For a while, it was cool to be mopey, and if you had any fun in saving the world, you simply were not tortured enough to be a superhero.
Yeah, that's changed.
Kick Ass (2010, MARV Films)
Kick Ass, the 'big-independent film that could', is reversing the trend. As Mark Millar, creator of the franchise has stated, what he remembers about comics is the fantasy of dressing up and being a hero. Fun, in other words. Kick Ass is about as close to 'on-screen fun' as is possible.
This works on several levels. Let's start simply.
Comics, of the superhero variety, focus around a very simple premise - good versus evil. Yes, there are those titles that work in vague shades of grey around this, but ultimately the central concern is who is going to save the world (again.) Kick Ass is very clear about this. There is never any doubt about the heroes, none of Batman or Parker's moral ambiguity. Indeed, it's clear the that the 'hero' of the film is always going to, one way or the other, overcome the odds, and that evil will be punished. It's far less complex a plot than either Spider-Man 3, or The Dark Knight - indeed, the chief reveal of the movie is what weapon is inside that crate? And you know you're going to get to see it.
But wait, after The Dark Knight, surely any comic adaptation that works in simple colours will be lesser next to it?
Well, yes, and no.
The issue with The Dark Knight is that it's not really a comic book film. Indeed, the most laughable parts of the film are when the Batman character (characature?) shows up to break the mood of what is otherwise a Heat-esque thriller looking at a corrupt city.
In comparison, Kick Ass' best bits are when Nicolas Cage shoots everyone. In the face.
So that's the simple stuff dealt with.
What about the thorny issue of adaptation? Comic fans have historically had real problems with anything diverting from canon. Terry in Spawn - white? What? Sandman killing Uncle Ben? Huh?
These are areas where films have been made or broken. And this is where Kick Ass most benefits from having a sturdy, but hardly original film maker.
Matthew Vaughn's previous projects, Layer Cake and Stardust, have both been incredibly faithful adaptations from their source material. Kick Ass is no different (excepting one romantic angle.) Does this then make a comic film better - knowing how the story will end? Or should one expect to go in and experience a Watchmen-style change? Comparing reviews of the two films, it seems that the former is treasured. In this sense is the narrative of a superhero film different from those of others? Not particularly.
There is still the sense that Joseph Campbell's Hero's Quest pervades most modern single protagonist films. By their very nature, superheroes do not divert from this series of ordeals and challenges. Pleasure in the familiar? Why not. Plaisir, indeed. Or, let's simply say, fun in seeing something much loved in motion.
And so what of the 'deeper' level?
Kick Ass' real pleasure is in how it both lampoons and follows established comic-film tropes.
An example -
Both Peter Parker and Dave Lizewski test their newfound abilities on the rooftops, expecting that crossing buildings in a bound is a true signifier of power. It is crossing a threshold, for sure. Parker eventually manages it, resulting in a stunning tracking shot through NYC. Lizewski, well, he does what most of us would do when faced with the prospect of a suicidal jump across buildings, or sense prevailing. Yet, this doesn't mean the Lizewski doesn't later conquer heights or space. It's only in a... different manner.
And finally, there are the references to those films or heroes loved before. Most notably, Cage's Big Daddy is a shade of grey away from receiving a plagiarism lawsuit from Bob Kane. Pushing it even further, his superhero delivery superbly parodies the much loved Adam West, adding another layer of fan service to an already superb film.
So not much in terms of theory with Kick Ass. But that's the point, I guess. Batman can brood, Spider-Man can sulk.
Kick Ass does exactly what it says.
Actually, I don't think Stardust was all that faithful - certainly not tonally and some characters/events were also changed, most notably the ending - but I think it is a much stronger, more enjoyable film for it.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, I think Watchmen let itself down precisely because it stayed so faithful to the original text (barring one obvious departure). The one part that really worked for me was the opening credits - the one part of the film that played around creatively with the source material.
Except I don't really know where I'm going with this argument as Kick Ass was very good while being (apparently - I haven't read it) very close to the original.
I mean, this is where hairs are split. I realis the ending of Stardust changed, but did it change the overall outcome? Not really.
ReplyDeleteWatchmen had a narrative decision to change.
As for kick ass? it's the same as what you've seen, but sweary.
I don't want to get nit-picky about plot points: what I really meant was the change in the feel of the text. (I also realise that this is a minor point in your post that I'm picking up on, so apologies for that.) The book was odd and sort of melancholy, as I remember it, but the film was lighthearted and whimsical and much more jokey. And that was fine! It was enjoyable, if slight. The book, if it had been adapted 'faithfully', would have been a terrible film (all that stuff with the hairy little man, jeez). But, yes, ok, the story arc remains (for the most part) the same (but couldn't that be said of all adaptations?).
ReplyDeleteWatchmen, on the other hand, took the graphic novel as a storyboard and after a while watching it felt like a chore - I knew what every single shot was going to look like. And although the ending was changed (or the entity directly responsible anyway), wasn't the outcome the same?
However, I feel like I'm getting horribly bogged down in semantics here so I'll stop.
I thought Kick Ass was ace too. Interesting that Mark Millar did the original comic (ain't read it), cause he also wrote Wanted, which appeared to deviate signficantly from the source- I read the free first chapter which came with the spec ed. The film was garbage that looked occasionally nice though.
ReplyDeleteI really liked Sin City, which gives Frank Miller co-direction because of the faithfulness of the film to the comic. Again not read the comic but I bet watching the film would be pointless if you had.
I disagree that a comic book artist should EVER be given co-directional credit upon a film. A director's job is to direct the actors on a film. If ANYTHING, it is the cinematographer's job to make it look like the comic book.
ReplyDeleteIs Oscar Wilde a co-director of 'Dorian Gray'? No, he's not (good for him) because you cannot translate something immovable in text or pictoral form into a motion, an action, a movement. That's still the director's.
I think the choice of crediting Frank Miller was a very cynical one, and about making the film explicitly appeal to comic fans.