Two great superhero flicks this year: Iron Man and The Dark Knight. Which was better?
(Are superhero flicks science fiction? Well, when they include futuristic technologies, I think so -- although the genre is more mythological in some ways. But these two are clearly about the social production of good and evil instead of treating them as fixed absolutes, which is a further testimony to their science-fictional versus their high-fantastic mythological character -- see the great essay on this, using Stephen R. Donaldson as an example, in New Boundaries in Political Science Fiction, a book in which (full disclosure) I have a chapter . . . the famous Iain M. Banks chapter, co-written with James Heilman, s/s/f veteran.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
If the question is "which was the better superhero movie," then I feel obliged to answer Iron Man. But I do think that The Dark Knight is a better movie.
An excerpt from Roger Ebert's review of Spider-Man 2:
"Now this is what a superhero movie should be. "Spider-Man 2" believes in its story in the same way serious comic readers believe, when the adventures on the page express their own dreams and wishes. It's not camp and it's not nostalgia, it's not wall-to-wall special effects and it's not pickled in angst. It's simply and poignantly a realization that being Spider-Man is a burden that Peter Parker is not entirely willing to bear.
The movie demonstrates what's wrong with a lot of other superhero epics: They focus on the superpowers, and short-change the humans behind them. (Has anyone ever been more boring, for instance, than Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne?)"
This review was written in 2004, so Mr. Ebert's criticism of Batman films does not include Batman Begins or, of course, TDK. In fact, I think the greatest flaw of TDK is how it basically leaves the Batman character behind.
Several times throughout the film, characters refer pointedly to the importance of Batman as a symbol. Whether it be as a hero of hope or a scapegoat, Batman exists as something more than a rubberclad billionaire. The Joker's goal of killing Batman is a direct challenge to his status as a champion of right. However, the power of Batman as an individual seems to be inversely proportional to the power of Batman as a symbol.
An important element of a superhero movie is when the hero identifies some consequence of his/her superheroics, then accepts or overcomes that consequence. Iron Man does one better, by forcing Tony Stark to face the consequences of running a weapons company. Growth is certainly important for a hero, and Iron Man has it in spades; of course, since TDK is a sequel, it's at a disadvantage here. Then again, this Batman series took an entire film to do its origin story, while Iron Man only took half of one.
TDK, on the other hand, has something like negative growth on the part of Bruce Wayne. We see him retreat from his role of guarding the city, admitting that he is unable to fight the Joker. By the end of the film, he makes the choice to save Rachel rather than Dent. Although the Joker sabotages his choice, it remains essentially selfish: love triumphing logic. "He's only human," one might argue, but that's the rub -- he's not exactly willing to take on the burden of superheroism via sacrifice. The Batman gig just gives him something to do with his time and satisfies his need to avenge his parents.
Not that TDK isn't awesome. It's just really about the Joker; like No Country for Old Men, it focuses on the effects of evil men on their surroundings rather than the ways good men choose to deal with them. Batman exists on the periphery of his own film, except to sweep in at the end to save everyone with gadgetry and the Patriot Act. In contrast, by the end of Iron Man, the rules governing the gadgets seem to be broken entirely in service to the plot. And plot triumphing gadgets is a fine choice, indeed.
Post a Comment