free rommy New York → Kansas City → San Francisco → Stockholm → Berlin

Comic books and the big screen (and a small Iron Man film review)

I didn't read comic books growing up. I don't think my parents were immersed enough in American culture yet to get me involved in things like baseball or comic books; things that are quintessentially American. So even though my parents were very insistent on my reading at a young age, what I read was determined by those around me - my teachers and my friends. I just wasn't friends with kids that read comic books. I read primarily science-fiction and pre-teen books.

The comic book culture, or rather fanaticism, always intrigued me. Kids who were comic book collectors started as a young age and did so into their teens and twenties...like my friend Bucky for example. He has an entire room in his garage that's housing his comic book collection. It's something he doesn't intend on parting with, until he has to find a way of putting his kids through college. Comic book collectors/readers remain loyal to their superheroes for an entire generation. It's a loyalty that's passed on to kids and grandkids.

Until recently, I didn't understand the fascination with comic books. Then I started talking to some friends about them. I was thoroughly intrigued when I heard about the depth of character, the complexity of plot, the role of philosophy (good vs. evil, love vs. hate, egotism, morality, death, conflict, etc.) that proliferate throughout these graphic novels. Every character ever created could seemingly have a 500-page character study or psychological profile done about them - their motivations, their flaws, their inspirations, their childhoods, how the events in their lives impacted every decision they've made and would make. Comic book characters are some of the most well-developed literary characters ever created, and why shouldn't they be? They develop over decades, through thousands of issues and graphical frames.

Which drives me to pose the question: why can't films based on comic books provide that same visceral depth that comic book creators Stan Lee and Bob Kane spent years developing? I know that comic books have an advantage because of the medium. However, most comic book films act as testaments to advancement in film and CGI technology rather than portrayals in richness of character, story, philosophy, and conflict.

When I saw Batman Begins, I thought it got about as close as any film has ever gotten. I walked out of the theatre immensely appreciating the effort that went into creating the backstory of a very troubled soul. Now, after discussing it with my comic book nerd friends, it was made very clear to me that Batman is one of the greatest comic book characters ever developed, that he is so intriguing and has such a loyal following. The reason: he's one of the few and the most famous superheroes who actually has no supernatural ability (and no supernatural weakness). He relies on his humanity and his moral grounding to act as the motivational force in his life. His darkness, his sadness is his sole motivator and his bane. As a result, his fans can most closely relate to him. They can feel like in each of them is a Bruce Wayne and thus, a Batman. I was shocked at how mixed the reviews were for Batman Begins even though it was widely-acclaimed by audiences and the highest grossing films of 2005.

The complaints?

Common words I found include "boring", "dull", "monotonous".

My favorite was Ann Hornaday from the Washington Post who panned it. She said Batman Begins was "A ponderous, deeply unironic psychological portrait with such a pervasive sense of gravitas that it borders on self-importance."

Wow...say that with the right inflection and it actually sounds like a rave review. It sounds like the critics were looking for a brainless, witless summer film and instead got a thorough, well-developed portrait of a fictional character with great depth and a dark personal struggle. God forbid.

For the same reasons that many critics panned it, I loved it. I saw it a second time and liked it even more. I loved how human the film felt. I love how you feel like you're getting to really know Bruce Wayne in the same way you might've by reading the graphic novels. Perhaps it was too human, even for the loyal comic book fans. I was told that Christopher Nolan veered slightly too far from the "light-heartedness" of comic books, making the dialogue more serious than a real fan might've wanted. As a guy who doesn't read comic books, maybe that's why I appreciated it more.

(An aside, even though it wasn't a comic book film but rather a real-life superhero film, that's why I loved Unbreakable. It was an homage to all comic book characters done in a way that we could all relate to it as human beings.)

So when I heard all the rave reviews about Iron Man, from critics and fans alike, I couldn't wait to go see it. I instantly thought we were watching a renaissance of the comic book film as a reputable and critically-acclaimed genre.

Well, I didn't feel it.

What I got was a well-made summer action film that lacked little depth and only brushed upon the character. I never bought it. I found it cheesy and contrived at points. I found Tony Stark to be little more than a playboy who gets morally grounded the same way any protagonist is: when the antagonist, who is a close friend of his, betrays him. Iron Man was little more than the standard superhero film with a new skin. That said, I appreciated the awesome special effects, the witty banter, and the fun. I have a feeling that the hollowness I felt may be due to the relative weakness of Iron Man as a comic book character rather than the film. But I really don't know. In general, I didn't see beyond the summer action flick and that bummed me out.

I would love to hear peoples' thoughts here.