Jelly-Town!
CAPRICIOUS COMMENTARIES, CAREFULLY COOKED-UP TO CONFUSE AND CONFOUND YOU!
What would you kill to make a heart stand still? 
4th-May-2008 04:55 pm
kirby, du, chucks, bloowah, tabu, steranko, mona, kiss, coffee, bamf, mats, hostess, hobbes, octagon, bongo, pepe, jack, hitchegg, piper, dd, gromit, monkey, batman, xemnu, snowman, hex, flat, trigger, mickey, sloth, cigarman, bootleg, panda, higsons, watchmen, blaster, clever, space, pb, calvin, monsters, otto, hitcheye, thor




This may seem a strange assertion to make about an acclaimed actor who's been actively working in the business and has a fully deserved Oscar nomination to his credit, but I'll put it out there anyway. Playing brilliant, wealthy industrialist Tony Stark, the man who dons the armor to become the title superhero of Iron Man, Robert Downey, Jr. gives one of the best, most smartly focused performances I've ever seen from him. Downey has usually been most successful onscreen when he's been shrewdly cast: as the egotistical, womanizing actor in Two Girls and a Guy or as the burnout reporter enamored with his own blooming fame in David Fincher's Zodiac. In roles like these, Downey's fussiness as an actor becomes an asset. He's incapable or unwilling to let a small scene remain small, filling his performances with tics and business and restless mannerisms. It's acting as full-on performance. When this brand of manic extroversion worked for the character, then Downey seemed well-placed. Otherwise, he's a distraction.

Certainly, there are aspects of that approach that are well-suited for Tony Stark, a comic book character that was inspired by the inexhaustible audaciousness of Howard Hughes. Even then, Downey's familiar tricks are tempered. My temptation is to say that he's more relaxed than usual, but his most trying performances exhibit a distance and even disregard for the material at hand so that theory isn't quite right. Instead, I think he's more focused and committed, playing with his familiar style in a way that doesn't sacrifice the integrity of the character and adds gravity when the confidence gives way to fear, uncertainty, guilt.

Downey's acting is the key component to Iron Man's relative success as a film. Director Jon Favreau also merits accolades. His third big-screen directorial effort, following the kid-skewing Elf and Zathura, is nicely deft visually. He handles the big action set pieces with smooth skill, integrates the multiple effects shots nicely and balances the storytelling. It's to his credit that the development of the Iron Man armor is more than prelude. In fact, it's the film most consistently compelling element. Stark works out the details of this unlikely technology in sequences of with and ingenuity. Favreau, along with the quartet of credited screenwriters, manages to make the origin story into something more than mere prelude to the action. It's a vital, engaging piece of the storytelling.

The script has other problems more typical of summer superhero fare. There are multiple plot holes side-by-side with plot points of grinding obviousness. Despite the richness of the main character, the supporting roles are hollow and cliched, a problem accentuated by the presence of highly talented actors in those roles. Jeff Bridges' brimming humanity, Terrence Howard's potent charisma and Gwyneth Paltrow's whiplash intelligence are bleached away by the rote mechanics of their roles. They're interchangeable parts. A construction that's otherwise as sound and thrilling as this should be able to do better. As one of those underdrawn characters says, "Next time, baby."

Comments 
5th-May-2008 12:10 am (UTC)
Understatement here, but I really like your writing style.
5th-May-2008 01:24 pm (UTC)
Thanks very much!
5th-May-2008 12:42 am (UTC)
I was thinking of writing a very similar post of the recent Hollywood blockbuster. I won't lie, I probably slept through almost half the movie out of boredom and the fact that it was a later showing. The basis of the plot follows the same formula for all superhero films lately and when I realized it, my head fell to Nathan's shoulder and didn't move until the very last press conference of the film. However, I was unexpectedly amazed by Robert Downey, Jr.'s performance. And though you're correct in saying Bridges' and Howard's roles could have been portrayed by anyone (I kept thinking Nick Nolte could have also done Bridges' role), I think that Paltrow's role was wisely casted, and only a few other actresses (Anne Hathaway, off the top of my head) could have done it...tastefully (that's not the word I want, but close). It's probably a personal preference, but I can't stand the sex-symbol actresses who fake sophistication in a superhero film, or the actress who looks bored in her attempts to be the intelligent damsel in destress (Katie Holmes in Batman Begins).

I must say I was most impressed with Jon Favreau's directing. I didn't realize it until the end credits, and thought it odd that he had a cameo. I new he was going the path of directing lately, and think he's come such a long way from Swingers and playing Monica's millionaire boyfriend on Friends! So in critiquing the direction of Iron Man (and the editing, which I thought was perfect), it was amazing!

Other superhero movies I saw previews to:
I can't believe they had to put stupid Edward Norton as The Hulk. I will not see that film, and I am not afraid to say I actually liked the first one (probably because Ang Lee directed it, and Jennifer Connely also starred in it).
Then there's the second Batman movie, which I will definitely see for many reasons. Christian Bale is a given. Katie Holmes isn't in it, and the plot of the first film wasn't as dry as it could have been. There's also the dark factor (because I'm a closet goth). And I'm sure you know the biggest reason - Heath Ledger's last performance. This was the first I saw of the trailer, therefore the first I saw of Ledger as the Joker, and I couldn't believe it was him! What I read about his death - accident or not - kind of shook me, mostly because I can relate to an extent what he was going through as an actor digging deeply into character development. It's scary to think how disrupted your emotions can become when you're committed to being such a complex character. And in my opinion, the best way to step into a role is to forget yourself and be the character - none of that method acting crap. And when that happens...you really can lose your grasp of things and your emotions become completely fucked.



5th-May-2008 01:15 am (UTC)
you'll get one last chance past batman to see ledger...the movie he was filming with terry gilliam when he died is being finished. being a fantasy, they were reportedly able to rewrite in a way in which it's completely plausible that sometimes he looks like heath ledger, and sometimes someone completely different. keep an eye out in '09 for the imaginarium of doctor parnassus!
5th-May-2008 01:18 pm (UTC)
I like the idea of casting Paltrow for this role. I just wish they'd given her more to do, fleshed out the character more. From some interviews and press, I think the filmmakers felt they were approaching some sort of classic screwball comedy banter between those two and they're miles away from that. If that's what they had actually come up with, then Paltrow could have been gold. He has a more interesting relationship with the robot arms in the lab.

I think you touch on something interesting here. While I found the scenes involving the construction of the armor to be the best in the film, that's something of a rarity. It's funny that these filmmakers think the best way to tell the story of these superheroes is by focusing on their origin stories, which I would say have typically been the weakest part of the characters' histories, full of implausibilities as writers strained to come up with a reason for the individual to have ludicrous powers and take to the streets to risk their lives. In the early comics, they often tried to relegate the origin to as few panels as possible, just getting the necessity out of the way and getting to the action. Movies seem to be taking the opposite approach, and it's often a mistake.

I've actually considered doing a "trailer check" after our last couple experiences. Naturally, we had all the same superhero features attached to Iron Man. All I'll say about Hulk is "Come back, Ang! All is forgiven!"
5th-May-2008 07:10 am (UTC)
(did you see fur?)

i have been a downey, jr fan forEVER. he has always been an actor i felt ranked with some of my favorites/greats--gary oldman, in particular, for breadth, depth, charm--but somehow (personal life/drama?) underappreciated. i wasn't thrilled to see him cast as a blockbuster action hero, but he navigated the waters very well. i was entertained, and while there are probably deeper reactions i could attempt to describe, the film's chief goal was accomplished, and with that i can call it a day.

THAT SAID, for paltrow, an actress rumored to be so "particular" when it comes to selecting roles (just recently saw the good night, and what i am about to say is also true of this film)...sure doesn't try very hard to actually act or even radiate ANYTHING, on screen. i have found her dull, dull, dull for years now; the writing of her character as "hollowed" and "cliche'd," in iron man is actually not problematic to me, b/c paltrow does hollow JUST FINE. but that's just my two cents :)
5th-May-2008 12:59 pm (UTC)
b/c paltrow does hollow JUST FINE

Hee hee.

Paltrow is interesting to me. Up to and including the role that won her the Oscar, I would have gladly testified that she was fantastic, subtly showing great range across well-chosen roles. Since the Oscar, it's largely been a different story. I think she's quite good in a few films (Sylvia, Proof, The Royal Tenenbaums) but even the good work seems more by-the-numbers to me. And there are many roles that she just drifts through. This is one. There's occasionally a little snap to her interplay with Downey, mostly in moments that seem very improvised (the "Operation" game exchange comes to mind), though the standard mode is just...well...standard.

I have so many issues with Downey, but it comes at least in part from the recognition that he can be very, very good and he's clearly a committed actor. I suspect he benefits from a director who wants to help shape his performance rather than one who's just amused by his digressive style. Invoking Downey with Oldman is telling and inspired. My mind is spinning with a compare/contrast between the two actors. And, of course, this summer, they're both trafficking in superhero films. Never thought I'd see the day...

I haven't seen Fur yet. That's one that's been bumped off of our DVR two different times now.

Edited at 2008-05-05 12:59 pm (UTC)
6th-May-2008 02:37 am (UTC)
tell me your issues with downey! lay it on, there's nothing you can say to offend me.
6th-May-2008 04:39 pm (UTC)
I find him overly hammy in too many performances. When it suits the character--the egotistical attention craving of his character in Zodiac or even the broad physical comedy in something silly like Heart and Souls--it's all right. More often, he's cast in roles where the overly broad takes are a distraction. For example, even though it's a smallish supporting role, he goes a long way towards damaging Wonder Boys for me, always playing his moments just a notch or two too large. Often it seems to me like he's bored with the material and he's noodling around with line readings, reaction shots, physical business, anything. It's almost like he's always signaling that he's just acting, it's just a performance--there's a reluctance to submerge himself in roles. To a degree, there's always a layer of Downey just clowning around and signaling the audience that he's a little above it all.

Off the top of my head, the only previous time I've seen Downey pull back enough to deeply become the role he's playing is in the title role in the otherwise tepid Chaplin. His role in Iron Man allows for Downey to utilize some of his familiar tricks when Stark is all bravado early on, but it fell away appropriately and effectively when he was laid low and realized the results his general indifference to introspection. Downey, by his own choice or Favreau's or both, reined in his tendencies for fluttery overacting and I greatly enjjoyed the results.

Counterarguments welcome.
6th-May-2008 05:09 pm (UTC)
i don't even have a valid counter-argument, mostly b/c i see what you're saying, and the only difference is how i perceive these moments as part of his style/charm (thus, not exactly something i can fairy defend). and since it doesn't offend me, his above-it-all methodology, i tend to really enjoy it.

with this, you really should check out fur, because he's even less "him" and more subdued than in chaplin. (other movies, looking through his imdb, that stand out as mild are things like in dreams, only you, etc) but now that i'm looking at his bio, i can't help but suspect some of his roles (friends and lovers, wonder boys, kiss kiss bang bang) didn't pick him for exactly those reasons that put you off :)
6th-May-2008 05:11 pm (UTC)
um, fairly, not fairy.
6th-May-2008 05:25 pm (UTC)
pick him for exactly those reasons that put you off

Absolutely agreed on that point. In fact, I think many of Downey's most successful performances have been a result of shrewd casting as much as anything else.

I have a lot of problems with his work in Wonder Boys, though I'm prepared to concede that some of comes from feeling very close to the book. As far as I'm concerned, Downey was miscast from the beginning since I think the character works much better if he's a contemporary of our bedraggled lead. The dynamic is off with Downey so much younger than Michael Douglas. Katie Holmes is the other drastic miscasting blunder in the film that nearly derails the whole thing.
8th-May-2008 07:19 am (UTC) - thanks much
Lurker
nice work, guy
This page was loaded May 18th 2008, 6:23 am GMT.