‘I think it’s still Batman running around in a stupid cape.’ – David Cronenberg about The Dark Knight Rises, in an interview with Next Movie.
All right, so David Cronenberg made his feelings about superhero films very well known a few days ago by slagging off on The Dark Knight Rises. While I question the reliability of a man who cast Robert Pattinson in a movie (any movie), I see where he’s coming from. Cronenberg makes a good point after all: Batman is a guy running around in a cape. The Dark Knight et al takes that cape very, very seriously. Too seriously, as a matter of fact. There’s very little fun in Nolan’s films; certainly no sense of humor. That seems to me a fair criticism, if not a popular one. Then Cronenberg goes on to say that he doesn’t think the superhero film has been made into a elevated art form, which is as much to say that it cannot rise to the level of art. It’s by necessity ‘adolescent’.
Hmm. Comic books, despite gaining traction as an art form – we now call certain ones graphic novels, don’t we? – are still viewed as something that teenage boys and arrested-adolescent adults read. That’s the stereotype and it still holds some cultural weight, even if it has been disproven by the increasing popularity of the genre among, y’know, everyone. Now, I might not be into the comic book/graphic novel world, but I do enjoy horror, sci-fi, fantasy and crime fiction. Pretty much the same kinds of accusations have been leveled at those: sophomoric, adolescent, encouraging violence and vice. I have also read enough Alan Moore graphic novels to know that comic books can indeed rise to the level of art. So, basically, if I’m going to make the claim that crime or horror can be artistic, I have to allow the same claims to be made for comic books.
Then we come to the movies. It has indeed been proven time and again that certain genre types – again, crime, horror, science fiction – can achieve a level of art. Cronenberg himself trades in the horror genre: The Fly, Dead Ringers, Scanners, The Brood. Let’s not even discuss what genre Crash falls into; I don’t want to think about it. Certainly at least a few of those rise to the level of art. Alfred Hitchcock and Roman Polanski, both directors who made their names in the art house as well as the cineplex, worked and work primarily in the thriller genres. John Carpenter has at least two films I think rise to artistic levels (The Thing and Halloween). Even the more primary art house directors of yesteryear made or borrowed heavily from genre: Godard’s Band of Outsiders is basically a film noir, Lang’s Metropolis is one of the greatest sci-fi films ever made, Antonioni’s Blow-Up is a murder mystery, among other things. Akira Kurosawa made mysteries, thrillers and potboilers (Rashomon, High and Low, Stray Dog).
All of which Cronenberg admits to. He does think that horror can reach artistic levels. So why not comic book movies?
First, I think that Cronenberg is mixing his terms. He’s really talking about superhero movies: the guys in stupid capes. So if we narrow this down to the ‘superhero’ sub-genre, what are we left with? Are there any artistic films that have been made within the superhero genre? Art is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Simon finds Nolan’s Batman films far more interesting and complex than I think they are. I’m certain there are those who disagree with me in labeling Carpenter’s The Thing an artistic film. Nevertheless, this is my editorial, so I get to answer my own question.
This picture has no reason to be here. I just think RDJ looks hot.
The answer is: No. No, there are no superhero films I can name that I think rise to the level of art. Art in the sense that they do something more than entertain. I would say that to be artistic a film has to operate and succeed on multiple levels. I’ve covered my notion of art before and I stick to it. Most superhero films simply don’t rise to it. But do they want to? Is Iron Man really trying to be an art house film? Are we meant to consider the tribulations of Tony Stark as an analog to the ennui of modern man? Not in the least. It’s trying to be loud and funny and exciting and it succeeds admirably.
I do think that fans do a disservice to certain films when they make claims for them as art. It smacks of self-justification, of trying to raise something to a place that it never wanted to be. Entertainment can be just that: entertainment. That’s OK. It might be that some fans feel like they have to prove that a piece of entertainment has fully as much value as a film that sets out to express something artistically. Which it does; it’s just a different kind of value.
I don’t believe that if a superhero film wanted to be artistic it would fail. It needs a good director – a great director – who is interested in making it into that. I think Christopher Nolan, for all his technical brilliance, is not that director. But I do not join David Cronenberg in believing that a superhero film must be nothing more than a guy in a cape. It can be more; just as horror films and crime films can be more. It’s merely a matter of making it more.
While I cannot think of a superhero film that I can truly call artistic, I can think of at least one film based on a graphic novel that I would classify, without hesitation, as art. It’s A History of Violence, starring Viggo Mortensen and Mario Bello. It was directed by David Cronenberg.
Wayne (6)
Mette (4)
Nic Cage (4)
steve (4)
John (3)
Nick (3)
Sebastian (3)
Dan Heaton (2)
J.D. (2)
jess (2)
What about films like “Special” or “Defendor”? I think those go in places beyond just entertainment.
Twitter: Bubbawheat
August 21, 2012 4:48 pm
I can think of several Superhero movies that go beyond just the general entertainment value of them. Confessions of A Superhero and Superhero Me are both very interesting documentaries that focus on Superheroes in one form or another. And like Nick mentioned Special and Defendor, and I’ll also add Super and Unbreakable to that list. And another couple well made movies based on comic books: Road to Perdition and Ghost World (at least from what I’ve heard, haven’t seen either).
Twitter: jainamistry
August 22, 2012 3:26 am
Isn’t this all subjective to what a person defines as art. Just like installation art might not be considered art to people who prefer impressionism.
Yes, superhero film fans do do themselves injustice when they go out and state that their favourite comic book film is a work of art. In their mind it might well be.
Road to Perdition is another great film based on a graphic novel. Having seen both A History of Violence and Road to Perdition, I’d say Perdition has more artistic value. But then, that’s my personal view.
Twitter: agracru
August 22, 2012 5:28 am
First– yeah, Cronenberg is clearly mixing up terms when he starts saying “comic book movies”. The entire discussion is framed around caped heroes like Batman; he’s not really talking about stuff like A History of Violence or, say, Persepolis, because those are adult stories being told in the comic book medium.
The thing is, superhero comic books are juvenile at their core. (Note: graphic novels are really just collections of comic books bound together in one hardcover book. There’s more to it than that but even Persepolis is a comic book at its core.) Who were comic books originally directed at? Kids. Men and women in capes and tights became champions for a child audience at first, and that didn’t really start to change until the Silver Age (circa late 1950s-70s). But even as the audience changed, superheroes really didn’t; maybe they were used to tackle darker and more grown-up subject matter, but they’re still the same costumed heroes enacting the same wish fulfillment vigilante fantasy (which is also itself very juvenile). It’s all content versus concept.
So what he’s saying is akin to dismissing a sub-genre within a specific genre, e.g. dismissing slasher films rather than horror, because such sub-genres have their own rules and structures. The issue with superhero movies is– as I just said– that their structure and rules are both narrow and inherently juvenile. In reality, the very idea of a costumed vigilante playing dress-up and beating up randoms in the name of justice is very, very scary (we’ve already seen what plainclothes vigilantism reaps this year alone; additionally, that very idea is played with in “real-life” superhero movies like Special and Defendor, though not nearly enough, as well as Super, which is far superior).
So when you make a superhero movie, you either have to revel in that notion or you have to confront it and pick it apart. That’s a MUCH more limiting playing field than even something like the “monster” sub-genre or “spy” sub-genre. And even when superhero movies are done artistically, as Nolan does them, and even when they have more mature intentions, as Nolan clearly did with his Batman films, they have to address that wish fulfillment fantasy somehow.
By contrast, horror movies and most sci-fi movies are most certainly not “for kids”, but that’s based on the distinctions made above. Thing is, I don’t think Cronenberg is dismissing them outright as much as he’s saying that they don’t add up to high art; that’s not the same thing as saying they’re not valid or that low art is valueless.
Thank you, Lauren. I appreciate the distinction between comic book film and superhero film. I reality, the superhero film is in its infancy. That being said, it is growing. If you compare a film like Superman (1948) and The Watchmen (2009), you would see a vast difference, and not just in special effects. Yes, special effects have allowed for comic books to apply the very things seen on the page to what is on the screen, but that is not the most important distinction. Superhero films have become dramatically more cerebral. We now concern ourselves with not only what happens and how it happens, but why it happens. I would say since X-Men (2000) there has been a realization of the depth that can be had with a superhero film. Thank you, Joss Whedon. The present problem with superhero films are those inheirited from their source material. A comic book is short and serialized. They rarely have much substance in them and are not really meant for multiple reads. That is where the graphic novel differs. They are meant to be revisited. They are meant to be interpreted. But most superhero films are structured similar to comic books rather than graphic novels. They are designed to have sequels that promise to deliver revenue for years to come. A perfect example of this is the current Avengers franchise. They are not art. They are pure entertainment. They focus entirely on creating a narrative that provides room for sequels. Films like the Watchmen, they are the exception to this, but not the rule. And then we come to an issue close to your heart, Lauren, the blatant misogyny of the superhero genre. There are very few female superheroes, and those that do exist are more eye candy than anything else. Of course, one could say the same thing about Game of Thrones. Personally, I don’t have a problem with misogyny in superhero films, so long as it is addressed. For example, Lauren, you often rail against my appreciation of the Watchmen because of its treatment of women. That same for Sin City. I appreciate those films because, while it may have misogynistic attitudes in them, it brings attention to it. The film shows the evils of the misogyny it inherited from its source material. On the flip side of the coin is the industry standard. Films like the Avengers that simply put Scarlett Johanssen in a tight little suit and get as many shots of her ass as possible. I guess the theory is that if guys have enough blood in their dicks they won’t have enough in their head to notice how crappy the movie actually is. The superhero film has a long way to go. But it is getting there. Just look at Supergirl (1984). We’ve come a long way.
http://duelpersonalities.com/?p=9 Here is a link to my blog’s top ten list of comic book movies.
Maybe one day, Quentin Tarantino will make an adaptation of Nightwing, starring JGL, and I can make water in my pantaloons.
Twitter: agracru
August 22, 2012 7:24 pm
Dropping a thank you to Joss Whedon in association to a remark about superhero films “finding their depth” since 2000 and then railing on The Avengers for using a woman as eye candy is…well, confusing. Apart from the fact that I flat-out think your assessment of Black Widow is fantastically wrong– she’s no different from any of Whedon’s other strong, well-written, robust female characters– Sin City treats its women horribly, and not just in that surface exploitative visceral way, either. Black Widow can take care of herself (excepting her run-in with the Hulk, which requires the assistance of a frigging demigod, and so that winds up being a wash); the women of Sin City all come to rely on men in the end, no matter what.
And I’d disagree that films like The Avengers aren’t art. Of course they are, in the exact same way that the Nolan Batman films are art. There are actual ideas in here about the merits of individualism versus the benefits of communal efforts, which the film explores in its own way. Granted, they’re not up front like they are in the way they are in, say, Spider-Man 2, but The Avengers isn’t any more shallow than any other superhero movie you could name, even the good ones.
I’m afraid I will have to disagree with you. There is little difference between X-Men and The Avengers. And that was my problem with it. Rather than growing the genre, Whedon stuck with the same formulaic approach. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed Averngers immensely. But it didn’t do anything for me that made me go “wow, I’ve never seen that before!” And as for your assessment of Black Widow, simply having a strong female character is not enough. There is still a great deal of misogyny in the film, and rather than have Black Widow address that issue, they do what most comic books do and ignore it. In Sin City, the women are treated horribly, but we see consequences ass a result of the horrid treaatment. We see the effect that misogyny has. It is one thing to have misogyny in a film, it is another thing to have it and not address it. That simply expresses the idea that misogyny is normal, as opposed to detailing the evils that infect society as a result. Avengers had its good points, but it did nothing to elevate the dialogue. The only point of the Avengers is to put asses in seats and springboard into a bombardment of sequels. I’ll still go and see them. And I will most certainly enjpy them. But I am not going to sit in front of a screen and watch a single scene a hundred times to try and interpret the meaning. That just isn’t Avengers.
Twitter: agracru
August 24, 2012 7:19 am
You don’t think Avengers addresses misogyny by giving Black Widow a serious, meaty arc, making her strong enough to stand up for herself and stand next to the male characters of the film, and making her an integral part of the film’s overall plot? The argument that she’s merely eye candy holds no water when her actions and her character have palpable impact on the direction of the story. That’s not exploitation at all– that’s progress. Say what you like about Sin City, but it’s still a movie that repeatedly disempowers its female characters and leaves them at the mercy of its male characters while never for a second thinking about what that means, which is far more misogynistic than anything Whedon puts in The Avengers.
I won’t argue that The Avengers isn’t a big studio movie and therefore driven by the bottom line. But I think you’re seriously shortchanging it by summing it up as nothing more than an attempt to sell tickets. Sure, that’s part of it, but what Whedon does with it gives it merit beyond revenue.
Yeah, I’m with Andrew on this one. Black Widow’s character was actually a pleasant surprise. Whedon even goes so far as to subvert the expectations of a female in a superhero film, beginning with her introduction scene and all the way through to her conversation with Loki. She’s as much a part of the team as any of the male characters and consistently subverts the cliched expectations of the ‘woman in distress’ in the genre. Sin City (which I admit I enjoy) is an incredibly reactionary film, placing women in the titillating position of abuse, and then pays lip service by liberating them, usually with the aid of a vengeful male. It’s along the same lines as the rape-revenge films that use violence against women as a catalyst for their eventual vengeance against their male tormentors. The ladies take revenge, but not before being stripped and abused for the pleasure of the viewer.
BTW, Lauren. I was having lunch today, thinking about this article, and I remembered a superhero movie that was excellent. Chronicle. It doesn’t qualify as a comic book film, but it does meet the criteria of a superhero film. Honestly, I wish there were more comic movies modeled after that. Did you see it? What did you think?