'Under the Dome' was fairly
enjoyable. But the characters were straight out of the Observer Book of Genre
TV cliches. And why is it that tough and grim is the only way to play these
things? Is it because they hope to make it seem 'serious' and dramatic? I yearn
for more frivolity - or just horror / sf / fantasy that takes itself a little
less seriously... or that can really tackle the macabre and the absurd and the
nonsensical head-on without dressing it up as police procedure / serial killer
gubbins with pretensions to 'darkness.' This applies to a lot of contemporary
genre fiction, too, actually, as well as tv.
For me, it’s like when they
adapt wonderful old 1960s Marvel comic characters for movies – and they make
them ‘gritty and serious.’ The Fantastic Four and the Avengers and Spiderman
are essentially silly and whimsical ideas from another time. The blockbustery
and ‘dark’ recent film versions are just embarrassing – and, I think, all about
flattering the middle aged men they’re made for into thinking they’re not really
watching what are, essentially children’s stories. I can’t tell you how much I loathed
the Avengers movie last Christmas. I loved all those comics when I was a kid. Every
drop of charm had been wrung out of them. Ditto poor, dear Batman.
And why on earth take something
as wide-eyed and wonderful as the original Star Trek and make it ‘gritty’?
Genre
films and TV these days seem to be made by men of a certain age determined to
prove something about their own potency. Years ago there was a comic book
series called ‘Crisis on Infinite Earths.’ Science fiction on TV and film these
days is all about the crises of the middle aged heterosexual male.
And their father issues.
ReplyDeleteI preferred the 1997 film with Uma Thurman & Ralph Fiennes over last year's "The Avengers". It felt like we were supposed to enjoy two hours of a group of well-paid actors babble pseudohip dialogue before the video game-style "battle" at the end, with no proper adventure in sight.
ReplyDelete