pro·fern·ity

This was the year I realised that my taste in movies may be moving away from the comic book/superhero genre. By the time I had watched Iron Man, Batman Begins, and the Dark Knight, I concluded that I was momentarily entertained, but with no real lasting impressions. Furthermore, when I returned to watch the X-Men and Spiderman series, which were movies that I had adored previously, I came away feeling the same thing about those films as I did about this year's blockbusters.

I am going to tackle all three films as a single review, because the same issues repeat themselves.


IRON MAN (2008)
Dir: Jon Favreau
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow




BATMAN BEGINS (2005)/THE DARK KNIGHT (2008)
Dir: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Katie Holmes (BB)/Maggie Gyllenhaal(DK), Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger (DK), Aaron Eckhart (DK)

This particular genre, of late, has begun to demand its recognition as "legitimate film". Given my lack of knowledge about this subject, it seems to me that this push began with the first X-Men film. The argument then was, and still is, that although comic books and graphic novels have a perception in the Western World as children's entertainment, it is a genre that is capable of telling stories rich with intelligent ideas and arguments, and capable of engendering an emotional response in an audience other than just "fun". Provided the right people were doing the right things, those same stories could be reproduced on the movie screen. It happens to be an argument I agree with. So in reviewing these three films, I refused to judge them in context of the comic book/superhero genre. It would be unacceptable to judge an aspect of the film as being good, bad, or average "for a comic-book film", because these are films that clearly aspire to something more than a genre piece.

With that in mind, here are my main points:

1. The need for origin stories. If these were non-genre films, the origin movies would not, and should not, be tolerated. Both Iron Man and Batman Begins suffer from being origin stories. A generalisation would be to say that not very much happens beyond the slog and grind of introducing characters and their pasts. A more specific criticism would be to say that although there are many movies out there where "not much happens", they are still required to satisfy an emotional aspect of the viewing experience. I found the origins of neither Iron Man nor Batman to be moving or engaging. To give an example, the Back to the Future Series does not succumb to making the first movie entirely about Marty McFly's origins. It's not necessay. And yet the comicbook/superhero genre seems to demand it. I would say that if both Iron Man and Batman franchises were seeking to counteract the conventions of the comic-book/superhero genre in this respect, they have failed.

2. The double life/secret love is a tired plot point. It is not hard to accept that by taking on the identity of a superhero, civilian identity is lost. Of course that means all former connections are either lost or warped into a connection of a different nature. This should not have to be telegraphed to the audience in a form of a B-plot. It is a waste of time and valuable audience attention because it is nothing new. And I am jaded and cynical. This was done with Spiderman, Superman, and Batman. The Rachel Dawes/Bruce Wayne plot adds nothing of substance, and is not required to give Batman a reason to catch the Joker. Iron Man does not have this plot point, but I have no doubt they will try to shoehorn it in, in later sequels.


3. Both franchises were ultimately saved by the performance of a single actor. For the Dark Knight, this was Heath Ledger; for Iron Man, this was Robert Downey Jr. All other supporting actors were definitely serviceable, but not outstanding. However, their performances were so outstanding in comparison to the rest of the film that they do not elevate their films as a whole. To give an example, when rewatching these films, I still feel no compulsion to watch any of the scenes that do not involve them, as they are that bland and uninteresting, and that includes all of Batman Begins.

4. Both franchises give a lesson in special effects. One positive point is the effort to minimise the use of CGI, and use real models instead. Nothing takes you out of a film more easily than bad CGI.

To summarise, Iron Man, Batman Begins and the Dark Knight were made watchable by individual standout performances and judicious use of special effects. They are widely percieved to be the best examples of the superhero/comic-book genre; however, when judged in a wider context of films, they ultimately do not stand up against other films in terms of dialogue, emotional impact, music, thematic treatment, or cinematography. They are highly entertaining on first viewing, but reveal nothing more on repeated viewings.

Rule 1:  No star ratings/ marks out of 10!  Movies cannot be reduced to a quantitative factor.
Rule 2:  Spoilers lay ahead!
Rule 3:  A disclaimer - reviews are biased in favour of movies where favourite actors/actresses appear.  I will come straight out and say that Robert Downey Jr. and Christian Bale are the main culprits.

Let's start with the heavyweight contenders of 2007 (Ok, so I'm slow to get around to watching movies, so what?)



NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007)
Dir: Joel and Ethan Coen
Starring: Javier Bardem, Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson
Running time: 122 mins

Review:  Both this film and There Will Be Blood were filmed by the same DP, Roger Deakins.  It clearly shows, as both films have this beautiful sense of menacing stillness amongst the violence.  For the most part, No Country is a very intense, exciting and frightening film.  At its most basic, it is a simple story of a chase between a man who has absconded with $2 million in a briefcase, and a man out to find him.  I suppose what sets this movie apart from other films with similar plots is the character of Anton Chigurh (Bardem).  What is more frightening than a man whose motives cannot be understood?  He appears to have a very strict moral code which he says is why he kills the people he kills.  Yet they are not a set of morals you can accept for yourself, and as such the character of Chigurh has a cinematic flaw - he audience cannot be on his side.  In addition, we see nothing else of his character other than his quest.  What are his opinions on anything else?  How does he live?  How does he eat, sleep, give me something to understand about him.  This is a problem when he is the central character.  I found myself interested in his quest, but not emotionally invested in it, becoming quite the emotionless outside observer.  Ultimately this was a film which felt a little too shallow to have recieved Academy Awards for Best Film, Writing and Direction.




THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007)
Dir: Paul Thomas Anderson
Starring: Daniel Day Lewis, Paul Dano
Running Time:  158 min

Review:  A few disclaimers must be made beforehand:  firstly, Stanley Kubrick is my favourite director of all time; secondly, I have greatly enjoyed the following PT Anderson films in the past - Boogie Nights and Magnolia.  Unlike No Country for Old Men, the story of There Will Be Blood is one so very rich and still very relevant to our world today.  In Daniel Plainview we have a character who is fully formed down to the finest detail - in all facets of his character he is the quintessential "self-made man".  In my view, the decades-long conflict between Plainview and Eli Sunday is a reflection of the American struggle between its traditional values (where the Church is community leader) and the enticement of untold riches from the oil boom of the early 20th Century.  Plainview is quite blunt about his ambitions - as we see over the course of the film, he will sacrifice anything and anyone that gets in the way of his success.  The matter-of-fact nature in which he does this should be a wake-up call to all of us to be honest with ourselves, and recognise the parts of us that are tempted to do similarly cruel things to others for selfish reasons.  What is as interesting are the changes that happen to Eli Sunday (Dano), who hides his greed beneath his role as the town's preacher, and is destroyed when this inner conflict cannot be held within any longer.

I could go on about this film for hours.  Unlike No Country, Plainview's motives are clear and fully-formed.  They are entire human motives as well, so in effect Plainview was a character I could identify with, however uncomfortable that realisation may be.  The beginning of the movie channels Kubrick in its stillness, its dischordant soundtrack, and its coldness.  Yet it is never shallow.  How could it be when such a three-dimensional character such as Daniel Plainview inhabits it?  In my opinion, this film was robbed of a Best Picture and Best Actor Award (for Daniel Day-Lewis).




ZODIAC (2007)
Dir: David Fincher
Starring:  Jake Gyllenhaal, Anthony Edwards, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jr.
Running Time:  162 mins

Review:  The tagline of Zodiac betrays the true theme of the movie - "There's more than one way to lose your life to a killer".  Those expecting a cops-and-robbers type movie will be disappointed, because that's not what this film is about at all, and to be honest, a nicely wrapped up denouement would be an insult to the tone of the rest of the film - the sense that despite all the honest hard work the principal characters invested into the Zodiac case, they were fated to fall short of any satisfaction.  The case would be forgotten by the public in time, but those who were in the thick of it would never regain the years of their lives lost to what may as well have been a figment of their imaginations, given their limited success in solving the case.  The decline of Insp. Dave Toschi (Ruffalo), Insp. William Armstrong (Edwards), and reporter Paul Avery (Downey) is slow and sadly inevitable.  In this sense I was as moved by this film as I was by There Will Be Blood.

Unlike the previous two reviewed films, Zodiac does not give away its tone through grand picturesque backdrops, or stylised violence.  David Fincher filmed Zodiac in Digital HD, and it gives the film a crispness that works to dispel common cinematic stereotypes of the 70's - the burnt orange upholstery, the acres of wood-grain Laminex, the excessive use of shades of brown in clothing, these are all still there, but where usually film has a little lack of clarity that serves to emphasise nostalgia, HD brings everything into focus.  It becomes as if you are in the moment, where this is how the world looks, and there's no reason to point and laugh at things because you are in the 70s, damnit, this is all cool and at the cutting edge of fashion.  In effect, what filming in HD did was to bring the audience into the moment, and also ensure that the audience is concentrating on the story, not the background.



Look at that.  Normally I would laugh, but RDJ still looks awesome.  I attribute 50% to Fincher's Digital HD, 50% to RDJ's natural awesomeness.

A procedural drama that runs almost to 3 hours is not a film you would expect to be a blockbuster.  And it wasn't.  That is no excuse for Zodiac not to get a Best Picture or Cinematography Nomination.  I sometimes wonder if the award-givers just looked at a list of the top 20 movies in terms of earnings, struck out the animated films ("Let's create the Best Animation category so we don't have to give Best Picture to Ratatouille or Wall-E"), then struck out the comic-book adaptations, then just threw out all the nominations to movies with critic credibility and at least moderate financial success.