So, the Punisher
Dec. 9th, 2008 01:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenI have rounded out my Punisher movie watching by having taken in Punisher: War Zone last night. Was it a bad movie? Oh, surely, though not egregiously so. Mostly, it was a movie that didn't know what it was saying or where it was going.
But it's the "what are you saying!?" part that got to me. I didn't get into it in my Tor.com post, but I have this sense, after reading some comics and seeing all three films, that you can't really make Frank Castle a hero. He's decidedly not, and no one is arguing that. But making a film where the central character is a villain is just a tough thing to do well, and it hasn't been done in any of the three attempts at making a Punisher movie. Either it's been reduced to camp (the Dolph!), the Punisher hasn't been dark enough (2004), or the Punisher is not seen as a bad guy. That's what's wrong with the latest version to my mind--too many people are on Frank Castle's side of things. The police, the FBI, people he rescues--I mean, you can be grateful that he's saving your life or whatever, but you have to still sort of disapprove of what he does.
It's the Dexter conundrum all over again, except Frank Castle is less cuddly than Dexter Morgan. Which is a bizarre thing to say, but is totally true. Dexter has human interactions to take some of the edge off his antisocial tendencies. They're forced and often faked, but they're there all the same. It humanizes him some without removing the fact that he's a killer with no sense of pity.
Dexter moreover, established the fact that regardless of who he killed, condoning Dexter's actions is just not morally acceptable. It is certainly tempting to fall prey to the excuses and frustrations, but you cannot say that what Dexter does is "right" or "good." It may do less harm than letting some of these people go free, but it isn't justice. You can't say anyone "deserves" to die with any certainty, especially not the way Dexter kills them.
So then you have Frank Castle. The fact that he's got a superhero name is so wrong. Dexter may have some people in his corner, but they still call him the "Bay Harbor Butcher." It's not a nice thing to kill people. And yet? It seems like everyone in the movie (and their mother, literally) approves of Frank Castle killing the shit out of everyone. For any reason, even for mugging.
Mugging.
The mugging incident happened at the end of the film, where one of the Punisher's contacts inside the police dude starts going on about how maybe Frank can reform and stop killing people. Frank disappears just as he starts winding down this speech with "I'm not a fan of the death penalty." (It's not clear whether he means he's not a fan of Frank killing people for minor offenses or the idea of Frank being given a lethal injection whenever he's eventually caught.) A second later, this informer turns around to look for the Punisher and runs into a mugger. He immediately changes his tune and starts whining for Frank to come save him. Which he does. By shooting the mugger in the head. The last line of the movie, over blackness, is the police detective whining about having brains all over him. No freak out that Frank shot an otherwise fairly harmless criminal? Why the shit didn't the guy just tell the mugger he was a cop? Did that man have to die?
Well, yes, he did if you're Frank Castle. That's why he can't be the good guy. That's why all three movies have made a point to spend half the time on the bad guys just to prove how bad they are. In the Dolph Lundgren version, the villainess is a Japanese Yakuza killer who slaughters the mob--if you're worse than the mob, you're baaaaaad. (She also threatens children! Who are innocent even though they're mobsters' kids!) In the 2004 version, the Punisher barely kills anyone except some anonymous goons. He lets the villain self destruct. It is karmic--the villain reaps what he sews. So the Punisher can be the good guy, in a sense, because he didn't mercilessly slaughter people who weren't trying to kill him. (Hell, some were trying to kill him and he still left it to the villain to dispatch them.) In that case, the Punisher in film is not like the one in comics. So he can be a regular revenge/justice-bent hero or he can a psycho who can't be the hero. Not both.
Punisher: War Zone tried to have it both ways, but you can still be chilled by how casually dismissive Frank is of anyone who he thinks is a criminal. He's mad that he kills one innocent guy and tries to make up for that, but he never hesitated with any single person he killed. Regret is strictly after-the-fact. And then you have the overkill on the God stuff (visiting a church to pray or something) and trying to keep the cops from becoming like him without really changing himself even though he doesn't want to be him any more. The bits of humanity that are there are just random. If there was a progression--more and more of humanity being stamped out of Frank as it went along, I'd understand. But no. He just has break throughs of humanity and then goes right back to killing, safe and comforted in the approval of all the people around him applauding him because he appeals to their lesser angels. (Again, back to Dexter: no one who is sane and good approves of what Dexter does--or would if they knew. Even people who have killed people, like Doakes, don't like what Dexter does.)
In other news: Ha! I'm reading my Newsweek and learning about how the former governor was sent to jail and was hoping for a pardon from Bush, and then I come across this. I just have to laugh. How hopelessly corrupting is that job? And how sad is it that he got busted trying to sell Obama's Senate seat?
Also: WOO HOO! SOMEBODY ELSE AGREES WITH ME!!!
But it's the "what are you saying!?" part that got to me. I didn't get into it in my Tor.com post, but I have this sense, after reading some comics and seeing all three films, that you can't really make Frank Castle a hero. He's decidedly not, and no one is arguing that. But making a film where the central character is a villain is just a tough thing to do well, and it hasn't been done in any of the three attempts at making a Punisher movie. Either it's been reduced to camp (the Dolph!), the Punisher hasn't been dark enough (2004), or the Punisher is not seen as a bad guy. That's what's wrong with the latest version to my mind--too many people are on Frank Castle's side of things. The police, the FBI, people he rescues--I mean, you can be grateful that he's saving your life or whatever, but you have to still sort of disapprove of what he does.
It's the Dexter conundrum all over again, except Frank Castle is less cuddly than Dexter Morgan. Which is a bizarre thing to say, but is totally true. Dexter has human interactions to take some of the edge off his antisocial tendencies. They're forced and often faked, but they're there all the same. It humanizes him some without removing the fact that he's a killer with no sense of pity.
Dexter moreover, established the fact that regardless of who he killed, condoning Dexter's actions is just not morally acceptable. It is certainly tempting to fall prey to the excuses and frustrations, but you cannot say that what Dexter does is "right" or "good." It may do less harm than letting some of these people go free, but it isn't justice. You can't say anyone "deserves" to die with any certainty, especially not the way Dexter kills them.
So then you have Frank Castle. The fact that he's got a superhero name is so wrong. Dexter may have some people in his corner, but they still call him the "Bay Harbor Butcher." It's not a nice thing to kill people. And yet? It seems like everyone in the movie (and their mother, literally) approves of Frank Castle killing the shit out of everyone. For any reason, even for mugging.
Mugging.
The mugging incident happened at the end of the film, where one of the Punisher's contacts inside the police dude starts going on about how maybe Frank can reform and stop killing people. Frank disappears just as he starts winding down this speech with "I'm not a fan of the death penalty." (It's not clear whether he means he's not a fan of Frank killing people for minor offenses or the idea of Frank being given a lethal injection whenever he's eventually caught.) A second later, this informer turns around to look for the Punisher and runs into a mugger. He immediately changes his tune and starts whining for Frank to come save him. Which he does. By shooting the mugger in the head. The last line of the movie, over blackness, is the police detective whining about having brains all over him. No freak out that Frank shot an otherwise fairly harmless criminal? Why the shit didn't the guy just tell the mugger he was a cop? Did that man have to die?
Well, yes, he did if you're Frank Castle. That's why he can't be the good guy. That's why all three movies have made a point to spend half the time on the bad guys just to prove how bad they are. In the Dolph Lundgren version, the villainess is a Japanese Yakuza killer who slaughters the mob--if you're worse than the mob, you're baaaaaad. (She also threatens children! Who are innocent even though they're mobsters' kids!) In the 2004 version, the Punisher barely kills anyone except some anonymous goons. He lets the villain self destruct. It is karmic--the villain reaps what he sews. So the Punisher can be the good guy, in a sense, because he didn't mercilessly slaughter people who weren't trying to kill him. (Hell, some were trying to kill him and he still left it to the villain to dispatch them.) In that case, the Punisher in film is not like the one in comics. So he can be a regular revenge/justice-bent hero or he can a psycho who can't be the hero. Not both.
Punisher: War Zone tried to have it both ways, but you can still be chilled by how casually dismissive Frank is of anyone who he thinks is a criminal. He's mad that he kills one innocent guy and tries to make up for that, but he never hesitated with any single person he killed. Regret is strictly after-the-fact. And then you have the overkill on the God stuff (visiting a church to pray or something) and trying to keep the cops from becoming like him without really changing himself even though he doesn't want to be him any more. The bits of humanity that are there are just random. If there was a progression--more and more of humanity being stamped out of Frank as it went along, I'd understand. But no. He just has break throughs of humanity and then goes right back to killing, safe and comforted in the approval of all the people around him applauding him because he appeals to their lesser angels. (Again, back to Dexter: no one who is sane and good approves of what Dexter does--or would if they knew. Even people who have killed people, like Doakes, don't like what Dexter does.)
In other news: Ha! I'm reading my Newsweek and learning about how the former governor was sent to jail and was hoping for a pardon from Bush, and then I come across this. I just have to laugh. How hopelessly corrupting is that job? And how sad is it that he got busted trying to sell Obama's Senate seat?
Also: WOO HOO! SOMEBODY ELSE AGREES WITH ME!!!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-12-09 07:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-09 09:12 pm (UTC)I actually started to read some comics recently to be better versed in the world, especially the Marvel Knights stuff, Ennis and Dillon in particular. I don't think you can capture that sort of thing onscreen. You'd have to do voice-over for the thought bubbles and that may come out okay in writing but it always comes out so melodramatic when done through speech.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-10 02:14 pm (UTC)And the Punisher, at his best, does have a rigid moral code. He'll bend over backwards to help someone in trouble, but if you're a criminal he'll kill you or just maim you without a second thought. Completely inflexible. One of the great things about the comic was his relationship with his neighbors, which shows his awkwardness with regular people but also that he can mean well toward those he doesn't consider wretched scum.
Now I want to go back and reread those. Esp. the issue about the giant squid.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-10 03:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-10 03:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-09 07:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-09 07:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-09 09:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-09 08:36 pm (UTC)I do like the description of Ledger's Joker, which at least got #1 male performance:
"His ornate facial scars (possibly self-inflicted) suggest a traumatic past, but unlike Lecter the Joker has no backstory; he can't be read as the sum of what his parents, or a girl, or the Iraq War, did to him. He comes out of nowhere, creates chaos, disappears."
That was exactly what I liked most about his character--that they made no attempt to pin-down or explain away his character. He's just evil.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-09 09:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-09 09:17 pm (UTC)