I still haven’t written anything about The Dark Knight, a movie I loved. This has been a good summer for comic book fans, what with Iron Man and Hellboy II. I’ve been thinking a lot about the themes of The Dark Knight, but before I get to that, I have to respond to this idiotic A.O. Scott article in today’s NY Times (no disrespect meant to Tony Scott).
It’s a look at the superhero movies that have come out lately, complete with an attempt to define the limits of the genre. Let me start by saying that it’s a shame that superheroes dominate comic books. The format has been around for 70 years. There have been romance comics, private eye comics, kids comics, porn comics, war comics, autobiographical comics, and on and on. But superheros have long dominated and continue to do so.
However, Scott asks if superheroes are “basking in an endless summer of triumph, or is the sun already starting to set?” Gee whiz. This is the time when Hollywood finally gets comic book adaptations right and Scott is already calling the game over. He gives this summer’s best films credit for trying harder, but then says that they also “discover the limits built into the superhero genre as it currently exists. ”
“‘The Dark Knight’ has rules, and they are the conventions that no movie of this kind can escape,” Scott writes. Why can’t they do so? He says: “Of course every movie genre is governed by conventions, and every decent genre movie explores the zones of freedom within those iron parameters.” No kidding! Almost every mainstream Hollywood movie follows the conventions of its form, whether it’s an action movie, a romantic comedy, or whatever. Think of Top Gun, Rocky, Star Wars, and so on. Each follows movie conventions.
In contrast, Scott says that there were Westerns in the Fifties that were able to go beyond the expected, films like The Searchers and Rio Bravo that were able to find “ambiguities and tensions buried in their own rigid paradigms. ” He thinks that superheroes will never be able to do this, because such films need to make big profits and be successful worldwide.
I don’t think he’s right. Yes, most superhero films will need big budgets and studio backing. But not all. There have been some great comic books that really stretched the conventions of superhero movies. These stories don’t necessarily feature big explosions and massive physical conflict. If the superhero genre can get a toehold in the American consciousness again, then there’s no artistic reason why we couldn’t see such films in the future.
(And isn’t it ironic that Scott calls for ambiguities, when both Hancock and The Dark Knight find those ambiguities in their heroes?)
Tags: A.O. Scott, superhero, The Dark Knight, Batman
One Response
-
The Pop View Says:
Elsewhere, I posted two comments along these lines here and here.
The notion that comic books or superheroes are just inherently silly, simplistic or dumb and one should even attempt to expand the genre in a film version is just breathtakingly stupefying. I’ll be kind and assume people who make these comments are just ignorant of any of the artistic achievements in comic books. Do you think that remark makes me sound nerd-ish or silly? I’ll bet you haven’t read any of these comics either.