Comments on: David Cronenberg Clarifies Comments About ‘Dark Knight’ Series, Questions Comic Book Movies As Cinematic Art

By: CRO-MAGNON-BERG

CRO-MAGNON-BERG — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

What Cro don't know is … comics are no longer written just for adolescents. Many, yes, but many, no.

By: Christian

Christian — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

Nolan's films are artistically satisfying films beyond the sheer spectacle and scope. They evoke big emotions, big themes and big ideas. Like Sam Mendes pointed out Nolan has proved that you can make an art film disguised as a blockbuster. What can I say? The Avengers and Raimi's Spider-Man are cool flicks and highly entertaining for sure, but nothing too challenging and thought-provoking. But that's fine, there should be room for all kinds of films.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

Is anyone interested in making a (long) list of so-called "adolescent" films that have reached a greater level of "high cinematic art" than anything David Cronenberg has ever done, or should I go ahead and start the list myself?

By: Eneko Ruiz

Eneko Ruiz — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

By the way, I also consider 'A History of Violence' a comic-book movie. As a matter of facts, every movie based on a comic-book (graphic novel is one of the biggest euphemisms of our time) is a comic-book movie.

By: Helgi

Helgi — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

Cinematic art or any art has nothing to do with popularity, selling tons of tickets and such. The fact that a movie becomes (hugely) popular does not mean itÂ´s good. LetÂ´s keep that in mind.

By: tristan eldritch

tristan eldritch — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

Probably got a frantic call from his publicist after the first comment: "Dave, you don't know this guy's fans. Does the name Salman Rushdie mean anything to you?"

By: Rodie

Rodie — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

This is so silly. The term "comic book movie" is being misused in order to be dismissive. A comic book or graphic novel is just the source material / seed of an idea for a movie, just like any other source material is, it is not a movie GENRE. Do we call Memento a "short story movie," or No Country for Old Men a "novel" movie? No. Anyone who's seen both The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises knows that those movies are not the same genre, so "comic book movie" is misleading. The Avengers was an action-comedy. The main characters just happen to be superheroes. TDKR was more of an epic mystery/drama. The main character just happens to dress like a bat.

By: EVAN

EVAN — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

I can't get over the disconnect I felt when David Cronenberg used the word "dissing".

By: Oliver_C

Oliver_C — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

Cronenberg has nothing to apologise for.

Left unfettered, the superhero genre is going to drag American cinema down into the same ever-decreasing-spiral of reboots and retreads that has happened in American comicbooks.

By: CARY

CARY — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

I don't mind whatever Cronenberg said about comic book movies… just mildly offended by him calling the journalist as journalist "woman".

By: Jamie Helton

Jamie Helton — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

Did this article really use the word "interwebs" in a non-ironic way? Really? It makes me question the validity of anything reported here.

By: Tink

Tink — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

i get what he was saying this time and the last time. i love the Batman films and The Avengers but they are limited. they have to stay within a rating/character/action/etc construct. you can argue that they are a form of art but that's taking his intention apart completely and going another route with it. bottom line for me is while i love the "higher grade" superhero films of late, if someone asked me if i saw them as a genre of cinematic art, i'd say no. there are moments but not enough to come close to what the genre of cinematic art means to me.

By: Zatopek

Zatopek — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

What's more limiting to these blockbuster superhero movies is not necessarily that they're based on comic books, but that they're extremely expensive so they need to be crowdpleasing to get the money back.

By: H-Man

H-Man — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

Pfft…. I'd say The Dark Knight Rises is better than Cosmopolis. I'd say any of Nolan's films are better than Cosmopolis. Cosmopolis was a dull, pretentious pile of rubbish, and somehow managed to be way worse than Cronenberg's previous dud, A Dangerous Method.

By: Yod

Yod — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

Comic nerds are lame and should go away.

By: Alan

Alan — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

Is Cronenberg stupid or does he merely think other people are? All his points are easily refutable by someone doing the barest of rsearch. First thing, that pesky "journalist woman" is called Brooke Tarnoff, and she printed the interview, including her own questions (including the one that led to his Nolan-rant: "Some fairly formidable directors have branched out into superhero movies pretty beautifully âis that something you would consider doing?"). Hence, his suggestion that "they never quote themselves or the question that provoked the response" is a cheap lie, a pathetic attempt to blame the media for his own words. Secondly, he says that she said that Nolan elavated the superhero genre, whilst she didn't mention Nolan at all. She just said some "fairly formidable directors"and then he went on his rant. She didn't prod him to criticise Nolan, he was the first person to mention that director. Thirdly, the interview was published mid-August, so it could have been done anytime before then. I am not sure that it was or was not done before TDKR came out, but considering that he is lying about EVERYTHING I don't trust his assertion that only critics had seen the film at that time. When I first read about Cronenberg's rant, I assumed that he hadn't seen the film, which was pretty clear from his assertion that the film used 3D. If anyone has the right to be pissed, it isn't Nolan but Brooke Tarnoff (that pesky journalist woman), who published a perfectly responsible interview, and is now being blamed by Cronenberg for his own stupid, misinformed words. He comes across as angry and entitled, which – coupled with his own ignorance of the people he bitches about – doesn't make him seem too endearing or credible an interview subject. Pity the next journalist woman who gets blamed for his own stupidity.

By: CinemaPsycho

CinemaPsycho — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

Yes, A History of Violence is based on a comic book. But not a superhero comic book, which is what Cronenberg is specifically referring to.

Frankly, I think it was a stupid question in the first place, and so he gave a stupid answer. Does anyone actually think Cronenberg, based solely on his filmography, would EVER make a superhero film? Has he ever shown any interest in telling that kind of story? Would she ask that question to, say, Bernardo Bertolucci or Wim Wenders or Roman Polanski? Cronenberg is not of the comic book generation of filmmakers. He's an intellectual, literary kind of guy. Look at the films he has made and ask yourself if he would be the right guy to make Green Lantern 2. Or if he would even care to do so. He's not into comic books. It's NOT A BIG DEAL. Get over it.

By: morethanaluddite

morethanaluddite — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

I would go further and say that anything that doesn't specifically reject the technocratic mindset of the modern world cannot be high cinematic art. That effectively banishes all movies that uses heavily integrated CGI imagery.

By: cineman

cineman — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

Any genre can be raised to a high level of art, but most wallow a few miles below that in the gutter. Same goes for comic book adaptations, as westerns, as sf, as crime, as romance etc

By: PabloC

PabloC — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

Hey! Let's not forget that Cronenberg's A History of Violence WAS a comic book -by John Wagner and Vince Locke- prior to the film. A graphic novel, if hardcore semantics is your thing. I guess what's lacking clarification is if Cronenberg was talking solely of super-heroe comics. I guess there aren't any doubts about the quality of films like American Splendor, Persepolis, Old-Boy Ghost World, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, etc.
On the other hand, to me -yes, my opinion-, Memento is Nolan's best feature by far. And it looks it will stay that way…

By: dan

dan — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

So many whiny idiots here. Why is this a big deal? No one's saying you have to agree with Cronenberg.

By: Turtletub

Turtletub — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

No wonder Cronenberg is sucking lately… he's being wishy washy. We all know he was dissing Nolan. Why? 'Cuz he's right and Nolan sucks.

By: mpzz

mpzz — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

It depends on the book, doesn't it? No one is going to accuse a movie with people in it dressed like they are in the picture above of being high art. On the other hand, a realistic story, like A History of Violence, is not automatically demoted in its artistry simply by the fact that graphics were included with the written word.

By: Oliver Gogarty

Oliver Gogarty — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

They're not comic book movies. They're superhero movies. There are superhero movies not based on comic books, and there are comic book movies that have nothing to do with superheroes. Don't encourage people to confuse a genre with a medium. I'm disappointed Cronenberg didn't correct you, as he has made a comic book movie, called A History of Violence.

By: jaloysiusm

jaloysiusm — Sun, 22 May 2016 03:26:54 +0000

…and cue the fanboy defensiveness…now. These films are merely clever and well executed; Cronenberg likely made any factual mistakes he did because he quite frankly thinks of these films as interchangeable. He hasn't seen the new one, true, but he saw the previous, and I've yet to hear anyone, anywhere suggest the new one is better. He's seen what most superhero film fans would advance as the greatest product of the genre…and he's nonplussed. No one who's conversant with Bergman or Truffaut or Renoir or Hitchcock is going to be bowled over by what's essentially a well-made Bond film tarted up with a (muddled) political agenda…sorry!