So we all know the story, right? Lab assistant Harper gets caught in the process of a nanomed-gamma radiation experiment, causing Dr. Bruce Krensler to come to his aid. After getting him unstuck, it seems that the project is locked and won’t shut down, so instead of shoving Harper to safety, Krensler throws himself on the gamma emmiter and so becomes… well, a guy sitting in a bed in perfect health for another ten minutes until he then becomes… the INCREDIBLE HULK!
Yeah, not my cup of tea either, but long ago in 2003, it’s what we got as Ang Lee’s Hulk hit movie screens in June. It did better box officely than one would remember, having the second largest opening in the month of June (right under Harry Potter) but yet the story still sits with Daredevil as one of the low points of Marvel’s early movie career. I remember my excitement as I saw the very first showing of the movie in my town at an whopping 11am on the 20th of June and walking out of the theater with visions of the Hulk doing some fantastic military smashing as well as jumping beautifully across the southwestern landscape still dancing in my head. Everything with all the cut screens and the jellyfish and Nick Nolte faded from my brain and thanks to the godsend that was Peter David’s movie novelization, I was certain that I had enjoyed the film.
Looking back, it was hard to remember what exactly I had seen outside of how the CGI dented the Hulk’s irradiated hide with bullets or the sound of a tank barrel smacking against a mammoth mitt so I went back and rewatched the film and wow, what a difference five years make. Distance doesn’t always make the heart grow fonder, so let’s take a look back at what Marvel Studios didn’t entirely toss out with the bathwater and see what Academy Award winner Ang Lee and James Schamus (only a Oscar nominee) tried to tell us about the Hulk.
(SPOIL- oh forget it.)
First off, they tried to tell us a lot about science. A LOT. There are a multitude of montages in the Hulk, shifting sands and scenes as we are taken first hand into the crazy process that Brian Banner but his son through from birth. Even before this, we’re watching him scribble notes through the credits, using animals and getting as hands on as you can get to try to change the human genome. Fascinating work if you think about it and it does really set up the focus of the movie, what Brian Banner passes on. I know the poster shows the Hulk, the movie’s called the Hulk and according to IMDB, Nick Nolte’s character doesn’t even get a name in the movie outside of ‘father’, but let’s face facts. It’s nearly his film entirely. This is a man driven and possessed by his work so much so as to drive him out of his mind and destroy anything he had outside of it.
Putting it to the comics, that’s Bruce Banner’s original story too. A man who created a weapon that eventually became his own downfall as he was caught in its blast, letting the real weapon live inside of him that worked pretty damn hard to destroy anything he had outside of it. Mind you, it’s more complex than that thanks to some pretty incredible writing and the good ol’ sands of time taking the character in the comics through one adventure to the next but you can see where this idea still stands within the story.
Instead of a man who has destiny explode behind him, we have a man trying to handmake destiny and shape it in his image. The scene towards the end of the movie where Nick Nolte and Eric Bana are on a dark platform watched by the military for the slightest move becomes this riveting black box theater moment where the two characters confront each other on that very destiny. Brian Banner’s son, what he wanted from destiny itself, is the Hulk, the monster and the muscle. His actual son, Bruce is like some empty shell that hides the more solid meat inside, unwanted and discarded. And that’s about right; through the movie before this moment, Eric Bana is emotionally distant, disconnected and a little empty, almost to the point that when he finally does get angry and cause the Hulk to rise up out of him, it’s terrifically out of character. His rages are childish, shaking tantrums until the Hulk is there to express himself. In the end, well… uhm. Yeah. Nick Nolte… uh, turns into a giant bubble-jellyfish and… I guess explodes or dissipates or … I don’t know. Brian Banner’s story is over, however it happens, leaving us with Bruce Banner on his own in South America, threatening people with his anger. Well placed catchphrase or a final acceptance of what his father bequeathed to him?
I will admit it, the Ang Lee Hulk is hard to watch. Too much going on with all the ‘comic panel’ style filming, the dialog can get pretty silver agey at times, at yes DISTINCT LACK OF HULK IN A HULK FILM, but it does have it’s merits. There is a really good movie under all the weight of being a sort of avant garde little film with it’s quirks and visuals, but I’m not sure it’s the film we as a comic book enjoying public wanted to see. I’m not even sure if the non-comic book enjoying public wanted to see it either.
At the end of the movie, Thunderbolt Ross (played by the awesome Sam Elliot and his mustache of reknown) called Betty to maybe check in with her as a father or check up on her as a military general. It’s a great scene as they kind of awkwardly talk and obviously, Bruce comes up. As she looks out the window, she says that even if he did contact her, she’s not sure she want him to and it’s at this moment she sort of lets go. This is not a little girl anymore, pining for something she can’t have, but a grown woman accepting the man she loves for his faults and accepting them. I too look out my window (a far sight less pretty that Ms. Connelly) and no longer think ill of a movie that wasn’t what I wanted it to be, but understand what it was.
Exploding frogs and all.
June 11th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Brian Banner? I thought he was David.
My impression of the movie was that the Hulk stuff was actually pretty good. I think there was actually about 40 minutes of hulk, it just didn’t seem like much because the other 98 minutes sucked so much.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
In the comics, it’s Brian. In the movie, the father went by David as you correctly pointed out.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I’ll never forget, opening weekend in the Cinerama downtown Seattle, packed theater, and that scene right after he first Hulks out, and Nolte yells up at him as the camera pushes in with that crane shot – MY SON or whatever he says.
And the whole theater just laughed at how bad it was. It was so awesome, and just a taste of things to come for the next 90 minutes.
Hulk stuff WAS great, but the rest, oh boy, what a stinker.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:37 am
i still reckon it’s underrated – flawed, yes, but not as goofy & ‘broadening the humour for the masses’ like Transformers & the Spider-Man sequels.
this new movie sounds entirely unnecessary – i get it, it’s both a sequel & not-a-sequel in the way Evil Dead 2 was, but that’s where comparisons to it end. What can we expect? Banner-ly angst & Hulk and The Abomination grappling in the streets .. can’t say i’ve ever seen that before. Yawn.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Ang Lee’s Hulk is a good movie, I think — it does fascinating things with its directing and cinematography, its pacing is unusual and engaging, and the acting is interestingly self-aware. But of course it’s not the comic book Hulk. And neither is Ed Norton’s Hulk — and I can say that without having seen it. The comic book Hulk will never appear in a cinema anywhere because it’s impossible — the comic book experience is predicated on silence, and movies are anything but silent.
(Tangent — wouldn’t a black-and-white, silent-film version of the Hulk be amazing? Isn’t that really the best way to film the comic book Hulk?)
So if comic book fans will never see the comic book Hulk, what then are they looking for on the screen? What does this mean: “There is a really good movie under all the weight of being a sort of avant garde little film with it’s [sic] quirks and visuals, but I’m not sure it’s the film we as a comic book enjoying public wanted to see?” What is that film? Why is a film like Iron Man held up as being “faithful” to the comic book and Ang Lee’s Hulk seen as “unfaithful?” If neither is the comic book on film — and neither is, not even Iron Man — are comic book fans rewarding Iron Man with positive reviews for being simply “closer” to the comic book?
Why would comic book fans ever be satisfied with something that’s only “close?”
As a comic book fan, I’m not satisfied with these movies being “close.” Regardless, I love the Tim Burton Batmans, and I like Superman Returns, Spider-Man 2, and Ang Lee’s Hulk. I also like the middle of Batman Begins. My point, then, is that I think the merit of a superhero film is irrelevant to its “faithfulness” to its comic book root. Comic book fans like Iron Man because maybe that’s the type of movie most comic book fans like.
(Superhero comic book fans, of course.)
I liked this blog entry because it seems to be exploring that idea, approaching Ang Lee’s Hulk as a movie first and a comic book movie second. Something Besides the Hulk is a great title for it.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:05 am
is it just me or does the New abomdination look just like frasier crane!?!