Ladies and Gentlemen, our freedom is in danger. Back in the day, films were a way to access another world, to see a place similar to ours but different in so many ways. That ability to be stylistic, to transcend the boundaries of what is plausible, however, is being threatened. Who are the fiends attacking it? Batman and James Bond, among others. Poor Indiana Jones and Juno MacGuff have already fallen victim.
This fall sees Daniel Craig returning as James Bond in "Quantum of Solace." While Craig himself is a fine actor, his Bond leaves something to be desired. He is not suave or sophisticated, and frankly does not give a damn about how you prepare his martinis. On one hand, that does make him more realistic. I highly doubt the preparation of a drink or properly symmetrical Windsor knots are top priorities of the men and women protecting us from all-out destruction.
On the other hand, Bond has now lost a little of what makes him Bond. During the opening chase scene of "Casino Royale" (2006), I found myself bored, waiting for the action to begin. Then I realized that this was indeed the action. I wondered if I had accidentally put "Bad Boys II" (2003) or "Die Hard" (1988) in the DVD player. Unfortunately, I had not, but I might as well have.
An uncouth, gadget-less Bond is quite frankly not all that different from the plethora of other action movie heroes out there. Without the style or self-conscious tongue-in-cheek absurdity of chasing a guy while wearing a tuxedo, the franchise begins to lose what makes it distinctly Bond, elements which made it so much fun and so successful in the beginning.
Batman has suffered a similar fate. This summer Blow-Em-Up-Action Man #782 took on Slasher McGee #973. The only things that made the clash of these two stock characters stand out was the fact that both of them were wearing ridiculous outfits (note to director: Mr. Nolan, if your characters are wearing clown make-up and rubber suits, taking your movie too seriously doesn't make sense) and the untimely death of a talented actor. Apparently, those were enough to fool the public into dumping out their wallets to see it over and over again.
And now, Jeff Robinov of Warner Brothers has announced a plan to have further DC Comics superheroes follow the same style when they hit the silver screen. I'm sorry, but I have a hard time imagining a serious, brooding film about an Amazon princess, a guy with a magical ring that can make anything it wants out of green energy or a guy who can run around the world in seconds. They'll either come off as absurdly pompous and self-important or, sadly, even more likely, they'll be three movies about a tall girl with a gun, a guy with a gun and a decorative ring and another guy with a gun who got silver in the Olympics. All will do ridiculously well at the box office.
As you may have guessed, my main problem with all this realism is its homogeneity. I can barely tell the Dark Knight or 007 from Dirty Harry (though I suppose the latter has a distinguishable personality). Furthermore, these are changes that we never asked for; we just retroactively justify them. Fans of "Casino Royale" have said that Craig has more of the body for Bond than any of the prior Bonds did. They can believe he actually performs his own moves. That may be true, but I never thought about the inadequacy of Connery's or Brosnin's bodies before that.
Sadly, this trend has gotten so out of control that perfectly acceptable pieces of stylization have now gotten criticized. While "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (2008) was not a cinematic masterpiece, it was genuine fun and not too much more absurd than the other "Indiana Jones" films. Yet, numerous fans have complained about the refrigerator scene. While I am under no delusions that a refrigerator would save me from an atomic blast, I thought that part was actually brilliantly done. Indiana Jones constantly lifts ideas from the time period it's portraying. That's why we have the supervillain Nazis, the exotic tombs and the serial-style in the other films. The refrigerator scene perfectly continued that tradition, applying the logic of a 1950s "duck and cover" film reel to the movie. Of course, that scene conflicted with the minds of the movie-goers who now look for realism, hence the backlash.
The same went for the anti-Juno backlash of last winter. Sure, Juno does not sound like a real teenager. You'd kind of have to be an idiot to think that that was the point. Juno speaks like every teenager thinks they sound. As for her abnormal way of going about teen pregnancy: Isn't the point of a movie to see something you won't see in your normal life? There are tons of stories realistically going about how a teenage girl deals with an unwanted pregnancy. Is it really so horrible to have something new? And really, would you WANT to listen to how a teenage girl really sounds for two hours?
I know I'm in the minority here. But I'll continue fighting the good fight. I have to. Or else one day I'll be watching a Warner Brothers cartoon only to find Bugs Bunny drop an anvil on Elmer Fudd, promptly crushing his bones and causing Bugs to be arrested for murder.
