Elektra
—Review
—Trailers, Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections
So, there once was a male super hero franchise that featured a strong female equal yet polar opposite. Eventually, some Hollywood suit decided that said "good girl gone bad villain" would make for a good spin off unto herself and fan boys of said male super hero would surely flock to said movie. It was simple Hollywood math: Hot chick + comic book + rabid male fanboys = hit movie (with an eye toward a franchise). It didn’t work for Catwoman (spun from Batman). [It probably won’t work in the future, so someone tell the Hollywood exec who’s thinking about this to spare us the Jinx movie (spun from the James Bond film, Die Another Day)]. It didn’t work for Elektra (spun from Daredevil). The truly frustrating part is that, like Daredevil, they almost get it right.
Don’t get me wrong, I am Exhibit A for said Hollywood math. I am their prototypical target market. I’m a big Jennifer Garner fan (grade A hot chick and star of cult/hit show Alias and perfect choice for the role of Elektra Natchios). I am a comic book junkie (fan of Daredevil comics from Frank Miller’s legendary run). And, yes, I am a red-blooded, rabid fanboy (it’s no coincidence that the last movie I reviewed was Blade: Trinity). I wanted to love this movie.
Do I need to demonstrate my Elektra credentials? Owner of her first appearance, in fact, her every appearance as written by her creator, Frank Miller. Elektra: Assassin is one of my favorite comic book mini-series of all time. It is here that we learn that "The Hand", the secret group of ninjas that trained/corrupted Elektra, view themselves as "the hand of the Beast" (thus explaining the beast imagery in the movie). I love Elektra and have long salivated at the possibility of her solo in a movie.
Here’s the flaw in the Hollywood exec’s thinking. They think that if they take the Alias fans, add the comic book fans, add the Daredevil movie fans (both of us), and those fans who’ll simply go to see anything with Jennifer Garner in a skimpy outfit, that would make a great crossover market, especially if those guys take their girlfriends. There are two problems with this theory: 1) all those fans are the SAME market and 2) those guys don’t have girlfriends. Okay, cheap shot at fandom, but let’s face it, these type of movies make their money from repeat viewing. I’ll admit to seeing Batman six times when it came out. But you have to give those fans something worth watching again, something to mentally chew on beyond Jennifer Garner’s midrift.
You just won’t find it here.
There is a lesson to be learned from the movie Catwoman: don’t make radial departures from the source material. Granted, Elektra was fairly wasted in the Daredevil movie. What should have been nearly operatic tragedy instead was little more than "insert love interest here" material. In fact, watching Daredevil didn’t leave one pining for an Elektra movie.
The back story of the movie manages to make no mention of Daredevil. This wasn’t the chief offense of the movie, because Elektra can very capably stand on her own apart from Daredevil. Even ignoring the Greek myths from where she drew her name, the tragedy of Elektra begins with the loss of her father. The story of Elektra, at its heart, is about a girl who lost her way, due to the death of her father. She turns to the dark side, then finds the light through her death and resurrection. You might think that this falls into the category of "geek night out" nit-picking, but that’s the problem with the movie: I and my fellow army of geeks know the back story, so we can fill in the blanks. We bring her mythology to the table when we dine at this cinematic venture. Those left with only what the movie provides leave especially hungry. The movie doesn’t make clear any of the motivations for our heroine.
Jennifer Garner, who demonstrated some of her range in 13 Going on 30, looks lost in this movie, like she doesn’t get the character any more than we do. Thus we’re left with her granite faced method of emoting. The best we can puzzle out is that Elektra’s pain turns on the death of her mother, making this more a revenge flick. See, we can’t handle the subtle dynamics and themes of a girl loving her father too much, but revenge we get.
The story, such as it is, involves Elektra, high priced assassin, being hired to kill a father (Mark Miller, ER’s Goran Visnjic in the "insert male love interest here" role), in and a daughter, Abby (Kirsten Prout). She instead befriends them, seeing in the girl who she once was. Well, the girl turns out to be "The Treasure", a unique warrior. "The Hand", led by Kirigi (Will Yun Lee), wants the Treasure for themselves, or at least out of the hands of Stick (Terrance Stamp, another perfect choice) and his disciples, in order to tip the balance of the war between good and evil in their favor. The movie defines "unique" differently than my dictionary as Elektra, Typhoid Mary (Natassia Malthe), and Abby are all defined as either this unique warrior or the treasure. This is part of the problem with the movie: I, as the comic book geek, know who all the players are while the movie provides no real sense of them.
There are two things that Elektra shares with the other comic book-cum-movie dud, Blade: Trinity. One, it has lots of action to gloss over a lack of characterization. You have ninjas and kung fu sequences,
but in the last year, we’ve seen grand and elegant fight sequences in movies such as Hero and House of Flying Daggers. Frenetic action and jumbled quick shots aren’t going to cut it. Two, its main villains, ninjas instead of vampires, should be threatening by themselves but are dispatched too easily (and thus don’t seem all that convincing as a threat).
Ultimately, this is a story of the war between good and evil, in the big picture sense, fought in the shadows. While kind of a reminder that though there are battles fought in the heavenly realms, the true battleground is often "within the heart of a single individual". And it is individuals who tip the balance. Elektra is a lost soul, we’re told that rather than shown this, with a tragic past that she hasn’t learned to get past or make a part of her. [Comic book geeks know that it is that pain that the Hand used to get a foot hold in her life, turning her to their side for a time. The Hand is the corrupting influence, the sinful nature that she battles against. In the movie, it is unclear what exactly she is struggling against.] Evil, represented by the Hand, can lurk anywhere, even within an ordinary looking corporate office building. Elektra’s is a path of violence and pain while searching for "the way". Though she doesn’t want to see Abby on such a path, she knows that everyone has a path that they are called to walk. The journey is the test, as "some things cannot be taught but have to be lived to be understood". Elektra has been a resurrected into a new life learning that "your second life is not always like your first ... sometimes its even better." And though she may stumble on occasion, she gets back up. It is that battle that makes her heroic.
Any adaptation, be it from a novel or a comic book, makes narrative choices in order to get at the essence of the character and story. This was a rated-R tale that was made PG-13 and lost its way. I have only hinted at the much more interesting story that this movie could’ve told. We don’t see Elektra’s darkness that the movie hints--for example, made explicit in the comic book with her being a member of the Hand--
so it is difficult to see her redemption. Like Daredevil, I liked the movie more than it deserved, probably due to a fanboy filling in what the movie fails to deliver. There is plenty of "cool" here, but not a clear or strong enough narrative to tie it all together and give it meaning. Like it’s heroine, Elektra needed to find its heart.
HJ Links
—Review
—Trailers, Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections
8 Comments:
the short version: they had the opportunity to tell a great story of falling into darkness then finding redemption, but blew it trying to cater to teenage boys. exhibit a: the completely gratuitous girl-on-girl kiss.
Oh, Maurice - this review is about as clear as mud! Not at all "followable"! I liked the short version though!
I was reading it because I was trying to decide whether to rent on DVD! You haven't made me decide!
The reason why I'm not sure to believe your negativity is "Daredevil".
I never read any of those comic books, old or new version. I heard something about Frank Miller having "revitalized" the series (read: projected his own crappy psyche onto it!) So I stayed well away!
For some reason, I actually bought the Daredevil DVD. It must have been on special offer. I wanted to hate it. So far I'd only heard the soundtrack song, "Bring me to Life", which I quite enjoyed...
Anyway, at first watching, I thought: Yup - usual violent rubbish. I also thought: and WHAT an unrealistic premise - lawyer turns superhero - and when he's a defence lawyer, he only defends clients he knows to be innocent! Yup, that one would soon go out of business...
But then I watched it, and although I thought most of it over the top, I grudgingly admired some of the fight sequences, and I somehow quite got to like the villain guy, that little Irish git (actually, I tend to like Irishmen), can't even remember his handle, the one that had the unerring aim.. I thought it was gratuitious (and stoopid) when he killed an old lady with a well-aimed Malteser, and just the sort of thing they put in these movies which they should leave out... But... He was a worthy opponent. I was glad when he fell off the building, BUT onto the car at the end, so he didn't die, just broke most major bones! (If this happened to most movie villains, at least they'd get a chance to think things over! So FEW characters are EVER offered a chance for redemption in popular fiction; that's why I loved Joss Whedon's work, for one thing!)
But doesn't that Bullseye or whatever he's called get killed in the comics in the end?
Anyway, malgre moi, I liked him! He had spirit. And I liked something that that black kingpin said, as well. Forget what it was now. But it was an interesting comment on crime.. Ah yes: "No-one's innocent!" And he never said a truer word...
But some of course are more innocent than others!!
Anyway, I want a whole discussion, somewhere on here, on the subject of villains!! So Joss Whedon gives his a chance, which is always nice. (That's another great thing about being a vampire, as well, because nobody can put you in prison and torture you and diminish your capacity for forming social relationships - which is all jail tends to be - well, they can put you in hell, but you have to "die" first, and your friends will always get you out!)
So Whedon's characters get a chance to interact (over centuries, some of them) and they finally work their own problems out! I think that's neat! Even if Angel did bite a few girls into the next life, I'm sure they enjoyed it - and since I'm a gel, I'm allowed to say that!
Ha ha ha!
But who else, besides Whedon (and Miller in Daredevil, in a moment of madness it seems to me - or was that just the scriptwriter?) will give villains a chance? To mend their ways, if they are at all capable, or even if they aren't?
Well, J R R Tolkien did, with Gollum... That part of The Lord of the Rings was one of the most defining of my childhood, I would say, a literary moment that really made me think, as did Gandalf's explanation as to why Bilbo spared him in "The Hobbit".
(Best argument against the death penalty I ever heard! You can tell Tolkien was a Catholic just by that - at least they're consistent about their valuation of life!!)
And Batman always seemed to... He was never hard on his opponents. That was, of course, until Miller came along.
You know something? Something I never really could understand, in the 1980s/1990s, was why no-one really, no "fanboys" as you call them - pratboys I reckon - was EVER a villain groupie! For example, for the Batman villains! Nobody really seemed to LIKE them! I couldn't work out why! I mean, most great villains, even in something like James Bond, something as cartoonish as that (!), seem to have their followers...
And in "art" literature, well, that great Christian John Milton obviously knew what he was doing, when he created his interpretation of the fallen angel, Lucifer/Satan to be the greatest (and most noble - not just ugliest!) villain, some would say the greatest creation, certainly the greatest oppositional character, in all of English literature! William Blake agreed... now there's a fan to have on your side!
LOTS of Buffy viewers, to use another example, will have LOVED Spike, as much as I did, and that other chap on the other blog! I always thought Spike was the closest to myself of the lot - he was the least full of bullshit! And had that nasty sarky British sense of humour! (And that terrible need for love, for romance!)
I'm sure there were plenty of fans even for a character like Glory! Who was NOT very nice... Pretty but nasty!
And yet... The poor old Batman villains! Not a shot at redemption do they get; have they ever had, really... Because the writers of OLD, although I think they very much liked their villains, did Bill Finger et al; they were fond of the Joker and Two-Face and all the rest, I am actually certain... But they had to eat, and as scripters, it really wasn't a very good idea back then, economically speaking, to let off your villains, and take the readers' favourite criminals out of the comic, now was it?
And everybody since then seems to have just copied that, for no reason, just unquestioningly!
But it was in the mid-Eighties, when the rot really set in, due to a certain Mr Frank Miller... We have the Joker portrayed as I don't know what in Miller's "magnum opus" - anyway, however Miller portrays him, he's not intended as a human being... Even the end bit, where the Joker dies, well, that is wrongly portraying what was always a definitely mortal criminal - just basically an ordinary robber/gangster, with an attitude and some crazy stuff on top - but MILLER portrays him as a kind of Buffy demon without the humour, saying "his spirit rustles as it leaves"... and other remarks to suggest the Joker is something demonic, not a man at all... Well, that IS stronging it a bit, Frankie me lad... Just because you don't frickin' like gays - the kind who admit they are, by their clothes and mannerisms, that is!!
(Nothing so harmful in this world as a self-hating closet homosexual!)
And after that, well, it was all nasty stuff, wasn't it. Unfair stuff! Jim Starlin making out the Joker would really like to work for "an evil Arab threat to the US", namely - sigh - the Ayatollah of Iran! (When real-life characters are included in comics, the result is generally crap anyway!)
Anyway - since WHEN have green-haired camp freaks ever wanted to go and work for religious fanatics?! This is about as absurd as saying that Iraq had WMD! Pull the other ones, you comics-writing jerks!
And it was ever downhill from there, by and large... An interesting "origins" story comic in 1990, about the origins (newfangled) of the Penguin, the Riddler and Two-Face's marriage relationship... Well, some of that was quite clever writing, but it was messed up by a sloppy "frame" by Neil Gaiman, obviously an off day for him, if ALL he could think of to round off the story, was to have the Joker leaping out of nowhere and fatally gassing the TV crew doing a feature on the villains... For no reason, of course! As per usual, these days! Batman - the Land of Motiveless Writing, I would subtitle it!!!
(What rubbishy writing! If the Batman were there, anyway, which he was, because he was tailing these people - well did it occur to Mr Gaiman that he has an ANTIDOTE to the Joker's poison, and has since about 1950-wotsit?? So he would have stood by to administer it, if need be?)
Anyway, it's just saying, isn't it, the usual "anti-criminal" political crap. (Michael Howard in Britain could have written it... you'll know what I mean if you know a jot about British politics!)
It's like saying: "Oh, we the arch-criminals of Gotham won't TALK to you, not even if you WANT us to put our own side of the story.. WE don't CARE... We'll just kill you, because we're so horrible!"
In real life, criminals jump at a chance of putting their side of the matter, because the fact is, they almost never get a chance to.
Bad writing! A 12-year-old could do better! I could have, when I was 12! Or 14, or something!
By the way Maurice, did you REALLY watch the first (Burton) Batman movie, SIX times, when you saw it at the cinema??
Was it worth the money, to you? How old were you then?
Because it didn't have a plot, Maurice! Not one that made sense! And although I know why they did it, I always felt Nicholson to be miscast as the Joker (he was too old for the part anyway!) and he can never be the Joker of my imagination... Mr tall, handsome and bisexual - those things are true all right, and Miller saw them - but in his fascist imagination, he could only see the negative in the Joker, and his Joker has even less sense to the portrayal!
Neither Miller nor Burton made their Jokers do anything that a) had criminal point to it b) was in the slightest bit funny!
(Even if you're one of the people who seems to think the Joker, rather than Miller, is the Antichrist - because he's gay of course - I meant the Joker, not Miller, or sorry, DID I??)...
Well even so, he IS meant to be the JOKER!! So WHAT was funny - other than Nicholson's hammy portrayal - about anything he did in that movie?!
You know something, Maurice? Do you, really? The NINETIES BATMAN CARTOON SERIES, which you must have seen at some juncture, but have never yet mentioned (although I see your tastes extend as far as SpongeBob Squarepants - do you think Spongy is gay? Couldn't resist!)
Well, anyway, the Nineties Batman cartoon, masterminded by Paul Dini, although FAR from perfect... (I think they chose those dingy backgrounds for it, to try to indoctrinate kids into becoming fans of the Miller version, because of the colour palette!)
...Although FAR from perfect, its plots, and its portrayal of the Joker and the other villains, was at most times far superior, and more authentic, than anything Tim Burton ever commissioned.
And WHO'DA ever thought that Mark Hamill of all people would make the greatest Joker voiceover of all time! But he did! Spot on! I know the Joker and that's how he talks!
Well I just want a chance to write and debate issues like the above - for example, the treatment of villains across fiction, and the theme of redemption, or the sad lack of it, in most stories!
I know I asked for a "Batman page" and that might just come to pass... But I wish I could find a forum to discuss, well, like I said, fictional villains in general...
COME ON, Maurice! This comment's worth a bit of a response! Where are you on this one?
sorry liz. i'm usually notified when someone makes a post, but for some reason blogger didn't let me know that you had posted here.
hmmm, where to begin?
daredevil, the movie, was influenced mostly by frank miller's version of daredevil. only brian michael bendis' run on daredevil has matched, perhaps surpassed, miller's run.
the movie loosely follows miller's storyline about daredevil, elektra, and bullseye (though colin ferrell's bullseye was much more interesting than the comic book's version).
also, paul dini's rendition of batman also owes a debt to miller's work on the book. they patterned the dark look on miller's work.
no, spongebob's not gay. i wrote about that on my blog that's attached to my writing web site. the blog is titled "don't make me apologize for idiots".
i'm working on a review for batman: year one. i'll have it posted in a week. maybe sooner. then we can let the miller bashing begin in earnest.
OK, Maurice, sweets! You do your review and let me bash Miller in earnest...
(But actually, I don't think "Batman Year One" is the worst, by any means... I think Miller's lack of civilization comes out most in his more extreme works... Anyway, I don't have the whole book to refer back to, nor a complete memory of it. You can fill me in!)
Oh yer; and you can tell me how this "great" work is supposed to be related to "Batman Begins", seeing as to my recollection, it doesn't have ANY of the same villains - correct me if I'm wrong!!
Hey, I wish we could have attracted a few more people onto this blog, to discuss both "Elektra" and the villain theme... This site is supposed to get a lot of hits, isn't it... But I don't think the blogs get so much... Must be because of how it's set up; or because most people go for the short review section, which isn't linked to them, I don't think!
Sorry about my insistent teasing about SpongeBob, Maurice! I can never resist anything that's to do with sexuality! But tell me - would you mind if he WAS??
(People make money out of some really STRANGE cartoon ideas, though, nowadays, don't they? Fancy a cartoon about a bath sponge! The old Warner Bros. animators would have turned up their noses!)
SpongeBob SquarePants has nice messages, I know!
So where's this LINK to your writing website, about "idiots", then? Which website is that - not this one?? I have checked links here and I don't think I've found that one yet...
Excuse my impatience, by the way! I was thinking: "He has to have noticed this one..."
So, they admit "patterning" the "dark look" of Dini's Batman cartoons on Miller's work, do they? Where do they admit doing that?? (Little swines!)
But I think it was just really the colour palette (which was invented by Miller's "girlfriend" Lynn Varley, if you think about it!)
That they used for the cartoon. And I think the reason for doing so was not "inspired" or "artistic", it was cynical! I always know when people are trying to use subliminal advertising: and I think that this was just a way of saying: "come on kids, get "into" the DARK look of this comic, so that in 5-10 years, you can read our Miller/Moore/other fascist junk! We want to make a market out of you for that!")
That's what it really all amounted to. And I'm sure some marketing honcho in a shady back room told them to do it. Or top Warner management. For their shady reasons.
Time Warner has been known as a "WASP-y" company for quite a while, you know. I don't know if that's going back to old Warner Bros. days or not; or if it's since the Time takeover - I pinpoint that as the cause of all the trouble! Time's quite a right-wing magazine. Well they put blimming Hitler on the cover in the 30s, didn't they? (Always the same, with the American ruling elite! Always the same ideas, trying to winkle their way in, with the public!)
Maybe Paul Dini thought the "dark look" of the colour palette was a good idea; maybe not. He's a corporate guy himself; he's been brought up in that system, so he's part of it. (We NONE of us can escape, in the capitalist world - yet SOME are more beholden to it than others!)
But there's ONE thing which the artwork didn't look like - and that was the drawing style of Frank Miller!
I couldn't make out the "look" of the Batman cartoons for YEARS at first; it looks slightly different when viewed from various angles! It really does! (It has a weird effect; especially in the first few series of cartoons - not so much the later features.)
And it depends on the artist for the cartoon. But the main keyword for the Dini-production artwork is "stylized", I believe!
It's quite hard to see exactly what they're copying in terms of draughtsmanship... It must be original, because in a way I haven't SEEN anything like their designs, before... They're very much trying to hark back to Art Deco, I think, or THEIR idea of it... Like the movies did. In fact, I believe the FIRST TWO movies INFLUENCED THE CARTOONS - you can see this very clearly, in their designs for characters like the Penguin... And the CARTOONS influenced, partially, the look of the next two movies... How can I tell? Because the facade of Arkham Asylum in "Batman Forever" is almost a total lift from the cartoons, which were produced before it!!
All these things feed and feed off each other...
Another thing which the cartoons are obviously trying to copy is the STYLIZED look of (some) of the earlier Batman comics... They never looked precisely all the same, you know... They had a variety of artists working on them. Not even all the Kane ones looked the same... Most of them weren't stylized to THAT degree, though... Except for a few in the very early 50s, so far as I can see, funnily enough!
I thought the "Cotton Club" lettering for the "Batman Adventures" titling was a bit much though... THAT was 1920/30s style, not 1940s... REALLY they're all telling more than a bit of a porkie pie here, because Batman was quintessentially a 1940s comic, NOT a 1930s comic.. THAT's another thing I've been meaning to get off my chest! The cast of the main characters was not assembled until mid-1940 at least.
Nobody in modern comics knows what they're talking about! Least of all Frank Miller! You DO realise, Maurice, that in 1940s America he would have been condemned as a Nazi? HE doesn't seem aware of it! But I am!
Anyway, I do on balance like the cartoons. Except I can't see what some weird things are in there for, like those - they look like airships, but like a type of airship there never has been, not in the 1930s or any other time - why are there Nazi, or police, airships, in the opening credits of this cartoon?! See - it's details like that I don't like!!
And I DON'T like them presenting Arkham as some sort of really... dehumanising place, full of sub-humans!!! Or people who are treated thus.
(Actually, whenever the criminals end up there in the cartoons, I feel sorry for them - and want to get them out! But they keep on DOING this in the cartoons, and rubbing it in, that they all end up there... (Seems like the whole Gotham INTELLIGENTSIA ends up in Arkham, with the exception of the Batman - and all the bleeding idiots stay outside, because they're "normal"! That's what the CARTOONS say, to me! That's how I'd develop the theme, in an adult graphic novel!)
Which makes me worry for my old muckers! (I'll have my revenge, for their sakes, I'll tell you that! This "criminal groupie" is nothing if not loyal! Anything for THEM!)
The creators didn't do that in the old comics or the TV series - not like that... I'm just wondering WHY they "rub it in" so these days... That the criminals end up in a very dismal nut-hatch, or an even worse penitentiary... Actually it didn't even look as bad, in Miller's! As in these cartoons, ostensibly for kids, ostensibly to teach kids some sort of idea of morality, through story!
(Batman is NOTHING if not a morality play - the comic continually contrasted the morality of the Batman with the code of the criminals! As I say elsewhere! The Batman's morality was always shown to be superior - because it was less cruel, and he was more tolerant than they were! THE WHOLE POINT - pre Himmler/Miller who thinks he knows better!)
And yet what does it tell them now - if you're clever you'll get locked up and neglected?!
I'M just thinking, that Warner top brass TOLD them to do that, in a modern cartoon, specifically, on purpose, to "teach kids what happens to criminals/freaks/dissidents", kind of thing, whereas they wouldn't have in the past - they would have said that Batman or the state authorities would try to reform them, or whatever! But nowadays, all we have is right-wing "lock them up and throw away the key" rhetoric!!!)
Following the culture, is it? And WHO moulds the culture? Who is trying to force it the way they want?
It's not the workers, my friends!!
Of course, the one thing that the cartoonists WERE taking the "dismal Arkham" image from, was the old (archetypal!) 18th, 19th century idea of the asylum as a sort of grim workhouse, one of the worst results of the Poor Law in Britain... And, as another thing, a haunt of... Well, misunderstanding and superstition and melodrama about mental illness; as is evinced by Gothic fiction; and by Victorian melodrama such as "Dracula"! (All mental health professionals should loathe such fiction portrayals! But they ARE common in literature.)
But not all asylum conditions have to be grim: You should see that they had it quite nice in there, in the earlier 80s!
The criminals must get fed up with being messed about! "Either reform us - or f""K off!" They should say! I know I would.
Mmm. It just seems funny to me, how they put all these grim messages, in a kids' cartoon. (Yes, it can be said to work in "layers" as well - but NO WAY are these cartoons as clever as Bugs Bunny! Warner's old output. One Christmas I had the chance to watch a "Batman of the Future" feature and an old BB classic back-to-back.... And I can tell you what won hands down!!)
I mean, I can appreciate some of the little ironies of it as an adult - the Joker walks round the asylum in spats all the time, for instance, in every episode where he so much has a cameo in Arkham... That caused a wry smile on my lips, as soon as I noticed it! He wears a nut uniform - but with Italian shoes and spats! FUNNY, Joker!! That's a bit I intend to pinch!)
That's my boy!
But as a CHILD, I don't think I would have appreciated it, or liked the cartoon very much, because it would have just been too MISERABLE for me, and as a 6-to-10 year old, I just wanted to be amused! I think most people that age DO, don't you??
(So basically, I'm saying that Warner are misjudging the psychological needs of their key audience!!
Oh - except perhaps for the kids enjoying the misbehaviour of the cartoon Joker - which I'm sure they still do, in some way! Kids always love a rebel!)
But as an ADULT entertainment - yeah, I think basically, that if you put some of the SEX (back!) into it, plus a bit more SATIRE - then the Dini approach to a superhero cartoon might work artistically!
As it is, it is no more than 1) a bit of a stylized backwards nod 2) a collection of good ideas (eg. Harley Quinn!) Looking for a real MASTER!!
(Me!)
But, I still think it's funny-strange, the "contemporary" approach to "Batman". I really do think it's all a right-wing plot! The general tenor of it all. (Why didn't they do it with "Superman" - seeing as Nietzsche, favoured philosopher of the Right, wrote about "supermen", or "overmen"? Search me??)
Yeah, making all this - it's not even Wagnerian, I don't know how to describe it, it's bosh... Out of the first two movies, particularly. And the second two - well DIDN'T they just get the fascist howls of outrage, from all the pompous male "fanboys" out there - Hitler Jugend I'd call THEM! JUST because Schumacher decided to include a bit of humour and irony, my, oh my!! Yanks are bad on irony... Which is what convinces me, they have the propensity to form a fascist state, because they take themselves seriously enough! George Orwell said that in Britain, by contrast, people would piddle themselves laughing if soldiers started doing goose-steps!
Anyway, the point about the LAST two Batman movies in the sequence so far, is that visually, and story-wise, they were STILL very dark! The sets and the story of "Batman Forever" was pretty creepy! Humour notwithstanding - it was gothic! As for "Batman and Robin", the dialogue went from bad to worse - but their portrayal of the asylum building was the MOST GOTHIC YET!!! It was so stark and ugly to the point of... I think it was taking the mick of the whole concept, as well it should.
Anyway, I'd love to be able to discuss the Batman MOVIES somewhere on this site! That is why I felt there should be a whole PAGE devoted to JUST Batman - not just the comics or graphic novels, but all spin-offs, including movies, series, cartoons, prose stories... You name it! It needs a discussion page of its own.
And I was used to Technicolor - like in old Technicolor movies, "Jason and the Argonauts", and so on... I don't think I could have been HALF the person I am today, if I wasn't stimulated by all that Technicolor!! (My parents got our first colour TV in about 1972 - I recall it to this day, and we had it for years, till the early 90s! Didn't things last!)
I liked noisy loud cartoons, garish comics and the deep hues of Technicolour movies! I didn't like anything pastel... I wasn't a "My Little Pony" kind of girl...
If you've got all the blessings of modern colour technology, screen/monitor resolution, hi-res digital and all sorts of stuff, plasma TVs and Lord knows what... WHY are all these people (still) creating dingy, dark, drab cartoons, movies and computer games? Seems daft, to me! I think they should aim for a very wide palette, like that of nature documentaries, or a good picture screensaver!!
So my meditation on the cartoons must end here with me saying that although I can appreciate them nowadays, they're good in parts, very curate's egg... I don't think I could have got much joy out of them in my own childhood, whereas I did, with the 20th C. Fox Batman series.
It stumps me as to how much kids can get out of modern cartoons... NOT AS MUCH as they did in the old days, I would think, with the exception of really witty ones, like the Simpsons... Otherwise, I think children ARE being a bit short-changed... LOOK at Warner's new concept for a mutilation of Bugs Bunny: "Buzz Bunny" - apparently that's also the name of a sex toy! What do you think of THAT then? The cartoon concept, not the sex toy!
Oh flame me, I could talk about cartoons all day and all night!!
By the way Maurice: I would like Paul Dini's address, either home or office - any idea where I can find it? I want to send him a long overdue letter. (Mostly a fan letter, but with critical comments.)
(Yes, I daresay he'll get the shock of his life! Everybody does, with me. It's usually a refreshingly mindblowing shock. I've corresponded, in the past, with various people to do with the field, actually... Bob Kane himself, Dennis O'Neil, Max Allan Collins, a few people in British comics. They all responded, with the exception of Dennis O'Neil. Wretch!)
For a British director what I'd do is consult the British publication "Who's Who", seeing as that contains the particulars of practically ALL actors and movie people and personalities and media people of any note; including contact addresses of one kind or another. That's where you go if you want to look up famous people or top professionals in Britain. I know: I used to pore it through, as a teenager!
I did try to see if there was an American equivalent; but my web researches seem to have turned up nothing satisfactory. There's a publication that calls itself ...'s Who's Who: but that seems to be very much inferior, and when I emailed them it said that they couldn't guarantee their entries contained contact addresses... (So why do they bother with it, then? In Britain we at least have the archaic system, where anybody who is anybody (Still!) has a London club, if they're male, certainly, and if they don't want home or office attention, they can be contacted via their club! True!)
So, where would YOU go, if you wanted to contact Mr Dini? WOULD you write to Warner? Which department? (Because I don't know if they're in touch with him when he's not actually working on a cartoon for them!)
I'm very particular about the addressing of fan letters. In Britain I tend to ring the publishing company first. I hate the idea of other people handling my mail. I hate flunkeys in general! Anyone selling lists of celebrities' details on the web - I'll be a customer!!
Oh yes, and if there's anybody ELSE on this particular blog, or Maurice comes back to check it(!) and you want to discuss ANYTHING - including one of my "major themes" - well, ON the subject of fans liking fictional villains, Maurice, Kevin (who said they didn't!)...
Well, come to think of it, THAT has been what the second set of Star Wars movies, the three "prequels" illustrating how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader... Well THAT'S what they're all about!
It's a great theme, really! The rendering of a good man, through travail and suffering, to an epic VILLAIN.
We all have the propensity to end up there!
Anyway, on my own mystical note, it's Gaia's will! IF she wants someone to live, who has been through the mill and has a lot further through adversity to go - well, that's a signal someone tough is needed, if that person's life, their story, is to continue - and so the Goddess obliges!!
(For the more scientific among you, it's called evolution and adaptation!)
Terrible and magnificent are her works!
And obviously most of the viewers of "Revenge of the Sith" must agree with my thoughts on this, because they cheered, apparently, at previews, when Darth was made out of the shell of the good man who had been before... at the moment where he donned his metal mask for the first time!
Though apparently the big fans of the first movies (well I was one!)... Well, apparently not all of them like it very much! Maybe it disturbs their cosy illusions... Of what is "good" and what is "evil"...
(But we were prepared from the Empire Strikes Back anyway, because of the "I am your father" bit, which started the idea for all the prequels, didn't it...)
Anyway! I'm off to check out the "Sith" review on this site!!
Mind you, when you think about it... This set of what some would have dismissed, at the time of the first set of three, as just an entertaining space opera adventure... It has QUITE some meta-themes, doesn't it?
Maurice will say so! He probably knows it a lot better than I do.
Post a Comment
<< Home