By Noah Redfield
One of my professors recently remarked that this generation treats the superhero genre like Shakespeare. The statement was made in jest, but there is more than a grain of truth to be found there. Films like “Watchmen” and “The Dark Knight” are indeed treated like modern-day masterpieces by the general public as though they have somehow redefined the language of cinema.
On the other side of the coin, the notion that Shakespeare was an artistic god who could bang out one stroke of genius after the next while doing a hand-stand with his eyes closed is perpetuated as soon as one enters middle school. Ever try asking why Shakespeare was so great? And how many detentions did that buy you?
The truth is that Shakespeare had his off-days just like the rest of us. When he was good, he wrote “King Lear” and “Hamlet.” When he was bad, well, perhaps you treated yourself to the recent production of “The Tempest,” or three hours of nymphs and monsters yakking at each other (no disrespect to the production intended). Even the Bard was capable of dropping the ball, and deep down, all your English teachers knew it.
But a new generation of moviegoers is taking up the very same attitude, this time directed at virtually every comic book adaptation coming out these days (“The Spirit” being the painful exception to the rule). Ryan Broderick beat me to the pleasure of panning “Watchmen,” Zack Snyder’s bastardization of Alan Moore’s masterful graphic novel, but it bears repeating that just because a film looks like the source material, doesn’t mean it captures the content in any way. I could take out a copy of “The Catcher in the Rye” and frame and film every word of the text but that wouldn’t make it a successful adaptation of J.D. Salinger’s novel. But the “Watchmen” fanboys won’t hear any of it, even though they’d be better off reading the book again.
Worse still was trying to sneak in a dissenting view of Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” last summer, a film I actually admired but criticized for an overly expository screenplay and a sloppy third-act that even co-writer Jonathan Nolan laments. Because I didn’t love it enough, I must’ve despised it. Luckily I’m not Jürgen Fauth or Keith Uhlich, two critics who received death threats by fanboys after panning the film outright.
I blame Joel Schumacher for the rise of comic book fanboys in world cinema. Schumacher famously took over for Tim Burton after he left the Batman franchise, and henceforth left us “Batman Forever” and “Batman and Robin,” two films so disgustingly campy that it made the TV series starring Adam West look like “Twin Peaks.” Schumacher even had to apologize for making “Batman and Robin” and essentially killing these pictures in the process. (If only he could apologize for literally everything else he’s done). After Bryan Singer proved that superhero films didn’t have to be made for children with 2000’s “X-Men,” the genre was revamped, allowing audiences to take their favorite avengers like Spider-Man seriously again. But perhaps a little too seriously….
What is the best contemporary superhero film? My heart belongs to Jon Favreau’s “Iron Man,” a picture that has plenty of terrific action sequences to entertain the target audience (18-25-year-old males) and never compromises the narrative in favor of an extra explosion (Take note, Michael Bay). Crucially, however, it knows exactly what it is. It’s a superhero movie. It doesn’t need to bash your brains in with a thematic sledgehammer. It doesn’t expect you to bow down to it just because it’s not an incompetent mess. There is social commentary in the subtext but it’s only there if you want to find it. Otherwise, all it expects is for you to go along for the ride.
One day somebody will make a truly masterful superhero film, but for the record, there is nothing revolutionary about making a dark film. What makes a dark film memorable is the originality of its premise and the execution. Everything “The Dark Knight” said was conveyed a thousand times better in the Coen Brothers’ “No Country for Old Men” the year before. “Watchmen” has a book that does everything the film wishes it could do. Obviously both pictures are miles above “Batman and Robin,” but then again, almost everything is better than that. Elitism needs to rear its head and demand higher standards; then we will finally encounter the “Citizen Kane” of superhero films. Until that day, I’ll stick with the ones that don’t aspire towards the worst of Shakespeare, and I’ll go for the best of Shakespeare when I need my mind blown.