Iron Man (2008)

Pretentiousness and Pretentiosity Made Flesh

First things first, I have tried writing an exhaustive review for Iron Man, I really did. A convincing piece about what I really liked about the film (which is practically nothing) and why I hate it so much would be great, especially after my bitchy article about how hard it is to dissent from the consensus thought when it comes to immensely popular or notoriously uncool films, declared so by a soul-crushing majority. However, it wasn't long before I realized that nothing I was going to write would even closely match the simplicity, accuracy, shrewdness and -of course- hilarity of the related Onion News video. I have read tens of reviews on this year's hit blockbuster (not counting The Dark Knight - didn't have the chance to see that yet) and none of them was half as insightful and/or close to my own thoughts about this film. So for the first time in the rather short history of The Long Take, I am not ashamed to fully quote an external opinion in my own review.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: the Onion News Network video.




That's what I call gift of foresight.

So, aside from all this, what exactly is the problem with Iron Man? Considering the fact that nothing seems right about it, this is a tough question to answer on my part. Should we take this film seriously? How possible is that when it's so shamelessly pretentious that almost all the time it fails to be credible? Do we really need to be slapped in the face with stripteasing flight attendants and exploding dust clouds in the backdrop of almighty Mr. Stark in order to be able to comprehend how incredibly cool he is? What about watching him give away prestigious awards to people he doesn't know, as if they are little bars of chocolate; or sleep with a journalist (who appears to be a part-time top model) merely a couple of minutes after a shallow political interview that somehow manages to cover both the status quo of the weapons industry and Tony Stark's bedtime rituals? Not to mention dumping her early in the morning, right after giving her a glimpse of the wonderful seaside view of his enormous mansion, in order to start working single-handedly on his company's next project (one wonders what all the other people in Stark Industries are doing, given that Tony handles all the R&D, sales management, demonstrations and public relations).


Independently, none of the things I have mentioned would've mattered, because stylized exaggeration is a central element in all modern superhero films to date. But with Iron Man, this tired convention declines to new limits. When you combine and compress all the examples I have listed (and unfortunately many more) into the first half hour of a film, the result is more disturbing than the sum of its parts. Like a schoolchild with a new wrist watch, Favreau tries too hard to impress with this new genre he has engaged himself that I'm guessing he would've secretly cried like one had the reviews and the box office numbers not been so favorable. Tony Stark's excessive cockiness is great as a small cameo in a 3rd class comic book adaptation but is overdose when he becomes the central character in another one. When you are constantly and helplessly exposed to his forced, ostentatious lines, his arrogance ceases to be a simple personality trait and becomes a tool that is overused by the writers Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby to enthrall the audience. Hiding behind their character the whole time, they punch you right in the face, one after another, and eventually blame the character for all the damage they have caused. The whole film is the pathetic showiness of Favreau and this writer duo, perfectly disguised as Tony Stark's.


If you look carefully enough and behave well enough one day, you can even read the screenplay right off the screen as every line as spoken, and vaguely see the praise-hungry smirks on its creators' faces as they were working on it.


Should I praise characters and performances? Especially Robert Downey Jr. seems to be quite popular among the fan and critic circles, while an overall praise is given for the whole cast. True, Downey Jr. puts a sincere effort to instill as much soul as possible in between every line he is given, which are normally bankrupt of any natural feel to themselves. For reasons not related to his talents, he fails - after all, at least half of any actor's performance is directly related to the quality of the screenplay he's given. The situation is much more dramatic with the side characters. On a brief analysis, you can realize that the film revolves around only three or four characters: the hero, the love interest and the villains. All the others are porcelain statuettes in a salon much bigger than themselves; immobile and invisible. Tony Stark would be upset if the blonde he slept with and the best friend he constantly mocked would not have any screen time in Iron Man, but the sad truth is, they don't contribute to anything in the film. Their presence stands as nothing but a proof that the creators have stayed true to the original material - at least most of the time. They don't function, they don't convince, therefore they don't exist.


The 'necessary' ones, on the other hand, are profoundly typical and cliche, beginning from the Afghan villain in the first half (who is convinced that a monologue about the evolution of modern warfare from bows and arrows would make him appear charismatic) through his 'friend' Yinsen (who, being fond of tired philosophical contradictions, attempts to appear wise when he declares "So [Tony Stark is] a man who has everything... but nothing") to Pepper Potts (who patiently tries to steal the heart of his boss by being cute, kind, loyal and -most importantly- patient). Last but not the least: Obadiah Stane (a.k.a. Iron Monger); if you have played a couple of arcade/video games in your childhood, I don't need to tell you how typical the 'boss villain' of Iron Man really is.


Should I look for serious, thought-provoking political undertones? I'm not really buying Stark's sudden change of mind about his family business after merely a couple of weeks spent as a captive in Afghan caves; a business that he seemed pretty proud of and defensive about prior to the incident. I don't see it reasonable that the number one man in the United States weapons industry should remain ignorant of the scope of the damage he has been causing and of the fact that unintended groups would be using their products. Naive genius won't get you anywhere as far as weapons and politics are concerned. What's worse is, the political messages of Iron Man (if any such thing exists) are not only shallow and unconvincing but are also disturbing. If anyone asserts that I should take the political aspects of this film seriously, I'll say that the whole film shamelessly excuses the viciousness and malignity of the weapons industry today by blaming irresponsible individuals instead of corporate policies. As a youngster, ignorant of world politics and military involvements, I would've concluded after watching Iron Man that people like Obadiah Stane are responsible for all the harm that is caused by modern warfare and that the idea of military investment is virtue. Depending on your political views, you might find it easier to accept and sympathize with this attitude but it still greatly disturbs me.


Or should I ignore all this and expect pure entertaintment from this film, fueled with breathtaking superhero action? I guess this is the point where even the most zealot fans of this film will agree, Iron Man is not an action film - some like to call it a character study but I don't see such depth. The whole action in this adaptation consists of Tony Stark's escape from Afghan caves, his flight back to middle east that appears to be done out of boredom rather than heroism and the eventual showdown between Iron Man and Iron Monger. Nothing you get to see in these sequences are irreplacable, nothing is original and most importantly, nothing is satisfying. This formula would've worked if the film itself was really a character study like Nolan's Batman interpretations are, or at least if Iron Man was a film with an impressive political stance like Blood Diamond is. In reality, Iron Man is stuck somewhere in between a cartoonish, action-based superhero film and a serious comic-book interpretation - since it fails to be either, it's a film that is most mediocre, even by the low standards set by numerous superhero films today.


This will be kind of a contraversial statement to make and I have to say I haven't really seen the worst examples of this genre such as Catwoman, Fantastic Four and Joel Schumacher Batman sequels (declared worst by fans and critics that is) but in my own criteria, Iron Man is simply the worst comic book adaptation I have ever seen in my life and is a film that tries to be everything and succeeds to be nothing. Whatever I argue here won't be enough to challenge the consensus thought, no matter how long this article is, so those of you loved the film for what it is: step forward and bring your arguements with you. If this is a film loved and praised by practically everyone around me, I would love my own opinions to be challenged by this majority.

2/10

Where Have Wachowskies Been Hurtling Toward?

From Bound Through Matrix To Speed Racer
by Mehmet Cihan Yalcin

A few weeks ago, we were discussing with Anil his post about difficulties of dissenting from the norm, where I heartily agree with the principles he mentions. More heartily than he does in fact. So much so that he accuses me of “thinking that I have nothing to learn from anybody”. The statement is unjust, naturally, yet there is a grain of truth in it: The fact that I would not sift through tons of mud to find the grain of truth in anything that anyone says.

There are people who put so much weight on grains of truth. What matters for me are grains of falsities, because one single tiny contradiction in a logical train of reasoning allows you to prove anything. One can find elegant examples of this mathematical fact in those fun “1=0” or “all triangles are equilateral” proofs. Actually if one looks the right way one can find this happening everywhere in our lives, as Basin City Senator Roark puts forth so well in his brilliant soliloquy. Accept one untruth and you lose all the meaning in every discourse associated with it. I cannot live with them. So when I hear an assertion what I dig for immediately is flaws, not insights. When they exist, the assertion is nothing to me. Consequently I disregard most of the stuff I read or hear, almost immediately.

That includes almost all of the praise I've read or heard about the Wachowskis since The Matrix.

So you now know that this critique will be a negative one. If you think “all our ridiculous analysis doesn't hold up to the smiles on your children's' faces when you left the theater” and that's that, you'd better not waste any more time reading this. Otherwise, here's my perspective on Wachowskis' journey through cinema.


For quite some time, every project of the Wachowskis have attracted immediate, widespread attention, from the moment they were announced. The duo had been the target of so much acclaim, focus of so much expectation and the center of so great hype that people are loathe to directly criticize them or their work. Although they were not in the director's seat, Assassins* was Wachowskis' brainchild more than Donner's: The film included something original, something that Wachowskis brought with them to cinema. It was a new, refreshing, and most important of all, an intelligent take on several cliché characters and plots, which had become cliché due to their inherent riveting nature. They managed to put the unprecedented twist to their already interesting subject matter that could grasp the viewers and pull them through the thrill ride. Although the film wasn't technically or dramatically anything special, one could see there was a bud in it waiting to blossom and offer something groundbreaking.


It did not take too long to do so: Bound**, the directorial debut of Wachowskis was far more than solid all around. In it, there were film noir clichés that we loved, with new faces and facets. The dupe lead, the femme fatale, the twitchy, flamboyant and no-nonsense mafioso types, cunning plans that horribly fall apart, they all were there, in a never-before-seen way. Yes, tempo falters in the latter half, yes the ending is rather weak, but in the end the film is nothing short of astonishing. Sadly though, its reception was disheartening. The reviews at the time were mixed, although in time they shifted strongly toward praise. The real letdown were the revenues, which drove the message home: It was not complexity and intelligence, clever references and twists -which the film had aplenty- that was going to sell their movies, nor controversial themes and characters. Challenge the viewers more than they'd like, and they shun your film.


The application of the idea did soon follow. It was The Matrix***, for which they received unparalleled attention. They took some concepts from the underappreciated cyberpunk literature and drew inspiration from several films containing some bright ideas. Then, instead of carving their mark of intelligence intricately on them as they did so before; they beat them on an anvil of special effects with a hammer of stylishness, till they had no depth at all. And the hype was everywhere even before the film was released: computers this, style that, zounds of cameras whatever. Then everyone was uttering half-baked, unjust, borrowed words of praise for a visually polished, well-paced action movie that had no merits plot-wise whatsoever, and very little in the name of acting. Of course, the film does merit serious analysis that I do not intend to fill this article with, but let me at least underline one aspect that disturbs me to no end: Anil in his “Against the Current” article told of “the phenomenon of loving a film for all the wrong reasons”, stating that “...when the reasons behind the film's brilliance is reduced to [the wrong reasons], counter arguments will focus less on the actual noteworthy aspects. The whole discussion will be rendered less fertile and more futile.”. The focus on the “philosophical connotations” of The Matrix is exactly this.

Because speaking of philosophical depth in The Matrix tells me only of philosophical shallowness of the speaker. Merely alluding to a discourse from antiquity, which has been transcended in every conceivable way does not entail philosophical depth. Epistemology has far more interesting and exciting discourses, some of which are active even recently. Of course, it is remarkable that people with no interest in high and mighty topics of philosophy are somehow introduced to an idea which has been influential for some time, but this is neither the aim nor the strong point of the film. There is merely a rather stale idea, presented without adding anything extraordinary or goading the viewer to think deeper on the subject. Had I not been subjected to this vein of discussions on the film (and the lengths to which a fad can be dragged is inconceivable for me, seeing books published on “philosophy of Matrix”, and worse, people -pretending to be- reading them, runs metal fingers on a blackboard in my head) I would consider it according to the visuals and action sequences, resulting in a rating of 5-6, whereas when I dig for depth and intelligence (in the aforementioned subject) I find nothing, consequently the film falls to my 3-4 range.

There was one extraordinary aspect though: Its accessibility. I'll quote the late George Carlin here: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” With The Matrix, Wachowskis did. And they also learned that avoiding insulting the intelligence of any potential watcher is a moneymaker. You can make people feel good through simplicity, simplicity that does not merely border stupidity but dives deep into its uncharted territories. Especially if you can label it as sophistication.

Why Mr. Anderson?

Sequels of The Matrix**** failed -though not miserably enough- not because they lacked the strengths of The Matrix, but rather because they merely repeated them. Expectations were high, originality was low, and visual thrills were mediocre, considering the high standard set by the first film. The thing fizzled, leaving even the fans of the first film disappointed. However they did yield enough revenues to let Wachowskis stick with the principle.

Then comes the vaunted V for Vendetta*****: the veracious vivification of Wachowskis' variation from vibrant to vacuous. Here what they do is the exact reverse of what they did in Assassins or Bound: Take an original work of high complexity, and make it accessible, simple. But what we end up with is a film that, after a brilliant beginning, drags through a dull period to end in a disappointingly meaningless manner. The interaction between V and Evey fails to be the philosophical discourse that it's supposed to be, and ends up reminiscing the shallow romances of '50s. Worse yet, the credibility of the events portrayed diminish constantly through the film suct that the ending is beyond absurd. Sadly, this is not the first film by Wachowskis that begins with enormous promise, only to lose power as it progresses.

Only now can we reach the film that instigated this article: Speed Racer****** - although my outburst about The Matrix obviously stole its thunder. Before watching the movie, I was as skeptical as Anil was hopeful - while he was criticizing the way Stephanie Zacharek berated the film, I was sure I was going to share her opinion. When I began watching the film I was pleasantly surprised. The visuals were a magnificent representation of an anime atmosphere in a feature film. From vibrant action, inventive slides, brilliant use of effects and colours to the plasticity of the characters, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory-esque company tour, and thrilling, well-paced action sequence starring Racer-X the first 34 minutes was a veritable fun, filled with all sorts of eye candy.


Then came the ordinary feel-good stuff: lightweight romance, family relationship stuff, exaggerated moral tones integrated in the supremely shallow plot and of course the pointless antics of the entirely inane kid and his monkey. Dull characters are forced into drama at points, dispersing all the momentum. Moreover, the “better”, “more human” acting by Susan Sarandon and Christina Ricci in fact harms the film than helps: Their acting robs the film of its entirely artificial feel, mars the integrity in style, and underline the failings of everything around them.

Before the treatment (left) and after the treatment (right)

Wachowskis has also been very successful at capturing the weakness in the anime that turned me off as a kid: The mind-numbing monotony, the repetitiveness and predictability of the action sequences. This is acceptable in a low-budget anime that recycles themes and even scenes, but failing to or refraining from introducing anything more than what has been shown in the first half hour in a feature film is inexcusable. Anil was spot-on in much of his criticism, and probably the only reason I rate this film higher than him is that I know the original anime and I admire what the Wachowskis did with it, if only for a quarter of the running time of the film.

Recently I told Anil that “the psyches of Wachowskis have been irreparably marred by the events that followed the release of The Matrix”. It was a joke, and was received as such, but when I think about it, that was what happened, for all intents and purposes concerning me. From then on they would give up adding intellect to what was done in the past and increasing the complexity of their subject matter, they would strive to remove the complexity while retaining a self-serious demeanor, rather than admitting their work is a caricature the way Tarantino does. With Speed Racer, which was refreshingly original, I am now hopeful that they will dare create something interesting in the future, something not only clever and creative, but strong through and through. I sincerely wish that they will relinquish the role of mainstream heroes they embraced with The Matrix, and return to their dissident magnificence they showed in Bound.

*Assassins
6/10

**Bound
8/10

***The Matrix:
3/10

****The Matrix Reloaded
1/10

****The Matrix Revolutions
1/10

*****V for Vendetta
4/10

******Speed Racer
6/10

New Poll Open for 'Cannes vs Oscars: 1974'

It's July and the 'Movie of the Month' in The Large Association of Movie Blogs is The Conversation. In line with this trend, I have selected 1974 as our next round in the breathtaking fight between Oscars and Cannes, which marks a unique rivalry between two great films by Francis Ford Coppola: The Conversation and The Godfather: Part II.

Dominated by Coppola in terms of prestigious awards, 1974 is a momentous year in filmmaking; it's a year in which people got to watch masterpieces like Chinatown and aforementioned two movies, cult films such as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre; comedies such as Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein (both of which were listed on 'The LAMB's Top 10 Comedies' recently), classics like The Man With The Golden Gun and The Sugarland Express (an early film by Spielberg which was like the harbringer of his directorial talents).

Aside from all these films, 1974 is the single year in the whole history of cinema that two films by the same director won the biggest awards in both Cannes Film Festival and Academy Awards. This provides us a great basis for analysis and discussion in terms of similarities, differences and unique characters of both awards organizations in question. From the career of Coppola, which has produced only a handful of films, why have Cannes and Oscars gone for different films in the same year? What are the factors behind this obvious discrepancy?

Stop by for two seconds (no longer, I promise) and vote your own pick from these two films, and contribute to our complementary article which I hope will be around here towards the end of July (in order to catch up with the 'Movie of the Month' feature in LAMB).

Meanwhile, my recent holiday caused an unwanted delay in the previous year 1994. An article, comparing and contrasting Pulp Fiction with Forrest Gump will be here very soon. Stay tuned and thanks for your patience.

Speed Racer (2008)

Not Brave Enough

Speed Racer is a film that speaks by the color codes; so much that when its name is uttered, color is the first thing that comes to mind. Much of the film's expressive power, originality and -consequently- its marketing campaign is centered on this aspect; and how successfully they used bright, cartoonish colors in this film is directly related to how successful the film is as a whole. As opposed to the rather cruel judgement by Stephanie Zacharek (i.e. "The picture is bankrupt in terms of everything but color, and even then, its palette suggests not careful selection but no selection"), my opinion is that nothing is random or arbitrary when it comes to the color composition that this film presents. Purple is greedy, sneaky and evil; it's in the decorations of Royalton Industries, ties of E. P. Arnold Royalton, the suit that is offered to Speed during the negotiations and the unnamed Metropolis itself. Almost like the artificial blue beams that leaked from the windows in Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut whenever something drastic or horrific (or both) was about to happen, the color purple in Speed Racer causes distress whenever it fills the screen. Similar to the venom in Spider Man 3, it spreads like a disease and corrupts its host. Red is passion and therefore is the color on Trixie's lips. You might not find this style sophisticated enough to carry the whole film, but you have to accept, it's not really a mess. Black is mysterious, hence Racer X's uniform. Pink is love and devotion. White is pure, unstained and uncorrupted - therefore the color of Speed's racing suit is no coincidence, nor the bright, innocent white that invades the whole screen as Speed eventually wins the Grand Prix and embraces the gigantic cup.

Ooops.

Sorry about the spoiler.


But hey, who seriously expected him to lose the eventual showdown and go back to his miserable existance, haunted by the memories of his dead brother and delusions of his father as he watches the 1943 Grand Prix, minutes before closing credits start to roll without any victorious and glorious climax? My guess is no one, not when we are watching a racing flick that is based on a "cheapo Japanese animation", nearly as sophisticated as Captain Tsubasa or Candy Candy. The question here is, what do you want to watch? If you're after seriousness and logical accuracy; a realist piece of solid action flick, Speed Racer is not your piece of cake. If you are interested in homage as a cinematical genre, if you want to watch a film that is true to the spirit and style of its original material, a film that explores all the possible interactions between cinema and that other medium, if you loved Kill Bill, American Splendor, Sin City and Grindhouse, you have to tolerate Speed listening to the car in order to find the ridiculous method that makes the engine run again, the method that Pops failed to mention his son for some inconceivable reason. You have to swallow all the extravaganza on screen, just like you swallowed the circular football fields in Captain Tsubasa, or the kicks that gave the ball an elliptical shape and made it unstoppable even if the whole team clamped behind the goalkeeper to stop it. This is a different realm with different rules.


Were the Wachowskis successful in achieving this goal? Is Speed Racer really a masterpiece like the other films I have mentioned? Hardly. Having disagreed Miss Zacharek, it is true that Speed Racer is colors and nothing but colors, which wouldn't pose any problems if the style was established enough to make me not care about anything else. The GCI is crude and childish, and while it's true that sometimes it serves to create an appropriate atmosphere for the adaptation of a "cheapo Japanese animation", downright mediocrity is not the way to go. If the physical details of the racing cars, which would make Stephen Hawking commit suicide and Isaac Newton turn in his grave, closely resemble a bunch of toy cars randomly thrown on a dinner table, there's a problem with that situation. Just like you cannot imagine Jurassic Park with sloppy dinosaur models or Star Wars with unconvincing light sabers (no matter how different the realms of both these movies are), Wachowskis' lack of attention to detail when it comes to automobiles in Speed Racer cannot be excused by the unrefined quality of the original cartoon series. Stylizing crudeness is an art that apparently not everybody is qualified enough to tackle.


It is true that the siblings were on the right track with this adaptation, but on the way they probably got too absorbed in the idea of making a 'family film' and stopped short of making a cult masterpiece. Since the film doesn't ignore the dramatical aspects of its story, it's hard for me to ignore the dramatical flaws, which could've been insignificant had the Wachowskis chosen the way of style over substance. There's no way to defend this film as long as you are forced to watch endless dramatical sequences and be expected to be impressed by them. It's cliche at its most intolerable. The emphasis slides from the visual style towards the ridiculous heroism of Speed Racer and his folks; the film wants you to take the story seriously and when you do, everything about it becomes more flawed, weary and ordinary. Speed Racer definitely requires more solid action & chase sequences, a better and more attentive CGI work and (most importantly) a major shift of focus in favor of its innovative color use and unique visual quality. The potential here is not the story but the uncharted territories between anime and cinema and Wachowskis should've been brave enough to explore those dark areas. Only then I would be able to defend it against many unfavorable reviews, asserting that one has to see the different powers of expression that this film has to offer. In this case, I am compelled to agree with the disappointed majority.


All in all, Speed Racer is the emotional-but-not-so-exciting story of a boy, who refuses to grow up and get to know the 'real' world he has been living in all his life; therefore the story is quite relatable for both children and adults. This might signify that Wachowskis were indeed able to make a family film for the masses. But it's neither a good one, nor it can deliver emotionally, which makes Speed Racer an official disappointment. My anticipation was not worth it.

May we see better works from the Wachowski siblings in the future.

5/10