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