Every Monday morning, InsidePulse Movies Czar Scott “Kubryk” Sawitz brings an irreverent and oftentimes hilarious look at pop culture, politics, sports and whatever else comes to mind. And sometimes he writes about movies.
With the Green Lantern film making its debut this weekend, an awful lot is riding on it. DC comic films have one signature franchise, Batman, and everything else really hasn’t hit like it’s supposed to. Brian Singer’s vaunted reboot of Superman proved poor in the long run but The Dark Knight made everything seem rosy. It kind of felt that there library wasn’t very good but Dark Knight raised the bar for everyone.
TDK was a game-changing comic book film in terms of quality and style, one of the biggest films of all-time in box office revenues as well, but the DC brand doesn’t have that same sort of credibility that the Marvel does. Why? Because of one thing: an inability to find its level of scope.
One of the things that have so far separated Marvel and DC films, I’ve thought, is that the one thing about Marvel superheroes that has defined their characters has been translated to their films. I haven’t picked up a comic book since I was 12 or so, so I have no clue what is actually happening in comic book worlds, but the one thing that stands out about the signature Marvel characters has always been that the stories are smaller and more personal. The difference is between Spider-Man and Superman, and the films reflect it.
Spider-Man is a kid trying to do a good thing, trying to be responsible with the gifts he’s been given, after one little lapse in judgment cause the death of a love one. The films that have been made so far are about this small story, about a teenager growing into a man, and we can be sure that most likely the new film in the series will again focus on the topic. It works and is a lot less gutsy a call to make than showing Peter Parker, in his ‘40s, after years of crime-fighting. We care about the boy because there’s something about children and innocence, specifically the loss of it, which is more of a universal story in terms of theme. It’s why Spider-Man resonated after 9/11 so powerfully. It was a universal moment to my generation that hadn’t been like the past.
The falls of the Berlin Wall, and the fall of Communism and the Soviet Union, were amongst the moments we shared. It gave us hope for a better world and a better life. Bad things had happened to Americans but those were overseas, et al. It was a reminder about the horrors of this world and was a moment where the innocence of a generation was lost. Spider-Man understood this. None of the Superman films really did and it’s mainly because I don’t think Hollywood really understands the character.
Superman is the embodiment of hope and the ideal. One of the things modern film-makers really haven’t gotten about the Man of Steel is this concept. Superman works because he’s the embodiment of everything America and the ideal of what we aspire to be. He’s perfection personified, raised on a farm and defending the weak, a stranger to this planet and country but embraced as one of our own. He was created by a pair of men whose families were new to this country and represented what they found in America. Superman is not about the battles and the villains; it’s about good and evil on the epic scale. All his villains are always super douche-bags because Clark Kent is a good guy doing good things because they’re the right thing to do.
Superman films, though, have never really managed to find this niche. It’s always been more of a generic action film involving an invincible hero taking on bigger and more menacing opponents than anything else. Superman was a really good film, one of the best in the genre, but it never really captured that essence of the character. It was more of an epic adventure film that didn’t understand the nuances of the character. It’s why the sequels stunk and what drove Superman Returns to the same territory; it never really captured the essence of the hero.
We always wanted to feel like Superman in the world and never had felt anything like this; it was the loss of innocence for a country. We could sympathize and empathize with Peter Parker much more. And it’s why Marvel’s films have been more meaningful and better on the whole. They know the scope of their characters and make films, generally, within them. We can complain all we want about a film like the third X-Men film but it understood its universe. Outside of Batman I’m not sure if any of the major DC franchise films understand their own. Which leads me to Green Lantern, which represents the biggest shot on the bow for a franchise from that company.
Green Lantern interests me on the whole so far because it feels like it has the epic tone and scope we’ve been missing since The Dark Knight and yearned for in Superman Returns. And I think that’s how DC is going to have to make their films if they want to find a niche in a spandex clad world dominated by Marvel: by going for the epic scale as opposed to smaller, more personal films. Marvel really has the market cornered on superheroes relatable on a more personal level. DC’s best option might be to go for the big emotions. Batman is about angst and Superman is about hope. Maybe Hal Jordan could be about the nature of responsibility.
I admittedly don’t know enough about the character to discuss what the Green Lantern, and his group of buddies in the Lantern Corps, to be able to discuss it in depth. But what I know is that characters in comic book films usually ape their counterparts in the book itself so I my presumption is that Jordan is an epic hero. The film is being set up as such.
You can tell Martin Campbell is aiming for an epic hero and an epic film in the trailers and promotional material. Hal Jordan is given great powers in defense of the realm but also charged with great responsibilities, too. I don’t know a whole lot about Green Lantern, never got into comics that much to know more than he’s green and has a ring that makes him super powerful, but from what I’m gathering through the marketing material and story this is about a grand epic of good and evil.
With The Green Lantern coming out this weekend, two weeks after X-Men: First Class had a solid debut, we’re at our first big crossroads of the comic book era. Where do DC Comics take their attempts at a franchise from here? I don’t know … but I’m curious to see where it does.
A Movie A Week – The Challenge
This Week’s DVD – White Men Can’t Jump
What could’ve been with Wesley Snipes if he hadn’t decided he’d try and be the next Steven Seagal … that’s what I keep thinking whenever I watch any of Wesley Snipes’ early career. Before Passenger 57 made him believe he should be an action star, Wesley Snipes was the sort of charismatic star that made you think he could be the guy to join Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman as the premier African-American actors of their generation.
Those two have transcended race in that everyone loves the two no matter what color you are; Snipes could’ve been the guy to join them in a more comedic sensibility as opposed to a dramatic one. But alas he wanted to be an action hero and never stopped, with the occasional interesting role reminding us that he has some talent and charisma when he isn’t being a tough guy. And the film that always me sad about this revelation is White Men Can’t Jump.
The oft-lost of Snipes’ films, as he’s better remembered for this period with Major League, is White Men Can’t Jump. Snipes and Woody Harrelson star as a pair of street-wise basketball hustlers who end up working together to better themselves. Throw in Rosie Perez as Harrelson’s wacky girlfriend desperate to get on “Jeopardy!” and studies for it all the time. Wandering the basketball playgrounds of Los Angeles, the two have to find a way to co-exist off the court as well as they do on it.
It’s a bit of a quirky comedy, admittedly one that has an insane amount of foul language, but it has a certain charm to it that makes it rewatchable. Like nearly everything Snipes did back then, it seems, as there’s two separate and distinct parts to his career. There’s the first part, where he’s this charismatic funny man with enough dramatic chops to make him an intriguing and likeable presence. This Wesley Snipes is the guy everyone loves because all his memorable work is from this era. The other era is Snipes getting all the roles that Jean Claude Van Damme, Chuck Norris and Steven Seagal pass on and being a staple of the DTV action genre. I don’t like this guy because Snipes is much better than being in Blade films and generic action roles.
Recommended.
What Looks Good This Weekend, and I Don’t Mean the $2 Pints of Bass Ale and community college co-eds with low standards at the Alumni Club
Green Lantern – Ryan Reynolds gets a ring and has to kick ass to save the world.
See It – This film has that epic look and feel … I haven’t been excited to see a film in a long time like I am to see this one.
Mr. Popper’s Penguins – Jim Carrey gets penguins. Shenanigans ensue.
Skip It – This may be a beloved children’s novel but it looks painfully unfunny so far.
The Art of Getting By – Freddie Highmore is a slacker who meets Emma Roberts, a kindred spirit.
See It – Freddie Highmore was an excellent child actor and as he grows up it’ll be curious to see if he can make the leap from gifted child actor to gifted adult actor. This’ll be a good idea if he can make that next leap and be a Joseph Gordon-Levitt and not one of the kids from High School Musical.
Scott “Kubryk” Sawitz brings his trademarked irreverence and offensive hilarity to Twitter in 140 characters or less. Follow him @MMCritic_Kubryk.
