July
6How Cool are the Comics
There was a time when movie studios based most of their films on plays or novels. Today, of course, comic books, toys and video games have become prime source material, which makes for damn good box office -- except that some of the filmmakers (and critics) are starting to comment on them as though they were, well, plays and novels.A case in point is Christopher Nolan, the dour Brit who skillfully directed "The Dark Knight," which opens July 17. "The Dark Knight" happens to be a Batman sequel. Listen to Nolan, however, and its origins become surreal.
Interviewing Nolan in the Los Angeles Times, Geoff Boucher reports that, in the director’s mind, the movie is really “a search for the dark heart of society.” Nolan, we are told, is consumed with the theme of “moral uncertainty.”
Concludes the worshipful interviewer: “For Nolan, the movie is an unsettling crime film, not a superhero escapade.”
Variety’s critic, Justin Chang, also goes to lengths to stress that the movie is a “brainy pop entertainment…a full-bodied crime epic of gratifying scope and moral complexity.” He never even mentions the word Batman until his sixth paragraph.
Meanwhile, the portentous print ads for the movie are emblazoned with a quote from Peter Travers, the oft-cited Rolling Stone critic, who proclaims, “The haunting and visionary Dark Knight soars on the wings of untamed imagination.”
OK, let’s re-group here: Superhero sequels have reached a new level -- an “untamed” new level. Hulk is really Hamlet. Batman must be Macbeth. And Chris Nolan is Stanley Kubrick.
Got all that straight?
Subscribe to Peter Bart's Blog Feed
I'm inclined to agree with what I take is the point of this blog, though as Peter Bart should know better than anyone -- The Godfather was a lousy novel and a great movie -- the quality of the source material is no predictor of the quality of the resultant film adaptation.
But surely, Mr Bart, as an editor of yourself you need to do much better: Justin Chang mentions the word Batman in the first paragraph, and then in paragraphs 2,3, and 5, and not in paragraph 6 at all.
Might it be a good idea to submit your writings to another editor in future?
Posted by: tribecan | 7/9/2008 5:08:44 PM
It is very small minded for anyone to simply dismiss something as wide and far reaching as comic book fare as nothing more than poorly written, poorly constructed kiddy fodder. Artists (and they are as such) like Alan Moore have pushed the boundaries of the art form in order and in doing so have legitimized it into a new medium to be taken seriously. In the early stages of any new form of media people find it harder to embrace and easier to critique. Comic books, unlike most literature, is a recent invention (in ths form at least) and as such it is still open to wide criticism with the voices of its supporters slowly building form. The recent tirade of movie adaptions (both good and bad) have placed the form in the spotlight, and hopefully with movies such as Iron Man and the Dark Knight they will help give comic books some kind of legitimacy.
Posted by: James Powell | 7/8/2008 10:27:47 AM
So... no movie based on a comic book should ever aspire to be serious?
Posted by: Remy | 7/8/2008 9:49:51 AM
You're right, of course. Comic Book Movies should never be regarded as art. Films like Barbarella, Danger: Diabolik, Akira, Road to Perdition, A History of Violence, Ghostworld, American Splendor, Persepolis... Erm, hang on...
Posted by: V | 7/8/2008 9:10:51 AM
Congratulations Peter. You hit the nail on the head.
When Hollywood studios make films based on comics, video games, amusement rides, dolls etc they are just dumbing down the audience. My company is releasing this fall "Quiet Flows the Don" based on a Nobel Prize winning novel. I would be happy if people just see it.
Posted by: alex503 | 7/8/2008 7:05:37 AM
Bart! You're a guy who helped turn lowly GANGSTER MOVIES into high art! Now you pretend to be confused/amused when the new kids elevate COMIC BOOK MOVIES to high art? Like the philosopher Shirley Bassey once sang, "its all just a little bit of history repeating..."
Posted by: Thomas J. | 7/8/2008 4:28:10 AM
I always enjoyed Batman comics as a child because it was more grounded in reality. Batman was a tortured soul, but most appealing was that he was a super hero without any super powers. Your complaint that comics are a lesser medium to draw stories from is a miss. If Shakespeare were alive today he would most likely be one of our most prolific comic book writers. Certainly, some of the best comic heroes and villains have deep issues much like Shakespeare''s characters did.
Furthermore, much respect must go to Nolan for bringing Batman to life in the way many of us enjoyed the character on the comic book page. And for a Batman fan, it is a true joy to see the character on screen brought to life in a truthful way. As someone who has seen "The Dark Knight", I can say that it is about time these intense stories got the attention to detail and story they deserve.
Posted by: The Dude | 7/8/2008 12:02:02 AM
My God! My spelling is awful. Well, it's very late here and, well... Apologies all the same.
Posted by: Brian R | 7/7/2008 6:25:50 PM
Have to agree with Robin. Comics are a medium, just like novels. You of all people should know that, Mr Bart. And an idea, whether it starts in a comic or a short story, can contain ideas which, over, ooh, let's say 70 years, can evolve and grow with the times they are written in. And Batman is a prime example of that. Let go if that prejudice towards the 60's tomfoolery, as much as people still hold on to it, regardless of what many say about Nolan's first great Batflick, and please see what moderncomics are also about; not just girls in skint tight suits or mindless explosions. But possibly a take on modern life in a different medium whihc has no les valuse than other established types. In short, please don't seel this film short. I don't know if you;ve seen it or not, but your blog smacks of dismissiveness.
Tolstoy wrote novles. But so did Barbara Cartland.
Posted by: Brian R | 7/7/2008 6:24:02 PM
Awww, c'mon, Peter, didn't you read any comics when you were a kid?
Take a chill pill, man, we're in the middle of the summer season. Last time I checked, plenty of movies coming out in fall/winter were still based on novels and plays.
Posted by: comix fan | 7/7/2008 5:02:53 PM
Got it, Pete. And now you're the new reactionary snob who cannot accept his world view, and specially his self-appointed masterview of the biz, is irrelevant. Get in line.
Posted by: hank | 7/7/2008 11:54:44 AM
Peter Bart seems to be holding back a healthy contempt for the exaggerated praise heaped on the one-dimensional fanboy fare that has replaced serious movie-making in the mad pursuit of mega-bucks... On the other hand there has been a tendency to make comic characters "darker' and supposedly more serious by amping up the violence, gore, and cruelty... If you look at mots of today's graphic novels it's hard to tell the heroes from the villains by design and by their actions... No wonder we are propagating a youger generation of cynics with
little emotion or feelings.
Posted by: kenmandu | 7/7/2008 11:21:41 AM
There are bad novels and plays and good comic books and games. The format stories are told doesn''t automatically confer high art or low art status - it''s the quality of the stories themselves.
As a case in point this opinion is illustrated by a comic book written by Alan Moore. Few novelists have attained his level of excellence in storytelling.
If you''re going to dismiss superhero stories as unworthy of acclaim then why not dismiss all speculative fiction while you''re at it.
Posted by: Robin Kelly | 7/7/2008 11:12:28 AM
The BAT nixes Bart.
Posted by: C | 7/7/2008 10:00:55 AM