While researching an (aborted) English degree, superheroes-specifically the 20th-21st Century interpretation of Gods and Monsters in a world where we have visited the skies and found it empty and magic is by and large a definition of technological perspective-and with fixed analysis on the Marvel/DC paradigm and their offshoots which have come to dominate "high" lowbrow culture in the USA. If only all filmmakers would aspire to be mythic instead of merely sell tickets, T-shirts, tie-in media, and show a CGI dude punching stuff for 2 hours. The irony is the Hulk is one of the "easier" metaphors to get- A parable on Cold War paranoia crossbred with a Jekyll and Hyde dynamic-and instead of merely playing with the Jekyll and Hyde aspect as Norton's film did Lee was bold enough to use the bipolar and schizophrenic elements of Bana's psyche (and the reactions of those around him to that psyche) to examine the context of 21st Century America via modern archetype. Wonder Woman is the story of a supposed elite forced to reconcile with reality when her privileged upbringing and lofty goals fail to match society's. Batman is about the blessing and curse mental illness can bring towards construction, and the ramifications of action in a world known for breeding negative forces of equal reaction. Superman is about the expectations of the 20th-21st Century Man and the burden of the adopted child, the immigrant, and that blessed with gifts almost beyond his own comprehension in a world that reacts violently to the slightest modification-people like Brian Singer who made Superman Returns are operating off of an old model that plays Superman as "Space Jesus" and misses the point entirely. Sure, some are easy to 'get'-Spider-man is a puberty metaphor, the X-Men are a stand-in for generational friction (and gays, and any other minority you want), Iron Man is the plight of the venture capitalist when exposed to both ends of his own enterprise, Captain America is a puberty metaphor and a metaphor for recognizing which values are truly worth upholding in rapidly shifting times, The Flash is about the local boytown hero who can seemingly do whatever he sets his mind to, Green Lantern is about the shifting definition of who serves and protects and why-and some aren't. I think Lee succeeded on a level even Christopher Nolan's Batman films haven't in portraying the real "Gods and Monsters" and "21st Century Man" aspect of DC/Marvel Superheroes. I suspect history will be far kinder to it than present, especially when compared to a spate of comic book adaptations that aspire to do nothing more than deliver the cheap thrills Hulk so assiduously avoids. Yet despite its flaws, Hulk stands as a unique attempt to infect a blockbuster with the gravity and pathos of a small-scale drama. It's an almost perversely quiet film filled with solemn conversations conducted in near-whispers. In its first hour, Hulk boasts a hushed intensity that could easily pass for dullness. I don't agree that Lee took all the fun out of the Hulk, but he gets a few things very right:īana described the mood on the Hulk set as "ridiculously serious" to the point of being "morbid in a lot of ways." That somber quality is amply reflected in the finished product. This is a decent-ish review of Lee's Hulk, just skip the first 3 paragraphs and anytime the writer starts going on about Jennifer Connelly: That's funny, the irony is the girl I was with fell asleep during Lee's Hulk. That said, Lee's Hulk was, and is, a secret success to my eyes and those who don't see the term "superhero" and immediately dismiss it as the exclusive province of children, and I don't mean that in the Frank Miller "tits, cursing, and blood" way. Overall it's the "better" version just because it fits within the overall Marvel Universe better than Lee's Hulk. The action is solid and the pacing is excellent. Norton is great, Roth is great, even Hurt is great. Norton's version is what one would "expect" from an adaptation of the Hulk. If there's any real problem it's the pacing and self-indulgent tendencies, which make the characters inaccessible to most audiences. Despite common complaints I also think the action/CGI are excellent. Lee's version is pretentious and very flawed, but at the same time I feel it succeeds at portraying its version of the Hulk and delving into the psychology of the character on a level no superhero film before nor since has even dared. That said I love both equally for very different reason. You'll find that popular opinion is for the Norton version almost everywhere.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |