the most fascinating films of the last decade.

It's hard to underestimate what a pop culture phenomonon Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight was back when it premiered in the summer of 2008. In an era where a film can make tons of money at the box office but leave no lasting impression on the audience, I think The Dark Knight really got under people's skins and in to their souls, and brought them back for multiple viewings. Nolan had already helped relaunch the Batman franchise with Batman Begins in 2005. it brought Batman back to his darker roots after the campy Batman & Robin. It's a very fine film but when this sequel came along, it seemed had done more than just make a good sequel, he tapped in to themes both relevant to our times and also to Batman's long history. It was the right super hero film at the right time.

We were nearing the end of a decade which saw the rise of the super hero film as a genre in of itself but by the time 2008 came by, both the Spider-Man and X-Men franchises had disappointed with their third installments and Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, as well as Ang Lee's Hulk failed to both restart and start their title characters' respective franchises. The summer of 2008 had already brought us the promising franchise start up Iron Man and the return of the Hulk in The Incredible Hulk, and Nolan's film completed the resurgence of excitement in superhero films. But more than that, The Dark Knight, for me, represents one the most, if not the most ambitious and intriguing superhero film of the last several years.

It's a little hard to talk about what The Dark Knight is about because it's about so many things. It's probably Christopher Nolan's most thematically dense film to date. In writing this retrospective I'm going to focus on some of the film's themes and issues one at a time

The City

The city has always been important to the superhero. Superman has Metropolis, Spider-Man has New York- and of course Batman has Gotham City. The city is important to these characters because of the way in which its citizens react to these super-hero figures. The role of the city helps us relate as readers and/or viewers to these fictional worlds. How would I react if some one like Batman or Spider-Man started to fight crime in my city. Nolan has said he wanted The Dark Knight to be a "city movie" in the vein of Michael Mann's Heat, from which The Dark Knight draws inspiration- and The Dark Knight is one of the best representation of  a city's relationship to a superhero- maybe the best.

One of the essential ideas in The Dark Knight is how Batman (Christian Bale) becomes such an integral a part of Gotham that he not only helps it but also brings upon it someone like the Joker. Batman, in many ways he helps shape the fate of the city. I'm largely thinking of the end of the film where he takes the fall for Harvey Dent's (Aaron Eckhart) crimes. It's Batman who sacrifices his reputation in order to save Harvey's. Batman feels Gotham deserves to have its faith rewarded rather than crushed.

You Either Die a Hero or You Live Long Enough to See Yourself Become the Villain

One of the central questions in The Dark Knight is what it means to be a hero. It also asks if heroism isn't enough, if you have to become something more than a hero to really change things. Batman's sacrifice at the end of the film is the culmination of what's been hinted at earlier in the film by Alfred (Michael Caine), who had told Rachel that Bruce Wayne, by not revealing himself as Batman to the Joker, was being more than a hero.

Batman becomes more than a hero by preserving Harvey's image as a hero. To be a true hero you s have to allow someone else to that iamge, even if you don't. Harvey, despite becoming a vengeful murderer, deserves to have his reputation intact.

The ending of the film makes me ask this: Even though people believe in Harvey Dent, what about the people who believe in Batman, who viewed him as their hero? I think that's one of ending's dilemmas. Batman and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) make a decision on the spot to go through with this plan, there's not much time to think.

The Dark Knight also acknowledges that even Bruce Wayne wants to hang up the cape and cowl, even though deep down, and emphasized later by Rachel's (Maggie Gyllenhall) letter, he'll always need to be Batman. When Harvey dies so does Bruce's chance at a normal life. Rachel's death also leaves a hole in his soul. Rachel was the one Bruce wanted to settle down with- though even if she had lived, she had chosen to be with Harvey. I think Bruce has to accept his place as Batman even if his orginal intentions are compromised by taking the blame for Harvey's murders.

Even before Batman has to take the fall for these murders, the film says that the line between Batman and his nemesis the Joker is very thin. The film implies that Joker (Heath Ledger), like Batman, has a troubled past, though due to Joker's conflicting backstories, we're not quite sure what from his past led this man to become the Joker. This is very much in line with the comics' representation of the Joker. The Joker's conflicting backstories in this film are in direct opposition to Batman's definitive, unchanging backstory, the murder of his parents- but essentially, Bruce Wayne' dawning of the bat suit and Batman persona is not exactly a sane choice and Bruce could have easily gone down a different path after his parents were killed- and still could if pushed too far. As the Joker says near the end of the film, "Madness is like gravity. All you need is a little push." Bruce could have easily become the Joker. This is what I think attracts the Joker to Batman, why he tells him "You complete me." The Joker needs a foil like him, someone who stands outside of society and outside of traditonal psychology.

 Introduce a Little Anarchy

Coming back to Gotham City, The Dark Knight, at it's broadest, is about a city on the verge of destroying itself from within. Ultimately, it's not Batman who saves the city but the ability for humans, even at their most afraid, to do the right thing. I wouldn't call the man who wanted to blow up the ferry with the convicts on it noble but at the same time there's some decency in him because he can't go through with it. In an interesting twist, it's the convict who throws the detonator out the window on the other ship who comes across as the most noble.

The theme of anarchy extends from the Joker, who calls himself an agent of chaos. The Joker isn't looking for money or anything else material but I believe he does have motivation He wants to show how easily a city can descend in to madness and anarchy,  how people aren't that different from him.  The Joker is a mirror reflection of Gotham City and, like Batman, becomes a defining part of the city, another connection they share.

The Joker tells Harvey he doesn't have plans and it's interesting to ponder whether the Joker actually believes that or if he's trying to distance himself from Rachel's death. Either way, he's manipulating Harvey to, like him and Batman, stand outside of society. The Joker cannot corrupt Batman, maybe become Batman has become too scarred to be manipulated by the Joker but Harvey, the shining white knight of the city, who thought he, Batman and Gordon could be "decent men in an indecent time," was vulnerable to the Joker's manipulation.

Anarchy starts from within in The Dark Knight. All it takes is one bad day to send us over the edge. One man's fall can lead to an entire city's soul being crushed. The Joker knows this which is why Harvey is his "ace in the hole." And even at the end of the film, the city's soul may be saved and Harvey's image preserved but Harvey's soul is destroyed. The Dark Knight becomes the tragedy of Harvey Dent. It's one of the most interesting twists the film takes when a film we thought was going to be mainly about Batman and the Joker, becomes a Harvey Dent story. It's a lot fresher take than  most superhero sequels which always seem to focus on the same character.

By Any Means Nescessary

The characterization of Batman throughout the years has asked the question about how far should we go to stop injustice in society. Batman's answer has always seemed to be that one has to sometimes stand outside of traditional justice in order to fight crime, particularly when their is so much corruption in the city, as we saw in Batman Begins. The Dark Knight takes things a step further and also closer to our own time by bringing up the issue of wire tapping. Bruce has created a sonar device in Wayne Enterprises that can pick up every phone in the city. For him this is the only way to catch the Joker at the end of the film. As Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) says, it is unethical. But the film asks, in the face someone as distanced from our normal view of sanity, is it possible to go to far?

When Batman uses this sonar device, it's reminesent of the sequence where he went to Hong Kong to bring back Lau. That sequence showed that Batman had no jurisdiction, being outside of the law. When Batman uses this sonar device, it's not the government or the police spying on people's phones- Batman hasn't had these kind of ethical rules enforced on him. He makes his own rules The film seems to want to have it both ways, having Batman use the machine but allow Lucius to destroy it after the job is done.

Batman does have one rule, which is that he doesn't kill. At the end of the film he saves Joker after pushing him to what would have been his death. While this scene is the last we'll see of Heath Ledger's Joker in the Nolan series, it''s a haunting thought that the Joker is alive at the end of The Dark Knight and still kill and terrorize if and when he gets out of Arkham. And from what we've seen in The Dark Knight, the Joker can arrange any kind of situation to get him out of Arkham.

Some Last Thoughts

I admire and like The Dark Knight very much. As I said at the beginning of this essay, I think it's one of the most ambitious superhero films in the last few years. Zach Synder's adaptat Watchmen would also be up there in terms of ambition. I like the film is an ensemble piece, not merely being about Batman and Joker but about Harvey Dent, Commissioner Gordan, Alfred, Lucius Fox and Rachel Dawes.

Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker is really stunning, the kind of performance where the line between actor and character disappears, with the actor fully embodying his or her character. Christian Bale does a fine job of playing three characters: Batman, the real Bruce Wayne, serious, focused, and the shallow playboy act Bruce puts on to make people think he could never be Batman. Gary Oldman makes earnestness compelling and he may be the only actor to make Gordon's final speech work. Aaron Eckhart makes Harvey's transformation in to Two Face believable and powerful. It's not a realistic transformation but in Eckhart's hands its a powerful one. Michael Caine lends Alfred a world weary wisdom and a devotion to Bruce and his cause. Morgan Freeman gives Lucius a professionalism and integrity, making us believe Bruce would trust him with his secret. I think Maggie Gyllenhall was a better fit for a hardened lawyer in Gotham City than Katie Holmes. She also has a sweetness and vulnerabiltity to her. He final scene was the most powerful sequence in the film for me the first few times I saw the film.

I don't know what long term effects The Dark Knight will have on the superhero genre and none of the superhero films since have seemed to be inspired by it- but I for a brief moment, this film, in many ways, became THE supehero film. I look forward to the last entry in this series, The Dark Knight Rises but I'm not sure if it'll be able to top this film. It can be more focused, have a tighter script, but will it have the impact of The Dark Knight? I don't know...but it doesn't have to. The Dark Knight made an impact, and that's what counts. For fans of the superhero genre, it completed us.

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

Top 11 Films For Valentine's Day




This is a little late but here's my movie playlist for Valentine's Day:

1. Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1943)
The Rest (Alphabetically)
2. An Affair to Remember ( Leo McCarey, 1957)
3.The Apartment (Billy Wilder, 1960)
4. Brokeback Mountain (Ang Lee, 2005)
5. Casino Royale (Martin Campbell, 2006)
6. City Lights (Charlie Chaplin, 1931)
7. Make Way For Tomorrow ( Leo McCarey, 1937)
8. Romeo + Juliet ( Baz Luhrmann, 1996)
9. Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 (Sam Raimi, 2002 & 2004)
10. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)
11. WALL-E (Andrew Stanton)

Friday, 6 January 2012

Auteurship and the Super-Hero Film



Over Christmas I discovered an interview with David Fincher where he talked about how he would have approached the Spider-Man reboot. Fincher's name was thrown around as a possibility for this film as well as the 2002 film. In the interview, Fincher says:

My impression what Spider-Man could be is very different from what Sam [Raimi] did or what Sam wanted to do. I think the reason he directed that movie was because he wanted to do the Marvel comic superhero. I was never interested in the genesis story. I couldn't get past a guy getting bit by a red and blue spider. It was just a problem… It was not something that I felt I could do straight-faced. I wanted to start with Gwen Stacy and the Green Goblin, and I wanted to kill Gwen Stacy.

The title sequence of the movie that I was going to do was going to be a ten minute -- basically a music video, an opera, which was going to be the one shot that took you through the entire Peter Parker [backstory]. Bit by a radioactive spider, the death of Uncle Ben, the loss of Mary Jane, and [then the movie] was going to begin with Peter meeting Gwen Stacy. It was a very different thing, it wasn't the teenager story. It was much more of the guy who's settled into being a freak.


Fincher's vision for a Spider-Man film sounds incredibly intriguing, particularly since it zips through the origin story in an economic and unique way. After reading this interview I started to think about the role the director plays in regards to the Super-hero genre. While Batman and Spider-Man are certainly the stars of their own films, I feel that audiences and critics do focus on the director behind the film. Moreover, praise or blame of the film is sometimes laid at the feet of these directors.




When we think of 1989's Batman, we probably think of Jack Nicholson as the Joker or Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman but we also think of the film's director, Tim Burton. While this film isn't as Burtonesque as Batman Returns, Batman, with it's expressionistic visual style and gothic tone, fits in to Burton's rather nicely. From my knowledge, it was Burton's decision to have the Joker, back when he was just Jack Napier, to be the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents. This is one the biggest departures a superhero film has taken from its source material, one that doesn't please many fans of Batman. Personally, I think it's a interesting decision but one that's not that well thought out. Batman tells the Joker that he killed his parents near the end of the film but it never becomes an essential part of the film's climax.   

Before returning to direct Batman Returns, Burton reportedly was uninterested in returning to the character of Batman. bu Warner Bros. supposely convnced him to direct when they told him that instead of directing a Batman film, he could direct a Tim Burton film. Batman Returns is very much a Tim Burton film playing up the german expressionism influence from the first, and havng bizarre characters making up the supporting cast.


Burton's films have often dealt with what it means to be an outsider, something that Burton relates to:

If you've ever had that feeling of loneliness, of being an outsider, it never quite leaves you. You can be happy or successful or whatever, but that thing still stays within you.

The Penguin (Danny DeVito) is the quintiessential Burton outsider like Edward Scissorhands- Burton's Penguin is deformed and left in a sewer by his parents. He's a very freakish looking character. This is definitely not the more distinguished Penguin we know from the comics.

But while Burton imposes a personal visual style and mood on the film, as well as creating a Penguin more in line with his feeling a being an  outsiders, is Batman Returns a really personal film for Burton? Or is the personal aspect of the film or to do with Burton's visual style and sense of mood. Does it penetrate beyond the surface to make a personal statement about outsiders in society and in comic books? I'm not quite sure.


I think the same kind of questions can be asked of other directors' visions in regards to super-hero films. Sam Raimi directed the Spider-Man trilogy and is known for being a Spider-Man fan. While his love of the character definitely shows in the spirit of the films and they're also very humane films, beyond this, what is personal to Raimi in these films? What issues in the film are truly important to him?

Now, I'm not out to bash Burton or Raimi. I like the Spider-Man trilogy, particularly the first two, and I like Burton's Batman films, yes even the bizarro Batman Returns. I just feel that in the directors' visions somehow aren't complete.



I think this incompleteness of vision, among super-hero films can best be applied to Ang Lee's 2003 film Hulk. Hulk is a film that I like but I think it has the problem of being stuck between 2 worlds in regards to its style. On one hand, it's trying to ground the Hulk character in a psychological drama, exploring Bruce Banner's Jekyll/Hyde personality and his twisted relationship with his father. On the other hand, it embraces certain comic book elements- it has Hulk dogs, Nick Nolte as Bruce Banner's father turns in to an electroid monster- and Lee's use of split screens, which suggest comic book panels. I think Lee couldn't quite blend them in way where everything clicked. The film should have completely committed to it's psychological elements. Lee was probably attracted to what the script was doing with exploring the psychological aspects of Bruce Banner/the Hulk. If Lee was able to have more creative control, I think he could have had more influence on the script and made it less of blockbuster-style film. Unfortunately, a film like Hulk still has to have those blockbuster element to it. While these elements are compatiable with deeper themes and issues, in this case, it lead to a compromised vision. 



An example of a director being noted as directing the best of films of a series is Bryan Singer, who directed the first two X-Men films.  Singer is an openly gay man and the X-Men films can be read as allegories for homophobia in modern society, as well as other forms of discrimination. The X-Men are essentially outsiders and I think Singer, being a gay man, knew what it was like to be an outsider and brought that personal knowledge to the films.

On a side note, Matt Vaughn, who directed the latest X-Men film, X-Men: First Class, brought his love of the Bond series to the film, making Michael Fassbender's Erik Lensherr/Magneto in to mutant version of James Bond.



Coming back to Batman, let's look at the Christopher Nolan Batman saga. Nolan has received much praise from critics and Batman fans for his two Batman films, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Nolan is arguably seen as the auteur of this series. Nolan (and his creative team) have done a fine job of balancing this comtemporary and stripped down and stylistically realistic take on Batman while still crafting something which feels quintiessentially Batman . Nolan's vision for the series, as I said, is a stylistic rather than literal realism. Nolan and his cinematographer Wally Pfister go for a photorealistic look for Gotham rather than Burton' expressionistic look or Joel Schumacher's neon Gotham.

The Dark Knight dealt with issues of heroism, terrorism, morality, sacrifice, all that junk. These themes certainly fascinate Nolan but they don't give me the sense of Nolan as a person, which could also be said of his other films. The Dark Knight  almost seems too large to be truly personal. That may be the difficulty in having a personal vision in a super-hero film. The large scale can overshadow a director's personal vision.



Coming back to the new Spider-Man, I hope Marc Webb, who helped give (500) Days of Summer  it's aching poignancy, will bring a human touch to The Amazing Spider-Man.  What I really want is this film to take the Spider-Man character in a bold new direction. I think Webb has it in him to go there. If not...there's always David Fincher.