Words and Pictures
There are exceptions, I grant you. Sin City for example was taken straight from the comics. Every shot was a frame from Frank Miller's work. In fact, Robert Rodriguez used the comics so much, he gave Miller a co-director credit. And it looked great. As much as I liked it, though, I think that it went too far in the other direction and actually stayed too close to the source material. Therefore, a lot of the dialogue, which works great on the page, came across a bit cheesy in the movie.
What I'm asking for is a happy medium. Think of it as though you were adapting something else, like a play for instance. Certain things about plays make them great for adapting into movies, but plays are also limited in ways movies are not. For example, a play can't have close-ups or be edited to change a performance, whereas a movie can. So, in general, when adapting a play into a movie, the screenwriter and/or director will take the strengths of the film medium and essentially infuse them into the play (and before anyone brings it up, yes, I've seen Rope, and you know as well as I do it is the exception to the rule.) I just don't understand why comic book movies can't be made this way, taking what is good about both mediums and creating something that transcends both.
Now, before everyone starts saying that I hate comic book movies, I just want to say that that couldn't be farther from the truth. I really like several comic book movies. I greatly enjoyed Spider -Man I & II, X-Men I & II, Superman I & II, The Hulk, Sin City, and Batman Begins. Hell, I own most of them. But they're not great movies. Superman I comes the closest, but it's still not a great movie. As much as I like Batman Begins, does anyone want to argue that it's in same league with Nolan's previous two movies, Memento and Insomnia? Didn't think so. There is no reason that the filmmakers or the audience should feel that we should lower our expectations because it's based on a comic book. If a kung fu flick can grow up enough to be nominated for Best Picture, why not a comic book movie? Watch Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and tell me that their kung fu isn't essentially a super power.
There are seriously only two movies that came close to doing what I'm talking about. The first is actually one my all-time favorite movies, and that's American Splendor. It's really a great movie that uses the full potential of the film medium. The movie presents the protagonist, Harvey Pekar, to the audience through an actor, an animated version, and even documentary-style footage of the actual Harvey Pekar. Absolute genius. However, this movie doesn't count, because it's not really a comic book movie. The comic American Splendor is autobiographical, and therefore based on real life, which means that's what the movie is based on. This probably would have also disqualified From Hell, had that actually been a good movie.
The second movie is Sam Mendes' Road To Perdition. The movie looked great, had a couple of great performances, and was pretty well received. The problem is, it just didn't do it for me. And I'll have to make the same argument I did for Nolan, and say that as good as Perdition may have been, it's no American Beauty. And besides that, the movie almost tried to hide that it was based on a comic book, therefore lending no more respect or recognition to the art form.
My big fear with all of this is that there will never be a great comic book movie. Since there seems to be a new one coming out every week, there is bound to be a saturation point. And as they slowly take strides to be better movies, the clock is ticking. For every Batman Begins, which really took the subject matter seriously, there's a Fantastic Four, an Elektra, and a Daredevil.
But there is hope. A History of Violence comes out next month, and it was nominated for the Golden Palm at Cannes. Maybe, just maybe comic book movies are growing up. Now, if only we could get a Watchmen movie made...
14 Comments:
Here are the reasons why it is hard to make a comic book into a good movie:
Executive Producer (usually 2), Producer(anywhere from 2 to 6), Co-Producer(glorified writers), Screenwriter (+5 additional writers, helpers, etc), Director (Notice placement in the list this guy is), Director of Photography (is only as good as his Key Grip and Best Boy), Production Designer (with a holster of Art Directors, Set Designers, Set Decorators..), Editor(s), Music Editor...
All with money influence, all with a varing rate of creative influence. Then you tell them all, copy this.
I think a huge part of the problem is the lack of audience for the kind of film that you're looking for. The kind of person who loves comics is not always a person who appreciates fine cinema (i am referring to the people who got excited over a third Blade movie being made) and with both of those groups seemingly dwindling before our very eyes it is going to be harder and harder to generate the funds for a complex, special-effects laden flick that may only appeal to a small group.
I think the only real solution is to start an international geek coalition that could raise enough funds to attract the right talent and bypass the studio system. Only then will we get a mature, progressive and independent comic book film. Indie film ethics + money from well-off geeks + comics = potentially great film.
I think the only real solution is to start an international geek coalition that could raise enough funds to attract the right talent and bypass the studio system.
Check out some of the fan films at comic cons. Actually very impressive if they have a bit of a budget, but again, they tend to take the material too seriously.
Therefore, a lot of the dialogue, which works great on the page, came across a bit cheesy in the movie.
To me, Sin City has the perfect dialogue because it is pulp noir squeezed through pop culture and comic filters. Dwight is The Shadow, right down to the dual nickel handled .45s, except with a pair of red Chuck Taylors. Hartigan is a cross between Dirty Harry and Jacob Marlowe. Those are surreal interpretations on established character types. Plus Marv getting hit with a car several times (and a sledge hammer to the face) - c'mon, we are out of reality anyway - might as well have the dialogue match the over the top violence.
Everything to the violence and the cars are all the things that Frank Miller loves, and that is what makes Sin City such an achievement. Finally, a personal and singular vision has made it onto the screen intact and unharmed. Like Timmy mentioned, that is nearly impossible in Hollywood.
Comic creators often show their influences through their work. Look at other comics from that time period also, Bone is Jeff Smith's love for Pogo and The Hobbit smashed together. Locas is a combination of sci-fi pulp, Heavy Metal and (I kid you not) Hank Ketcham's Dennis the Menace. All of these could be great movies potentially.
But they're not great movies.
Why not? Who says? More importantly before you link to a ba-zillion very important reviews from very important critics, why should I care what they think?
Films are made for entertainment, and ultimately for your money, not for artistic merit. There are exceptions, but it is a commercial art. I do think Batman Begins is as good as Memento and Insomnia because all three got my money and I didn't leave unsatisfied.
Dude, Daredevil wasn't that bad.
You got to see Affleck's world rocked and rolled (aka your boy took some lumps).
Wow, um I never expected so many comments for something that I thought was just a geek rant. I guess it just goes to show I know my audience.
Timmy makes a good point about the group mind that makes a movie. But my point remains if you're going to change the material so much, why bother making it at all? Look at the Harry Potter and LOTR movies. Yes, they made changes, but they were necessary changes to make them work as movies. It's that marriage of film and the source material that I was talking about.
Ryan, I just think that more talented directors that are also geeks, like say Aranofsky need to be making movies. Nolan did it, and he made really enjoyable film. Someone else just needs to kick it up a notch.
Max, I linked to other reviews because I wasn't about to review every movie I was talking about. I just wanted to back up MY OPINION. I'm the one who thinks they're not great movies. A great movie, by my definition is a movie that will influence the audience and the creators of other movies. Not just for the time being, but years down the road. Memento is such a movie. Because of its innovative story and structure, people still talk about it as a highlight of past 10 years. Batman Begins may influence other comic book movies, but in the end that will be as far as it goes. People of the future will not point out Begins as a landmark film from the turn of the century, whereas they will point out Memento. And yes, film is a commercial medium. I understand that movies are made to make money. But so are books. There is art for art's sake, but just because something is commercial doesn't mean it can't be art. Are you going to say that Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath isn't art? What about Spielberg's Schindler's List? I could go on and on, but I know you said there are exceptions. My point is that "commercial" and "art" don't have to be mutually exclusive.
And Micah, I'm pretty sure that you're kidding. But to use your terminology, Daredevil was "pretty plum." About the only good thing I can say about it is it was better than Captain America.
Wow, um I never expected so many comments for something that I thought was just a geek rant.
Your rants are great and cause people to discuss - this is why I've wanted you to have a blog for so long!
Max, I linked to other reviews because I wasn't about to review every movie I was talking about. I just wanted to back up MY OPINION. I'm the one who thinks they're not great movies.
I'm glad we finally agree on this, because usually you would try to prove to me why a movie is better than another - or basically, why my opinion if different from yours, was wrong. Admitting that it is only your opinion is like warm sunshine on my face. And actually, in your post, you don't really specify these opinions as opinions, just universal fact that they are somehow inferior movies.
As far as the broad question of "is it art?" I shouldn't have posted that, as my ideas on the whole matter aren't fully formed. I'm not sure anymore what is art and what isn't. I have been thinking a great deal about James Kochalka's "Craft is the Enemy of Art" letters in the Comics Journal, and with the understanding that commercial art is not art, per se (no matter how expertly crafted), are books, comics, movies, and entertainment in general a commercial art because they are looking for money? Or if searching for a profit is the whole reason for the art's existence what makes it a commercial art? I'm not sure I know one way or the other.
Films are investments, no matter how much anyone cries that they are art - they are made to make a sickening amount of money (compared to what someone makes on a novel [JK Rowling being the exception]). Even low budget films make more money than comics and novels.
It is all about margins, and publishing is a very slim margin business (we're talking like 10% profits - that is scraping by). Some movies can make over 4 times their initial investments, and most of them have to have at a 50% margin.
Books and comics, I think, would be created no matter what money is involved because there is a low entry barrier. Look at how many great free webcomics are out in the wild now. So if nothing else comes out of this (is it art), I think comics and novels have a great deal more passion surrounding their creation than films.
Anyone else want to chime in? I've probably derailed the conversation too far - sorry, man! :)
Books and comics, I think, would be created no matter what money is involved because there is a low entry barrier.
Honestly, I think that the same can now be said about movies. If people have a story to tell, they can do it. Look at Kevin Smith with Clerks. Look at Tarnation. Jonathon Couette made it entirely by himself on Final Cut Pro.
I think to say that movies are made without passion is probably true, but to say the same about FILMS is something else entirely. I think that there is definitely a differentiation there.
Yeah, you have your Porky's and Dukes of Hazard, which have about as much passion put into them as I put into driving to work everyday. But I've seen Hearts of Darkness. I saw in that documentary what the cast and crew of Apocalypse Now went through making that movie. I've seen Spike Lee break down and cry when talking about making Malcolm X. I've heard people talk about what Daniel Day Lewis goes through every time he takes on a role. That my friend, is passion and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise.
And one last thing, I've always looked at blogs as editorials. Maybe they aren't all editorials, but for intents and purposes mine is. Am I supposed to say "In my opinion..." every time I express an opinion? Dude, it's MY blog. You don't do that on your blog, or even on my blog. Besides, read a movie review sometime. Everything in them is stated as fact as well, but you know going into it that it's going to have an opinion. That's why you read it. Otherwise it would just be synopsis.
And don't be worried about derailing the conversation, you and I do it all the time, especially when it comes to the aesthetics of art.
Honestly, I think that the same can now be said about movies. If people have a story to tell, they can do it. Look at Kevin Smith with Clerks. Look at Tarnation. Jonathon Couette made it entirely by himself on Final Cut Pro.
Three out of how many professional directors (I'll even throw in the wanna-be's). That is a pretty sad ratio.
I've seen Spike Lee break down and cry when talking about making Malcolm X. I've heard people talk about what Daniel Day Lewis goes through every time he takes on a role. That my friend, is passion and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise.
Fair enough. Both of those are interesting examples, because Spike Lee uses his ad agency money to fund many of his movies, and Lewis is an apprentice shoe maker because he would rather not act anymore (though he's in a new film coming up).
Am I supposed to say "In my opinion..." every time I express an opinion? Dude, it's MY blog. You don't do that on your blog, or even on my blog.
I agree, but when you make statements like this:
As much as I like Batman Begins, does anyone want to argue that it's in same league with Nolan's previous two movies, Memento and Insomnia? Didn't think so.
Sorry, you are going to get a response and a challenge when you say things like that. Right there, you are telling me my opinion or at least what it should be.
And lest I be brought to task for the opinion thing again - please note that this is why I wanted you to get a blog - because you are very opinionated and opinions make for interesting reading. If you don't like your opinions and thoughts being challenged - write it in a diary.
I hope you don't do that though! :)
I'm not sure anymore what is art and what isn't... ...and with the understanding that commercial art is not art, per se (no matter how expertly crafted), are books, comics, movies, and entertainment in general a commercial art because they are looking for money? Or if searching for a profit is the whole reason for the art's existence what makes it a commercial art? I'm not sure I know one way or the other.
Art may be anything that draws out an emotional responce. I didn't learn that from any book or journal and there won't be a footnote. What is the difference between "commercial" art and.. and.. what other? All art has a temporary value system applied to it by the viewer(s), even if the viewer is the creator. When does that value translate into currency? (Damn the man.) How many masterpieces were created for money so the artist could eat? Disregarding skill and style, what is the difference? Is there a difference if you eliminate opinion?
When someone holds a photography up and says "This is my art." Who is to say different? I will not disagree with that person, but I will use adjetives, maybe some adverbs, to describe his art. (shotty, crappy, brilliant, toot-sweet, janky)
Books and comics, I think, would be created no matter what money is involved....
Yeah, but all that is going to change thanks because of technology(cheaper, better digital cameras), software(Adobe FCP, AfterEffects) and hackers(for access of said software).
So if nothing else comes out of this (is it art), I think comics and novels have a great deal more passion surrounding their creation than films.
Does that includge Shanna the She-Devil?
One more comment on the whole argument "are movies art?" debate:
In 1969 critic Pauline Kael wrote a great essay about the line that differentiates art from trash in films called "Trash, Art and the Movies," for Harper's magazine ( Again, it's an essay, so it's just her opinion.) While I don't agree with everything she says, her distinction between "good trash" and "bad art" is pretty great. It's pretty long, but you can check it out here.
Michael Chabon wrote on his website about pitching his version of the Fantastic Four movie in 1995. Sounds very cool (he obviously gets what people love about comics and how they can best be used to tell stories), though it's kind of depressing since it didn't turn out very well. Well, I haven't seen it, so I don't know for sure...Maybe now that he's done Spider-Man 2, he'll get more chances to do things like this.
In other bad news, the Kavalier and Clay movie seems to be on indefinite hold (last I heard).
I understand that with so many people involved, it's difficult to make a good comic movie...but if other genres are able to turn out great movies on a fairly regular basis, why should the comics genre be any different?
Tim, all great points, and all ones that I have been thinking about. I'm personally at a crossroads a bit as to what it means to me to be an artist and a commercial artist.
Does that include Shanna the She-Devil?
Hell yeah! Check out Frank Cho's passion for enormous breasts!
And actually, in your post, you don't really specify these opinions as opinions, just universal fact that they are somehow inferior movies.
And lest I be brought to task for the opinion thing again - please note that this is why I wanted you to get a blog - because you are very opinionated and opinions make for interesting reading. If you don't like your opinions and thoughts being challenged - write it in a diary.
Actually, I want my OPINIONS challenged, otherwise I wouldn't have started this blog. I was just clarifying that this is MY blog, therefore it reflects MY world view. You want me to put some sort of disclaimer at the top that says something to that effect? I just think that would be superfluous since it's "Citizen Thom" not "10 Cold Hard Facts About Why Comic Book Movies Suck."
Oh, and just because it's my opinion, doesn't mean I'm not right. :)
And don't worry about me giving up blogging. It would take more arguments with you to do that. Although, if this goes on for much longer, I may have to change the name of my blog to "Max and Christian Argue Like An Old Married Couple."
Just remember, YOU ASKED FOR IT.
I think you should change it to "Max and Christian Have Sex Like An Old Married Couple." More people would deff come by. I would.
(as the conversation drops down several notches)
Post a Comment
<< Home