Superheroes are supposed to be amazing. They can leap tall buildings, run faster than a speeding whoosh, and see sights that no sighter has ever sighted.
And yet, on film, superheroes are, visually, banal.
That’s a little documentary about Kurosawa’s use of movement. At about 4:30, the video compares scenes from Joss Whedon’s the Avengers —and shows pretty definitively that Whedon does basically nothing with the camera, with his actors, or with his composition. The Avengers might be the world’s most powerful mortals, but Whedon films them with the dynamism of grey, flatulent paint (though I’m sure Kurosawa would film flatulent paint with panache, if he felt like it.)
Whedon is an unusually blah director, but superhero films in general aren’t known for their visual distinctiveness. Look at this sequence from Peyton Reed’s Ant-Man.
There’s some effort to promote visual interest there. The camera beings moving away from Ant-Man, and then flips so you’re moving towards Henry Pym and Hope. Once your close to Pym and Hope, the door slams, and then there’s a zoom towards the keyhole, followed by a shot back to Ant-Man, who races towards the door. The back and forth of the camera, from Scott to Pym to Scott to Pym, could be seen as mirroring the (humorously) repetitious failed attempts. And there’s a nice comic moment when you see him racing towards the door, and then the shot on the other side as he smashes against it, leaving his impact to your imagination.
But while the sequence is workmanlike enough, it’s not exactly impressive or memorable. The back and forth of the camera doesn’t feel especially regulated or meaningful. Notice the last shot of Ant-Man before we switch back to the door closing, for example. The camera is stationary; it’s no longer pulling away from him. the sense of motion is frittered away; the shot doesn’t add to the tension or the sense of motion. It just reminds you that Ant-Man is still standing there. Similarly, the first run at the door doesn’t really use the camera pacing to create suspense. Instead, after all the build-up, there are just a bunch of shots: moving in on the keyhole, cut to Ant-Man closing his mask with a flourish, then running, then watching him run through the keyhole, then a flash of blue, then the sound of impact. It’s haphazard and disjointed; there isn’t a clear rhythm or build, which means that there isn’t a sense of anticipation or failure. As a result, most of the work of the scene is up to the Foley artist, for the thud-into-the-door sound effect.
In contrast, the scene from Hitchock’s The Birds uses orchestrates shot/reverse shot movement to build suspense throughout. The cuts come quicker and quicker throughout the scene as the inevitable disaster looms, culminating in what are essentially freeze frame snapshots of Tippi Hedren’s horrified face as the explosion rips through Bodega Bay. And then of course there’s that marvelous move upwards to the bird’s eye view, looking down on the flames forming a slash across the city, with the bird’s squawking in triumph before they swoosh down to do more damage.
It’s kind of cruel to compare a couple of random big-budget hacks to Kurosawa and Hitchcock, obviously. But, on the other hand, Hitchcock, at least, was a Hollywood hack too; The Birds was a suspense picture that was meant for box office success (and did fairly well at that.) Given the buckets of money the studios throw at the Marvel films, it seems like they could find a director with rudimentary visual skill, if they wanted to.
Guy Ritchie’s not one of the all time greats of cinema or anything, but The Man from U.N.C.L.E. has some visual flair. I like the sequence at about :45 where the camera rushes in for a close up at the first car, then pulls back and in the same (presumably digitally enhanced take) rushes forward for a close up of the trailing car. It provides a nice sense of speed and urgency—again, not breathtaking, but fun—which is more than can be said for the direction in Avengers or Ant-Man.
Of course, Man From U.N.C.L.E. bombed, while Avengers and Ant-Man were mega-hits. The sameness of the Marvel films (and the fact that Daredevil, on television, is somewhat more visually adventurous) suggests deliberation. Marvel could have hired Guy Ritchie to direct one of their properties; they haven’t bothered because they figure boring is best. The direction is meant to be bland, because they figure (rightly or wrongly) that audiences wants superheroes who are bland. We want heroes, apparently, who are not too interesting, or surprising, or exciting. We want superadventures that keep to the superconventions.
I’m not sure if this is expanding beyond what you wanted to discuss in the first place with this piece, but ahhh, what the hell.
I feel like the direction Marvel has taken with their Avengers-verse movies is deliberately bland in every respect, not just the composition. I cannot help but wonder what the precise reasons that Ava Duvernay was booted from Black Panther were, but I’m almost certain she was going to try something more politically daring than Marvel could ever be comfortable with. This goes back to this piece (https://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/04/we-are-who-we-choose-to-be-sadistic-choices-forking-paths-and-the-rejection-of-social-and-narrative-progress-in-superhero-comics-and-films/), which got me thinking about the way Marvel’s publication strategy could be altered to accommodate any narrative, stylistic, or political daring whatsoever. I’m drawing a blank so far.
I love “Every Frame a Painting.” I think it is some of the best work of criticism around.
Anyway, I think Marvel is purposefully trying to ensure a sort of film house style. They don’t want any of there films to look to terribly different from any of there other films, because then they cease to feel like a cohesive whole, because they have to fit all of these different worlds together when they do there big tentpole crossover films. But, it is too bad when they take that too far and limit the creativity of their directors, and there ability to deliver quality entertainment. I wish they had let Edgar Wright do his thing on Ant Man instead of getting the inconsistent mess we ended up with due to studio pressure.
“Anyway, I think Marvel is purposefully trying to ensure a sort of film house style.”
That seems like a plausible explanation, but the strategy seems misguided. The original marvel comics did fine with Ditko and Kirby, it seems like, even though their styles are quite distinctive. Though maybe the current film audience is just that unadventurous…it’s possible, I suppose.
What’s interesting is that the Fox properties are pretty visually blah too. DC has a different look…not a good look, I wouldn’t say, but a different one.
Seemed to me like the look of Avengers (haven’t actually seen the other Marvel films) was derived more from something like Ultimates than Kirby or Ditko.
Because, I guess, static, over rendered artwork = realism, which is “mature”. Or something like that.
It’s so blah it’s weird to think of it as derived from anything in particular. That bland action movie look just seems like it comes from nowhere and goes nowhere…
Well… I suppose the look of comics like Ultimates is pretty much derived from bland action movies in the first place, so maybe its the other way round.
Or its a closed loop continually feeding back into itself….
They did let a legit auteur have a go: Ang Lee, with the Hulk. That might have scared them off doing it since; it’s surprising that it took so long for Edgar Wright to quit/be fired/whatever.
If you want a superhero film that is actually exciting to look at, try Stephen Chow’s Kung Fu Hustle. A great, great film (unfortunately marred by a few bits of homophobia), easily the best superhero film IMO.
I’ll have to check that out! Chronicle is a lot of fun visually…and Kill Bill is arguably a superhero flick, and lovely to watch. But yeah, you’ve got to get away from Marvel and DC if you want direction that gives a crap.
The Incredibles!
That documentary about Kurosawa’s use of movement reminded me of the trailer for Kamikaze Girls:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbFEPS8PPic
Noah Berlatsky: “The direction is meant to be bland, because they figure (rightly or wrongly) that audiences wants superheroes who are bland. We want heroes, apparently, who are not too interesting, or surprising, or exciting. We want superadventures that keep to the superconventions.”
Joel Schumachers BATMAN AND ROBIN goes apeshit with gadgets, bat-nipples, bat-mastercard and cheesy oneliners. It reminds me of the Tokusatsu genre as well as well as films like CUTEY HONEY, MECHANICAL VIOLATER HAKAIDER, MACHINE GIRL, CATS EYE, BIG BOOBS BUSTER or MASK THE KEKKOU.
Alas, the audience hated it. Ungrateful bastards. They deserve bland, says I.
I disagree with the premise of this article. Telling fantasy tales should, in my opinion, be as straightforward cinematographically as possible. It’s hard enough to convince audiences of the ‘reality’ of superheroes without all sorts of fancy camerawork. You mention Kirby and Ditko: well, their art was presented in quite staid grids, nothing like the weird pacing and layouts of Adams or Steranko.
In film, I very much like directors like John Ford or Howard Hawks who elected to present their films in the simplest way possible. Ozu is as great a Japanese director as Kurosawa, you know.
Ford and Hawks are significantly more stylish and visually interesting than Joss Whedon. Part of the issue is that the films are not simple. They’re not anything. There’s no consistent or thought through direction. The problem isn’t that they’re too simple. The problem is that they’re ugly and thoughtless.
Nobody has trouble believing in superheroes. The tropes are thoroughly assimilated.
Kirby’s Golden Age Captain America stories were far from “staid grids”–And his FF work gets more baroque as it goes along. The 6 or 9 panel grids were one approach (in the early Marvel Age) but not the only one.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, Noah and I to mine. I think the Whedon films are fine, myself.
But I do think you chose a bad example with that Ant-Man sequence. It’s an impeccable comical scene; the theater where I saw it resounded with laughter. In fact, that whole movie is my favorite of the MCU’s. It’s sharply paced and consistently funny.
There are some amusing bits in Ant-Man. It just feels kind of old and dull and cramped to me. That scene too.
Eric, those early Cap stories date from the beginning of Kirby’s career. As the forties moved on he totally abandoned the wacky layouts. As for his later FF work, the baroqueness was confined to the drawing; his panel layouts actually became even more restrained.
@Baldanders
Here’s a stylistically flashy treatment of superheroes that convinced a lot of people, and that I think will continue to mean something to people after the Marvel movies are as dead and buried as Quo Vadis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxhj3KonU_g&t=11m58s
@Noah
I think your 7:49 comment gets to the heart of the matter. It’s not that the Marvel films (and DC films, for that matter) are bland, per se, it’s that they’re bland and sloppy (as opposed to bland and well crafted, or sloppy and dynamic, both of which can be good).
Though of course they did hire a real director to make the first Spider-Man film series. But I can’t remember any particularly effective direction in those (except maybe Peter Parker’s dance number in the third). Maybe giving him money took away his talent.
“Maybe giving him money took away his talent.”
Probably a simpler process of having studio dictats and expectations take away his talent. Those big tent pole films come with a lot of expectations and restrictions, I think.
I don’t think Marvel had anything to do with hiring Raimi, though — the Spider-Man movies were Sony and not part of (may God have mercy on me for having to use this phrase) the “Marvel Cinematic Universe”.
Come to think of it, they did go with Shane Black for Iron Man 3.
Yes, I did say “Golden Age” Cap stories, but Kirby in later years became enamored of splash and double-splash pages that I wouldn’t call “staid grids.” Also, more baroque drawing and collages (kitchen sink stuff), but the layouts aren’t exactly restrained and consistent given Kirby’s tendency to get ever “bigger.”
The talk of panels and grids has confused the issue, I think. Baldanders is right that Kirby’s and Ditko’s Marvel work used fairly standard grids. But Eric is rightly pushing back with the claim that their work was still, extravagantly, visually outre — unlike the films in question.
I’d be delighted if Bela Tarr or Jim Jarmusch made a superhero movie that was still interesting to look at. The problem with these movies isn’t really (well, isn’t just) that they’re not flashy with where they place and move the camera, or how they edit. As David Bordwell has argued, the great Hong Kong action movies follow boring old classical Hollywood continuity and visual style and are still plenty kinetic and dynamic.
The problem is that these superhero movies are all-round boring to look at, and the set-pieces are generally dull (tho not without exception — I thought the second Captain America movie had some good bits). There’s not a scene in any one of them that has made me drop my jaw, or laugh with visual delight, or wonder what the hell am I even looking at right now? — but that’s exactly what I want to feel in a superhero movie. By contrast, see e.g. the Raid, or the boss battles in its sequel, or the alley of swords sequence in 13 Assassins, or the sewer-monster sequence in Holy Motors, or any number of Jackie Chan set-pieces, or, hell, even the troll fight and Helm’s Deep fight in Lord of the Rings.
Lord of the Rings is a good contrast. Not especially outre, but there’s a visual sense of wonder/artful use of the range of film special effects. With the Marvel films it’s just like, let’s throw some CGI there, some stunt doubles…and, done.
In a weird and dumb (Robert Downey, Jr. excepted) way, the Avengers movies and related solo projects are basically character pieces – people watch to see who makes friends, who becomes enemies, who dates whom. Maybe that partly explains the indifference to the visual element.
That’s pretty much conventional wisdom, isn’t it Graham? Not saying it’s therefore wrong — I agree. I know I’ve read at least one thinkpiece about how all the action bits look the same so the only distinctive scenes are the dialogue-heavy/bantery ones, but I can’t find the links now.
It could be the conventional wisdom. I wouldn’t know.
I actually think Whedon’s trick where he moves the camera around a battle scene in an uninterrupted take (the bit in the first Avengers where we zoom around New York to see what all the heroes are doing and then the bit in the second film where the heroes stay in the same place but Whedon slows the shot down and moves around them creating the sense of a comics panel) is a nice bit of business. Granted, those shots stand out because nearly everything else is handled in such a quotidian fashion. But I’m not surprised that a screenwriter turns out to be a relatively blah visualizer.
>>Jones – I’d be delighted if Bela Tarr or Jim Jarmusch made a superhero movie that was still interesting to look at.
Well, there’s actually an answer to this as far as Chinese “superheroes” are concerned – Hou Hsiao Hsien’s The Assassin; which has to be one of the most atypical wuxia movies ever made with all of the director’s proclivities intact. Visually gorgeous and the Chinese language script is on a whole other level as well – spare yet dense with obfuscation and lies. This is not a recommendation since it’s the very antithesis of Kung Fu Hustle (which I find about as interesting as a Jackie Chan movie; both supported by stars of immense ego).