X-Message-Number: 22109 Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:33:09 -0700 From: "John Grigg" <> Subject: Is "Hulk" a great transhumanist film? Charles Platt wrote: >See Hulk. I would say wait until it comes out on DVD. you continue: To my mind this is one of the all-time great transhumanist movies. We are not subjected to the "tragedy" of a character who becomes superhuman. Hulk is a tormented guy, but science in this movie is not depicted as being evil because it has an unexpected side effect. There's even a soliloquy against government and religion. (end) I find it strange that you would call this one of the all-time great transhumanist movies. I would definitely not go that far. One thing I did like about the film was how it showed science being controlled/manipulated by the military. I see this in the real world as being a mixed blessing at best. But considering the behavior of Dr. Banner's father in the movie, I don't blame the sympathetic villain, Major/General Ross for putting his foot down. I enjoyed the beginning sequences of the film where it showed in true "super science" fashion the experiments of the father as he unraveled the hidden secrets of mother nature in his lab. It was an inspired part of the film. I wish I had enjoyed the rest of the film as much as that. The soliloquy of the father against religion and government was to me a diatribe which would not really have an effect on any young viewers. The character had already been largely discredited as a mangy looking "wierdo." When his personal character later on was fully revealed he went beyond even that. you continue: Of course the premise is absurd, from a comic book. This is understood. But the comic book was an attempt to create a modern myth figure, and the movie has accurately captured and extended that early attempt, with absolute respect for the source. Ang Lee is a smart, subtle director, and he is never condescending to the source material. Just as he made art out of kung-fu in Crouching Tiger, he has created art out of the superhero genre. (end) I feel this is Ang Lee's first truly bad movie. Sorry. I do credit him for attempting to make the Hulk a serious drama first and a summer action film second, but he just did not carry it off. The film needed a good half hour chopped out of it and the lead actor, Bana, came across as "sulky" rather than truly angst ridden and suffering. A different lead, much better editing, a human actor hulk (with much face makeup and padding to give him the necessary look and mass) instead of a fake looking CGI monster, and much more intense & lengthy battle scenes at the end would have made this a vastly better film. One thing I did like about the film was the inspired casting of Sam Elliot as General Ross (the archnemesis of the Hulk who lead the military forces against him). I have felt sorry for this fine actor who has complained about being typecast (westerns). Lee made an excellent choice by casting him and Elliot in return delivered a nuanced performance in his well-written role which showed him both as a warrior and as a father to young Banner's love interest. This was definitely a bright spot in this otherwise flawed film. James Cameron could have made this a truly great film but sadly Ang Lee was the one who did it and he dropped the ball. A comic book series like X-Men or Daredevil would have been a much more appropriate use of Lee's talents. you continue: Moreover this is not just a story of a man who transcends being a man; it's a movie than transcends being a movie. This is true state-of-the-art rendering and animation. At the same time the film shows knowledge of, and respect for, the great movies that explored such themes in the past. There's a shot of a giant arm holding a female character, exactly like my memory of King Kong holding Faye Wray. There's a moment when Hulk sees himself in a lake, much like a moment in the original Frankenstein. (end) I admit the Hulk's facial expressions were the best part of the generally rubbery and phony looking CGI (the tech is just not quite there yet) but the overwhelming raw destructive rage of the comic was missing. Lee tried to hard to make the Hulk sympathetic like the Frankenstein monster. Lee did pay tribute to classic films of the past but this does not make up for all his mistakes. There is hope because the studio wants a Hulk movie franchise so we may possibly see a Hulk film eventually done right by another director. you continue: I also enjoyed Ang Lee's cheerful willingness to coopt the "cheap tricks" of Hong Kong action movies (John Woo style): fast zooms, strange cuts, slow-motion. And there's a lot of split-screen. I couldn't figure out why until I realized that it's a way of replicating the look of a comic book. When you read a comic book, you're aware of the panels either side of the one on which you are focusing. Multiple contiguous pictures within a screen create the same effect. A lot of audacity and a lot of love went into this movie. (end) His experimentation with the medium was interesting but still did not make up for the shortcomings of the film. He should have done multiple frames for an extremely fight scene with the army. Done right they could have really set the film apart and jolted the audience with the Hulk's ferocity. you continue: What I like about it most is that it will implant the idea of using science to transcend the human condition in the brains of countless young viewers. The science is as good as it gets in a Hollywood movie: They spin down blood samples, they use real hypodermics, they have a multifactorial process (involving nanotechnology, radiation, and an inherited genetic abnormality) to activate a latent condition--and the computer screens appear to be displaying real protein molecules. (end) I just don't see this film planting the memetic seeds you hope it will. It does make science at times look like an interesting adventure but in the end it shows attempts to transcend the human condition as being foolhardy and just plain extremely dangerous. you continue: Hulk is merely a cheap metaphor for what we would like to achieve. But the movie encapsulates it compellingly, and suggests that even if we make a few errors along the way, the basic endeavor is still valid (end) So you would like to achieve a nanotech which leads to people losing their minds to unbelievably destructive binges? I would say what the Hulk is/does is more than a "few errors along the way." lol I realize you don't mean this but I did not see the film making a very positive statement for transhumanist yearnings. I agree with you that the ultimate endeavor of theirs was very valid (they were trying to make humans immune to disease who could also regenerate wounds with lightning speed). But the overall message going to the general public who view the film will be "don't mess with the secrets of mother nature or you will get really burned!!" Charles, I think a Captain America movie would be what you are looking for. The classic story shows a frail and unhealthy man who is transformed by a technology which makes him a physical superman who is loved and admired by humanity as he fights crime. I realize the character is not a scientist like Banner, but a much better message would get through to young people about how scientific advances can make the world better, rather than tear it apart. Perhaps you should write a screenplay to show us what a human being can do when they have transcended the limits of their humanity through advanced technology. : ) You certainly have the talent. best wishes, John ____________________________________________________________ Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail! http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005 Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22109