|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 10, 2019 21:21:18 GMT
I think one issue is the rise of the antihero replacing the hero in many films. Though that was a major trend in the late sixties through the mid-seventies, too. The chief difference being that the antiheroes then were often complex human beings with human flaws, not CGI cartoons decked out in spandex and bemoaning the woes of being a 'societal outcast' because of their superpowers. I'd be all for returning to the former state of things, cinema-wise. Today's supehero crop of films sort of reminds me of sulky adolescents who sit in their rooms and pout over the fact that the world doesn't appreciate or understand them. No big deal if a film like that is made every so often, but I have serious reservations about the tsunami-like swamping of virtually everything else by the genre. I like the CGI’d superheroes however, that's not a hero. I’m referring to roles played in old Hollywood by the likes of Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda, John Wayne, even Greer Garson, or Irene Dunne. In these narratives as such, the hero and villain are demarcated. There is no moral ambiguity in the characters. This divide is also present in other narratives like crime, family drama, etc. Nor are these characters not complex, they are not without inner struggle themselves. If they are played as melodrama, then it’s more due to the acting style and we are not seeing what a few generations age would have? In the antihero film, there is moral ambiguity as the tension of the narrative coming from the protagonist struggle. Often moral restraint is miss in the drama as we see in the John Wick films. I’ve no problem with this type of film myself; I quite enjoy them. But the trope of the more complex, though not necessarily so, antihero over the more square hero leads to a moral conundrum for audience. The protagonist is the hero we identify with, but often the antihero is into as much villainy as the villain. This is an oversimplified answer with more detail for my more rationale, but I hope you get the gist. As for the superhero debate, I’ve said my bit here, have a big open mind about all cinema, am done, and look forward to phase 4. With the serious shit going down in the real world, this PC/moral panic over CGI superheroes is in the bargain basement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Nov 10, 2019 21:45:06 GMT
Its like with modern music, there are good movies made today if you know where to look.
But yes movies in the past are generally better than modern movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 10, 2019 21:47:08 GMT
It's funny in the case of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine he is supposed to be an anti-hero but his fluke last minute casting makes him more of a traditional romantic heroic character.
The comic book version is kind of like a shorter version of Charles McGraw. But the fact that Jackman was so popular shows that audiences still want or expect a kind of romanticism in adventure stories. They turned Logan into that either deliberately or by accident (I forgot the first choice--he seemed kind of boring--was too busy making Mission Impossible 2).
The other thing with superhero characters as pointed out-they are not really doing much heroic feats. Not compared to 1940s serial versions.
They spend more time sitting around discussing their insecurities.
FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE demonstrates the encroaching moral ambiguity---although most audiences probably took Eastwood and Van Cleef as the heroes of the story, the Indio character is unusually complex--he is haunted by memories of the sister killing herself, and he has sympathy from the accomplice with the big hat. How often did we get to see inside the mind of the "bad guy" like that?
|
|
