The era of "dark" cinema

nyarlothothep

Quote from the article, these are Verhoeven's thoughts on Total Recall
http://www.myfilmviews.com/2013/02/08/my-filmviews-interviews-paul-verhoeven/
What did you think of the remake of Total Recall?
It wasn’t good. With Total Recall all lightness has been taken out. It’s all being played straight and it only has chase scenes and shootouts. In that setting the story seems idiotic. If I look back at the way we did it, the man who is selling Schwarzenegger that dream really is kind of a comedic car salesman. Because of something like that you buy into this crazy story. If you take it all seriously then from the outset you’re approaching it the wrong way. Philip K. Dick’s stories have a light footedness about them, where he plays with the elements and that’s the way I filmed it. By leaving that out and making it very serious – which is something that could also happen to the new Robocop movie – you really are left with a ridiculous story. If you film it while slightly making fun of yourself, with the right perspective while winking at the audience, you protect yourself against the danger of it becoming ridiculous.


This isn't a debate on the merits of Nolan's Batman but I should say that this is exactly how I felt about his films, I couldn't take them seriously at all because ultimately you had a film that was desperately trying to put forth a dark/serious vision of Batman with no comic relief whatsoever. What I'm referring to is the era of "dark" cinema where you have no good guys, just anti heros, cynicism, darkness, just a general meanness about humanity/the world. I find the vision almost conservative, in that the hope for a better world/ideal is quashed with a message "pragmatic realism." Ultimately I find dark films less dark than one's which are tempered with light moments, the contrast allows for greater darkness. Not only that, these so called dark films are so obvious in creating a dark atmosphere that they end up being juvenile. Conan The Barbarian (1982) is incredibly cheesy and not altogether dark at an obvious level but for the most part it is a very dark film with its Nietzschean undertones. It also has a hopeful, humanistic ending which is incredibly rewarding. Conan goes to hell and back to get his victory, it means something, ditto for Robocop, but I cant say that for modern Hollywood films. It all seems to easy, predictable and spelt out. I hope that Hollywood collapses or becomes irrelevant because I hate what it's producing. I refused to see Total Recall and Conan the Barbarian on principle and will likewise do the same with respect to Robocop.

bellinter

nyarlothothep wrote: »

no comic relief whatsoever.

"I'm not wearing hockey pants"

FlashD

nyarlothothep wrote: »

This isn't a debate on the merits of Nolan's Batman but I should say that this is exactly how I felt about his films, I couldn't take them seriously at all because ultimately you had a film that was desperately trying to put forth a dark/serious vision of Batman with no comic relief whatsoever. .

Obviously Verhoeven has never looked at the source material, if he had he would then know that the Batman comics are dark/serious/violent/mysterious and not camp/comical like the 60's TV series. It is the more serious elements that have consistently drawn the fans to the books.

I thought Nolan got it spot on although I think Aronofsky or Fincher could still take it to a whole new level if given the opportunity.

Cookie_Monster

nyarlothothep wrote: »

What did you think of the remake of Total Recall?
It wasn’t good.

no it was not
I think he's being very kind there :pac:

syklops

I went to Total Recall. Colin Farrell is running through tunnels with some chick and I fell asleep, and then I woke up and he was still running through tunnels with some chick.

There was no need to remake Total Recall. Every Sci Fi fan and comic book fan in the world has an original idea for a movie. Why not try a new idea rather than a remake, unless your remake/reboot perfects the genre? This is where Nolan comes in. His reboot of Batman was fantastic, and all 3 movies are listed in the top 250 movies of all time by IMDB.

If you're going to reboot a genre, make it really really good.

tupac_healy

Hey Mr. Verhoeven, 'I'd buy that for a dollar!'

syklops

This isn't a debate on the merits of Nolan's Batman but I should say that this is exactly how I felt about his films, I couldn't take them seriously at all because ultimately you had a film that was desperately trying to put forth a dark/serious vision of Batman with no comic relief whatsoever

There was tons of comic relief in the "new" Batman films. It was just less subtle than, say the latest Jim Carrey movie.

No mension yet of the New Casino Royale or Skyfall.

duckworth

Duckworth 2010
"I don't really see anything great in Christopher Nolan. Memento was good, but a bit gimmicky when you rewatch it. And the Batman films are among the most overrated, turgid, boring pieces of over-serious crap I've ever seen. Not an ounce of humour in them."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66745620&postcount=56

Verhoeven 2013
"This isn't a debate on the merits of Nolan's Batman but I should say that this is exactly how I felt about his films, I couldn't take them seriously at all because ultimately you had a film that was desperately trying to put forth a dark/serious vision of Batman with no comic relief whatsoever."

Finally somebody agreeing with me. Let's have a pint Verhoeven!

Raoul Duke

I think you will find that the thoughts on Batman are the OP's own, not Verhoeven's

I think Hollywood is going through a process in the last ten years or so of 'bastardizing' (can I say that on boards?? ) all of the my favourite movies of the 80's, and now is going through a complete bastardization of cinema with predictable garbage comic book regurgitation on a monthly basis. Yes there are still decent movies being made sometimes, but big budget blockbusters of the last few years are simply made to be totally and utterly mindless. Originals like, Total Recall, Conan, Predator, Die Hard, Terminator, you could say hey the acting isn't exactly stellar from the main stars but the writing, directing, subtleties of the movies are vastly superior to what is coming out today. Its like the studios are saying, 'hey the people are morons, so lets give the moronic garbage to feed on' "Absolutely nothing original is allowed anymore, under penalty of closing your facebook account"
Spitting another batman series into the cinema just stinks. Nolan did a decent job with a franchise already beaten to death repeatedly. And now the whole thing starts again....

oxygen

Not to derail from Paul Verhoeven's point, but I'm just sorry they are not making 18's rated movies anymore. Personally I could take or leave the little elements of humor in 80's B movies, I found those moments a bit silly and they took me out of the movie. But I did enjoy watching full on, violent, not for kids movie. (Granted I watched them all when I was a kid)

Every movie these days has to pander to the largest possible market, making everything PG. The new Thor movie for example, it should be a full on Asgardian war move, a la Game of Thrones or similar, but instead we will get some cut down, blood free piece of child friendly crap.

johnny_ultimate

There is no 'one size fits all' model to tone, it's reductive to suggest otherwise on the basis of a handful of examples. Don't get me wrong, it would be nice to see Hollywood produce a few more films with un-PC humour to them - there's definitely a trend among certain films to go 'full serious' recently: although equally you just have to look at the Marvel films for extremely lighthearted ones to contrast sharply with the likes of The Dark Knight or Man of Steel.

But what worked for Verhoeven would not work for everyone. Better filmmakers than he - Bela Tarr, Ingmar Bergman - went whole decades while resisting the temptation to have a character crack a joke (albeit in slightly less ridiculous narrative circumstances than a robotic cop). The tone absolutely suited Nolan's Batman, and they were hardly humour free anyway - the Joker was a delightfully demented comic presence that really probed and subverted the character's inherent ridiculous. A wacky, jokey Robocop-esque aside would not have fit with the director's vision. It's cool if you don't like the films because of its self-seriousness or whatever reasons (heaven knows they have provoked plenty of divisive responses), but trying to impose mandatory guidelines of humour on its creator is a troublesome, narrow-minded approach to filmmaking.

Yes, well handled humour and self-awareness is an admirable trait, sometimes lacking in a Hollywood that's increasingly focus grouped to within an inch of its life. But it's crazy to suggest it automatically makes a film superior to its deathly serious peer. Far, far more elements at play than that.

As for Total Recall and Conan the Barbarian? They have several more cynical and fundamental issues than their lack of lightheartedness.

Stone Deaf 4evr

A lot of people have rose tinted glasses when they think back on films from their youth. I cringe when I think of some of the crap I really enjoyed in my teens. the likes of "showdown in little tokyo" being one that springs to mind.

Mickeroo

I see what folks are getting at, but I think there's a large element of rose tinted glasses being applied too. The likes of total Recall and Robocop were products of their time just as the remakes are products of the present.

That doesn't change the fact the Totall Recall remake was crap of course but if you bring the likes of Nolan's Batman movies into it, well there's definitely going to be people 20 years down the road talking about how blockbusters in the 2030's ain't what they used to be, not like the good old 2010's when there was people like Nolan taking their stories seriously. For all we know their could be another paradigm shift by then and Batman will be back to being campy nonsense.

Sad Professor

I can't remember anything about Conan, but I liked the Total Recall remake. Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel running around, looking hot and kicking ass. I mean c'mon.

conorhal

We're mired in morose anti-hero's at the moment.

Every time somene suggests a 'dark reimagining' all I can think of is this....

nyarlothothep

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There is no 'one size fits all' model to tone, it's reductive to suggest otherwise on the basis of a handful of examples. Don't get me wrong, it would be nice to see Hollywood produce a few more films with un-PC humour to them - there's definitely a trend among certain films to go 'full serious' recently: although equally you just have to look at the Marvel films for extremely lighthearted ones to contrast sharply with the likes of The Dark Knight or Man of Steel.

But what worked for Verhoeven would not work for everyone. Better filmmakers than he - Bela Tarr, Ingmar Bergman - went whole decades while resisting the temptation to have a character crack a joke (albeit in slightly less ridiculous narrative circumstances than a robotic cop). The tone absolutely suited Nolan's Batman, and they were hardly humour free anyway - the Joker was a delightfully demented comic presence that really probed and subverted the character's inherent ridiculous. A wacky, jokey Robocop-esque aside would not have fit with the director's vision. It's cool if you don't like the films because of its self-seriousness or whatever reasons (heaven knows they have provoked plenty of divisive responses), but trying to impose mandatory guidelines of humour on its creator is a troublesome, narrow-minded approach to filmmaking.

Yes, well handled humour and self-awareness is an admirable trait, sometimes lacking in a Hollywood that's increasingly focus grouped to within an inch of its life. But it's crazy to suggest it automatically makes a film superior to its deathly serious peer. Far, far more elements at play than that.

As for Total Recall and Conan the Barbarian? They have several more cynical and fundamental issues than their lack of lightheartedness.

I didn't suggest imposing any one size fits all approach, I'm remarking on the lack of diversity in Hollywood, the trend to be "dark" if you want to be taken seriously. And not just within Hollywood but with the cinema goer too, ie dark for them equates to good/serious when it's just spiritually draining. Sin City for example is just an empty, noxious film, pronouncing itself as dark so loudly that it becomes silly.

What exactly is ridiculous about Robocop? What is ridiculous about a cyborg cop? Simply because it's not realism vis a vis high art? Simply because it doesn't have certain cinematic tropes that say "this film is serious high art and must be interpreted as such? In fact Robocop is not so ridiculous, if anything it's prophetic, maybe it's more realistic than reality in that sense in being so ahead of its time and poetically expressing the most ridiculous aspects of western capitalist society. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-robocop-predicted-everything-important-about-modern-americaback-in-1987-2012-5?op=1
Perhaps the argument against ridiculousness is an argument against a certain type of imagination which is characterised as nerdy or pulpish. That outlandish, even absurd concepts such as a cyborg cop or a Utopian Federation or a holodeck should be written off because they dont conform to the here and now, the social space that we're all meant to love, ie the group, the tribe, nation rather than cognitively abandon, because to do so would constitute a lapse of recognition for the authority of the group/tribe/nation. That's one reason I suggest that sci fi/fantasy and the outlandish/uncanny are usually dismissed by critics/people in general but that's where the artistic greatness lies! Because these genres/ideas allow you to interrogate big questions you're not encouraged to because you're meant to like the here and now, the present, realism and the status quo.

I've watched Ingar Bergman, and I wouldn't say he's any better than Verhoeven, merely different. To say he's better is in some sense to impose a criteria for artistic judgement whereby if you dont make serious existentialist films but rather, fun, ultra-violent, satirical comic book films then you cant be taken as seriously. I don't agree with this, I believe Ghostbusters is as good a film as some criticually lauded film like The Godfather, in fact I prefer it over the Godfather but I wouldn't say it's better because it's a totally different genre, but I wouldn't say it's inferior either because it's a masterpiece. I don't believe in this heirarchy of genres. This is connected to my problem with dark cinema.

duckworth

Raoul Duke wrote: »

I think you will find that the thoughts on Batman are the OP's own, not Verhoeven's

Oh crap - misread it. Then lets have a pint Nyarlotothep!

nyarlothothep

duckworth wrote: »

Oh crap - misread it. Then lets have a pint Nyarlotothep!

Yes, I'd buy that for dollar

maximoose

nyarlothothep wrote: »

a dark/serious vision of Batman with no comic relief whatsoever. .

I thought they had just the right amount of humour throughout! Especially between Alfred & Bruce

Mickeroo

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I didn't suggest imposing any one size fits all approach, I'm remarking on the lack of diversity in Hollywood, the trend to be "dark" if you want to be taken seriously. And not just within Hollywood but with the cinema goer too, ie dark for them equates to good/serious when it's just spiritually draining. Sin City for example is just an empty, noxious film, pronouncing itself as dark so loudly that it becomes silly.

What exactly is ridiculous about Robocop? What is ridiculous about a cyborg cop? Simply because it's not realism vis a vis high art? Simply because it doesn't have certain cinematic tropes that say "this film is serious high art and must be interpreted as such? In fact Robocop is not so ridiculous, if anything it's prophetic, maybe it's more realistic than reality in that sense in being so ahead of its time and poetically expressing the most ridiculous aspects of western capitalist society. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-robocop-predicted-everything-important-about-modern-americaback-in-1987-2012-5?op=1
Perhaps the argument against ridiculousness is an argument against a certain type of imagination which is characterised as nerdy or pulpish. That outlandish, even absurd concepts such as a cyborg cop or a Utopian Federation or a holodeck should be written off because they dont conform to the here and now, the social space that we're all meant to love, ie the group, the tribe, nation rather than cognitively abandon, because to do so would constitute a lapse of recognition for the authority of the group/tribe/nation. That's one reason I suggest that sci fi/fantasy and the outlandish/uncanny are usually dismissed by critics/people in general but that's where the artistic greatness lies! Because these genres/ideas allow you to interrogate big questions you're not encouraged to because you're meant to like the here and now, the present, realism and the status quo.

I've watched Ingar Bergman, and I wouldn't say he's any better than Verhoeven, merely different. To say he's better is in some sense to impose a criteria for artistic judgement whereby if you dont make serious existentialist films but rather, fun, ultra-violent, satirical comic book films then you cant be taken as seriously. I don't agree with this, I believe Ghostbusters is as good a film as some criticually lauded film like The Godfather, in fact I prefer it over the Godfather but I wouldn't say it's better because it's a totally different genre, but I wouldn't say it's inferior either because it's a masterpiece. I don't believe in this heirarchy of genres. This is connected to my problem with dark cinema.

I don't get why you keep referring to Sin City as an example. It's not a serious film at all, sure its thematically dark but it's still very humorous and very stylised to the point it is in no way meant to resemble the real world at all, its supposed to be silly. It has more in common with Total Recall than it does The Dark Knight imo. It's full of cartoonish violence and one liners.

nyarlothothep

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't get why you keep referring to Sin City as an example. It's not a serious film at all, sure its thematically dark but it's still very humorous and very stylised to the point it is in no way meant to resemble the real world at all, its supposed to be silly. It has more in common with Total Recall than it does The Dark Knight imo. It's full of cartoonish violence and one liners.

I only referred to it once? Yeah but it's meant to be an allegory for urban/societal decay and its oppressive in its cynicism. I saw bits of Watchmen and got the same impression. They present us with a world populated by assholes and disaffected cynics who dont care but end up doing the right thing ultimately. I just find it's an inherently negative, conservative vision. It reflects the era we're in, apathetic, disaffected, negative and conservative.

Mickeroo

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I only referred to it once? Yeah but it's meant to be an allegory for urban/societal decay and its oppressive in its cynicism. I saw bits of Watchmen and got the same impression. They present us with a world populated by assholes and disaffected cynics who dont care but end up doing the right thing ultimately. I just find it's an inherently negative, conservative vision. It reflects the era we're in, apathetic, disaffected, negative and conservative.

Apologies, thought you mentioned it somewhere else too.

Can't say I agree we live in a conservative era tbh, and Watchmen is much more relevant to the 1980's than the present which is funnily enough when it was written. Sin City (again, more a product of the 1990s and early 2000s than the present) you're giving too much credit to, it's pure style over substance imo, mindless fun that borrows heavily from film noir in terms of its style and characters.

I think it's just a case of you not liking these films rather than anything else?

tupac_healy

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Yes, I'd buy that for dollar

Beat ya to it on page 1!!

nyarlothothep

Mickeroo wrote: »

Apologies, thought you mentioned it somewhere else too.

Can't say I agree we live in a conservative era tbh, and Watchmen is much more relevant to the 1980's than the present which is funnily enough when it was written. Sin City (again, more a product of the 1990s and early 2000s than the present) you're giving too much credit to, it's pure style over substance imo, mindless fun that borrows heavily from film noir in terms of its style and characters.

I think it's just a case of you not liking these films rather than anything else?

Hmm, well things can be "out of time" and then in time, I should know, I'm an 80s/90s man. I haven't read the comics but perhaps it could be that it was only in the 00s that Watchmen really could be made because it fitted in with the kind of cynical mindset/hipster mindset of the era. I think it's the Iraq war tbh, the torture scandal etc, just left a really bitter taste in the public mouth and there's a demand for darkness/cynicism. The whole era was foreshadowed by it, it was the era of decadence and bling, going over to the darkside was a kind of decadent self indulgence. Think about how it started, 2001-2003, following on from the happy 90s. Then it got dark, the whole gorno genre took off too. I dont think it's as bad in some respects now but Hollywood as a whole is really stagnant and limited.

oxygen_temp

oxygen_temp wrote: »

Not to derail from Paul Verhoeven's point, but I'm just sorry they are not making 18's rated movies anymore. Personally I could take or leave the little elements of humor in 80's B movies, I found those moments a bit silly and they took me out of the movie. But I did enjoy watching full on, violent, not for kids movie. (Granted I watched them all when I was a kid)

Every movie these days has to pander to the largest possible market, making everything PG. The new Thor movie for example, it should be a full on Asgardian war move, a la Game of Thrones or similar, but instead we will get some cut down, blood free piece of child friendly crap.

Yeah the whole move away from 15's and 18s for movies may well have been the beginning of the end! It could be PG13 for eternity now. This whole move of blockbusters being aimed at the tweens to hit the PG13 mark explains pretty well why movies are being made with zero brainpower. 13 year old don't want that stuff and they are where the money is these days.

Timothy545

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I didn't suggest imposing any one size fits all approach, I'm remarking on the lack of diversity in Hollywood, the trend to be "dark" if you want to be taken seriously. And not just within Hollywood but with the cinema goer too, ie dark for them equates to good/serious when it's just spiritually draining. Sin City for example is just an empty, noxious film, pronouncing itself as dark so loudly that it becomes silly.

What exactly is ridiculous about Robocop? What is ridiculous about a cyborg cop? Simply because it's not realism vis a vis high art? Simply because it doesn't have certain cinematic tropes that say "this film is serious high art and must be interpreted as such? In fact Robocop is not so ridiculous, if anything it's prophetic, maybe it's more realistic than reality in that sense in being so ahead of its time and poetically expressing the most ridiculous aspects of western capitalist society. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-robocop-predicted-everything-important-about-modern-americaback-in-1987-2012-5?op=1
Perhaps the argument against ridiculousness is an argument against a certain type of imagination which is characterised as nerdy or pulpish. That outlandish, even absurd concepts such as a cyborg cop or a Utopian Federation or a holodeck should be written off because they dont conform to the here and now, the social space that we're all meant to love, ie the group, the tribe, nation rather than cognitively abandon, because to do so would constitute a lapse of recognition for the authority of the group/tribe/nation. That's one reason I suggest that sci fi/fantasy and the outlandish/uncanny are usually dismissed by critics/people in general but that's where the artistic greatness lies! Because these genres/ideas allow you to interrogate big questions you're not encouraged to because you're meant to like the here and now, the present, realism and the status quo.

I've watched Ingar Bergman, and I wouldn't say he's any better than Verhoeven, merely different. To say he's better is in some sense to impose a criteria for artistic judgement whereby if you dont make serious existentialist films but rather, fun, ultra-violent, satirical comic book films then you cant be taken as seriously. I don't agree with this, I believe Ghostbusters is as good a film as some criticually lauded film like The Godfather, in fact I prefer it over the Godfather but I wouldn't say it's better because it's a totally different genre, but I wouldn't say it's inferior either because it's a masterpiece. I don't believe in this heirarchy of genres. This is connected to my problem with dark cinema.

Some very good points about the obsession with the "here and now". One thing I despise is when films try to be "relevant" or viewers and critics try to find the "relevance" to present circumstances in the real world. Why the fup does it need to be "relevant"? Just make an interesting story.

MisterAnarchy

The era of "dark" cinema ? More like the era of unrealistic cartoonish cinema.

The Batman films are a shining light among the dumbed down drivel masquerading as movies nowadays .
Dark is good ,we need more of it ,not the over the top ,hammy,childish fluff we see week in week out .

Most of the films regarded as "Dark" are not dark at all .
It seems nowadays if a film is anyway realistic its "Dark" .
I read reviews of Iron Man 3 saying it was a very dark movie.FFS it was childish drivel ,Downey was completely hamming it up .