The Blog

Interesting questions, nearly all of which Bordwell side steps in his too tidy analysis of the current popularity of superhero films. While he is right to point out that people always tend to point to an (often tenuous) connection between the "zeitgeist" and the popular cinema, what to make of the endless references to torture and the war on terror in contemporary action films? To me, Bordwell's historiographic approach lacks for ways to explain why, for example, the Silver Surfer is taken to a black site in Russia in the most recent Fantastic Four flick.

For all your wordy analysis, I beleive you over simplify the concept these characters represent. To suggest that superheroes and their films are born of some notion that only force works and dimplocy need not be tried is faulty reasoning. What do you make of Spider-Man 2, wherein the villain wasn't thwarted by acts of force, but was verbally persuaded by our hero to see the error of his ways? What say you about X-Men, wherein our heroes get into weighty discussions about being "different" and the head of the protagonists is almost constantly trying to reason with the main antagonist into settling his matters through means other than force? No, the popularity of these films doesn't come from some misguided modern notion that force is the only answer. Hell, most of these characters weren't even created today. Batman and Superman came from the 30's, in which mob crime was a reality, and there really was a universal and uncompromising evil threatening the world. While character's like Spider-Man, the Hulk, Iron Man, and the X-Men came from the 60's... and served as forums of social commentary on things like the civil rights movement, and the Military-Industrial Complex. But moreover, I think the reason why the notion of superheroes appeals to America (and the rest of the world, for that matter) is because we currently live in a world that is so full with shades of gray, that it's of some small comfort to imagine a simpler world where there is a definite and understandable division between what's good and what's evil.

I definitely agree with Max above. What we need to be comparing is the Superhero blockbusters of today to the blockbusters before the Superhero era. These were largely disaster pictures (Armageddon, Independence day). So what came between them and now? September 11th. Suddenly movies where people died in large scale weren't escapist entertainment anymore. But a movie with a clear hero/villian dichotomy and a protagonist like Spider-Man or Batman with a good sense of inner-conflict (heck, even the latest Superman played up his loneliness) But to suggest that Superhero movies are responsible for Iraq would be misguided. Movies aren't forces for shaping society (to think so gives them too much credit). They're historical record. Movies are a reaction to, and reflection of the current social zeitgeist. If one can properly "read" movies, one can understand the era in which they were born. What explains the 60's better than The Graduate, Bonnie & Clyde and Cool Hand Luke? And in the same way, The Dark Knight and Wall-E explain contemporary times (not to discount the small indpenendent, usually superior films that also have much to say, but to bring up Frozen River, as if indie films have ever been part of the Summer Blockbuster conversation serves no point).

Boy, did you miss the point of these films: http://www.fulvuedrive-in.com/review/7386/The+Dark+Knights'+Returns

Why is it that people who discuss movies feel the need to find the most obscure synonyms? And don't even get me started on the whole "indie is better than Hollywood" nonsense. First of all, Robert hit a nail on the head with pointing out none of these heroes were created recently. True the people making the movies may have had other ideas and motives, or just not understood what the movies were about. And saying a movie influenced the powers that be in America into a war is just silly. Except for maybe Wolverine (because he is so damaaged) most of these heroes want to resolve things first. But sometimes you come up against villains who don't talk. They just kill. Do you really think the fellas who got on those planes on 9/11 could have been talked out of it? Not to mention most of these movies are intended for "escapisim." Not that deeper meanings cant be gleaned from them. And ALL Hollywood movies despite their "message" are made to make money. When producers, directors, actors make a movie and don't get paid for it, then I will believe it was only for the message. Superheroes are a larger than life adventrure. To believe that there are people out there strong enough to lift a building, or fly or whathave you, and they fight for good. To protect the helpless...and then we realize, we can do that. We might not be super, but we can help those around us. So "superheroes" in the end, inspire us to better things.

If you take a step back from a specific genre for a moment and look at 'movies' in general, you might see what I think I see: two different reasons to watch them at all. One group of people wants to BE someone in a movie: those are what I call Escapists. The other group gets enjoyment out of just watching other people do things just like watching an ant farm: those I call Voyeurs. A while back, PBS covered something called Mirror Neurons, a name attached to the mechanism where when you see someone else doing something, you experience it too. Empathy seems to be based on these Mirror Neurons, and the more empathy you have the easier it is to attach yourself to one of the characters on the screen to 'be'. The less empathy you have, the more likely you are to NOT attach yourself to any characters and just watch them. So when watching some guy get hit in the crotch, the guys in the audience who don't at least go Ouch would be the ones with the least empathy. So getting back to Superhero movies specifically, who wouldn't want to be super and save the day? Those without empathy, maybe, but even those might get a good watch out of it. I guess someone CAN say none of the characters in a specific movie are worth 'being', but to find NOTHING worthwhile takes a really prejudiced mind or a horribly HORRIBLY bad concept for a movie. This empathy thing applies to more than just movies, since the recent Mirror Neuron naming doesn't mean plenty of people didn't know what it was already. TV commercials show you people eating hamburgers and smiling: suddenly you want a hamburger. It applies across the board to most things in life. Well, except when it comes to pornography, where people are expected to deny any empathy, and declare that watching THAT is sick and perverted and whatever else their religious leader wants them to say. Odd how slasher films come off as OK compared to that, but that's the way things work...

I think Pat Graham should reread George Orwell's "Politics And The English Language". Remember, clarity of writing usually follows clarity of thought. The only thing that is clear about this post is that Graham cannot write. Follow Orwell's six elementary rules and never again should you write sentences that read 'What's arguably OK within "reasonable" limits, even homeopathic in a more benign state, as an expression of the creative urge, the infinite variety of thinking and feeling that's always searching for an outlet, seems lately to have run off the rails'. 1. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. 2. Never use a long word where a short one will do. 3. If it is possible to cut out a word, always cut it out. 4. Never use the passive where you can use the active. 5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. 6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

You sure took an interesting subject and drained the life right out of it. Way to go!

One thing to consider - We finally have the technology to make these things look good on film. Pretty simple, actually.

How about the possiblity that we all grew up on superhero's and now that technology has progressed to the point film-makers can actually convey the images from our childhood memories into a visually entertaining experience? Everyone of us ran around with a towel over our shoulders pretending it was a cape, or had a box that was our spaceship. Now we are all grown up and enjoy seeing our favorite heros on the big screen acting out those same childhood fantacies. Of course movies have to be updated to fit with contemporary social norms and geopolitical events to give them a relevant feel, I mean would Ironman have worked if Stark was captured in Viet Nam? We all know how that piece of history unfolded. Isn't it more entertaining and thought provoking to use a current setting that has yet to be decided? Besides, if I want to see a realistic portral of the world, I'll go outside.

My friend, I wish I could debate the finer points of superhero films with you, however your writing is so horrible that I can hardly read the first few lines without taking notes. Your verbiage, nay, the very structure of your writing, serves as a classic example of someone who must resort to large words and confounding sentence structures to hide that they have very little to say. May I quote you?

CONFUSED--yup ... and pleez, folks, no more orwell--not everyone thinks he's jesus

this knucklehead's and the reader's publishing of it makes me embarassed to be from chicago.

Truth is, a superhero cannot be targeted at a real major problem of the world and come off at all convincing. This became apparent almost as soon as the genre was created back in the latter 1930s. For all that's been written about the superhero flourishing in a Golden Age from that point through WWII, the fact is these characters could not, as would be logical if based in reality, be sent to directly take out Hitler or Tojo or Mussolini without destroying all suspension of disbelief. The genre has been dancing around that difficulty ever since. And the corollary is that, if superheroes were real, we wouldn't have the world we have today. In the end the superhero is, like any myth, an evocation of our spirit in narrative form, with only as much of reality applied to it as is necessary to allow the myth to unfold.

Come on, just because you used a thesaurus to find "smart-sounding" words and use obscure references that sound like they came from a Dennis Miller monologue doesn't mean you are superior to everyone. The concept of why superhero movies are popular is a lot more simple than trying to read your convoluted argument. Superheroes appeal to everyone because they are fun to watch and most of the movies nowadays aren't totally just for kids. The action appeals to the kids and the story appeals to the adults, plain and simple. You are really overthinking things.

One wonders why nobody ever comments about the plethora of movies coming out in other genres. Why can't you accept that people watch superhero movies because they're fun entertainment (mostly), and that they don't have to learn a deep life lesson every time they go to the cinema?

dang, what language was this post translated into english from, and then back into, and then back into english again?

Jeez, it's the lowest form of critique to avoid responding to a writer's argument by criticizing the writing. And I think there might be a significant misunderstanding of Pat's point: it isn't that superheroes reinforce the notion that might makes right, it's that they prop up American militarism and hegemony around the world. Jesus ... what a bunch of exercises in missing the point. (By the way, I'm no relation to brad olson, who apparently doesn't know enough about writing to capitalize his own name).

Rick, I'm sure many of us would like to engage in Pat's debate, but unfortunately his sophomoric ramblings are impossible to follow.

Rick, Pat is quite good at generating discussion, but I have to agree with Andriy in the long run. I'd like to engage, but how can say anything of interest when I don't even quite understand what Pat is arguing? And I regard his use of "Etc." as a cop-out--I have no way of filling in the space that follows "innocuous before impish", and if any readers have any ideas on that, I'd love to hear them. (Pat, please refrain from explaining yourself until I hear some thoughts from your readers.)

PAT--when have i ever explained myself?--i mean, jeez ...

I got the point. And I disagree that Superheroe movies, tv shows, etc "prop up American militarism and hegemony around the world." Iron Man for instance. He goes to the middle east to stop the attacks on the villagers. Not as an American. But as a human, who is trying to make amends for a mistake HE made. I didn't cheer at the point he handed those baddies their asses because he was waving Old Glory, it was because someone stopped bad from happening. Dark Knight - He goes to China to "extradite" that business man. Again, not as a member of US Commision on Forigen Policy, but as a sigular man. And step back for a moment. They are "Superhero" movies. They are, no matter how realistic, "fantasy." It's like arguing that 300 was intentionally released exactly at the point in time it was to bolster US hatred or fear towards Iran, which is preposterous. Superhero movies are just bankable right now. And the more "realistic" the better. Generes go through phases. Untill Harry Potter and Fellowship of the Ring hit in '01, no one was really going near the true "fantasy" genere. Then there were loads of fantasy movies out. Westerns were huge at one point, and then not. They keep fluxing. But Drama, Action, and Comedy will remain steady as they are less focused on a smaller crowd than fantasy or superhero movies are.