I sit in front of this computer, having just read Cape fear, an article about how Batman, despite being one of those heroes that has constantly been revamped without getting boring is still an enduring figurehead for Comic book fans. Reading it, I found bullet points of interesting information that I wish to display in this entry and explain.
The article credits Batman begins, the first Christopher Nolan film on the revamped Dark Knight with links to Frank Miller, who draws on his work but never uses his name. The article describes Miller as "the Batman writer-artist to beat" his work has partially inspired Batman begins links to Tim Burton's 1989 Batman film, which started off the whole idea of the Batman Franchise in the first place and the many characters which he helped create, namely Bruce Wayne's bulter - Alfred, as well as other writers and artists creating other trade mark villains that have marked the Batman Universe as a rich heartland for supervillains. The most famous of this being the Joker (created by Jerry Robinson)
In addition though, the article also describes something about Nolan's attitude towards Gotham, which wasn't the original setting for Batman, back then it was just a sketchy New York. Nolan describes Gotham "as a film noir fantasy, but by showing the place as often at dusk as by night, rooting out the corruption in a supposedly ended 'Depression' and putting Arkham Asylum not outside the city limits but in a teeming slum area, Batman Begins creates a different noir cityscape epitomised by a rusting monorail which is Thomas Wayne's legacy to the town" this is shown in the film indeed, as a dark, foreboding place where corruption and ill practice is king and morality and justice has been long forgotten.
The villains as well in Batman begins are different to the prior idea of Batman's supervillains. In recent years, the Batman "freaks" as the author of the article describes them have been revamped, becoming more complex and more interesting. There is a better sense of character, shown in the precedence of the personality of Bruce Wayne over just Batman. The way Nolan has sculpted this movie perfects the ultimate criminal underworld. One of those principle villains in the Scarecrow.
Cillian Murphy plays a comparatively scarier Scarecrow, presenting both his corrupt, sinister desire to further his own ends but also to do the will of his own master in the film.
The article describes the Scarecrow as an "advance man for a worse villain...special[ising] in inducing fear..... this [being] a theme Batman begins returns to time and again" the way the Batman villains are created, developed and deployed furthers my own thoughts from this article. When Gordon speaks "about a war of escalation between cops and crooks" we know that there will be a sequel, furthering Batman status as the superhero to beat all superheroes. Batman will never be forgotten, by the everyday spectator or an avid comic book fan. Not ever. Christopher Nolan has now forever immortalised the figure of Batman again, the image of Batman restored from neglect, ready for the rise and conclusion of The Dark Knight Rises.
This will be short entry, not much text compared to the my last one - which I think borders on the too long but oh well, I'll just have to edit it later. This entry will deal with the question I want to research for this research project and i have to say - I am very much looking to it.
My question is as follows: How and why has the representation of superheroes changed over time?
Focus films:
I have chosen four films to use in for this project, they are as follows:
A good film, perhaps a bit bloody but if you put it in the context of a superhero film - it is an excellent example of how superheroes are presented politically and morally in a society of the 1980s, a time of great tension for the world with the cold war, the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and the election of Gorbachev in 1985 as head of the USSR. Personally, I like this film because it doesn't present heroes as clean, romantic heroes of excellence, of great moral standing and of clean political records. It is the other way round. I love how the superheroes are presented as that in the beginning of the film but how also they mutate into a hunted minority. This helps with my research in the way that getting a modern perspective helps clarify an age-old problem which no one could really solve up until that point. Could Superheroes really be villains? In this film, definitely I think so. Made relatively recently, following the success of The Dark Knight by Christopher Nolan, this follows a trend of, in my opinion of how film directors are now presenting the superhero as not such a god like figure anymore. More like a god like figure, and a devil all in one. This fits Watchmen ideally as the ending clarifies that message - though peace is established and the superhero is still presented as a good guy, superheros are also villains, as is shown by the next film I saw recently.
The Dark Knight
The second in Christopher Nolan's trilogy of Batman films - the third's teaser trailer having just come out recently. This film gives us a darker version of Batman, not so dark as those of Watchmen but still a clearly different view of how Batman is portrayed as a superhero. If you rewind to the first Batman film, where Jack Nicholson starred as the Joker (in a performance that some argue is on the same level as Heath Ledgers. However I disagree), Batman was perceived as a morally just, romantic superhero, you would be mistaken with Christian Bales portrayal. His version of Batman will do anything to capture criminals whilst also giving us further insight into the character of Bruce Wayne, a side of Batman ignored by most of the comic book world in preference to the Dark Knight himself. It seems that, recently in the superhero genre a change is happening, actors such as Christian Bale are showing us that to the superhero there are two sides - the alias and the true identity and in hindsight, often the alias got precedence in such a genre. Up until now.
Batman Begins
The rise of Batman has become like any fairy story - everyone knows it and can quote it off by heart. But this is what I am stressing, and what I am showing throughout this research project. The portrayal of superheroes as a one way, straightforward superhero has gone out of fashion. Christopher Nolan has done what Micheal Bay did to narrative cinema. Only in a good way. As I have said previously, the alias gets precedence often in this movies - that's all changed with movies such as Kickass, Scott Pilgrim, and the Batman trilogy (two out of three I like greatly, and I have great respect for the directors) the reason for this? The showing of more character depth, that sense of a three dimensional character compared to the two dimensional superhero whom you only found out his identity in tiny, insignificant scenes scattered throughout the movie.
The Incredible Hulk (2008)
Is the incredible hulk even a superhero? Whatever the answer, I think this movie is much better than the previous one, and helps my argument which has been developing over this entry (which is much shorter by the way), the film explores the character of Bruce Banner further (I rest my case), fleshing out a more human desire to live freely and to cure himself of the hulk. At the same time, the antagonist fits the role of a villain perfectly, chasing him and indirectly creating a monster which only Bruce Banner can defeat. Watching this movie, I enjoyed it enormously, as for once a superhero movie is not just mindless violence with a few romantic scenes thrown in. Its something more. You feel almost as if the Hulk has a soul, I suppose in order to prepare him for the Avengers movie, which is coming out from Hollywood I think in 2012. The fact that he has a soul is a good thing though, creating an empathy between the spectator and the monster. Out of the superheroes in the DC and Marvel universe, of which many have been made into a film, I think this is an excellent film and well worth watching if you want the human story, mindless violence, and romantic scenes thrown in.
Scott Pilgrim vs the world
I have to be honest with you - I disliked this movie instantly when I saw it. I'm not sure if its even a superhero movie at all, just a naff japanese arcade game about a mumbling buffoon who battles 7 ex-boyfriends in order to gain the woman he loves (with love scenes thrown in recklessly in order to pull in the audience by the scruff of their unfortunate necks), yeah - gold medal for worst plot of the year award. I don't give two monkeys if it was made in Comic-con, it is a naff movie, having no bearing on my research whatsoever!!!!!!!! The only reason I'm putting it in is because its a loosely fitting superhero movie (extremely loose) with superhero genre tentacles. Furthermore, the main character mumbles. A tiny point maybe that has no bearing on my research, but in order to watch the movie - and to get a sense of character from this movie you need to turn the movie up to extra loud on your TV. Or shout at the TV - "Speak up!" to jog the actor of a key skill in acting - projection. To my mind, this is not a superhero movie, I've seen better movies but i have to keep in mind that this a low budget movie (but to the cynical mind, who made it - chimps whose ears are so delicate that they can pick up the tiniest vibrations and they made a movie where the main character mumbles. Who were the directors? Pingu (I know hes a penguin, but hes deaf and as far as i can tell he as no ears) and Bongo the gorilla?)
Anyway, as a final note - this film has a loose bearing on my research, acting as the natural contrast to the previous films, showing how not to make a superhero movie. The only link I can find is the fight scenes which are the only good thing there. It would the only thing i watch in the movie if I could bear watch such as waste of money ever again.
