Tynan's Anger

Arts & Culture Commentary from a Loving Digital Skeptic

Will any Hulk be good enough for A.O. Scott?

Posted on | June 13, 2008 | 1 Comment


In 2003, there was a movie version of The Incredible Hulk comic book saga that focuses heavily (some would say excessively) on the psychological trauma of the Hulk. New York Times head movie critic A.O. Scott called it “incredibly long, incredibly tedious, and incredibly turgid.” Five years later, in part due to the response of critics like Scott, the franchise was completely reworked, with a heavier emphasis on Hulk smashing things. There was a passing, but acceptable amount of backstory. To A.O. Scott, this is the equivalent of “The Adequate Hulk,” and his one-sentence summary reads, “There are some big, thumping fights and a few bright shards of pop-cultural wit, but for the most part this movie seems content to aim for the generic mean.”

Look, I’m not trying to go on a witch hunt against Scott. I think overall he’s one of the more responsible critics in the country, one who’s not afraid to express his own priorities—even if they go against the grain—and also has a good grasp of the state of American filmmaking. But I find this kind of approach to criticism unacceptable. Here we have two poles of the same story: one Hulk heavy on psychology, another heavy on action (though both have a fair amount of each). Yet, neither is good enough for Scott, which begs the question of what kind of Incredible Hulk movie would Scott find actually appreciate.

In fact, his explanation for why he’s hesitant towards the Hulk franchise expresses a fundamental misunderstanding of the appeal of the comic book movie:

“The Incredible Hulk” less interesting — clumsier, more brutish — than many of its comic-book-derived counterparts. Superhero movies depend not only on virtuosic special effects or action set pieces, but also, perhaps even more, on the psychological drama of existential division. The mild-mannered reporter is also the man of steel; the reclusive millionaire dons mask and cape to fight evil.

I don’t know what psychological division is more extreme than mild mannered, likeable scientist and giant green angry monstrosity (rather Freudian when you think about it). Never mind that, for most fans of actual comic books, the Incredible Hulk is consistently listed as one of the most intellectually fascinating franchises. He’s seen as one of the more psychologically complex comic book characters, where Bruce Banner, despite his relatively sweet, genuine nature, is forced to live in isolation for what he can become if he gets angry. He’s seen as comic book’s best criticism of the Cold War spirit: that by combining nuclear science, militaristic values and capitalism with humanity, we’ve forced ourselves to become an increasingly isolated society with the potential to become fatally dangerous against our will.

How Scott, one of the more theoretically astute major American critics, can miss this side of the Hulk is beyond me. As I have said earlier, I don’t think even Orson Welles could make a Hulk that would fit Scott’s standards. It’s a critic’s job to tell an audience how a work of art succeeded or failed in accomplishing its goals and point out what could have been better about its approach. What a critic should never do is dismiss the whole enterprise outright.

Category: Uncategorized
Tags: > > >

Comments

  • Bass Drum Mallets

    This is impressive points on blog!