FILM CRIT HULK EXPLAINS HULK

The New Yorker has invited Twitter hero @FILMCRITHILK to write a great, insightful, ALL-CAPS essay on the attraction of The Hulk in stories.

SO PERHAPS THERE IS A MUCH BETTER QUESTION AT HAND: WHAT MAKES THE HULK DRAMATIC? WHAT ARE WE ROOTING FOR WHEN WE WATCH HIM? WHAT IS IT THAT WE WANT TO HAPPEN IN ANY GIVEN SCENE?

WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE CENTRAL QUESTION: WHAT MAKES THE HULK SO COMPELLING TO US?

HULK WRITES ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME, BUT ONE OF THE ONGOING PROBLEMS OF BLOCKBUSTER CINEMA THESE DAYS IS ASSUMED EMPATHY. IT’S AS IF OUR STORYTELLERS JUST PLOP A FILM IN OUR LAPS AND SAY, “HERE’S OUR MAIN CHARACTER AND WE’RE GOING TO ASSUME THAT YOU’RE INTERESTED IN THEM FOR THAT REASON ALONE. THEY’RE THE MAIN CHARACTER!” … HULK DESPISES THIS TREND. IT TENDS TO GET EVEN WORSE WHEN STORYTELLERS FALL INTO THE MARKETING-CENTRIC TRAP OF “LIKABILITY,” WHICH IS A WORD THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKING CHARACTERS INTERESTING. USUALLY IT’S JUST A CODE WORD USED BY EXECUTIVES WHEN THEY’RE WORRIED A CHARACTER IS “DOING BAD THINGS.” AND TO ADHERE TO THE WORRIES OF LIKABILITY IS TO THUS EMBARK ON A FOOL’S PLAY AT DRAMA.

Which gives me the chance to drop in my favorite joke from last weekend, shamelessly cribbed from The Observer: "YOU WON'T LIKE ME WHEN I'M ANGRY. I BACK UP MY RAGE WITH SOURCES AND DOCUMENTATION." -The Credible Hulk

THE HULK ON MARK RUFFALO’S HULK (via Making Light)

• [PlutoniumX]

  I hate to be that guy, but there is more to talking like the HULK than typing in all caps and replacing all of your “I”s with HULK.

  Content aside, this reads to me more like a ANGRY MAN YELLING EVEN THOUGH PRETEND FAKE HULK TWITTER GET HIM IN PAPERS. 

  Of course, that’s just my opinion as a longtime Hulk reader.  There are many more important things to get HULK SMASH about than someone’s impression. 

  Edit: Check out PREPRESS HULK for what I would consider a great HULK impression. https://twitter.com/#!/prepresshulk

  • [teapot]

     I agree.. this is like something you’d read in film school, but in caps.

• [Jer_00]

  FILMCRITHULK is pretty much dead-on as far as his criticism of the Hulk in the current Avengers movie and in the previous two cinematic outings of the Jade Goliath.  That’s because he agrees with me and therefore he’s obviously right.

  (Walking out of the theater I told my wife that Ruffalo’s Hulk was note-perfect as far as I was concerned.  His performance was easily in the top 5 things I enjoyed about the movie – he was just that much fun to watch.)

  • [Tynam]

     Yes.  I really liked Norton’s Banner, but Ruffalo’s had me sold pretty quickly.  A good blend of calm humour and carefully restrained neurosis.

• [spacemunky]

  It’s a bit frustrating. FilmCritHulk seems to have really amazing things to say about storytelling. I’ve glanced over a lot of his articles and was keenly interested in his insight…but I can’t get past that stupid gimmick. The all-caps/broken english format is literally headache inducing. And I don’t feel compelled to torture myself for the privilege of consuming his content.

  Yes, I know there are ways to translate his gibberish into readable text online. But just like with DRM, content creators shouldn’t make the audience they are courting jump through ridiculous hoops.

• [Bonobo]

  The biggest problem with most Hulk adaptations is the tendency to pit Hulk against another monster (Absorbing Man in 2003, Abomination in 2008). This is a basic misunderstanding of the interesting conflict in Hulk stories.
  The villain (as far as Banner is concerned) is The Hulk. He is in conflict with the uglier aspects of himself. He is constantly afraid that the monster will come out and kill or destroy everything and everyone that he loves.

  • [Tynam]

     In fairness, I thought Norton’s Banner captured this perfectly. The Abomination isn’t the villain because he wants to kill Hulk; that’s just an excuse for a big final showdown. Ross is the villain because he obsessively incites Banner, and that’s an existential threat to Bruce’s hard-won self-control.

    And the resolution of the movie includes Banner learning to accept, and even trust in, the worst parts of himself.

     (The script was heavily influenced by David’s excellent run on the comic, which played well with the same themes.)

• [Daemonworks]

  Grey hulk is annoyed that stupid hulk gets all the press.

• [Brainspore]

  Who’s that sad-sap sitting under the tree? The Incredible Sulk?

• [taj1f]

  Dammit. In order to enjoy this flick, I’ll finally have to get over that time Mark Ruffalo flirted with my wife. Ok, Mark. I forgive you. She’s an amazing woman. Also your “fracktivism” is much appreciated. Peace!

  • [Brainspore]

    You wouldn’t like him when he’s horny.

• [tristan eldritch]

  @FILMCRITHILK MAKE BASIC ERROR – THAT HULK HAS ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC THAT HAS TOO BE GOT “RIGHT” IN ORDER FOR HULK TO BE SUCCESSFUL – HULK OPEN TO VARIETY OF INTERPRETATIONS – ANG LEE’S HULK BALEFULLY UNDERRATED; ONLY SUPERHERO MOVIE WRITTEN AND MADE FOR GROWN-UPS – RUFFALO MAYBE BEST HULK ACTOR, BUT LEE’S HULK BEST FILM –

  HULK DASH!

  • [Brainspore]

    ANG LEE SMASH CONVENTIONAL STORYTELLING FORMAT WITH DISTRACTING COMIC-PANEL SPLIT SCREEN EFFECT THAT REVEALS IGNORANCE OF HOW COMICS LAYOUTS EVEN WORK!

    BETTER THAN PUNY AFFLECK DAREDEVIL THOUGH.

    • [tristan eldritch]

      BETTER THAN PUNY AFFLECK DAREDEVIL THOUGH.

      talk about smashing with faint praise.

      • [FILM CRIT HULK]

         HULK ACTUALLY LIKE THE ANG LEE MOVIE A GOOD DEAL, BUT HULK WAS JUST EXPLAINING WHY IT FAILED TO RESONATE WITH MOST!  HULK EXPLAINED A BIT OF IT BEFORE HERE! http://badassdigest.com/2011/12/25/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulks-xmas-present-hulk-vs-the-hulk-movies/

• [penguinchris]

  I never understood The Hulk. I don’t read superhero comics and I didn’t see the previous Hulk movies – I did see the other pre-Avengers movies though (actually I don’t think I saw Iron Man 2).

  So I wasn’t really sure what to expect in The Avengers. I loved the character when in non-hulk mode. I loved the interplay with Tony Stark in particular (John Hodgman reblogged this great essay on tumblr about their relationship in the film, worth reading if you’ve seen the film).

  I “get” what The Hulk is and what it represents, and I get the struggle of containing it – that’s the drama with the character. 

  I feel like that’s not why people like him though. They like him because he hulk smashes stuff and is a mindless brute. Am I wrong?

  (by the way that’s why it’s so great that he rescues Stark while in hulk mode, as described in the essay I linked to – mad props to Joss Whedon for treating this character so well, and with so much nuance, while still leaving room for multiple interpretations)

  • [Ryan_T_H]

    I think there is a dual appreciation at work.

    On one side you have Bruce Banner. When done well Banner is a likeable guy who you can genuinely root for. Classic tortured protagonist with the compelling hook that things could go horribly wrong at any point. He is both victim and the source of conflict all at once.

    And then when the Hulk finally emerges (and you know he always will) it is always the worst thing. But so much fun to watch! So you get a combination of high emotion from the metaphorical destruction of Banner and good old fashioned entertainging destruction of the scenery.

    • [Tynam]

       Yes.  The key to Hulk’s – as opposed to Banner’s – likeability is that Hulk is an innocent.  Sure, Hulk’s a dangerous crazed monster, but it’s an over-muscled child – dangerous because it can’t control its temper and doesn’t understand its power, but not malicious.  So you can flip between rooting for Banner fearing its release and rooting for the Hulk in a second.

      Watching Hulk tear up New York has the pleasant release of watching youtube video of someone else’s child’s tantrum burning out.  Cats are selfish and destructive too; we still put pictures of them all over our internet.

• [rklein001]

  The hulksad image should be credited to Chris Uminga
  http://uminga.deviantart.com/