Film, Literature, & the Human Condition

Yes, I believe comic books are literature. I also believe the inimical relationship between Batman and the Joker is one of the most complex struggles between two characters in all literature, a struggle that has not been so profoundly explored until the brilliance of The Dark Knight. Everything from the writing, the directing, the cinematography, the music, and of course, the acting goes to extreme lengths to serve this purpose. The tragic loss of Heath Ledger is depressing not just because an artist with so much to offer is no longer with us, but because the depths of the enigmatic Joker must now remain a mystery. His performance was absolute and nobody else should continue with the role. What Ledger was doing onscreen is something beyond our understanding. He gave us hints towards a deeper inquiry of this character without revealing too much. The Joker revels in chaos, but you can sense maybe there’s more driving him than we can know, that something has pushed him to an inner turbulence which now explodes externally as total anarchy. This is the great conflict between Batman and the Joker. If someone wanted to better understand the symbiosis of protagonist and antagonist, they can simply look to this film. Not because it is a battle between hero and villain. It’s much more, more even than good versus evil. The Batman has rules. The Joker has no rules. The Batman’s outer shell is dark and serious. In contrast, the Joker is light and jocular. The Batman fights to stay in control of himself. The Joker concedes powerlessness against himself. Most dynamically, Batman seeks to preserve life and won’t kill anyone. The Joker wants to destroy life and is not afraid to die. (continue reading…)

When I watched Superman Returns back in 2006, I kind of liked it. I thought Brandon Routh was perfect, able to maintain the essence of Christopher Reeve, but he wasn’t given too much to do. I liked Superman Returns, I felt it did a lot more right than it did wrong, but there were two major issues I had with the movie. One was the screenplay. A close second was Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, but primarily the screenplay. Everything else was okay to me. Bryan Singer’s direction very closely followed the style which was established by Richard Donner in the 1978 original, which added a warm welcomed dimension of nostalgia. Kevin Spacey’s performance as Lex Luthor paid tribute to Gene Hackman while staying unique itself. Like I said, the main flaw is the narrative ambitions of the screenwriters, which were a bit overreaching. While maintaining the philosophy of verisimilitude as emphasized by Donner, I felt maybe they took the material too seriously, thereby detracting from the magic of the first film. Towards the end, it began to adopt soap-operatic elements, introducing a paternity dispute to the whole mix. There’s nothing wrong with Superman having a son, but the Man of Steel is about a lot more than being envious of another person filling his gap with Lois Lane. The quiet romance between the two in the original was refreshing in its simplicity. The direction it took in the second film was only to show what would happen should Superman give into the banality of blind devotion to a single person over the rest of humanity. He has certain responsibilities to those weaker than him. Something else I thought the new script did wrong was emphasize a kind of Christ-like quality of Superman. Obviously Superman’s attributes naturally procures that sort of comparison, but it’s not supposed to be that serious, nor does Superman ever allow himself to recognize he is above everybody else because of his powers. He knows that he is special, but he strives to never place one human being over another. One of his conflicts does stem from his feelings for Lois Lane, but Superman Returns strays away from that discussion in place of melodrama. I didn’t think it was real interesting, or fun. (continue reading…)