By Ryland Walker Knight
[SPOILER WARNING IN EFFECT]
Shining through here as ever, Iron Man confirms that Robert Downey Jr. is, like his director Jon Favreau, a comedian and entertainer at heart. For all the great-looking effects and gadget-cool of this superhero movie, it’s Downey and his charisma (to say that very heart) that drive and sustain this picture. Indeed, it’s a film about, in a very literal way, Downey’s heart: his commitment to his particular brand (we might say his art) of acting. Downey is middle-aged so—while this is an origin story for a comic book franchise-at-stake—this is also, in the light and fashion of Hollywood, an evaluation of a career, one already celebrated, and primed for reinvention; or, better, reassertion.
Reviewing David Fincher’s Zodiac last spring, San Francisco Chronicle critic Mick LaSalle wrote, “After 20 years of these colorful, detailed performances, it might be time to stop thinking of Downey as quirky original or an eccentric favorite and start thinking of him as a significant American artist.” Iron Man should, if Zodiac did not, cement Downey’s status in Hollywood pictures as such a valuable artist. Favreau has said he planned Iron Man as the first in a trilogy so perhaps this film, and its sequels, will do for Downey what the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy did for Johnny Depp. One can hope. Given the strength of Downey’s performance and the crowd-pleasing set pieces, to say nothing of the upcoming Tropic Thunder and a cameo in Edward Norton’s The Incredible Hulk, it doesn’t seem a stretch.
Iron Man begins inside a Humvee in Afghanistan, Downey already acting at full speed, ribbing his soldier escorts with a scotch-on-the-rocks in hand. His Tony Stark is quick-witted and playful, eager to please in a selfish, vain way, enjoying all the delusions (of grandeur, of self-importance) that come with celebrity. Posing for a snapshot, though, comfort is erased: the convoy’s lead vehicle explodes and Stark’s Air Force guards all die, one by one, as the almost-tank sustains enemy fire. Stark/Downey flees his Humvee safety and gets blown unconscious by a missile bearing the name of his company, Stark Industries. After a prologue detailing his philandering just 36 hours prior, Stark wakes up a prisoner, a car battery-powered electromagnet where his heart once beat. A terrorist group has hijacked him to build a replica of the latest deadly weapon Stark Industries developed. Instead he builds a new heart (a coil of white-light energy radiating from the center of his chest) and a new body (a head-to-toe soldered second skin of sheet metal).
Somehow it’s fitting, even forgivable, that this prototype reflects the film’s clunky opening: reinvention is a fix-it job. Which isn’t to say the screenplay gets any smarter as the picture progresses, but just as Tony Stark and Robert Downey Jr. continue to experiment with a new way of life, indeed a new form of life, as a superhero, so too does Iron Man settle into its groove thanks to Favreau’s handling of his handpicked, equally excellent supporting cast. Gwyneth Paltrow plays Stark’s dutiful assistant Pepper Potts with a newfound buoyancy, perhaps signaling a new course for a new phase of her own career. Jeff Bridges doesn’t relish the role of Obadiah Stone so much as inhabit it—nothing is forced—and prove himself reliably self-effacing as ever. Terrence Howard doesn’t do much as Stark’s old buddy Jim Rhodes, but I’m sure we’ll see more of him as the series progresses, and his affable ease will provide a nice foil for Downey’s blithe irony.
While Iron Man may never sublime the conventions one expects from (and encounters in) a first installment in a series such as this, this core of performers, as guided by Favreau’s steady vision and light touch (a serviceable job), helps make the film more successful than previous Marvel adaptations (like X-Men and Spiderman) if not DC (Superman Returns and Batman Begins). However, unlike those adaptations (both Marvel and DC alike), Iron Man is funny and playful (not mopey or serious): when Downey announces at the end, “I am Iron Man,” it’s a joyful acceptance of the spotlight. It’s not Norma Desmond, but it’s sure more thrilling than disappearing into privacy or anonymity in the darkness or the crowd. No, this is an all caps affirmation: this is Robert Downey Jr. ready for the limelight.
___________________________________
House Next Door contributor Ryland Walker Knight is the editor of the blog Vinyl Is Heavy.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Iron Man Love for Robert Downey Jr.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
Not to be picky, but the device in Stark's chest is actually device that prevents small pieces of shrapnel from reaching his heart. It's not an artificial heart because, you know, that would just be silly.
I hadn't thought much about the film as a reflection and manifestation of celebrity, but the reading fits and I think it helps to bring out some of Iron Man's strongest elements. Some anonymous wacko went haywire on Hollywood hipster/elitism/whatever in a comment on my review, pointing out the obvious (that my writing needs an editor other than myself) while decrying the film as if it were destroying good cinema singlehandedly. Seems Mr. Kenny's calling out of Armond has got the whole niche of the community in an uproar: Iron Man is about as smart and well crafted as populist entertainment can get, and if this doesn't solidify Downey's playful vibes as true artistry in the mind of the public, then nothing will (and screw the nonbelievers). I never followed his work much until Zodiac (in which he gave one of my 2 or 3 favorite supporting performances of 2007), and Christ, the man is brilliant. His exclusion (at least, until now) seems more the result of cultural typecasting than anything else.
I saw this Friday, and while I certainly wouldn't call it a masterpiece, it was about 10 times better than it needed to be in order to be a hit. In fact, I commented to Alan Sepinwall (who I saw it with) that the film inspired a reaction similar to the one I had after seeing "Casino Royale," which took James Bond seriously as a person and surrounded him with other psychologically credible characters and created a central love story that was not even remotely a joke, and it was one of the biggest hits of the series entire then-44 year run; it made me wonder what took them so long. Same thing here: "Iron Man" delivers the requisite rock'-em, sock-'em robots action (much more thrillingly and coherently than "Transformers," which suffered from Michael Bay's characteristically sloppy-yet-monotonously monumental filmmaking) but the parts that are really compelling, at times thrilling, are the little grace notes and moments of character interplay. This is a sensibility we've seen applied to comic book blockbusters here and there (I'm thinking of the screwball office scenes in the first three "Superman" movies and parts of the "Spider-Man" films), but I don't believe it's ever been applied to a comic book adaptation from start to finish successfully, much less integrated seamlessly into a story of a decadent playboy weapons merchant's moral/spiritual/emotional awakening that takes the latter story absolutely seriously, even milking it for pathos and righteous anger. (Stark's last line seemed to me an indication of his compulsive honesty; he starts the film lying habitually to himself and the world, and becomes more and more honest, to his own physical detriment, as he goes along.)
I also loved the way Favreau and his scriptwriters tied the electromagnetic heart accessory to Stark's growing a heart, and augmented that with plentiful Tin Man imagery (Pepper Potts' gift to her boss was groaningly on-the-nose, even though it paid off satisfyingly). It's significant and fitting that the energy device is there to prevent shrapnel from penetrating his heart and killing him. It's the movie's way of literalizing the idea that Stark's heart is dead because of what he does for a living, and it'll take radical intervention to protect that heart and get it going again. has no sense of culpability until he gets literally blasted out of his complacency; his obsessive mission is to prevent other people from suffering what he suffered. The heart ring/power source is a great example of concrete objects being invested with metaphoric weight, a la Billy Wilder. The moral sense that Tony Stark grows in captivity (concurrent with his Arab friend/science partner fitting him with a device that prevents Stark-created shrapnel from piercing his heart and killing him) evolves into the prototype armor that he constructs to escape his prison (as much a cage of preconceptions as a real jail), and this in turn gives way to the final Iron Man costume (and the war machine suit that Terrence Howard eyes in the final act, and the iron giant suit that Stark's partner constructs and then dons to fight Stark -- another confirmation that Stark's weapons will invariably be turned against the country, and the man, that unleashed them on the world).
In its heart (pun intended) "Iron Man" is the story of a cynical, maybe worthless human being having a near death experience and remaking himself, in every sense, into a force for good. "I'm alive for a reason," he tells Pepper, and the movie doesn't dare wink.
The movie has a moral and political consciousness that is likewise rare in this sort of film. It can't quite square those with the financial obligation to not be perceived as too hippie-ish (or "anti-American") in its indictment of the military-industrial forces that run the country. But the earnest outrage it displays throughout, and its repetition of the fact that the very weapons we create to defend our economic interests are used against American troops and American companies and institutions, are all unusual for this genre and altogether refreshing.
Jon Favreau has one of the more distinctive senses of humor in Hollywood today. He clearly studied early Albert Brooks quite carefully, as indicated by the dry neurotic humor and overlapping, sometimes-sounds-improvised dialogue. The fact that he was able to apply it to this sort of material (and let his actors give the sorts of performances that would not seem at all out of place in the Favreau-scripted "Swingers" and his directorial debut, "Made") is a minor miracle when you think about it. It's like the circa-1982 Albert Brooks directing "Superman." Which is something I desperately wish had happened, come to think of it.
Am I crazy, or would this movie fit well on a double-bill with "Groundhog Day"?
I haven't seen the movie yet - although I will - but I just want to thank you so much for your writing on Robert Downey Jr. here. He's long been a favorite of mine, and I am hard pressed to even say why - I usually just resort to saying, "He's an AWESOME actor" and leave it at that. Your thoughts here are greatly appreciated - I actually felt excited reading this review.
Thank you - can't wait to see it!
These are some great insights (and comments). I'm a bit more willing to pull out all of the celebrity elements rather than the philanthropy; in fact, I was surprised to see that the film treats Stark's recluse after capture by holding him at a certain lengths, downplaying a common contrivances of comic book films (and for these reasons I think the whole "Tony Stark has a heart!" discussions don't really do much for me). But whatever is produced by the spectacle is still spectacle, and the scene where Stark attends the "event", it's more of gut-check for his own luminary repute than trying to resolve world struggle. Not that the film shies aways from the politics, but it seems grounded in its limits - and I thought that was fantastic.
because all the insightful comments have been made:
if you have yet to see the film, make sure you play "count the number of times gwyneth paltrow's wedding ring appears and disappears."
but i was surpised at how much of the "revised" history they chose to use: stark's gaining the armor in afghanistan (extremeis mini-series); the hinted concept that the iron man armor can be mass produced and used for police work (ultimates, even copying the Ultimate Nick Fury design) and even hinting at the concept for Armor Wars.
i do bristle at the pull quotes on the ads: i.e. lyons' "popcorn movie of the summer," "mindless fun," etc.
for a mainstream comic translation, this may be one of the better ones. it does go through the usual paces (moment of truth, save the girl, mindless explosion that takes out the villain but not the hero, final one-liner for sequel set up) but it's an entertaining film. smart and geeky enough for a tech crowd to dream, serious enough to not make you snicker as Matt said, and not even groan worthy.
except for some of the technical aspects that are luckily solved by comic suspension and sci-fi deus ex machinas.
Andrew, to be honest, I got it wrong. And Matt has teased out what I hinted at. Such are the troubles of not taking notes in the dark. (But something I dig about not taking notes in the dark is it makes the work akin to dream analysis.) So the device is designed to protect Stark's heart: that makes it an even more complicated argument, which is really cool. He had to design not just a new heart but a way to jump-start his heart -- and a way to sustain his heart as he goes forward. One might say he had to learn how to build a new life from scratch. Indeed it's easy to see him reborn when he comes out of that cave wearing that new second-skin (talk about obvious metaphor; kinda like when Rambo climbs that ladder late in _First Blood_).
In any event, Matt summed it up pretty well: "it was about 10 times better than it needed to be in order to be a hit." I still think Bryan Singer's got a better eye, and the father-son stuff makes _Superman Returns_ my favorite of the recent superhero movies (although I think _The Dark Knight_ could be kinda great), but I may see _Iron Man_ again because it sure is a fun time: walking out I said that _Iron Man_'s sense of humor and pop-art sensibility is just what those _Spiderman_ movies want but fail to be. And, yes, Sheila, because I do love watching Robert Downey Jr., a longtime favorite. (Say, Rob, if you want to see a light, kinda silly but kind trifle with Downey in top form, peep _Hearts and Soul_, his follow-up to _Chaplin_; somehow my memory of that movie (I was 11) has stayed with me very tenderly.) Plus, I really dig what you said, seyfried: "Not that the film shies aways from the politics, but it seems grounded in its limits - and I thought that was fantastic."
Now, if they could project _Groundhog Day_ right after, I would be pretty...ah, pretty, pretty happy.
And, oh yeah, all those inside-the-hood shots (both looking out and looking in at RDjr) are pure dope.
All this said, however, I find it rather sad, if predictable, that Downey would finally be appreciated in a big way -- even heralded as both a movie star and an indispensable American actor -- only now that he's managed to topline a shit-blows-up comic book movie released during the summer. When has he not been great? When has he not been capable of carrying pretty much any kind of movie? When has he not been enjoyed and appreciated by everyone watching him onscreen? Apparently this is what it takes for an idiosyncratic talent to be widely embraced.
Nothing against "Iron Man," which I liked a great deal -- but I prefer to think the edgier but no less enjoyable "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" re-established/established Downey, and this new movie is just the next step, the project that makes his permanent installation as a major movie star official.
I enjoyed IRON MAN -- more for the good performances by a first rate cast and Jon Favreau's winning sense of humor. It's smarter than most films adapted from comic books. However, this movie really ought to have had two directors -- one (Favreau) working with the actors and the character-driven scenes, and the other handling the rock 'em/ sock 'em action (George Miller, where art thou?).
The action scenes were, for the most part, pedestrian. I have a very difficult time empathizing with tin cans flying in the air, even when you cut away to Robert Downey, Jr. (I think they were aware of this, because they show the actors faces in the final fight sequence so it can have a tiny bit of emotional whallop).
Favreau managed to incorporate a few good jokes into action scenes, but he doesn't have the command of action movie grammar to make the scenes pop.
Matt is correct that the film does a good job tying together Stark's emotional growth with his metal "heart saving device" (why don't we just call it a metal heart and be done with it?) But I also like how they made Stark's desire to be a hero more complex than usual. It was difficult to argue with the Jeff Bridges villain when he said Tony's decisions were being driven by post-traumatic stress disorder -- or a mid life crisis! Robert Downey Jr. does an excellent job being slightly manic and off-kilter, and this kept him unpredictable -- a rare quality in movie heroes, who are usually so vanilla!
As for Pepper's gift of the heart being on the nose, the movie does a really good job of acknowledging all the times it is required to be on the nose -- the good guys are ironic and aware of it, and when they acknowledge it the audience feels like they're not being talked down to.
How good was Jeff Bridges as the baddie? Someday, someone's gonna have to do a 5 for the day on him.
Nearly every time I talk to Keith our conversation contains the phrase, "5 for the Day: Jeff Bridges." The problem is narrowing it down. He's been so good for so long in so many different types of roles that he probably deserves a 15 for the Day.
Downey merits one as well.
Dibs, anyone? Email Keith and stake your claim.
You know? I still need to see _Kiss Kiss Bang Bang_. But I can definitely see that film as the genesis for this new phase that _Iron Man_ solidifies pirate-Depp-style. Maybe we should divide the Bridges into early, middle, late 5's... I've always dug him and he _is_ really good here, as ever. And, yes, Favreau's best directorial strength is his facility with actors.
What I'm thinking now is how weird it is that we'll get this picture two months before _Hancock_, which seems like another candidate for an _Iron Man_ double-bill. But, and this is just a guess, I think the _Groundhog Day_ pairing might be more, um, inspired.
I agree that the action scenes are the film's weakest moments, although I don't find them particularly bad. Haven't the Bond movies been having someone besides the director primarily handling the action scenes for years now?
I was a serious comic book fan from 1966 when I discovered them until about 1980, when they stopped growing up with me. When I sold my collection, I had about 80% of the Marvel comics made to that time. I've been entertained by comic book movies before - the Fantastic Four films in particular, but certainly some of the Batman and Superman ones, as well. But, I have never loved a comic book movie until this one.
Everything was right, from the mid 60s cartoon theme song used as Tony Stark's ring tone to the end sequence revealing just how seriously Marvel Universe the next one will be.
I have never been one to look forward to a sequel, but I can't wait for Iron Man 2.
Robert Downey Jr. middle-aged? I protest!
Haven't seen the movie yet, but though I more than agree that Downey has already proven himself (hate that expression) deeper and broader than a quirky niche actor (he is, I think, one of the great actors of my generation), I don't find it disheartening that it would take this particular kind of stylized, larger than life role to make that fact unavoidably obvious, maybe because I've been guilty of similar limitations (though, usually in reverse -- being surprised that a get-the-job-done sort of actor is capable of smaller, subtler work). Plus, I suppose I'm assuming that he does something here that we haven't quite seen him do before -- not better or worse, but different simply because the role demands it. I should probably see the movie, though, instead of making assumptions . . .
To put it more generally -- I do not blame people for needing to see someone in a traditionally heroic leading role in order to view them as a movie star.
Jeff Bridges is the greatest American actor working today. I truly feel that there can be no logical argument against that statement ... but then again, I'm a fanatic.
you know what hancock merits?
a giant mechanical spider for will smith to fight.
and name it "joel s."
Andrew: Haven't the Bond movies been having someone besides the director primarily handling the action scenes for years now?
Hmmm...I hadn't heard this. I guess I wouldn't be surprised in the case of someone like John Glen, who isn't otherwise known as an action filmmaker. But Martin Campbell, who directed both Goldeneye and Casino Royale, is for my money one of the best action directors alive, so it'd surprise me if he subcontracted that part. (His Ray Liotta sci-fi prison picture No Way Out was no great shakes as drama, but the action was brutal, elegant and economical, in a way that reminded me of Cornel Wilde's The Naked Prey.)
Matt said: Martin Campbell, who directed both Goldeneye and Casino Royale, is for my money one of the best action directors alive, so it'd surprise me if he subcontracted that part.
Indeed, Campbell's a superb action director, with the massively entertaining The Mask of Zorro and the flawed but often exciting The Vertical Limit being particularly noteworthy in my book. The action sequences in Casino Royale--the best studio action movie in at least five years, I'd argue--are very much of a piece with those in Zorro, so I'd be pretty gobsmacked if he had someone covering for him on it.
But yeah, Iron Man: I absolutely loved it, and while I'm a hardened geek who therefore unavoidably brings a huge amount of baggage to the table where all things Marvel are concerned, it makes me really happy to read comments like Matt's, which explain why the movie is so successful at achieving its goals (and is so much fun!) from the perspective of an apparent complete newcomer to the character and the surrounding mythology. However, Matt, I think you're looking at the movie's effect on Downey's career from the wrong perspective--the issue here isn't that the movie's success "legitimizes" Downey's talent after all these years, but rather that Downey is considered bankable where a project of this scope is concerned. If you're a Marvelite, he's one of the most obvious logical choices to play Tony Stark, but the notion really isn't that commercial on the face of it. For the movie to get greenlit with Downey as the star--and for Marvel to get the financing to produce the movie themselves as an indie and then have Paramount distribute it--seems like a vote of confidence in the fundamental appeal of the material (and in its cinematic potential when done right with guys like Downey and Bridges) which it's impossible not to find heartening.
It's really remarkable how the movie managed to be so sarcastic and funny while being completely faithful to the history of the character--the writers took a pick-and-choose approach to his history, to be sure, but everything that's being discussed here as a metaphorical device (the shrapnel, his dependence on the device, etc) was a total straight lift from the comics. The only real change--a very good one, I felt, in that it kept the movie from being vulnerable to charges of ripping off the Batman mythos--was making Jarvis an AI rather than a human butler. Here's hoping that doesn't bite them in the ass if/when an Avengers movie is ever made!
Is there no hate for the "magical minority" plot? (Why didn't Yinsen help Stark with Stark's golf game?)
Is there no hate for the Afghanistan mission that sillily portrays heroism as a frolic/self-esteem booster for the superrich? (It makes 'Rambo''s treatment of Burma morally serious in comparison.)
While there's much to be said about how this role expands and informs Downey, Jr's career, is there no worry that the film also says a lot about the restricting of Terrence Howard's career?
I liked the movie fine thanks to Downey and Bridges' performances, but it struck me as a film one enjoys in the theater and criticizes in print. That, and the final fight was pretty bad.
Ryland: you really have to see Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, like, yesterday. I can't believe you haven't. By all rights it shouldn't have worked, what with Kilmer and Downey headlining, but it was completely brilliant and made me love RDjr. Zodiac confirmed that feeling.
I took the kiddos to see Iron Man today and while I winced at the tumbling-off-the-bed scene -- they knew that kids were going to this movie, did they really need to include that? -- overall I loved it. As Matt said, it was way better than it needed to be. First time in a long time that Paltrow played a character I didn't want to slap.
We dissected the film on the way home, and the kids adored Pepper, declaring her not only smarter but also prettier than Mary Jane Watson. They gave huge props to Pepper for not screaming once, and also for knowing how to shut down or short out or whatever it was she did to that generator-thing.
They also enjoyed Tony's "I am Iron Man" declaration, even though that required some explanation on my part: it's Stark's job to build way cool things like the Iron Man suit, of course he's going to want to take credit for it, even though that breaks the typical superhero routine of maintaining a secret identity.
I must nitpick: MIT does not award Latin honors, so Tony Stark, however brilliant he may be, couldn't have graduated summa cum laude. Research, people. You wanna impress people with Stark's MIT career? Say he graduated with a 5.0 average, because MIT uses a 5-point scale. How hard is it to click over to MIT's website? Sheesh.
When has he not been great? When has he not been capable of carrying pretty much any kind of movie? When has he not been enjoyed and appreciated by everyone watching him onscreen? Apparently this is what it takes for an idiosyncratic talent to be widely embraced.
His personal life/wild side I think contributed to the notion that he Downey wasn't quite ready to be boosted to Great American Actor status.
And isn't that a thing that is also defined by age/maturity/something as well as box office ability?
Seeing it this week-end I noted that at two scenes in the movie the audience cheered and clapped. The first was when Iron Man shows up in Afghanistan & takes care of the warlord. The last was when Downey says "I am Iron Man". The reason this movie is hitting a cord is that Tony Stark/Iron Man are what the audience can get behind. Downey's performance is spot on, and judging from the box office this week-end I see most of America agrees.
Post a Comment