By Robert Humanick
Marvel and M. Night Shyamalan attempt to atone for their purported sins with The Incredible Hulk and The Happening, respectively—both unfortunate attempts to pander to popular taste/demand with something of an artistically cleft void in place of the bleeding, if perhaps misguided, hearts of their predecessors. More interesting than the fact that these two ill-fated apologies made their way into theaters on the same weekend is the fact that, as far as "corrections" go, neither was much necessary in the first place. For what it's worth as regards The Incredible Hulk, I'll restate the fact that I've never been one to hop on the anti-sequel/anti-remake bandwagon (I'd rather see more double-bills of films like Capote and Infamous than "original" films lacking in soul or depth), and despite his many offenses (most of them relative in my book), nor will I take part in the seemingly mandatory pastime of kicking M. Night Shyamalan when he's down. Both films deserve to exist and should be considered for exactly what they are unto themselves. And both are prime examples of self-imposed limitations bearing little fruit, films stunted by their shameless attempts to appeal to as wide a demographic as possible.
More pronounced in this department is The Incredible Hulk, which doesn't aim merely to mask over the existence of Ang Lee's audacious work, but to be as completely unlike it in every way imaginable. It illustrates the difference between a good, mindless summer film (not necessarily a bad thing) and one that's outright stupid. Populist concerns dictate that I review The Incredible Hulk based on the needs of the Average Joe, so here goes: It was loud and noisy and lots of stuff blows up real good, and unless you're doped up on Nyquil going in, it's very unlikely you'll find yourself taking a $10 nap. That was easy. Now here's the hard, more cinematically attuned question: did it nurture my soul? That the viewing experience left in me a sense of sinking, turgid waste is answer enough. As far as summer blockbusters go, The Incredible Hulk is a skilled enough piece of hackwork, with enough flair that I'm still willing to check out the director's previous Transporter films for signs of auteurist talent. Conceptually, it's a dud, treating Bruce Banner's (a meekly enthused Edward Norton) internal plague like the latest sound byte on E!. Sound and fury signifying nothing, indeed.
In doing a complete 180 from 2003's Hulk, this new film proves downright frightened not only of style-as-substance aesthetics (the only visual flair here being an improved take on the Greengrassian montage during the opening chase and closing battle sequences), but of more meat-and-potato components such as character development (tangible justifications for behavior and pathos, please) and strength of narrative. Seemingly under the impression that the more tanks blown up, the less focus on plot-based causes and effects required, Incredible Hulk panders with genuinely LCD cinema, making the juvenilia of Transformers look altogether deep by comparison. General audiences will likely fall head over heels for this reboot, and though I'd be lying if I said the film were entirely without merit, there's something depressing about a weapons-based spectacle without an emotive pulse. Zak Penn's script—a patchwork of moldy declarations of love and fear, motivation-deprived villains and stillborn exposition—reeks of studio nip-and-tuck, as if calculating the amount of down time allowed between each battle sequence and clipped so as to allow for as many showings per day as possible.
That there's something almost giddy in the air when the transmogrified Edward Norton is finally allowed to declare "Hulk… SMASH!!!!", only emphasizes the emptiness surrounding it. That Norton, Tim Roth, William Hurt and Liv Tyler (as beautiful as ever and the best piece of eye candy in the film by a mile) are all serviceable in their parts speaks to the slipshod nature of the film as a whole. The Incredible Hulk is many things—a tie-in to the upcoming Avengers film (via a last-minute cameo by Robert Downey, Jr.'s Tony Stark, likely added in post-production), maybe even a 2-hour videogame advertisement—but good entertainment it is not. A flash in the pan would have been preferable.
Coming to us from somewhat loftier slopes, then, is The Happening. Already in need of a second viewing, it is a work of roving minimalism, the camera almost completely free from overactive movement, enamored by pure scenery as it observes from casual, happenstance perspectives a tragedy that unfolds with frighteningly quotidian simplicity. It is Shyamalan's latest bedtime story, a simple (not necessarily simplistic) film meant to impart a basic virtue or belief, here implicitly reflecting our social and political moment as much as did Lady in the Water's tale of communal empowerment. Alas, whereas the director's previous offering continues to strike me as an artistic confession and introspection as daring and intimate (if not nearly as profound) as Bob Fosse's All That Jazz, this new film is only half good cinema, seemingly the result of its maker's stunted belief/determination in both himself and his audience. The Happening's plot is a bountiful source for readings and interpretations, or rather, it might have been, had the film's talking heads not continually harped on them as if we were too braindead to get it ourselves.
In an effort to return to the more narratively (if not thematically) straightforward virtues of The Sixth Sense and Signs, The Happening disregards its own implicitly non-dramatic arc, throwing forced revelations, dramatic structure, and thematic conclusions to the audience like a frightened man would bones to a dog. Beginning in Central Park, New York, scores of northeast American cities are being plagued by an unseen, inexplicable force, the none too subtle symptom being entire crowds of people committing suicide in almost simultaneous succession. Spreading from urban to rural settings, it is a force never explained outright, much like Cloverfield in that the characters have no point of reference by which to know more than the immediate violence surrounding them; ditto the scientists' inability to draw any conclusions from the effects without any practical means of examining their causes.
Eventually, our protagonists provide an educated theory (spoilers ahoy): that plant life, in defense of the Earth itself, could be releasing poisonous toxins when sensing the amassing presence of humans. Audiences were scoffing at the premise at my showing, and though I think it unfair to dismiss the purported seriousness of such a sci-fi scenario (the likes of which were practically routine amongst the 50s output of the genre, from the leafy villains of Invasion of the Body Snatchers to the more violent herbs from The Day of the Triffids), Shyamalan does himself a disservice in his attempts to portray this creeping death as if it were some kind of malevolent bogeyman, literalizing the suggested and, in doing so, stripping it of both primal cinematic thrust and deeper thematic/political significance. The Happening's particulars are not devoid of those emotionally revealing, personal frissons that made Lady in the Water such a therapeutic exercise (for both artist and audience), but Shyamalan seems to be going against his instincts in presenting them here, forgoing the awkward but honest for self-conscious attempts at normality, thus rendering said awkwardness doubly more so for its faux attempts at concealment. The killer plants only seem silly when they're shot like Jason Voorhees, and I found myself unable to entirely condemn the hecklers in my audience for their derogatory responses during these sequences.
In many way's Shyamalan's take on An Inconvenient Truth by way of Romero, The Happening remains tantalizing in its details even as it routinely wanders into more preschool-laden territory. So deliberate and uneasy are Shyamalan's visual signifiers that, even at its most embarrassingly overreaching (a moment in which Marky Mark—attempting a last-minute, slow-motion leap to the rescue—is legitimately awful), the entirety remains genuinely arresting, almost dreamlike. Aided in no small part by Shyamalan's defiant use of characterization (death here stemming not from narrative demands, but the brutal indifference of the natural world), the uneasiness of The Happening's mise-en-scene serves to challenge our perspectives and expectations in a fascinating push-and-pull between audience participation and thwarted artistic instinct. Though the film's crowning moment is dialogue reliant—a conscious bit of self-parody that involves Mark Wahlberg's Elliot Moore taking an ultimately unnecessary precautionary measure (in perhaps the funniest moment in cinema since Mastodon instructed Aqua Teen Hunger Force audiences to take "the seed outside")—the strengths apparent here beckon to some of the great directors of silent cinema. After another viewing, I just may nominate Shyamalan as helmer of my own theoretical remake of Carl Theodor Dreyer's Vampyr.
House contributor Robert Humanick's writings appear in Slant Magazine and on his blog The Projection Booth. He also works sporadically with fellow Slant critic Paul Schrodt at The Stranger Song.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Hulk is my Happening and it Freaks Me Out!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I haven't seen Incredible Hulk yet; as re: The Happening, with all due respect, it's been a long time since I've seen such earnest and intense turd-polishing. It's a film with a reasonably interesting concept turned into ludicrous nonsense by Shyamalan's inability to find a proper tone or understand that pulp needs to be treated like pulp: puff it up with too much seriousness and it explodes in your face.
Haven't seen The Hulk and don't plan to. I saw The Happening -- dunno why, since I haven't been wholeheartedly enraptured by an M. Night movie since the thoroughly bizarre yet hypnotic Unbreakable (Bruce Willis' most daringly minimalist performance, and one of the great long-take psychological dramas I've seen come out of Hollywood in a while -- despite the turgid self-seriousness and the fact that it ends just when it should be getting started). The last three have been tonal wrecks, this one included -- it's a 12-car pile-up on the genre mix-master. Nothing wrong with it that a nutzoid visionary like David Lynch or David Cronenberg couldn't solve; give the exact same script to either of those guys and the result might have been a deeply unsettling movie, half black comedy and half pulp nightmare, the sort of film where you're never entirely sure how to take any of it and it creeps you out as a result. (The zoo scene -- holy fucking shit, how badly misjudged; total Monty Python death-of-the-Black Knight stuff -- might have even played with Lynch or Cronenberg running the show. Imagine Lynch or Cronenberg building the sheer ludicrous horror of that moment, second by second, and capping it with that Ed Wood worthy closing line: "What kind of terrorists are these???") Night's not up to the task. There were five or six moments where he absolutely nailed the "Is he kidding or is he psychotic" high wire act that's necessary in a movie of this ilk, but the rest of the time the film just played like it was the product of a junior high kid who saw "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" or "The Day of the Triffids" once and set to work writing his own version, then shot it years later in the same artistically primitive mindset, not knowing how to stage a bleak joke or a moment of portent but having learned a shitload about cutting-in-camera. (Night has studied Roman Polanski very, very closely.)
Short version: Night might be one of the great cinematographers in the history of horror. Seriously. Nobody working at this budget level exercises more ferocious formal control over the slow-moving long-take. As I've said of other directors in these comments threads, the guy's a genius from the eyes out. From the eyes up, alas, it's a different story.
And was it just me, or were there moments where it seemed as though Zooey Deschanel, Mark Wahlberg and John Leguizamo seemed to be in genuine spiritual distress -- not because of anything happening to their characters, but because Night had put them in a position of demanding absolute trust in his vision even though there was absolutely nothing in the script to indicate why they should trust him?
In the second half of the movie, the two leads' earnest, confused floundering inexplicably reminded me of the scene near the end of "GoodFellas" where DeNiro keeps trying to get Lorraine Bracco to go into that warehouse and pick out a couple of coats for herself -- you know, him standing there gesturing from a distance, "Go on in."
Bracco kept on walking, though.
"not knowing how to stage a bleak joke or a moment of portent but having learned a shitload about cutting-in-camera. (Night has studied Roman Polanski very, very closely.)"
pardon my ignorance, but what does "cutting-in-camera" mean? what do you mean by that in this context?
are you describing (more-or-less) how his studied long takes will take precedence over anything one could construct in the editing room- something Roman Polanski utilized often? Or something else?
Also, the juxtaposition up top of the Hulk picture and the shot of Wahlberg with his "What the hell am I doing in this movie?" expression is funnier than any comedy I've seen recently.
mc:are you describing (more-or-less) how his studied long takes will take precedence over anything one could construct in the editing room- something Roman Polanski utilized often?
Yep. For example, Night's staging of the train wreck at the start of "Unbreakable" -- profile closeups moving back and forth between Bruce Willis and a female passenger, continuing all the way up till the moment of impact -- reminded me of the way Polanski staged the gunbattle that Adrien Brody sees from his apartment window in "The Pianist," showing most of it from one or two high angles, following antlike figures around in the street. Neither of these sequences try to jack up suspense through cutting, yet the methodical combination of camera placement and precise movements generate a different, in some ways more unsettling kind of suspense.
Spielberg and Hitchcock are also masters of this technique, so good at it that a lot of the time you don't realize you're seeing a whole long moment play out with no cuts. The attack by the two T-Rexes in "The Lost World," for example, is one very, very long take, moving back and forth among vehicles and open locations, and into and out of a trailer, for several minutes; I have a pretty obsessive eye for this sort of choreography yet it wasn't until I saw the film a second time that I realized that aside from a few cheats that allowed for the insertion of green-screen elements, there were no cuts per se.
How is Night the great cinematographer here? As Woody Allen so often does, Night hires the best in the business as his DPs, such as Chris Doyle and Roger Deakins (not sure who he uses for The Happening). I respect him for blowing a chunk of his budget on a top-notch DP, but I won't give him credit for their technical skills. That said, The Village is gorgeous. And all of his films feature some kind of formal challenge--either shooting the entire story, even ones with an epic world-wide scope, within the confines of a self-contained world (Lady in the Water, Village, Signs), or framing Bruce Willis in bizarre ways to cut him off from the rest of humanity (done in Sixth Sense for obvious reasons, in Unbreakable because most shots of Willis are framed with symmetrical borders, as if he is actually inside of a comic-book panel). This may be more analysis than Night deserves, but he is a weird, weird filmmaker, with a ludicrous yet intriguing mystical side. I can't like him, but I can't dismiss him either.
Joel: How is Night the great cinematographer here?
Sorry for the imprecise language -- I didn't mean he deserved sole credit for every single thing. But I do think his tells are so distinctive, and so consistent from film to film, that if you see them in a particular project it's a safe bet that Night is responsible, whether he originated that particular shot or signed off on somebody's suggestion.
It shouldn't be a leap to presume such a thing, but it is. Hollywood movies tend to be so pictorially bland, and so driven by character arcs and "beats," that one can often presume, safely, that an imaginative, apropos shot might not have been the director's idea. (When you see a striking shot in a Garry Marshall film, man, it really sticks out.)
All this goes a long way towards explaining why, when an individualistically visual director like this one comes along, I tend to be weirdly grateful for his existence even when the particular film doesn't work. Kingdom of the blind and all that.
I forgot to mention the zoo scene, as I disliked that one even more than the already infamous porch sequence ("Noooooooo!"). Someone needs to hand him a good script and watch him take over the world again. I adore "Lady in the Water" (though I haven't seen it since theaters), and find "The Village" and "The Happening" to be more interesting failures than many okay "good" films, but the direction I sense him going in has nothing but dead ends. "Lady" was the kind of movie you use to get something out of your system, and "The Happening" only seems to indicate that the bug is still there.
matt - i guess i need to rewatch that part of The Lost World. i remember one longish tracking shot that follows the one character from the trailer to the jeep, to the tree trunk (where he ties a safety line), then back into the trailer - but i sure don't remember the whole sequence being one shot.
rob - glad to hear someone else has some love (albeit with reservations) for Lady in the Water!
I've talked to a number of people in the past few days who defend "The Happening" and say it's not only a black comedy on B-movie themes, but that it is very clearly so, and most of the reviews simply miss the boat. I disagree, but FYI.
Check out THE CRAPPENING: THE HAPPENING parody:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx16epbyj9g
Post a Comment