Marvel over DC and why.

It seems tough to make an interesting movie about characters with no flaws, unless all you wanted to see as nifty special effects. Marvel and DC have both tried to do it, but have encountered some hurdles along the way. I feel it is because of the inherent nature of the respective cast of characters that is the cause. Special effects can let us see what a favorite super-hero is capable of, but it takes much more to provide an audience with entertainment.

DC superheroes aren't interesting. Yes, this is my opinion, but I have valid reasons. DC heroes have no character, no juice, no angst, no reason to sympathize or relate. They are like... virtuous Greek gods, and how boring would THAT have been? There is a reason Zeus shagged animals; it got people's attention. Imagine if Superman had a flaw... any flaw (as i was thinking about this myself, I came up with several concepts: a cripple when not in sunlight, a womanizer, an alcoholic, poor, homeless, had a family of normals, had a disgusting disease, etc) and suddenly the character is interesting. But he isn't. Because he is virtuous, a god, perfect... unrealistic.

Lets take a look at a few DC characters, and why they have so little to offer:
-Batman is the only character worth telling a story with, because, like so many Marvel heroes, he has obvious flaws: IE he is insane.
-Green Lantern is a guy with a ring of, basically, unlimited wishes. It is a god-ring. And we are supposed to worry about him, or relate in any way? And somehow, he'll get beat-up during the first 50% of the story... able to make any tool or, well, ANYTHING and yet he still loses. Come-on!
-Or Superman, who's only angst is a really unbelievable secret identity. Sure, he was born on another planet, but he didn't grow up in a foster-home, he was adopted by loving parents as his first memory, so the angst of that feels sorta trite and weak. Plus, he is a god. Yet he gets beat up for the first 50% of the comic? Come-on!
-The Flash is as fast as light, yet not fast enough to keep from getting beat up for the first 50% of the comic? Come-on!
-Wonder Woman has great hooters, but she is a goddess and that is part of the deal. And her only angst is about being a woman; unfortunately relevant 60 years ago, but not a big deal anymore.
-Martian Manhunter, despite his tragically stupid name, has an intersting and tragic character concept. He was accidentally teleported to Earth just as his home-planet of Mars has a cataclysmic event wipe out all the indigenous life. Heart-breaking, truly. But he has god-like power, so... Granted, more could be done with the guy, but isn't.
-Now, Aquaman is interesting. He has serious personality issues, and trust issues, and had his hand eaten off by piranha (wonderful irony there). He just doesn't have a very relevant power-set unless you also live in the ocean.
-Green Arrow, who shoots trick arrows at bad-guys, standing next to Superman, The Flash, and Green Lantern is like a kitten in a buffalo herd. He's cocky, which is interesting, but he'd have to be as a kitten in buffalo-herd. otherwise we'd realize just how uninteresting he really is.
My point is, the DC characters are caricatures, silly and unrealistic. One has to decide not to ask any serious questions about them. You can't ask a question like "What if Lois Lane was falling off a skyscraper, and a bus of kids had a bomb underneath it?" because the obvious, and really only, answer is "Win". Sad. You ask that of Wolverine, and you get a tragic ending. Superman is never fired for not being at work on time because he chose to save a bus full of children and C-4. He never has his identity outed, despite his clever ruse(??) with the glasses, even though outing him would mean... nothing. He is untouchable. Since he can't lose, why worry about how you could?? Daredevil had his secret identity known, and it ruined his life. But Daredevil couldn't stop Kingpin from having him disbarred (as a lawyer), ruining his legal practice and friendship with business partner, killing his girlfriend, etc. Daredevil had vulnerabilities, could be exploited, could lose. Superman has no vulnerabilities, in his powers or in his life.

Why? Why do we need a Superman who can't lose? It has been described to me that Marvel Comics are for the people who enjoy unhappy endings once in a while. People who enjoy tragedy, flaws, shades of gray, realism. While DC, I was told, is for the people who don't like to lose, who are scared of weaknesses, who like simple black-&-white hats on their cowboys. And in early days of comics, that worked. We were a simpler culture then. We knew less, and could have the wool pulled over our eyes easier. But with this information age we are privy to the machinations of powerful people, to their selfishness and deceit, and to the moral grays of personal perspective. Sterile stories aren't interesting anymore because we don't relate to them. Why doesn't Superman just shed is "secret" identity if he has proven that he can, time and time again, protect those close to him from danger? Why does Green Lantern swat villains with a giant green spatula when a force-bubble would capture them every time? Why would Flash ever move slow enough to get punched if he can move at the speed of light? Why does Wonder Woman's jet have to be invisible? Why does Batman need a sidekick if he is smarter than any of his villains? Or better; why would Batman endanger the life of an innocent kid if he wasn't seriously insane? Why does Superman care about a world he has never known, and never can, when he has really swell adopted parents who loved him unconditionally? Well, I can answer that one: because Superman needs angst in his life. He needs flaws. Otherwise, we would see him for the tragically uninteresting character he really is.

Review: Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Movie Review: Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Dir: Niels Arden Oplev

Every hear someone comment about a movie being “formulaic”? There are some tried and true story-telling paradigms that just work. Not just as a vehicle for selling tickets, but also as a vehicle for telling a compelling story. We've seen these formulas in play so much, we can often predict the next scene or the next line of dialog. Heck, we can even see the bad guy a mile away. But its ok, because the formula works. The movie “Scream” does a wonderful job of explaining how this formula is not only present, but vital to making the story unfold properly. I wouldn't go so far as to quote a movie like “Scream”, but I will suggest that, when done well, using the same formula over again isn't such a bad thing. Allow me to place a bit more emphasis on that part: “If Done Well!”

“Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is a formulaic story about a man hired to uncover the nature of a Billionaire's favorite niece's murder. 40 years prior, she disappeared without a trace, and the old man has obsessed over it ever since. But the clues dwindled away, and the original case has been long cold. Our hero Michael is a reporter who only has six months before he goes to jail for committing Libel against a wealthy financier who, we are allowed to believe, set him up. Michael has his work cut out for him, since it is the old man's wealthy infighting family whom he most suspects. Michael gets cracking on the reams of documents and clues and soon runs into a roadblock. A roadblock that gets shoved aside when he receives an anonymous e-mail that explains the clues to him; someone has been hacking onto his computer and reading his notes. Michael tracks down the hacker, whom we have already met in a story running parallel, and her name is Lisbet. The parallel story is pretty heavy, and I don't wish to otherwise color this family friendly blog by going into detail. Suffice to say Lisbet is a young woman who must suffer the worst of humanity, but has become hard enough to extract herself; however she is able. Michael hires her on, impressed and trust her. The rest of the thriller is likely predictable if you have every seen a mystery thriller before. Therefore, I won't share any more with you.

I haven't yet read the book, but the story is fairly straightforward and … formulaic. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to criticize that point, but rather applaud the fact that this director made it compelling and interesting despite. I had successfully guessed the bad guy, knew when each tension filled moment was going to occur, and was pointing my own fingers at the hero making gunshot noises when the shots rang out on film. But I was grinning as well. The story IS compelling, and the characters are so brilliantly drawn and portrayed. The cinematography isn't overly artistic and grand, but it is concise and deliberate. It is a good, a very good movie. I found myself running to the restroom for a bio-break, thinking “he shouldn't be there, he needs to get out of there!” And running back, though the movie was on pause.

The two main characters, Michael and Lisbet, are perfect. Michael is cast as this sincere, middle aged guy with integrity and foibles, a bit melancholy because of the recent events hanging over his head. He is persistent, as the old man explains, but there is no arrogance there. He is solid and that is important because he becomes an anchor for Lisbet. Lisbet is a young woman still beholden to a social rule that forces her to endure a legal guardian. The trauma that erupts from this, as well a other instances in her past, have hardened her, aged her. She is dark and brooding, distrustful and cold. But inside is a soul that craves sincerity and honesty, even as she tries to convince herself it doesn't exist. In a contrast that only a foreign film could capture, Lisbet ends up kicking ass and saving Michael's life while Michael offers her a safe path back to humanity. They are diametrically opposed, which makes them a brilliantly conceived team; another tried and true formula.

I really enjoyed this movie. It is a solid film, with good acting and good direction. I think I even heard it is being remade as an American film. This, of course, isn't a novel idea; “La Femme Nikita” is an example of another brilliant foreign film that just wasn't accessible to an English speaking audience unwilling to endure the rigorous inconvenience of subtitles. The remake wasn't bad, especially since it was scene-for-scene, frame-for-frame a remake with new actors.

Though the movie was formulaic, it is a testament to the fact that, when lovingly crafted by an artist, the formula not only holds up but can remind us why it has become the formula. But it takes a light touch, and a passion for the genre, and good actors, and solid cinematography, and all the things that make a quality film. In short, a good movie doesn't have to find a new niche when it is good, period.