Yes, I know it’s been a while since Kick-Ass played the theaters. But I only just caught it on Blu-Ray, and it led me to think long and hard about superhero movies — thoughts I felt worth sharing with you. Here’s why I didn’t like Kick-Ass and why I generally don’t like superhero movies:
As you probably already know, Kick-Ass is a film about a ragtag group of would-be superheroes who circumvent the legal system and dish out just-rewards. Roger Ebert called the film, “morally reprehensible.” Peter Travers dismissed Ebert and others who were bothered by the film’s tone as “prudes” and “moralists,” strangely blaming its failure on their criticism.
The depiction of violence in film doesn’t really bother me. When I was 11 years old, I sculpted various dismembered body parts out of Sculpey clay, complete with blood and jutting bones. I entered them in a local “everyone gets accepted” art show and got rejected, disturbing the judge so much that he met with me and my mother to vent his “concerns.” I couldn’t understand where he was coming from. I thought the pieces just looked cool.
What does bother me is tone — how the elements of sound, editing, lighting, and acting can come together to infuse violence (or anything) with a hardy stamp of approval. And the message that Kick-Ass delivered to me is that it’s ok to deal with your problems with a sharp sword. Don’t be afraid. Don’t take shit. Administer punishment. Regret nothing. Escape consequences.
11 year old Hit Girl slices through a band of drug dealers with gleeful abandon, apparently smug in her own authority as judge, jury, and executioner. Never mind that the drug dealers were mostly inner city African Americans and that Hit Girl was a white, middle-class, heavily-sheltered little girl. That’s an entire book of essays in itself. More to the point is her complete lack of empathy, her immense feelings of superiority, her profound sense of injustice, and her compulsion to make things right by any means necessary. Folks, that’s the description of a psychopath. You could say the same of Eric Harris, Idi Amin, and Chairman Mao. The difference is that we’re meant to root for Hit Girl, hang her poster on our wall.
Well, it’s satire, isn’t it? But what exactly is it satirizing? Is the meta-within-meta-within-meta flying straight over my head? Travers says the filmmakers were, “neatly subverting the comic book genre, letting fantasy bleed into reality.” If that was their intentions, then they failed miserably. Fantasy bled into fantasy. The filmmakers got quite a lot right about reality (enough to counter any “this is cartoon violence” arguments), but they got a few details glaringly wrong: guilt, remorse, consequences. Death has weight.*
I wonder if the filmmakers have ever had a brush with death. Roger Ebert definitely has. There was a moment just a few years ago when I was sure I was experiencing my last few moments of life, that I wouldn’t be alive when the ambulance arrived. And the experience completely altered the way I view everything. It isn’t prudishness that informs Ebert’s appraisal of Kick-Ass; it’s his first-hand experience that life is fragile, impermanent, and precious.**
Excessive violence can work in a film when the violence serves something. Battle Royale is a book and film about high school students who are forced to kill each other for national sport. It’s every bit as gory as Kick-Ass, but Battle Royale works because the satire is on point and we’re never meant to believe the killing is an easy moral choice for the protagonists. (The book was better than the film, and I can’t help but feel there’s a stronger adaptation waiting to be made.)
Kick-Ass‘s amoral tone is hardly the only rip in its hull. The film is clunky and sophomoric. The script (which Travers calls intelligent) begins with the favorite technique of the amateur scriptwriter: an opening narration by the main character, the gist of which is always: “Hi, my name is (insert name of unpopular schmo). That’s (spoken wistfully, insert name of impossibly beautiful girl with no other qualities). She doesn’t know I exist!”
But I’m drifting away from my provocative title. Why don’t I like most superhero movies? Watching Kick-Ass crystallized it for me. Superhero movies (with some exceptions) glorify and pedestal-ize the heroes, who are by their very nature morally-suspect. In the case of movies like Kick-Ass, the heroes circumvent the system, chucking the long, hard, and boring path to justice for a dash of danger and a blind eye to pesky repercussions. One terrible act should be punished with another, and by virtue of freakish super power, scientific genius, or monumental ego, our hero is just the man for the job! These heroes are the cinematic equivalent of that douchebag who flew past you on the highway at 100 miles an hour.
On the other extreme, there are the superhero movies which tell us we are helpless, huddled masses who can’t function without a sleepless sentinel. We are incapable of coming together and solving our own problems. Theses heroes are our methadone, and woe be to us when the supply runs out. (I’m starting to sound like the supporting villain.)
There there are the ones which mask a societal problem through metaphor. Perhaps they are based on 60s comics which, because of prevailing opinion or censorship, had to deal with such issues in code. That may have been necessary at the time, but not today. It’s far braver to make a commentary that puts a mirror to our faces. Tell the African American actor that you’re passing him up for the lead in your sweeping criticism on racism in America today in favor of a quirky, rich white guy in one-piece leotard.
Most superhero films are guilty of one, two, or all three of these critiques. The Dark Knight is the exception I can think of at the moment. Bale’s Batman is certainly guilty of my first two criticisms, but director Christopher Nolan doesn’t ask us to ride shotgun. I don’t feel the lighting, editing, and musical score are cloying at me to actually like the hero. We are mere observers who watch the protagonist struggle (and nearly drown) in his own set of moral codes.
So again, I suppose it comes down to tone. Is the message one of propaganda, fetishism, or something deeper? Or is any given popcorn flick just that — a popcorn flick — so obvious in its fantasy world that only a hoity-toity art critic would takes offense from what really, “just looks cool.”
*Here are some examples of how fantasy meets actual reality. To the drug dealer he approaches in the clip, Dark Guardian is about as intimidating as a circus clown. (Ok, circus clowns ARE intimidating. Bad example.)
**Don’t get me wrong: Having a near-death experience gives one no special authority. Nor am I suggestion that everyone who has one will necessarily agree with me. I am merely trying to describe something that informs my perspective.
Tony Youngblood is the current Foursquare Mayor of the Belcourt Theatre, a film and music snob, and producer of the experimental improv music blog and podcast Theatre Intangible. His favorite films include Eric Rohmer’s The Green Ray, Abbass Kiarostami’s The Wind Will Carry Us, Ingmar Bergman’s The Magician, Lee Chang Dong’s Oasis, and Rob Reiner’s This Is Spinal Tap.
Tony, brilliant review. It makes me want to watch it again to think more critically about the film. Instead of letting fanboys and critcs think for me.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tony Youngblood, Tony Youngblood. Tony Youngblood said: Not prudishness that informs @ebertchicago’s view of Kick-Ass, 1st-hand exp that life is fragile, impermanent, precious http://bit.ly/c3iDHw [...]
Decent article, and I can’t really argue with any of it.
EXCEPT! Why must you needlessly conflate ‘comic-books’ and ‘super-heroes’. The two aren’t interchangeable, as movies like A History of Violence, Ghost World, The Road to Perdition, American Splendor would all attest.
It’s akin to running down ‘book movies’ – sure, some novel adaptations are bad, but that should have no bearing on other movies based on novels.
The synonymousness of comics and super-heroes is a real bug-bear of mine though, as is referring to comic-books as a genre, rather than as a vibrant and exciting medium in its own right.
In the name of Truth, Justice, and the American Way, I’m calling you out on the use of “more deeper” in your final paragraph. POW!
Well said, Tony. I had a similar reaction to the film.
Aaron,
You are absolutely right. I thought about this when going to bed last night, trying to remember if I said comic books or super-heroes. Totally my mistake, and I will fix now. I just have to figure out a way to change the title without changing the link.
DaveX,
Shot through the heart!!!!! :-) Will fix now.
I’m glad you made an exception for The Dark Knight — I was going to have to throw a tantrum if you hadn’t, and I’d rather not.
I question whether this really has to do with “super” heroes or “comic” books — it has to do with heroes and books, and how these address violence. It goes at least as far back as the Iliad and Odyssey, and even those are just passing along already well-known narratives, tropes, and, if you like, and are inclined to look for them, troubling moral shortcuts.
How upset is Odysseus as he watches his peers die off? Here and there, but overall, not very. Grief and reflection are present, but it certainly doesn’t get in the way of all the butt-kicking and “ooh-ahh monsters!” In the war he tried to get home from, Achilles was happy to kill by the truckload and, for that matter, willing to sulk away the entire Greek cause.
I’m not saying it’s not a problem — fiction can deal with violence in a serious and enlightening way, or it can do it the other way — I’m just saying you’ve cast the problem far too narrowly. “Superhero” and “comic book” movies are just a recent manifestation with their own particular formal conventions, and they follow the well-established trend of dealing with these matters in mostly what I’ve helpfully termed “the other way” — dumb, demeaning, amoral (if not defiantly immoral), trivializing, and so on.
thanks.
“When I was 11 years old, I sculpted various dismembered body parts out of Sculpey clay, complete with blood and jutting bones. I entered them in a local “everyone gets accepted” art show and got rejected, disturbing the judge so much that he met with me and my mother to vent his “concerns.” I couldn’t understand where he was coming from. I thought the pieces just looked cool.”
Thanks for a good laugh.
Thought provoking piece – I just don’t view superheroes, or superhero movies in the same way. They were originally created for kids, I think. So I view today’s movies as an extension of that – while the movies are obviously now geared towards adults, they are based in a kids’ world – not to be taken too seriously.
I kind of enjoyed “Kick-Ass”s attempt at a unique tilt to an old tale. I have some opinions about how the main character viewed the girl (which would involve spoilers) so I won’t comment here – but in the end the movie bailed out.
@Andrew, @Christopher, thanks for your kind words.
@Dale, that’s an excellent observation! You could definitely say the same of hero-based literature and other forms of art.
@Phil, more great insights. I think of these articles as a dialogue; and you, Dale, and Aaron have given me much to think on.
@Dale, the thing is, the notion of Good Vs Evil was never an issue in the time of Homer, et al.
Achilles was a vicious killer who sulked and refused to fight while thousands died because his boss took away the slave-girl he had given him. Brad Pitt would never be allowed to be seen in a ‘true’ representation of Achilles. (I did enjoy TROY though, I must say).
Even Odysseus, who is closer to the kind of “Hero” that is force-fed nowadays, is amoral at best. Nobody cared if he was Good or Bad really -”the story” itself was king.
Perhaps Kick Ass (which I haven’t seen for much the same reasons Tony outlines so well) would work best if it could be viewed without the Good/Evil specs we are all preconditioned to wear/ expect nowadays? (expectacles? -sorry, just thought of that).
Well I think I know the answer -no, we are forced to love the kick ass kid(s) or suffer the consequences. The consequences here being, “be called a prude”.
…And it’s not just “(super) hero” movies either -all movies/ stories with a particular slanted view on how its audience must empathise/ side-with with the protagonist are flawed, cue 90% of Spielberg (and John Williams, who rams it through), everything by Michael Bay, Ron Howard, or my own ‘favourite nit-pick’: Amelie. ..If the protagonist was a 50 year old fat woman the movie would be about “a nosey busy-body who keeps butting in”. Instead it’s about a beautiful young lady, so we should all automatically agree with her interferences.
(Side-note: ‘A Very Long Engagement’ is ten times the movie Amelie is. Book too.)
Wait, why are we giving The Dark Knight a pass? Here’s a film all about a man taking the law (from extradition to domestic surveillance) into his own hands. Sure he thinks long and hard, well short but very expressively, about the gravity of his actions. So does Morgan Freeman’s character. But they both go through with it anyway in some kind of ticking-bomb scenario you’d have to be un-American (by the film’s reckoning) not to endorse. Well count me out. I’m with you. We as a society can come together to solve such problems, and we definitely don’t need to throw out the lawbooks to do so.
@Brandon Nowalk
I think the reason for the DK Pass is because that movie recognises Batman as being a flawed character -not a token flawed-character with some quirks, such as Keaton’s upside-down sleeping, but someone who has real issues. Given the set of circumstances as outlined in the movie, what is he to do? He doesn’t always get it right and we don’t always have to side with him. In fact, he is almost a supporting-role in this movie.
(I’ve only seen the film once. I can’t say I loved it, but it isn’t the standard one-sided hero-worship movie these things usually are.)
A movie that reveals the weakness in the “moral protagonist movie” (which is almost every movie ever made) is Happiness by Todd Solodnz.
I couldn’t believe such a film was made when I saw it first -it was like an excuse/ how-to movie for child abusers, serial killers and general rottenness.
Many months later, when I was finally ready to try it again (albeit reluctantly) I discovered I was looking at it wrong and just about every movie I had ever seen was “wrong” for its lopsided, prejudiced, skewed view of the world. Thanks for that Todd!
(That’s not to say most movies are “wrong” of course -just somewhat flawed, if understandably/ forgivably so a lot of the time.)
Very cogent analysis, Tony. I agree that the film is troubling in its casual dismissal of ethical concerns it might provoke – that’s part of its posturing. I was more disappointed that it didn’t take that attitude all the way and make a film about the moral dilemmas superheroes leave us with. Instead, it descends into flying into the sunset and gravity-defying fight scenes. For a genuine attempt at deconstructing the superhero mythos, I’d always stick up for M. Night Shyamalan’s Unbreakable, which is at least sincere and respectful of the genre’s heritage.
In the Dark Knight, we are, as Stanley Rumm points out, supposed to see him as flawed, but I did feel that we were asked to view him as essentially righteous. Sure, he tortures people for information, but he never tortures the wrong people (which is the real problem of “coercive” interrogation techniques) or makes mistakes in his deductions. The complaints about his methods are left to some hazily defined “community” that might hunt him down as a menace, while we are not given a strong sense of that community’s legitimate ethical worries.
When did people start taking super hero movies so seriously? I agree that it’s just not good writing for characters to simply take the life of dozens of people without a shred of remorse but these are stories about hope. I just think we’re over analyzing these movies. Just take the movie at what it’s worth and nothing else.
@Nolan, I don’t think we’re overanalyzing superhero movies because for much of the 2000s, the genre has all but begged to be seen as Serious Art. X-Men opens in the Holocaust fer cryin’ out loud! Spiderman, Superman, Batman, Watchmen, even Kick-Ass deal with (with varying degrees of gravity) significant, violent problems in the lives of its characters.
That said, I completely agree that the genre as a whole seems to have cohered into this leviathan of brooding quasi-commentary pictures, when the comic books they’re based on are much more tonally diverse and, surprise!, fun. There’s a way to approach social injustice (or whatever) without getting bogged down in depression. It used to be called growing up. I think the superhero film could use some of that.
[...] Kick-Ass and Why I Don’t Like Superhero Movies [...]
That said, I completely agree that the genre as a whole seems to have cohered into this leviathan of brooding quasi-commentary pictures, when the comic books they’re based on are much more tonally diverse and, surprise!, fun.
Interesting looking at the tonal shifts in most superhero movies these days. I believe it reflects general powerlessness people feel, and a fundamental lack of faith in institutions, organizations, groupings for massive failures over the past 30 years.
Behind such films as cited above is a primal cry, “Everything sucks!” And this is reflected in the myriad of antagonists, nay-sayers and assorted opposing forces.
Essentially, people feel as if they’re constantly getting screwed. Take your pick by whom: : “corporations”, “government”, “families”, “women”, “men”, “bankers”, “good looking”, “criminals”, “bullies”, “foreigners/others”…
So naturally the urge of the inarticulate powerless is to dive into escapism whereby a fantasy hero can effectively battle shared demons. A well-placed gunshot, a swift kick to the balls, a decapitation/emasculation, and the lights come up.
But nothing really changes. People still feel powerless, and lack fundamental tools to change their lives. And superhero films merely hold up a mirror to our conflicts and rarely provides relief through a broader understanding.
Its a movie based on a comic book and at the end of the day, comic books are for entertainment purposes and so is this movie. Its not realistic, its not trying to be realistic, its a fun movie to watch. The reason this was approved is the reason every other movie was approved.
Did we watch the same movie?
Im really glad i read this. It sums up muly feelings on the film better than i can verbalise. I didnt like kickass. For the same reason, i dont like inglorious bastards, even though everyone says how good it is. The only reason is i dont like movies where the good guys are basically behaving the same as the bad guys.