Note: the excellence of Mangold's "Logan" in my mind wiped clean the stink that was "The Wolverine," so I file a technical dissent from your friend's description of him as a "a comic book movie guy." Mangold is hardly a profound artist, but he's no Zack Snyder, thank goodness.
I think the other reason to object more than to a Marvel movie is that stupid ideas about heroic geniuses who are just better than the rest of us are inherent to superhero stories but they are the opposite of what makes artists, who are great because they are not "Great." Making genius seem inevitable takes the life out of it, which is what fan culture can also do.
I really loved the recent Joan Baez documentary, which was objectively not the greatest movie, because it was so clearly the story she wanted to tell - Bob and MLK were there briefly, but there was her difficult relationship with her sister and her parents, honest looks at her marriage and motherhood, her sorrow about losing some but not all of her vocal range. That wry smile when she says "I know I look good for my age, but there's a limit." Ends with her walking down a path listening to music on headphones, in her own world. The interior life of the artist that is everything and films like this can't ever really do.
Having been, in an earlier chapter of my life, simultaneously a high school teacher of storytelling and the sole proprietor of a comic and game shop, I have a simple thought to share:
Comic book movies are one thing too many.
Biographical movies about lyricists are probably two things too many.
What I'm saying is, comic books are already a thing, a whole, total extant statement of artistic or creative intent, however high- or low-brow their aspirations may be.
Dylan's lyrics and compositions are already a perfectly expressed statement of his artistic intent. We don't need these things to be mediated through another medium, certainly not film.
I'm deeply anti-purist, but movies "about" other things generally kinda suck. That is to say, they're missing the soul of a cinematic statement of art, instead trying to get us to listen to Dylan's music or dig a Spider-Man comic the way a 10-year-old on a summer afternoon might.
I encouraged my students and shop heads both to go to the source, not an interpretation. That's necessarily gonna be a little bit pablumized, and everything the artist wanted to tell you is gonna be right there in the primary statement.
Moreover, it's great when you can see a given artistic medium make a case for itself. Listening to an album alone in a dark room wouldn't be made better if a film or video accompanied it; it would dilute it.
A drawing of the Hulk (or whatever) is far more convincing than some cinematic CG phoniness, for the simple fact that a four-color dot print sequence of panels is a more suitable medium for that artistic concept.
Anyhow, yeah. It's hard to imagine what artistry a stock Hollywood biopic is capable of holding. I feel for the actors and artists involved, as I imagine it must feel a bit like playing in a cover band striving for precision of mimicry. The hollowing out of every teenage bedroom guitarist's aspirational heart.
Note: the excellence of Mangold's "Logan" in my mind wiped clean the stink that was "The Wolverine," so I file a technical dissent from your friend's description of him as a "a comic book movie guy." Mangold is hardly a profound artist, but he's no Zack Snyder, thank goodness.
I liked Logan too. Great plane movie. But it's just elevated comic book fare. I'll take it over the alternative, but I still demand better!
That's where I saw it too! Better than what the circumstances of a long plane ride usually allow.
I think the other reason to object more than to a Marvel movie is that stupid ideas about heroic geniuses who are just better than the rest of us are inherent to superhero stories but they are the opposite of what makes artists, who are great because they are not "Great." Making genius seem inevitable takes the life out of it, which is what fan culture can also do.
I really loved the recent Joan Baez documentary, which was objectively not the greatest movie, because it was so clearly the story she wanted to tell - Bob and MLK were there briefly, but there was her difficult relationship with her sister and her parents, honest looks at her marriage and motherhood, her sorrow about losing some but not all of her vocal range. That wry smile when she says "I know I look good for my age, but there's a limit." Ends with her walking down a path listening to music on headphones, in her own world. The interior life of the artist that is everything and films like this can't ever really do.
well said! I haven't watched the Joan doc, but I intend to. (my mom loved it)
I saw it in a small Upper west side theater with my dad and I was the youngest person there by a lot and I am not at all young, lol.
Having been, in an earlier chapter of my life, simultaneously a high school teacher of storytelling and the sole proprietor of a comic and game shop, I have a simple thought to share:
Comic book movies are one thing too many.
Biographical movies about lyricists are probably two things too many.
What I'm saying is, comic books are already a thing, a whole, total extant statement of artistic or creative intent, however high- or low-brow their aspirations may be.
Dylan's lyrics and compositions are already a perfectly expressed statement of his artistic intent. We don't need these things to be mediated through another medium, certainly not film.
I'm deeply anti-purist, but movies "about" other things generally kinda suck. That is to say, they're missing the soul of a cinematic statement of art, instead trying to get us to listen to Dylan's music or dig a Spider-Man comic the way a 10-year-old on a summer afternoon might.
I encouraged my students and shop heads both to go to the source, not an interpretation. That's necessarily gonna be a little bit pablumized, and everything the artist wanted to tell you is gonna be right there in the primary statement.
Moreover, it's great when you can see a given artistic medium make a case for itself. Listening to an album alone in a dark room wouldn't be made better if a film or video accompanied it; it would dilute it.
A drawing of the Hulk (or whatever) is far more convincing than some cinematic CG phoniness, for the simple fact that a four-color dot print sequence of panels is a more suitable medium for that artistic concept.
Anyhow, yeah. It's hard to imagine what artistry a stock Hollywood biopic is capable of holding. I feel for the actors and artists involved, as I imagine it must feel a bit like playing in a cover band striving for precision of mimicry. The hollowing out of every teenage bedroom guitarist's aspirational heart.