There's a rather unfortunate trend going on when it comes to Batman: as the song goes, "can't read his, can't read his, no you can't read his poker face." Whether it's comics or direct-to-DVD animated movies like this latest WB offering, Batman has become a complete and utter cipher in recent years; beyond secretive, beyond unexpressive, beyond stoic. And, in my opinion, this has stripped away the character's most endearing quality: his humanity.
It's certainly true that Batman has never been the kind of superhero who wears his emotions on his sleeve. But what made him so appealing to me was precisely the fact that every now and then, the mask would slip. (Can't find any clips, but basically, any early episode of the Timm/Dini series that featured Two-Face demonstrates this quite nicely.)
That doesn't happen anymore. And "Under The Red Hood" is a perfect example of the result. Spoilers ahoy.
On paper, this should've had an emotional payload that would put "Mask of the Phantasm" or "I Am The Night" to shame. Jason Todd, Batman's second sidekick (and his self-proclaimed "greatest failure") was brutally murdered by the Joker. Five years later, the titular Red Hood emerges to wage war against Gotham crimelord the Black Mask, as well as Batman himself. He's fast, he's smart, and he knows every move Batman makes. A DNA sample just confirms what Bruce already suspects: Jason, his lost Robin, has been resurrected. And he's out for blood.
In terms of straight-up action, this one does quite well for itself, much like the previous "Crisis on Two Earths": the best and most effective scenes are the ones where the Red Hood effortlessly evades Batman's standard attempts to capture him, showing an awareness of the Dark Knight's tactics that's beyond even his oldest enemies.
The voice talent is a bit uneven - I'll admit my difficulties in accepting anyone other than Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill as the voices of Batman and Joker, respectively, but Bruce Greenwood acquits himself quite well. John DiMaggio's Joker is quite different - the manic edge is intact, but there's a much darker and threatening undertone to this version, which suits the plot and atmosphere perfectly. I'd say the only real weak link is Jensen Ackles' Red Hood/Jason: he just doesn't reach the emotional high notes that the dialogue demands, especially in that pivotal scene where Jason finally reveals his real motives.
And that actually leads me to the biggest problem with this whole movie: there's no emotional core. The setup is there, and there are some very poignant flashbacks (the very last scene is the only one that moved me, as it really drove home the underlying tragedy of the whole story), but Batman doesn't react - at all - to the impossible return of his surrogate son. He's not horrified, he's not upset, he's not the slightest bit grateful that Jason's back. Even that critical moment where he explains why he didn't "avenge" Jason's death is delivered in the same flat monotone used when analyzing clues at a crime scene.
Bearing in mind that I haven't read the original storyline, I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that that utter lack of emotional response to the situation is something that was drawn from the comics themselves; if that's the case, then more's the pity. The failure of "Under the Red Hood" is that it promises a story that cuts to the heart of Batman the person, rather than just Batman the superhero, and it doesn't deliver any of that. So much more could have been done on that level, and instead we get explosions and shoot-outs and violent physical combat. Exciting, yes... but dramatically satisfying? Not even close.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Movie Review: Batman - Under The Red Hood
Subscribe to:
29 comments:
Kazekage
said...
Well, the problem you have is you're using a 75-minute movie to adapt a frankly very poorly-written story which referenced about 20 years of past continuity.
I can't see how it doesn't come out muddled, sadly.
Shame we got this and not The Judas Contract. Oh yes, and we have Jeph's Loeb's pedo-tastic Supergirl adaptation coming up as well.
j
said...
I am mildly obsessed with the Red Hood saga, at first because it seemed like a really cool idea, and later because it seemed like a really educational clusterfuck. I watched the movie hoping that they'd take the opportunity to clean it up and end it properly, and found myself, like you, disappointed.
One of the problems with this animated adaptation is that it takes way too long to reveal the Hood's identity -- which was a mystery in the original story, but stunningly obvious to anyone watching the film, considering the opening scene.
But the biggest reason it doesn't work in either medium, I think, is the dilemma of how to end a never-ending story. We're never going to seriously believe Batman is in jeopardy, we're never going to seriously believe the Joker is in jeopardy, but those are precisely the two people the Red Hood sets out to hurt.
Honestly, once you pitch the concept -- which is, to be clear, pretty awesome -- the story can only go a few ways.
1.) Jason Todd kills Batman.
2.) Batman kills Jason Todd.
3.) Jason Todd kills the Joker.
4.) Batman kills the Joker.
5.) The Joker kills Batman.
6.) The Joker kills Jason Todd (irony!).
7.) Nobody dies, everybody angsts.
Obviously 1-5 can't happen, so that just leaves 6 and 7. 6 isn't likely, considering they're going to the trouble to set up a whole movie to introduce us to the character, so that leaves us with... Under the Red Hood, basically.
The smart thing to do -- and something the movie actually sort of stumbles toward, in the earlier scenes -- would be to go away from the obvious conflict toward less certain territory. Jason Todd's setting up shop in Gotham, and wreaking havoc in the underworld. Why? What's his endgame?
In the film, it's to shriek at his dad.
But what if it wasn't? What if he genuinely wanted to improve Gotham, but had decided his mentor's methods were too ineffective? This is a much more difficult problem for Batman, and brings up all sorts of interesting questions about vigilantism and legacies (Morrison, to his credit, touches on this in Batman & Robin). Think Cain vs. Adama, or Magneto and Xavier -- strong, intelligent people with similar goals who simply can't tolerate the other side's approach.
I'm not suggesting that this is what the Red Hood story should be about -- but it does seem clear that the path they chose was the most obvious and ultimately the least fruitful. What a shame.
(To its credit, the film is smart enough to change one thing: in the original storyline, Jason Todd is resurrected as a result of Superboy punching reality. Except he comes back fucked up and dumb, so Talia decides to toss him in the pit. Two resurrections for the price of one! I was a little surprised they didn't also reveal that the Robin who died was actually Jason Todd's identical twin, that he went into suspended animation in the first place, and that the Shi'ar cloned him a body on top of all that.)
Diana Kingston-Gabai
said...
Kazekage: I don't know if continuity was really a problem with this specific story - how much does anyone really need to know about Jason Todd? He was Robin, he had a few screws loose and the Joker killed him. Two or three short flashbacks pretty much covered the backstory. I just think that here - as with the Winick comics - it doesn't work because it's an emotional story featuring an emotionally-dead character. For comparison's sake, Cyclops breaking down at Cable's funeral only took two panels, but at least it was something.
And I doubt the Judas Contract storyline would have done any better in this context - if I recall, Terra's betrayal of the team is supposed to be a dramatic, emotionally powerful moment, and that's something the current batch of writers apparently aren't capable of portraying.
As for Supergirl... well. The less said about Loeb, regarding any matter at all, the better. :)
Diana Kingston-Gabai
said...
j: First of all, welcome back again. ;)
I agree that there's always been some merit in the idea of Jason Todd's return - a lot of early '90s writers were good at subtly hinting that it was still an open wound for Batman, and if I'm not mistaken, Jason was the asking price for Bruce's soul in "Underworld Unleashed". Ideally, I would've liked to see a story where Jason comes back and it actually has some kind of visible impact on Batman, instead of just being another addition to the rogues' gallery.
To be fair, I don't know if the Red Hood's identity was supposed to be a mystery, at least as far as the viewers were concerned - I think even in the Winick story readers figured it out months before the actual reveal. I got the sense that it was all meant to build up to that moment when he runs the DNA scan and it comes up positive... except Alfred's the only one who reacts.
There's actually one more possible scenario: Jason Todd kills himself. In fact, I was sure that's where they were going, since it would've been the "cleanest" resolution to the story, resetting the status quo while giving Bruce just a bit more pain to cope with in the immediate future. Instead, they ended up resetting the status quo to the middle of the film, with "Red Hood" still at large.
I would've loved to see Jason Todd as a Punisher analogue - it's a logical extension of his tendency towards brutality when he was Robin, and since the Lazarus Pits are at least partially responsible, he has an "out" that keeps him from being completely irredeemable. And it would've been the perfect contrast given Batman's statement towards the end that if he started killing, he wouldn't be able to stop - all he has to do is point to Jason as an example of that.
Any story that disregards Superboy punching the walls of reality automatically wins points with me. :)
Kazekage
said...
The problem is, without some kind of long-term context Jason is Like Dick Grayson, Only Not (a problem which he had in the comics forever and ever, which led to his reinvention as a prick) and without some sort of level of "how this directly relates to the larger tapestry of accumulated Batman knowledge we all carry around" it's a bit hard to care about it all. For me anyways.
Maybe in the DTV version (which would hopefully have had 90% less Terry Long, which can only be a Good Thing) which seems to have the only decent writers even remotely connected with the DCU nowadays. There are times where even the ridiculous seems like a viable option. ;)
If only he would wink out of existence if we all quit believing he was real.
Diana Kingston-Gabai
said...
I suppose it doesn't help that Jason never appeared in any of the animated series/movies before - even taking into account that this isn't the DCAU, it's still an odd choice for his debut... but on the other hand, is there another "core" Jason story besides this and "Death in the Family"?
I am looking forward to the "Young Justice" series, though - as it turns out, Greg Weisman is not only responsible for "Gargoyles", he did the second season of "WITCH" (which I adored) and apparently had a stint on "Roughnecks: Starship Troopers Chronicles", which is about the only adaptation of that particular novel I can stomach. I'll be taking a look at his "Spectacular Spider-Man" later this month...
Well, you never know. Just in case: I DO NOT BELIEVE IN JEPH LOEB. ;)
Kazekage
said...
There really isn't. Before "Death in the Family," Jason was just this quaint placeholder for Robin that they tried mightily to find something to do with. If he's been in the DCAU at all, it was because they used bits of his origin for Tim Drake, but still . . .beyond that he's a cipher, innit he?
It should be a good fit. By and large DC has done better animation-wise than Marvel for quite awhile now.
"Don't look Marion. Shut your eyes . . ."
Diana Kingston-Gabai
said...
Pretty much, though in a way, that works into the dynamics of his relationship with Batman: Bruce fails Jason precisely because he thinks he's training another Nightwing, someone who doesn't need to be told about mercy and compassion. And without that, Jason becomes the antithesis of Bruce's philosophy: if you want to stop criminals, you beat them until they can't commit crimes anymore.
And in other media too: the success of "The Dark Knight" speaks for itself, and "Arkham Asylum" is far better than Marvel's "Ultimate Alliance" in terms of story, gameplay, voice-acting... it's just a pity they can't seem to channel any of that talent or accessibility into their actual comics, but I suppose you can't win 'em all. :)
And then the Nazis get to the last page of "Hush" and their eyes melt right out of their sockets. :)
Kazekage
said...
Which makes sense, and really, it would an intriguing thread to play out in the Batman family (well, had not the whole Azrael thing happened, which is pretty close to that trajectory) but you need a longer term to play the string out. Also, given who we're talking about, it'd have made far more sense had this been the plan all along for Jason, buuuut . . .
Well, people might actually watch the movies or play the videogames, so it's no surprise to me that they've pretty much decided they could have the characters read the phone book in the comics and those last few pathetic holdouts would still buy them.
Mine nearly did, despite my not being a Nazi!
Diana Kingston-Gabai
said...
I've always believed that Azrael failed as a concept precisely because he wasn't an existing member of the Bat-family - rejecting Bruce's philosophy doesn't mean anything when it comes from a completely new character.
Still, you'd think that would mandate some kind of standard level of quality, as opposed to Batman peeing himself...
"Hush" is one of those rare mysteries where the real villain of the piece is also the least interesting of all the various possibilities raised during the story. That's a special kind of failure right there.
Kazekage
said...
That was actually a big problem I had with it--I mean Azrael was essentially a cipher so it was hard to get that invested than anything that he did. Maybe that was the time and place to bring Jason back where it'd have the most effect.
So long as they lab or under the delusion that Kevin Smith is worth a damn, that rule will sadly, never apply.
Well, y'know. . .Jeph Loeb. Had it been Jason it night have worked, but he had to go for like two more plot contortions . . .
Diana Kingston-Gabai
said...
Had there ever been an ideal time to bring Jason Todd back, the early '90s weren't it - too soon after the death, especially since DC had made so much noise about killing him off in the first place. Then again, by the time they actually got around to doing it, I'm not sure anyone cared anymore, especially since Tim Drake turned out to be more popular and successful in the role and the Bat-books were already awash in murderous vigilantes.
Ah well. Just another name to ignore when the solicitations come out. :)
Much as it pains me to admit it, Loeb did get the emotional context of that issue right, by having Bruce finally admit that he loved Jason - it seems like a minor moment, but we're talking about a character who expresses less and less humanity every year. If more writers had taken their cues from that particular aspect of "Hush" (and no, I can't believe I'm saying this either) Batman would probably still hold a modicum of interest as a character; instead, he's become as much a flat, repetitive cipher as Superman.
Kazekage
said...
Yeah, they'd actually hit upon a very successful replacement there, so much so that everyone pretty much didn't mind that Dick was Nightwing and Tim was Robin. I'd actually say that Jason was all but forgotten, really. If anything, maybe he should have been built in as an antagonist to Tim Drake and then gradually folded into Batman.
That's half the book for me, now. *L*
Well, part of that is the stereotype of Batman has been frozen somewhere in between Morrison's uber-competent genius and Miller's square-jawed machine of justice and since they're playing to stereotype rather than a character, it's all gone stale.
Diana Kingston-Gabai
said...
It helped that Dick had the relationship with Tim that he should've had with Jason: the prodigal big brother, the one who'd figured out all sorts of things Batman didn't teach his Robins, etc. Without that, I could never understand why he spent his second life bouncing around as an adversary for Batman, Nightwing or Robin depending on the writer. You'd think they would've ironed out those details before bringing him back...
What's the other half? :)
And how. Bruce Wayne dies, the collective fandom shrugs its shoulders and starts a clock.
Kazekage
said...
True, and I like that that relationship is attempted with Damian, even if Damian isn't having any of it. One of the smartest thing they did when Dick became Batman again was that he is explicitly not Bruce-Batman. It's truer to the character and freshenes up the dull holding pattern Batman had been in up to that point.
The trade sections of the various companies, the book and movie sections and maybe the toy section if I want to see another import from Japan that makes me think it's time to complete my rocket and leave the planet.
I wonder if it would have been more effective if they'd just said from the start that he wasn't dead, just lost in time? That at least is a little fresher than "oh look who's dead now!"
Diana Kingston-Gabai
said...
Of course, as soon as Bruce gets back they'll both be Batman, and I have zero confidence in this "have your cake and eat it" mentality - it reeks of pandering to the fanboys, as if to say "No, see, there's a new Batman but also the old Batman." At least when Marvel brought Steve Rogers back they had the good sense to distance him from Bucky-as-Cap.
You realize that if that rocket's made from Japanese parts it'll end up resembling a giant tentacle anyway. :)
I doubt it would've made much of a difference, because the end result was the same: everyone knew he'd be coming back sooner or later. We've reached (and passed) the point where death, heroic sacrifice and the like are automatically assumed to be temporary. (To wit: minor X-Man Banshee has been revived twice, and he's only been gone four years.) It's literally impossible to care about that sort of thing anymore.
Kazekage
said...
Yeah, I'm not really seeing how this is going to work. I mean, the Batmen of Many Countries is one thing, but when you have two Batmen . . .man, I just don't know. However, distaff versions of characters seem to be all the rage now anyways (there are THREE Iron Men . . .and one of them has boobs!) so if you're trying to soak a shrinking marketplace by forcing them to buy multiple iterations of the same character, well . ..then it's pretty rad, I guess.
Japan: Penetrating everything since forever ago. :)
Yeah, and really, that's why it's time to retire the high body count thing for awhile. Because none of it's going to matter a damn in the end, because the inevitability of resurrection has now completely negated any juice that can be wrung out of killing off heroes or villains.
Diana Kingston-Gabai
said...
Apparently no lessons were learned from the Ghost Rider fiasco of the early '90s. Then I remember what happened to Ghost Rider, and I think it might be time to get myself some fiddle lessons so I can strike up a tune when the blaze starts. :)
It certainly doesn't help that casualties in Event stories tend to be expendable anyway - I seriously doubt anyone watched Sue Dibny take a flamethrower to the face with anything besides mild revulsion.
Kazekage
said...
Well, let's see . . .first there was Johnny Blaze Ghost Rider, then Dan Ketch, then Johnny Blaze had a gun and a cybernetic eye, then there was an evil Ghost Rider, and then Ghost Rider started dressing like a tangerine and then they let Devin Grayson write Johnny Blaze and . . .man, fuck that.
Well, she was pregnant at the time, so it was sort of extra-repugnant even if you didn't know who Sue Dibny was . . .yeah. And to think--now that shit's quaint in the light of Rise of Arsenal
Diana Kingston-Gabai
said...
Precisely. To my recollection, Devin Grayson has written exactly one good story, and I'm rather confident "Ghost Rider" wasn't it. :)
All of which has me wondering where the Atrocity Event Horizon is, because no matter how ridiculous they get, DC doesn't seem to have jumped the shark to the point where there's any real backlash yet...
Kazekage
said...
I've said it before and I'll say it again--Devin Grayson's Livejournal would make for intriguing reading. Her comics, not so much.
There's no limit to it, because they'll just do something else, everyone will be mildly irritated and then sigh and move on to the next thing. I suspect we're closer to the Apathy Event Horizon more than anything. :)
Diana Kingston-Gabai
said...
Having read some of her pre-career fanfic, my guess is that she's saving up her best efforts for the day DC finally let her hook Bruce and Dick up. In Devin Grayson's world, old Dr. Wertham was right all along. :)
Oh, I have a feeling we crossed that particular threshold a good long while ago... the real question is whether it's possible to come back from that given the current climate in the mainstream. Short of a near-total purge at both Marvel and DC, I don't see things getting better anytime soon.
Kazekage
said...
Man, right? That said, excellent use of the phrase "hook Bruce and Dick up." I tittered like a sixth grader for ages about that. :)
Nope, but I think that a total purge of both companies is pretty unlikely sadly, as its probably assumed by the granfalloon companies that own them that their better off making a token effort to keep them going as an IP farm, but it ultimately doesn't matter all that much whether they're any good.
Diana Kingston-Gabai
said...
So did she, I'm sure. :)
Just as well, I suppose. "Jack of Fables" is ending soon, and I might use Carey's upcoming X-Men crossover as a jumping-off point, and that'll be the end of it. Sad, but then, they've brought it on themselves, haven't they? I might check back in five years like that bloody WALL-E robot looking for signs of life (or in this case, maturity), but I don't see any big sweeping changes in the vein of the early '00s happening anytime soon.
Kazekage
said...
Tittered, cried, and wrote in her LJ about it.
The only thing I'm really pumped for is BATWOMAN and if there are any good reprinted collections coming out that I might be moved to talk about. And I don't have too much faith that BATWOMAN will not be screwed up because, well, that's what they do, now. That sort of resigned rage and irritation gave rise to "Desty Nova." ;)
Diana Kingston-Gabai
said...
And now I'm wondering if she was the mastermind behind Stryfe's Stryke File. :)
If that's the case, I hope they'll continue to irritate you for a very, very long time. Because things like "Desty Nova" and the Handbook? So worth the potential ulcers. :)
Kazekage
said...
It would explain the tortured homo-erotic/incestuous tension between him and cable, wouldn't it?
I wish my muse wasn't a dominatrix who hated her job and took it out on her clients, sometimes. ;)
Diana Kingston-Gabai
said...
Twincest: For those who find VC Andrews too "vanilla". :)
There's a Spiked Heels of Inspiration joke there but I can't help wondering if RK Milholland beat me to it. :)
Kazekage
said...
I once knew someone who swore VC Andrews was her "idol." You ever love someone too much to tell them when something is an incredibly poor choice? Yeah.
It's certainly possible. It was either that or compare my muse to a gremlin who shits on my head, like Stephen King used to.
Post a Comment