Tynan's Anger

I have tried to work up the courage to watch this video, but I simply can't bring myself to do it:

The only redeeming thing is the headline Junior (a.k.a South Park consultant Alan Yang) gave the requisite post on Fire Joe Morgan.

Labels: a.o. scott, david denby, espn, fire joe morgan, skip bayless, stephen a. smith, the dark knight

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.

Labels: a.o. scott, film criticism, the hulk, the incredible hulk

Bill Gibron, who I find myself agreeing with more and more lately, dishes out the dirty secret about Hollywood's second go-around at the Incredible Hulk franchise: that the first Hulk was actually pretty good. Sure, there were a couple of poorly thought out special effects (though in reality, it's virtually impossible to make a giant green body look realistic), and it was not a fun movie for the 13-16 year old male crowd, but it was arguably the most mature, carefully characterized comic book movie that had been made to that point, and there were some real directorial flashes that realized the impact of a director of the caliber of Ang Lee.

If there's one thing that's bothered me more than most other things in terms of contemporary American film criticism, it's the absolute inconsistency in how critics handle comic book blockbuster movies. Critics complain of studios manipulated audiences into believing in their worthlesses, and they're mostly right but when it comes to the comic book movie, the most box-office driven genre, critics only have themselves to blame. While some dismiss the genre altogether (which at this point is like dismissing the Western genre altogether), others find themselves criticizing one movie for what they said they wanted to see in another.

Witness, for example, A.O. Scott's review of The Hulk, which he called "incredibly long, incredibly tedious, incredibly turgid" and made the point that the deeper charactization of Ang Lee's Hulk "would be a fascinating paper in The New England Journal of Medicine, but it makes a supremely irritating -- and borderline nonsensical -- premise for a movie." First off, Scott ignores that this irritating, nonsensical premise is exactly the one that Hulk creator Stan Lee created, and that Lee preferred to think of the Hulk as a character as opposed to some sort of more violent Shrek. Secondly, 4 years later, in his even more negative review of 300 (which a lot of critics forgot was a comic book movie and not a pro-Iraq War propaganda film), he claimed that the film was "about as violent as “Apocalypto” and twice as stupid" and lambasted it for having less nuance than a "Pokémon cartoon." Hence, when faced with a comic book movie heavy on characterization and personal struggle, it's boring, but when faced with a big, dumb, fun popcorn muncher, it's stupid. By those standards, I'm not sure if Orson Welles could make a good comic book movie.

UPDATE: Scott Weinberg at Cinematical has a similar defense of the original Hulk movie, though he indicates the new one is pretty good, too.

Labels: 300, a.o. scott, ang lee, bill gibron, comic book movies, stan lee, the hulk

A.O. Scott had a great piece over the weekend on the return of Roger Ebert's written reviews, pointing out rightly that his writing, not his T.V. arguing, has always been his greatest strength. He even makes some choice observations about the state of film criticism that—gasp!— have not been repeated ad nauseum over the last 3 years:

Such attrition is hardly limited to movie reviewers, and it has more to do with the economics of newspapers than with the health of criticism as a cultural undertaking...

It seems to me that “Sneak Previews” and its descendants, far from advancing the vulgarization of film criticism, extended its reach and strengthened its essentially democratic character.

While he still feels the need to make a point about a glut of online critics, his point about newspaper economy and democratization are surprisingly insightful. I'm glad he didn't resort to the mother's basement line of arguing. That would just make him look silly. Oh wait:

Labels: a.o. scott, film criticism, roger ebert, your medium is dy-ing