(originally published in The Outreach Connection in July 2003)
It seems now that
every mass-market comic book movie comes with a spin about how this particular
movie represents a more cerebral take on the material (whether Batman,
Spiderman, X-Men etc.) than we’ve ever seen before. And now we have Ang Lee’s Hulk, for which some of this commentary
is more than usually persuasive. Here’s Roger Ebert:
Dealing with issues
“The movie brings up
issues about genetic experimentation, the misuse of scientific research and our
instinctive dislike of misfits, and actually talks about them. Remember that
Ang Lee is the director of films such as The
Ice Storm and Sense and Sensibility,
as well as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon;
he is trying here to actually deal with the issues in the story of the Hulk,
instead of simply cutting to brainless special effects…Lee has broadly taken
the broad outlines of a comic book story and transformed them to his own
purposes; this is a comic book movie for people who wouldn’t be caught dead at
a comic book movie.”
The film stars Eric
Bana as Bruce Banner, whose research into DNA takes an unexpected turn when
he’s accidentally exposed to a huge dose of deadly radiation. It should kill
him, but he doesn’t know that he inherited abnormal DNA from his presumed-dead
father, also a scientist, who experimented on himself before Bruce was
conceived. The DNA/radiation combination turns him into the Hulk, a raging
green beast who emerges whenever Bruce loses his cool. Rival scientists duel
with the military for the economic and strategic potential of this genetic
breakthrough, but Bruce’s ex-girlfriend (Jennifer Connelly) is the only one who
seems to care about him, including
his father (Nick Nolte) who now reappears with his own crazy schemes in mind.
Remarkably for a
film of this kind of breadth, Hulk
has only five characters of any consequence: Banner father and son, Connelly
and her father (Sam Elliott) who leads the military efforts, and a scheming
scientist played by Josh Lucas: over 95% of the film’s dialogue goes to this
quintet. Especially given the doubling of the parental estrangement theme
(Connelly and Elliott have an icy relationship), this concentration of
interaction lends the film a uniquely odd feeling: of an anguished chamber
piece, almost a stage piece, played out on an absurdly vast canvas.
Full of talk
The film has a vague
handle on a witty central metaphor: Banner’s relationship with Connelly was on
the rocks because of his emotional inaccessibility; turning into the Hulk is
the ultimate remedy to that problem…but of course introduces its own problems.
In some relationships, you just can’t win! There’s almost no humour in the film
though. Lee obviously understands the Hulk’s potential as metaphor – how could
you not? – but seems to have no specific strategy for unlocking it, other than
to have his camera stare somewhat plaintively at the characters.
As Ebert says, the
film is full of talk, but it’s absurd to suggest it has anything significant to
say on the subjects he lists. The loquaciousness seems to me more like a sign
of frail self-confidence on Lee’s part, almost like a delaying tactic before he
surrenders to the action. Throughout the opening section, Lee uses a dazzling
array of techniques for transitioning from one scene to the next: all manners
of wipes and dissolves and blends and split screens. It’s broadly reminiscent
of comic book style, of the artist’s ability to control the tone by varying the
size and placement of individual frames. Sometimes, the effect in the film is
rather beautiful, but it’s an aesthetic approach that calls attention to
itself, and to the movie as an artificiality. And all the talk, despite its
superficial “depth,” can’t overcome the story’s perhaps insurmountable
silliness.
Recent comic-book movies played up their protagonists’ sexiness by emphasizing their sleek, sexy muscularity. This option isn’t really available to the makers of the Hulk, who are stuck with an absurd, lumbering green monster. Even the film’s defenders have criticized, to varying degrees, the computer-generated character for not looking real enough. At worst, in long shot, it’s like watching a mere green blob moving across the landscape (“Toss a plastic toy figure across your yard,” said Glenn Lovell of the San Jose Mercury News, “and you’ll have a good approximation of what this film’s $140 million-plus budget bought its producers”). In close-up, the Hulk looks more convincing, but still inherently absurd.
The Abstract Hulk
Even so, the action
scenes still often have a certain grace to them, although there’s nothing to
match the duel above the treetops in Crouching
Tiger. But they lack any sort of conviction. We’ve all become used to the
trade-off entailed by computer-generated wonders: as the spectacle’s wow value
goes up, our emotional involvement in it goes down. Watching action scenes now
is more about grading the execution, measured against the ever-increasing
stakes laid down by other big movies, than about visceral investment. One of
the ultimate examples is the fight scene from Matrix Reloaded between Keanu Reeves and the dozens of Hugo Weaving
clones. It’s hard to remember a more impressive display, both in conception and
execution. But as many writers commented, it nevertheless leaves you flat,
because there’s no sense of danger to it whatsoever. And how could there be? When
you had Lee Marvin and Ernest Borgnine beating each other to a pulp on top of a
moving train, then you felt some
danger.
Lee compounds the
abstraction of the action scenes by staging many of them in the desert, always
a movie locale of such resonance that the most straightforward thing seems
symbolic. The scenes seem underpopulated and stark – echoing the film’s lack of
substantial people. It’s as though the film was a microscope, stripping away
the usual action movie diversions to illuminate its central psychodrama. In
this sense, Lee’s more contemplative “Eastern” side is amply evident in the
film. But much as he indulges the characters to a point, he doesn’t invest them
with the detail and rough edges that would make them into more than archetypes.
Bana was apparently deliberately directed to be fairly bland, the better to
support the contrast with the beast within him. It seems a simplistic strategy.
The biggest disappointment is Nolte, who’s almost always compelling in his films,
but not here.
When the concept of
Ang Lee directing a Hulk movie was announced a couple of years ago, it was
startling and exciting, and you had no idea how it would work. Now the movie’s
out, and it’s a testimony to the concept that you almost want Lee to direct a
sequel and get it right next time. But the artistic update’s too limited. He’s
in the same spot now as Martin Scorsese after Gangs of New York – someone for whom going back to smaller movies
wouldn’t be a limitation, but a liberation.
No comments:
Post a Comment