kickin' the superhero genre in the ass

Yes, “Kick-Ass” does have weapons, tight leather costumes, a villain and bad-ass stunts. So it’s a superhero film, right? But it makes fun of itself – and the superhero genre as a whole – so perhaps it’s a comedy.

In fact, “Kick-Ass” is part of the superhero genre, but that sort of film has been done so many times in recent years that “Kick-Ass” kicks the genre in the ass by creating a parody. We can compare this to romantic comedies by looking at a recent timeline.

2003: “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days”
          “Love Actually”2004: “50 First Dates”
2005: “Hitch”          
          “Just Friends”
          “The Wedding Date”
2006:  “Date Movie”

“Date Movie” was a spoof on the romantic comedy genre that had been so overused in recent years. At this time it begins to make fun of the genre and the audience is aware of that.

That’s where we get the temporary end of the genre cycle. After the genre has its heyday, the parodic period enters. Then the genre leaves the big screen for a while until it makes a return in later years.

The parodic stage blatantly makes fun of the genre’s conventions. It does so by using clichés that the audience recognizes and accepts through comedic presentation (Giannetti & Leach, 58-59). Through Giannetti and Leach's definition of the parodic stage, we can explore why "Kick-Ass" fits into this category.

The most outright mockery of the superhero genre in "Kick-Ass" is when Dave Lizewski excitedly asks, "Why has no one thought of this before?!" It's ironic because the film industry had just gone through a superhero phase:

2003: "Daredevil," "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," "Hulk"
2004: "Catwoman," "Hellboy"
2005: "Batman Begins," "Fantastic Four"
2008: "Iron Man," "The Incredible Hulk"
2009: "Watchmen"

Those are just some of the superhero films from the 2000s. After so much villain-killing and leather-wearing, it was time for some comedic relief. "Kick-Ass" gives us that, and we were certainly ready for it and understood its jabs at the superhero genre. So when Dave asks that ironic question, we knew it is a sarcastic mockery.

Another important aspect of Matthew Vaughn's "Kick-Ass" is that it is self-reflexive. It's aware of itself as a movie and doesn't try to make the audience forget it's watching a fictional world. This is primarily accomplished through Dave's dialogue and narrative. He talks about his mother dying "from an aneurism in the kitchen... as opposed to a gunman in the alley." That's the kind of mother-death the audience has come to know and expect from the genre. That's how it worked in Batman, in the dark Gotham City Crime Alley. Dave knows we're expecting this and almost apologizes: "So if you were hoping for any 'I will avenge you mother!' you're out of luck." Later he even tells the audience that he's talking to us. He says we already know he'll survive "because I'm talking to you right now."

This kind of cliche narrative mocks the superhero genre in a comedic way, and puts it into the parodic stage of the genre cycle, so much so that it could be its own genre: the supercom.

Works Cited
•Giannetti, Louis D. & Jim Leach. Understanding Movies (Second Edition). Toronto, ON : Prentice Hall, 2001

Dick Tracy: Superhero or Average Joe?

In his article The Definition of the Superhero, Peter Coogan emphasizes the importance of a precise description of the characteristics that make up a “superhero”.  As with any genre, a clear and specific outline of its constituents is an important way of discerning itself from others. Coogan delineates three major points of significance that separate what we know as “superheroes” from other characters.

           
The first is his mission: the character must act selflessly, represent the good of mankind and make any and all attempts to do away with evil. More importantly, his (or her) cause may not in any way reflect a personal gain – these actions are purely to better society. Second, is their power. Superheroes are given immense strength, mystical qualities, or flying capabilities to name a few. These traits are what separate them from ordinary men, and allow them to take up their mission. Powers are arguably the most important part of the classification of a superhero. The third component that Coogan outlines is the superhero’s identities. They almost always carry a sense of duality – an ordinary and inconspicuous character who blends into society, and an improved, usually costume-clad superhero alter ego. Which brings about the other element to superhero identity, the costume.

            Though Coogan makes mention of other qualifying ingredients to a superhero and his story, he outlines the use of these three when testing a character to see if they fit the mold. This week’s film, Dick Tracy, does an excellent job of convoluting ones attempts to place him in the superhero mold. We can say that he is, in fact, a superhero… but how do we know?

            Firstly, his costume is a far cry from the spandex/cape combo we’re used to seeing on most of his well-known counterparts. However, Coogan makes reference to Scott McCloud’s book Understanding Comics, in which McCloud discusses how iconography can be amplified through simplification. The simple colours and design of the theatrical costuming in the film definitely do not go unnoticed. Tracy’s fedora and suit are a costume all their own. His one-sided identity is also somewhat confusing – he lacks the alter-ego persona we’re so used to seeing.

            Another somewhat confusing notion is that Tracy does not embody any of the specific powers of x-ray vision, flight, or superhuman strength that we’re used to seeing. He does, however, have his determination. In a strange sort of genre overlap, his “powers” are seemingly employing the use of spy-like tools to perform his detective duties. Could these be his superhero powers?

            The most appropriate of the categories is the third, his mission. Dick Tracy undoubtedly fits the man on a mission cast. His altruistic fight against evil in the city certainly rests him with his superhero foils for this portion of the classification. Giving everything he’s got, putting himself on the line, even coming close to losing the love of his life in the film, he does whatever it takes to save the day, refusing a life of normalcy and being confined to a “desk job”.

            After review of the classification of a superhero, Dick Tracy sure seems like one of a kind. Is he a “superhero” by an audiences classical standards? Perhaps not. A superhero as defined by Coogan’s definition? Slightly atypical, but definitely a man on a mission.

Week 1- Watchmen From Comic to Film

For week one, we will be comparing Watchmen directed by Zach Snyder to Alan Moore’s original 1986 DC comic of the same name. Although perhaps fitting many stereotypes of comic book heroes, villains and storylines, Watchmen still manages to seem unique and unlike any other comic book franchises. This could perhaps be a reason for the film’s rather unsuccessful run at the box office and with mainstream movie-goers. Yet putting aside popularity, Snyder’s Watchmen is an amazing movie with cool effects, relatable (somewhat) characters and relationships, and of course let’s admit it…some hot actors. But how does the film compare to the original comic? Let's have a look shall we...

The first aspect of comparison we will address if the fact that Snyder, the director took a very realistic/literal approach to his adaptation. We believe there are some pros and cons to this, as we will explore.

          A negative aspect of the Snyder’s literal interpretation in the imagery and even direct quotations, is that to fully appreciate this you would have had to read the book. But most people, when we heard about the movie didn't even know there was a book. But after reading the book and then watching the movie, there was a better appreciation for the movie because then you can see how well the director used effects and the script to adapt the book. As mentioned, this was probably a major reason why the movie wasn't so successful because they marketed it as this huge blockbuster movie with major actors when the comic itself wasn't very “mainstream” to begin with. Especially with the younger generation since they waited so long so adapt it.  Its understandable that Snyder wanted to be loyal to the comic book fans but also make money, so he had to appeal to larger mainstream audience. He probably thought that putting in big actor names would get people to go see it which probably helped the movie but not enough. Snyder also probably thought that making it more “r-rated” and raunchy would make it enjoyable for audience that weren't comic fans.

There were also a lot of pros to the literal interpretation whether you read the book or not. Reading the book makes you appreciate the effects much more and it just made the scale of the movie seem more impressive how much Snyder managed to take directly from the comic and put it into a movie that the audience could follow. But even without reading the book, the direct visuals from the book panels to the screen made the movie all the more captivating and exciting to follow. More specifically, it is clear that Snyder used a lot of the colors and “cartoon” quality of the book in his scenes which, again, made the movie very visually appealing.

Also the Rorschach and Dr.Manhattan narrative was an effective element that was kept form book to movie. Because the storyline was very complicated and jumped all over the place, we thought these narratives helped inform the audience and keep our attention lasting.

In conclusion, we were asked to explore what was most and least effective about Snyder’s film adaptation and have explored some elements and given our own thoughts. But, we would like to ask you the question, what is really is an “effective” adaptation and what must be considered to make a film adaptation more or less effective? This is a difficult question to answer since every director has their own artistic vision. The answer, we have considered, is a completely individual one as what one person might consider effective, another might not.

week two - "Batman" vs Batman: The Dark Knight Returns

It seems that comparing Batman with reality is easier than comparing the graphic novel (Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Frank Miller, 1989) to the film (“Batman,” Tim Burton, 1989).

In both cases, disguising yourself as the president is the best trick robbers got. Thieves masked as Nixon held up a convenience store in The Dark Knight. And just last week, the term “Obama Robber” was coined when a gunman donning a President Barack Obama mask entered a bank in Austria and stole $10,000 Euros.

(Bad quality photo on left courtesy of my webcam; photo on right from BBC News)

Weapons of mass destruction are a threat. The Soviets launched nuclear missiles, stopping all electronics in Miller’s US. The dust from the attacks blocked the sun and Gothamites went wild in the streets and in the jails. In comparison to our world, former (thankfully) president George Bush invaded the Middle-East in an unsuccessful search for nuclear weapons, but it was still enough to scare us all. And keep the war going, I guess.

(Steve Bell, The Guardian)

And on a more serious note, Pink has another stupid smash hit with the line, “Why so serious?” (watch  "Raise Your Glass" at 0:35).

(Courtesy of Logo and Logo Wallpaper Collection)

But when comparing the graphic novel, The Dark Knight Returns, with Burton's "Batman" film, the level of maturity between the two is the biggest contrast. The novel introduces its readers to a world of politics and sex that they wouldn't see much of three years later when "Batman" hit the big screens.

The political and social discourse is most expressed in the novel through the television news. It begins with the reporters' eagerness to get the President's comments on the Batman issue. With no luck on that, the reporter goes on to speak with "Batman's most vocal supporter." The reporter suggests that this supporter is condoning behaviour that goes against civil rights. This statement reminds us of the social issues in the '50s and '60s and seems to date the novel a bit, but the interviewee's response brings us back to the 1980s, when the novel was set and written. "We live in the shadow of crime, Ted, with the unspoken understanding that we are victims  - of fear, of violence, of social impotence." These are issues that are present in the real world - outside the world of superheroes - and therefore give the novel more maturity and relevance.

"Batman" offers a more family-friendly experience. It leaves out the political tones that would put kids to sleep, and leaves out sexy scenes that would either make the kids ask their parents too many questions, or would make them squirm uncomfortably in their seats. The most intimacy we seem to get in the film is a seductive shot of Vicki Vales' legs, of her sleeping over at Bruce Waynes (without sex scenes though - maybe it was just an innocent sleepover...), or the final dance between Vicki and The Joker.

But in the novel, why is Batman the way he is? Well sexual repression, of course! That's the answer The Joker gives, right before he forcefully makes out with a woman on air. He then shows up at Kyle Escort Service and gives another big, forceful smackeroo to Selina. He tells her that a congressman hired an escort for the evening. We see the escort's and congressman's silhouettes while she moves closer to him as he tells her he didn't pay for this and he's happily married. But then their bodies turn into one big silhouette and that kinky suggestiveness is something we don't see in the PG-13 flick.

This contrasting level of maturity between the novel and the film is notable because it allows us to see that adaptations of similar stories don't necessarily have to target the same audience.

Works Cited
"BBC News - Austria Hunts 'bank Robber with Barack Obama Mask'" BBC. 21 Jan. 2011. Web. 29 Jan. 2011. 

"The Dark Knight: Storylines: The Dark Knight Returns." Batman: The Dark Knight. 9 June 2006. Web. 29 Jan. 2011 <http://www.darkknight.ca/storylines/tdkr.html>.