March 6, 2009
This isn't a review of the new Zack Snyder film WATCHMEN This is a review of the reviews, or more to the point a review of a particular type of review that has been cropping up lately in what I believe to be a backlash against the rise in prominence of comic-based films.
Fans of comics know of course that the medium is rich with deeply examined characters within complex, dramatic stories. Complex issues and characterization are frequent hallmarks of a vast array of comic books and graphic novels. Only in recent decades has the medium gained attention as literature for adults, this despite of course many more decades of terrific storytelling and examination of social issues and characterization. But the modern acceptance and occasional acclaim for comic books (most often actually directed at the more adult-sounding term "graphic novels") has been a welcome transition for those of us who have long known the literary value and artistic merit of the medium.
It was perhaps inevitable that as mainstream acceptance of the medium grew, it would propel the printed pages into an ever more successful film genre. The rise of the comic-based film genre as a modern powerhouse at the box office and as a treasure trove full of potential material for future films has, thankfully, attracted increasingly talented filmmakers and performers to these projects. Now, we have just seen the first Academy Award season in which a comic-based film was nominated for 8 Academy Awards, and was a top contender for both Best Picture and Best Director nominations.
Comic-based films have officially "arrived" as serious, dramatic works recognizable as great artistic achievements. The future looks very bright, indeed, as studios such as Warner Bros. give careful consideration and serious thought not to just churning out big-budget summer popcorn films featuring these characters, but rather the creation of powerful films capable of gaining nominations and awards for the artistry on display in the work.
Apparently some people are having second thoughts about the advisability of all of this. Namely, a bunch of film critics. It seems that they are disturbed by the notion that suddenly the literary "poor relations" have grown too big for their britches, and that this whole ascendance of comic-based films into the realm of higher-art is not such a good thing after all. So we are seeing with "Watchmen" a sort of buyers remorse from this particular batch of film critics, who are sounding the alarm as they imagine the hordes of masked barbarians storming the gates of the faux-Ivory Towers of pseudo-intellectualism.
I suspect there is a sense of guilt at the root of it all. The critics, in their inflated sense of self-importance, no doubt feel that they accidentally helped legitimize the comic-based film genre in the first place. Widespread critical acclaim for films such as IRON MAN and THE DARK KNIGHT, and some of the early acclaim for WATCHMEN, has spread the notion that this lowbrow, immature pop-culture kitch rises to the level of true art – heaven forbid! That the recent Academy Award season featured much discussion and debate about THE DARK KNIGHT as an Oscar-contender likely sent this batch of film critics into hysterics.
The teaming masses flocked to these films, declared them masterpieces, and had the gall to even rally behind the Oscar-worthiness of the films. Only the power of intellectual critical acclaim could have given the commoners this mistaken sense of a voice in the thoughtful determination of what is or is not serious art, right? So it is of course their solemn duty to undo the damage their powerful expressions of opinion have wrought.
Now these defenders of high-art rush forward to stem the tide, to put the comic-based genre, it's fans, and the mainstream masses in their place. WATCHMEN has become a rallying point, and they've taken out the big guns.
It isn't enough to just denounce the film – that would not be a strong enough statement. No, what is necessary is to make it perfectly clear that it is not merely this particular film, but rather the entire genre and its source material, that are utterly unworthy of serious consideration as art. Even that, however, is apparently not enough, for they have decided it's time to also try to knock all of these comic book fans down a notch or two as well. Time to force back the clock to the time prior to mainstream acceptance of the medium and of its fans as more than just immature little boys who can't talk to girls. Time, in fact, to perhaps literally call them just that – as at least one reviewer explicitly did in mocking those who would watch WATCHMEN in the first place.
By insulting the fans of this material, by dismissing the literary source, and by acting annoyed that the consideration of these films as true art has "gone too far", these reviewers are trying to humble audiences into embarrassed and submissive silence.
The backlash against the genre does not really have to successful stymie the box office power of the films, notice – it merely has to remind audiences that this is all a bunch of mindless fluff suited more for kids, with the warning: "Hey, popcorn flicks are fun, sure, but don't get any delusions of grandeur about this pop-culture crap as serious art." It is the removal of expectations, an attempt to prevent audiences from assessing the merits of the film and reaching conclusions – remember, the goal isn't just to alter those conclusions, it's just as important to alter the audiences' notion that they have any collective right to participate in determinations about what constitutes real art.
So even if fans and audiences feel insulted by this messaging, it has still had its needed impact – reduce expectations, and get across the point that notions of art and literature are the realm of a "better" class of people. This part, then, is easy enough for these reviewers. It is not, however, the main goal.
The real target audience for these reviews is a combination of other film critics and of Hollywood itself. The message to this audience is that these are films taken from comic books, with people wearing masks and underwear, where silly action and special effects cannot ultimately disguise pretense toward being something it's not – high art and serious literature. In other words, stop being fooled by the pomp and circumstance. Make your fun and flashy films, and we'll review them and even smile and wink and encourage the lowbrow viewers to stop by for a fun night – but don't try to pass this stuff off as worthy of serious consideration, and don't nominate this pop-culture kitch for serious awards.
Some of their brethren will no doubt fail to get the message, or will get it but return it to sender. Roger Ebert is one such reviewer, someone who doesn't care what are the origins of a film -- if it is great, then he will call it great. He has long been one of the critics who most recognized the ongoing renaissance in comic-based films, and who early on stated his belief that THE DARK KNIGHT could get -- and would deserve -- a nomination for Best Picture. But his popularity and status is so strong, that the currently incited group of critics can't openly complain and attack the likes of Roger Ebert, lest their own critical voices be rather quickly dismissed and lose whatever weight they might have (even if only in their own minds) in shaping public and industry opinion and standards.
I am not objecting to criticisms of WATCHMEN or of other comic-based films. What I'm objecting to is criticism of this movie and other comic-based films when that criticism is rooted in the fact that they ARE comic-based. That is precisely the sort of knee-jerk hack writing that is being passed off as legitimate critical journalism right now, in a backlash launched by a segment of film critics who fancy themselves the gatekeepers of high culture and intellectualism in film. I'm also not being anti-intellectual here, either. My disdain is directed at pseudo-intellectuals, and those pseudo-intellectuals who pose as definers of true artistic merit.
Those who disliked WATCHMEN or THE DARK KNIGHT for serious, intelligently articulated reasons are quite different from those currently flailing about to discredit comic books as an acceptable literary genre and to insult and degrade comic book fans as childish losers trying to pretend toward intellectualism as a cover for an inability to score dates. These are not the arguments of high-minded critics, but rather petty outbursts from small-minded people alarmed at what they perceive as an existential threat to their self-perceived status as intellectual superiors.
I hope that some of the other film critics speak out openly about this, and take their wrongheaded peers to task for that sort of behavior. I also hope that Zack Snyder, Chris Nolan, and/or some other filmmaker involved with this genre speaks out publicly to the fans and to mainstream audiences as well, to defend the integrity of these films and of the source material, as well as publicly shaming that small segment of film critics for such inexcusable remarks parading around as serious film analysis. But most of all, I hope fans and audiences in general simply ignore these critics and see through the transparent attempts to degrade an art form and a film genre that are more than worthy of consideration as fine literature, dramatic filmmaking, and high art.
No comments:
Post a Comment