Is Anything A Greater Cinematic Achievement Than The MCU?
Dec 12, 2017 22:46:57 GMT
Hauntedknight87 and Spooky Ghost Ackbar like this
Post by Salzmank on Dec 12, 2017 22:46:57 GMT
OK, thanks, lenlenlen1. If I may say so, that’s a bit more nuanced than what you wrote before. Heading back to the Universal horror series, though (and apologies for having that as my big cross-reference, but it did what Marvel’s doing now): there were lots of horror films in the ‘30s and ‘40s. Paramount had some good ones (Island of Lost Souls, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde), Columbia had some good ones (Return of the Vampire, Fox had a few (The Undying Monster), even old stalwarts MGM (Mark of the Vampire) and RKO (King Kong, The Most Dangerous Game, later the Lewton flicks).
But the undisputed top of the heap was Universal. Dracula, Frankenstein, his creation, and his innumerable family-members (Bride, Son, Ghost, etc.), the Invisible Man, the Mummy, the Wolf Man, etc., etc., etc. And they all had initial set-up films, several sequels, and crossovers in which they all, more or less, “teamed up.” And, y’know what, some film scholars write that there are some superb films in there—Bride of Frankenstein, for example, or The Wolf Man. (Neither would be in my top 5 favorites, but that’s neither here nor there.)
But—and this is a major point—they’re not “one of the great cinematic achievements.” They’re good, very good, with some great films in there. But the whole thing is not one of the great achievements of our time. They’re sometimes silly, sometimes laughable, nearly always entertaining and fun—just like Marvel’s superheroes. And if it’s far too simplistic to claim the ‘30s as the age of the film monster, it’s equally simplistic to claim the 2010s as the age of the superhero. Marvel’s movies are less like westerns or WW2 flicks—those are entire genres!—than they are like the shared universe of the Uni monsters. Both are fun; neither is the great accomplishment of our time. (I could also drag in a discussion of auteurism and personal rather than corporate art—Jimmy Whale or Tod Browning vs. Jon Favreau—but that’s for another time.) And that, honestly, is really all I have to say. We’re kinda going around in circles already.
But the undisputed top of the heap was Universal. Dracula, Frankenstein, his creation, and his innumerable family-members (Bride, Son, Ghost, etc.), the Invisible Man, the Mummy, the Wolf Man, etc., etc., etc. And they all had initial set-up films, several sequels, and crossovers in which they all, more or less, “teamed up.” And, y’know what, some film scholars write that there are some superb films in there—Bride of Frankenstein, for example, or The Wolf Man. (Neither would be in my top 5 favorites, but that’s neither here nor there.)
But—and this is a major point—they’re not “one of the great cinematic achievements.” They’re good, very good, with some great films in there. But the whole thing is not one of the great achievements of our time. They’re sometimes silly, sometimes laughable, nearly always entertaining and fun—just like Marvel’s superheroes. And if it’s far too simplistic to claim the ‘30s as the age of the film monster, it’s equally simplistic to claim the 2010s as the age of the superhero. Marvel’s movies are less like westerns or WW2 flicks—those are entire genres!—than they are like the shared universe of the Uni monsters. Both are fun; neither is the great accomplishment of our time. (I could also drag in a discussion of auteurism and personal rather than corporate art—Jimmy Whale or Tod Browning vs. Jon Favreau—but that’s for another time.) And that, honestly, is really all I have to say. We’re kinda going around in circles already.