Venom - Superhero Movies: Characters & Melodrama
Thoughts On: Venom (2018)
A malevolent alien substance attaches itself to a down-in-the-dumps investigative journalist.
Venom has just been released. It's not getting very good reviews. This makes sense. Objectively, this is a very bad movie simply for the fact that it is, formally, a giant mess. According to IGN, Tom Hardy has said that at least 30 or 40 minutes have been axed from the original run time. I was surprised by this as I went in thinking that Venom would be around 2 hours and a half (this is what Google tells you). As the credits ran I was sure that I either just sat in a theatre for the fastest 2 hours and a half of my life or that Venom was closer to 90 minutes long. And, indeed, it turns about that this was around 10 or 15 minutes shy of two hours. Hardy has said that some of his favourite scenes rest on the cutting floor. Riz Ahmed, however, suggests that all that was cut couldn't have been good. I'm torn as, judging from the quality of what I've seen, there is an awful lot of potential for a much deeper exploration of character and world that could have either manifested horribly or excellently on screen. This just leaves me rather fascinated in seeing the extended edition of the film if and when it is released.
Until then, all we have is the theatrical release of Venom, and so what we can do today is talk a little bit about the specifics of the movie and go into the lost potential of the film and maybe some counter-intuitive solutions to the problems in the film.
Venom's first act sets up a pretty perfect world around, and a bold character in, Eddie Brock (terrible name). Brock is an independent investigative journalist who rides around on a black motorbike in search of the truth on the streets. Scenes depicting this are rather laughable. He also has a girlfriend played by Michelle Williams. Williams, quite like Hardy, seems to move between lower-budget/art-house/independent films (Manchester By The Sea, Blue Valentine, Shutter Island) and bigger blockbusters (The Greatest Showman, Oz The Great and Powerful). In my opinion, both actors have pretty pretty good filmographies (The Greatest Showman is a big black mark on Williams'), but can't be relied on to carry a blockbuster - neither seems to be a Tom Cruise or a Leonardo DiCaprio. Neither does much to carry Venom. Hardy's central performance feels to be at the whim of the script, the film unable to be lifted too far off the page by the direction or the performances. This limitation may be a product of the editing and I have not read the script, so, we can only make assumptions here. It remains true, however, that the guiding force of Venom seems to be structure and tone. Hardy does not lead the film like Pratt, Hemsworth or Downey Jr do their separate quests in the MCU (Venom's place in the wider MCU is quite ambiguous at this point, but there are implications that this is to integrate into it). Leading actors seem to be one of the most important elements and reasons for success in the Marvel Universe.
In my opinion, you can't rely on a director in an MCU film. I have only felt as though Taika Waititi has managed to make a significant directorial statement. Other big MCU director names, such as Joss Whedon and the Russo brothers, seem to bring a certain air to their films, but nothing approximating a stamp - in my opinion, these are not distinguished, artistically accomplished directors--not in the slightest. Marvel have, it seems, cultivated around themselves a definite and dominant aesthetic and industrial sensibility. Their uncanny success alludes to the days of the studio system where it was the producers of films who were, behind the scenes, essentially considered--and acted as--the auteurs. It was not the director who controlled a film in, say, the 30s, 40s or 50s - unless your name was Orson Welles or Alfred Hitchcock. Producers, whose names do not necessarily ring through history (David O'Selznick and Walt Disney may be the only real exceptions here), stood behind the big studio logos--RKO, Paramount, MGM, etc--yet controlled production through a precise management of teams within the studio. Alas, whilst we do not think of a Paramount or Fox aesthetic or a film as a Warner Bros or Sony (Columbia) picture nowadays, most are more than familiar with the idea of a Marvel film - just as much as they are with a Pixar or Disney film - which is one of the most unique things about this moment in film history. That said, despite the aesthetic control exhibited by Marvel, they have cultivated, in tandem with a quasi-studio era dominance, a quasi-studio era star system. This seems to be exactly why actors such as Hemsworth, Downey Jr and Pratt lead their films - and it is one of the smartest things those at Marvel has allowed. These actors are under contract - who knows what the stipulations are. Actors, because they are a film's literal interface with an audience and because they are under contracts, are easily made to conform to expectation and type. It seems that, in a series like the MCU, actors have a very brief moment in time to establish a direction a character is to go. Very quickly, however, they become an archetype and so fall subservient to a roll. This is good news for, if anyone, a studio.
Where Marvel have struck gold so many times over with their casting, Sony/Columbia has struggled. Guardians of the Galaxy has been most impressively cast with each of the 5 main characters executed perfectly, but Hemsworth, Downey Jr, Ruffalo and Reynolds couldn't have been cast better whilst Tom Holland is emerging as quite good - if we can include Jackman as the Wolverine, we have the first and best casting choice made by Marvel. Sony made two great Spiderman films with Tobey Maguire, but notoriously fluffed up with the third and then continued to mess around for two pretty bad movies. What they have failed to do, and they've not rectified anything in Venom, is build a star who can lead a movie, who can take a character and instantaneously give them a new face that sticks. This seems to be so important in the world of the superhero film - one of the most important things, in fact. Marvel's greatest successes lie in their casting choices and its impact on characterisation--the stories aren't often great, the scripts are often shallow and the direction is rarely more than satisfactory (I wouldn't even put too much emphasis on the value of spectacle and CGI; it's often good, but I have only really ever invested in Thor: Ragnarok's fight scenes). Marvel, as a studio and the conglomerate auteur of the MCU, do not impress me. However, what they are doing with their casting and control over aesthetic is undeniably effective. Sony are not a good enough studio to compete in such a respect; this shows with their casting and use of actors/actresses in Venom.
We fell into a tangent. Let us come back to Venom's first act. In regards to character, let us just say that none are established very well. And as to be expected--I almost groan at having to type this--the villain, as played by Riz Ahmed, is weak. Carlton Drake (another bad name) is a basic amalgamation of the archetypal evil scientist, capitalist and military leader. There is a bottomless pool of these characters in cinema, but almost never do they make for compelling, affecting villains. Venom changes nothing. So, having established a set of empty characters and a grossly cliched romance, Venom works away at the plot whilst beginning to generate a subversive tone. The first act cultivates an uncanny tone through shifting directorial techniques and some subverting of some romantic tropes (the awkward date-night romp that had to be in almost every 2000s romance, that which demonstrates how much our characters apparently love each other and how intense their relationship is, thankfully, axed). From the outset, it is clear that this is not trying to be a Marvel or DC film, but, equally clear is the fact that this doesn't have much better to do than skate on the edges of the Marvel comedic sensibilities with touches of darkness. That said, tone is not developed much in the first act. Instead, we focus on plot. Drake's company find aliens on a comet; the spacecraft crashes on earth, one of the aliens gets loose, into people and makes its way to America. Brock loves his girlfriend, but he betrays her, stealing documents (she works for some important company) so he can find out some truth about experiments Drake is doing with the alien things (Venom and a few other symbiotes) from space. They break up because of the betrayal, but Brock, despite depression and his girlfriend moving on, pursues the Drake case when a scientist on the inside reaches out to him.
A few more details are in the first act, but, put simply, they do nothing but elongate time awkwardly as the first act is very shoddy. In short, there is no substantial theme established, no characters explored in depth and no good action scenes. What comes with the second act is the attachment of Venom to Brock and comedy; a tone is finally set. The dynamic between Brock and his 'parasite' is founded upon the idea that both are losers and they kind of need each other. The best thing about their bond is found in this; there is a perversely isolated Jekyll and Hyde dynamic that, whilst it is playfully nihilistic, has a base in genuity and something approximating tenderness. This is something that Deadpool consciously played with; within Deadpool is a surface of darkness that very easily gives way to tenderness; the monster is given heart through play of a particularly malevolent character. Alas, whilst Deadpool very clearly understands this comedic space that exudes from the loving monster, Venom does not - not at all.
Venom's narrative initially shuffles to make space for Brock and Venom's relationship, and then begins falling subservient to it, working in the background on a plot that is not very interesting at all; that, at its core, has no real meaning. The unexplored meaning of Venom is in the playful monster character, should have been found via Venom discovering how to play in the world of humans which would have shown a development of his regretful, never-to-be-acknowledged love for Brock and Earth. Marvel have cultivated just this in the Hulk, and so if one tracks his character arc between the first Avengers, where he pummels Thor for no reason, to Thor: Ragnarok, where the two work very closely together, they will find the monster in Bruce Banner becoming more playful, slowly and inadvertently revealing a love for the Avengers, Earth and even Thor. This gradual revelation of tenderness should have been the one and only focus in Venom. There are clearly gaps in the narrative where I believe this was attempted as there is one point at which Venom says the city he has found himself is actually rather beautiful - the next moment he is confessing his undying love for Brock; how we got there, we can't know. There must have been more that the two went through together. The fact that there is absolutely no development here is unforgivable.
Whilst there are major issues in regards to characterisation (both in the realm casting/performance and narrative) and tone, I believe the all-encompassing problem that all of these issues are symptomatic of concerns the dramatic approach to this story and character. For quite a very long time, the superhero film has not shown a satisfactory understanding of the concept of melodrama. Drama is one of the most fascinating subjects in cinema to me, and so I won't drown you in all I think about it. But, in essence, drama is not a genre of film and melodrama is not (should not be) a derogatory term.
Melodrama is a far reaching dramatic mode. It, in essence, deals with a composed, orchestrated vision of reality. This means that any film that has contrivance of some sort at its base is somewhat melodramatic; everything from Star Wars to Fast And Furious to Titanic is melodramatic. Superhero films are inherently melodramatic for that simple fact that superheroes do not exist. In the 80s and 90s when the Batman films were the only major comic book superhero films out there, the superhero film was typified by exuberant, almost kitschy and childish, melodrama. There came a change with X-Men, which added a layer of realism over the melodrama. Then the Batman films were re-invented by Nolan, practically without a melodramatic base. Just before this, Sam Raimi found the perfect melodramatic approach to the superhero film with Spiderman 1 and 2. Something was off about the Hulk films; they didn't map the layer of realism and darkness onto melodrama as well as the X-Men films were doing. Then came Iron Man, which replaced emotional, symbolic melodrama with comedy (which is dramaturgically melodramatic too). It was symbolic and emotional melodrama that the Hulk films flubbed and which the X-Men films didn't do too bad with. Whilst DC screwed around with their dark melodrama and depthless characters, Marvel developed their comedic melodrama in the likes of Thor and failed to do much with symbolic, emotional melodrama in Captain America. Comedic melodrama then became the standard for Marvel around this point as they moved through phase 2. It has remained this way with elements of realism and sentimentality (gritty, action, spy-genre stuff or quippy, self-reflexive nonsense) coming from their weaker/weakening characters--such as Captain America and Iron Man, but also a lot of the side-characters. DC in the meanwhile have been floundering, completely unable to develop comedic melodrama whilst making a joke out of their emotional/symbolic melodrama in all apart from Wonder Woman. This leaves us with a genre of film, the superhero movie, which has a strange relationship with its implicit dramatic functions.
What Black Panther began to do, and what Venom had such a perfect opportunity to try, was re-develop symbolic melodrama. I do not think that formal melodrama (bat-nips) or emotional melodrama (Martha!) needs much focus in superhero films. However, they intensely require images of meaning; of heroism, sacrifice and stoicism. The moments of heroism, of superheroism, in Marvel films are few and far between. When we receive them, they do not have the impact that they should - primarily because Marvel have no sophisticated sense of theme. Think, then, of Tony Stark almost dying in the end of the first Avengers; is this an iconic image of heroism, or do you struggle to bring this to mind? Black Panther (I would also argue Thor: Ragnarok) made attempts to change this with T'Challa's character arc having a strong relationship with the dream and archetypes (kings, ancestry, etc) - the symbolic. Whilst I don't think Black Panther cultivated much powerful symbolic imagery, there are powerful symbolic moments in the combat sequences and the reclamation of the throne. Beyond this, however, I have felt that superhero films have lacked a distinct oomph and have ignored the place of heroism primarily due to the fact that they are uncomfortable with melodrama as the only way in which heroism of their genre's kind can be accessed. Let us think for a moment about the Transformer series. This is drowning symbolic melodrama (kings, ancestors, warriors, the good, the bad, fair maidens, teams, leaders, robots, stars, sparks, cars, knights, soldiers, etc, etc, etc, all have a symbolic presence) and it is because of this that the films are so viscerally affecting when the action gets going. (It must be said that the thematic and characterlogical support of the symbolic melodrama is often questionable). Superhero films shy away from this. Venom makes a huge mistake in doing so.
As said, the heart of this film is found in the monster archetype. Symbolic melodrama naturally emerges from this premise. Venom is a potential symbol of a shadow, a character's dark side, their depression, their evil thoughts, their underlying torture. This narrative should have been about Brock confronting his shadow, seeing that he has constructed for himself a persona of a hero when, deep down, he is selfish and blindly egotistical. Venom should have been the entity that played with his egoism, that had him wallow in depression and anger, before finding subtle beauty in the the world. From this a deep relationship between Venom and Brock should have been developed - both of the two being losers at heart. The second Venom which emerges as the evil thing in Drake (this is a major plot point that abruptly takes us into the third act) should have represented a shadow without the tenderness that the Venom in Brock had. The struggling shadow should have fought the pure shadow, both being symbols of corruption in men who are apparently trying to do good in the world.
More details could be drawn out, but I am not fussed with mapping out a hypothetical narrative that should have naturally found its way to the screen through the hands of better filmmakers. To recap before coming to an end, in Venom, we see many issues that emerge from superhero films more generally. The key issue concerns character and drama: the superhero genre's inability to fully confront the different facets of drama inherent to the form. In total, this is a mess that needn't have been. With more focus on the script - and also a bit more of a budget (the CGI and fight scenes/action were a disappointment) - this could have very easily been much more. I turn to you now. Have you seen Venom yet? What are your thoughts?
Previous post:
The Coen Bros Hero Narrative Pt. III
Next post:
Beshkempir - Mud Fights & Honey
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
A malevolent alien substance attaches itself to a down-in-the-dumps investigative journalist.
**SOME LIGHT SPOILERS***
Venom has just been released. It's not getting very good reviews. This makes sense. Objectively, this is a very bad movie simply for the fact that it is, formally, a giant mess. According to IGN, Tom Hardy has said that at least 30 or 40 minutes have been axed from the original run time. I was surprised by this as I went in thinking that Venom would be around 2 hours and a half (this is what Google tells you). As the credits ran I was sure that I either just sat in a theatre for the fastest 2 hours and a half of my life or that Venom was closer to 90 minutes long. And, indeed, it turns about that this was around 10 or 15 minutes shy of two hours. Hardy has said that some of his favourite scenes rest on the cutting floor. Riz Ahmed, however, suggests that all that was cut couldn't have been good. I'm torn as, judging from the quality of what I've seen, there is an awful lot of potential for a much deeper exploration of character and world that could have either manifested horribly or excellently on screen. This just leaves me rather fascinated in seeing the extended edition of the film if and when it is released.
Until then, all we have is the theatrical release of Venom, and so what we can do today is talk a little bit about the specifics of the movie and go into the lost potential of the film and maybe some counter-intuitive solutions to the problems in the film.
Venom's first act sets up a pretty perfect world around, and a bold character in, Eddie Brock (terrible name). Brock is an independent investigative journalist who rides around on a black motorbike in search of the truth on the streets. Scenes depicting this are rather laughable. He also has a girlfriend played by Michelle Williams. Williams, quite like Hardy, seems to move between lower-budget/art-house/independent films (Manchester By The Sea, Blue Valentine, Shutter Island) and bigger blockbusters (The Greatest Showman, Oz The Great and Powerful). In my opinion, both actors have pretty pretty good filmographies (The Greatest Showman is a big black mark on Williams'), but can't be relied on to carry a blockbuster - neither seems to be a Tom Cruise or a Leonardo DiCaprio. Neither does much to carry Venom. Hardy's central performance feels to be at the whim of the script, the film unable to be lifted too far off the page by the direction or the performances. This limitation may be a product of the editing and I have not read the script, so, we can only make assumptions here. It remains true, however, that the guiding force of Venom seems to be structure and tone. Hardy does not lead the film like Pratt, Hemsworth or Downey Jr do their separate quests in the MCU (Venom's place in the wider MCU is quite ambiguous at this point, but there are implications that this is to integrate into it). Leading actors seem to be one of the most important elements and reasons for success in the Marvel Universe.
In my opinion, you can't rely on a director in an MCU film. I have only felt as though Taika Waititi has managed to make a significant directorial statement. Other big MCU director names, such as Joss Whedon and the Russo brothers, seem to bring a certain air to their films, but nothing approximating a stamp - in my opinion, these are not distinguished, artistically accomplished directors--not in the slightest. Marvel have, it seems, cultivated around themselves a definite and dominant aesthetic and industrial sensibility. Their uncanny success alludes to the days of the studio system where it was the producers of films who were, behind the scenes, essentially considered--and acted as--the auteurs. It was not the director who controlled a film in, say, the 30s, 40s or 50s - unless your name was Orson Welles or Alfred Hitchcock. Producers, whose names do not necessarily ring through history (David O'Selznick and Walt Disney may be the only real exceptions here), stood behind the big studio logos--RKO, Paramount, MGM, etc--yet controlled production through a precise management of teams within the studio. Alas, whilst we do not think of a Paramount or Fox aesthetic or a film as a Warner Bros or Sony (Columbia) picture nowadays, most are more than familiar with the idea of a Marvel film - just as much as they are with a Pixar or Disney film - which is one of the most unique things about this moment in film history. That said, despite the aesthetic control exhibited by Marvel, they have cultivated, in tandem with a quasi-studio era dominance, a quasi-studio era star system. This seems to be exactly why actors such as Hemsworth, Downey Jr and Pratt lead their films - and it is one of the smartest things those at Marvel has allowed. These actors are under contract - who knows what the stipulations are. Actors, because they are a film's literal interface with an audience and because they are under contracts, are easily made to conform to expectation and type. It seems that, in a series like the MCU, actors have a very brief moment in time to establish a direction a character is to go. Very quickly, however, they become an archetype and so fall subservient to a roll. This is good news for, if anyone, a studio.
Where Marvel have struck gold so many times over with their casting, Sony/Columbia has struggled. Guardians of the Galaxy has been most impressively cast with each of the 5 main characters executed perfectly, but Hemsworth, Downey Jr, Ruffalo and Reynolds couldn't have been cast better whilst Tom Holland is emerging as quite good - if we can include Jackman as the Wolverine, we have the first and best casting choice made by Marvel. Sony made two great Spiderman films with Tobey Maguire, but notoriously fluffed up with the third and then continued to mess around for two pretty bad movies. What they have failed to do, and they've not rectified anything in Venom, is build a star who can lead a movie, who can take a character and instantaneously give them a new face that sticks. This seems to be so important in the world of the superhero film - one of the most important things, in fact. Marvel's greatest successes lie in their casting choices and its impact on characterisation--the stories aren't often great, the scripts are often shallow and the direction is rarely more than satisfactory (I wouldn't even put too much emphasis on the value of spectacle and CGI; it's often good, but I have only really ever invested in Thor: Ragnarok's fight scenes). Marvel, as a studio and the conglomerate auteur of the MCU, do not impress me. However, what they are doing with their casting and control over aesthetic is undeniably effective. Sony are not a good enough studio to compete in such a respect; this shows with their casting and use of actors/actresses in Venom.
We fell into a tangent. Let us come back to Venom's first act. In regards to character, let us just say that none are established very well. And as to be expected--I almost groan at having to type this--the villain, as played by Riz Ahmed, is weak. Carlton Drake (another bad name) is a basic amalgamation of the archetypal evil scientist, capitalist and military leader. There is a bottomless pool of these characters in cinema, but almost never do they make for compelling, affecting villains. Venom changes nothing. So, having established a set of empty characters and a grossly cliched romance, Venom works away at the plot whilst beginning to generate a subversive tone. The first act cultivates an uncanny tone through shifting directorial techniques and some subverting of some romantic tropes (the awkward date-night romp that had to be in almost every 2000s romance, that which demonstrates how much our characters apparently love each other and how intense their relationship is, thankfully, axed). From the outset, it is clear that this is not trying to be a Marvel or DC film, but, equally clear is the fact that this doesn't have much better to do than skate on the edges of the Marvel comedic sensibilities with touches of darkness. That said, tone is not developed much in the first act. Instead, we focus on plot. Drake's company find aliens on a comet; the spacecraft crashes on earth, one of the aliens gets loose, into people and makes its way to America. Brock loves his girlfriend, but he betrays her, stealing documents (she works for some important company) so he can find out some truth about experiments Drake is doing with the alien things (Venom and a few other symbiotes) from space. They break up because of the betrayal, but Brock, despite depression and his girlfriend moving on, pursues the Drake case when a scientist on the inside reaches out to him.
A few more details are in the first act, but, put simply, they do nothing but elongate time awkwardly as the first act is very shoddy. In short, there is no substantial theme established, no characters explored in depth and no good action scenes. What comes with the second act is the attachment of Venom to Brock and comedy; a tone is finally set. The dynamic between Brock and his 'parasite' is founded upon the idea that both are losers and they kind of need each other. The best thing about their bond is found in this; there is a perversely isolated Jekyll and Hyde dynamic that, whilst it is playfully nihilistic, has a base in genuity and something approximating tenderness. This is something that Deadpool consciously played with; within Deadpool is a surface of darkness that very easily gives way to tenderness; the monster is given heart through play of a particularly malevolent character. Alas, whilst Deadpool very clearly understands this comedic space that exudes from the loving monster, Venom does not - not at all.
Venom's narrative initially shuffles to make space for Brock and Venom's relationship, and then begins falling subservient to it, working in the background on a plot that is not very interesting at all; that, at its core, has no real meaning. The unexplored meaning of Venom is in the playful monster character, should have been found via Venom discovering how to play in the world of humans which would have shown a development of his regretful, never-to-be-acknowledged love for Brock and Earth. Marvel have cultivated just this in the Hulk, and so if one tracks his character arc between the first Avengers, where he pummels Thor for no reason, to Thor: Ragnarok, where the two work very closely together, they will find the monster in Bruce Banner becoming more playful, slowly and inadvertently revealing a love for the Avengers, Earth and even Thor. This gradual revelation of tenderness should have been the one and only focus in Venom. There are clearly gaps in the narrative where I believe this was attempted as there is one point at which Venom says the city he has found himself is actually rather beautiful - the next moment he is confessing his undying love for Brock; how we got there, we can't know. There must have been more that the two went through together. The fact that there is absolutely no development here is unforgivable.
Whilst there are major issues in regards to characterisation (both in the realm casting/performance and narrative) and tone, I believe the all-encompassing problem that all of these issues are symptomatic of concerns the dramatic approach to this story and character. For quite a very long time, the superhero film has not shown a satisfactory understanding of the concept of melodrama. Drama is one of the most fascinating subjects in cinema to me, and so I won't drown you in all I think about it. But, in essence, drama is not a genre of film and melodrama is not (should not be) a derogatory term.
Melodrama is a far reaching dramatic mode. It, in essence, deals with a composed, orchestrated vision of reality. This means that any film that has contrivance of some sort at its base is somewhat melodramatic; everything from Star Wars to Fast And Furious to Titanic is melodramatic. Superhero films are inherently melodramatic for that simple fact that superheroes do not exist. In the 80s and 90s when the Batman films were the only major comic book superhero films out there, the superhero film was typified by exuberant, almost kitschy and childish, melodrama. There came a change with X-Men, which added a layer of realism over the melodrama. Then the Batman films were re-invented by Nolan, practically without a melodramatic base. Just before this, Sam Raimi found the perfect melodramatic approach to the superhero film with Spiderman 1 and 2. Something was off about the Hulk films; they didn't map the layer of realism and darkness onto melodrama as well as the X-Men films were doing. Then came Iron Man, which replaced emotional, symbolic melodrama with comedy (which is dramaturgically melodramatic too). It was symbolic and emotional melodrama that the Hulk films flubbed and which the X-Men films didn't do too bad with. Whilst DC screwed around with their dark melodrama and depthless characters, Marvel developed their comedic melodrama in the likes of Thor and failed to do much with symbolic, emotional melodrama in Captain America. Comedic melodrama then became the standard for Marvel around this point as they moved through phase 2. It has remained this way with elements of realism and sentimentality (gritty, action, spy-genre stuff or quippy, self-reflexive nonsense) coming from their weaker/weakening characters--such as Captain America and Iron Man, but also a lot of the side-characters. DC in the meanwhile have been floundering, completely unable to develop comedic melodrama whilst making a joke out of their emotional/symbolic melodrama in all apart from Wonder Woman. This leaves us with a genre of film, the superhero movie, which has a strange relationship with its implicit dramatic functions.
What Black Panther began to do, and what Venom had such a perfect opportunity to try, was re-develop symbolic melodrama. I do not think that formal melodrama (bat-nips) or emotional melodrama (Martha!) needs much focus in superhero films. However, they intensely require images of meaning; of heroism, sacrifice and stoicism. The moments of heroism, of superheroism, in Marvel films are few and far between. When we receive them, they do not have the impact that they should - primarily because Marvel have no sophisticated sense of theme. Think, then, of Tony Stark almost dying in the end of the first Avengers; is this an iconic image of heroism, or do you struggle to bring this to mind? Black Panther (I would also argue Thor: Ragnarok) made attempts to change this with T'Challa's character arc having a strong relationship with the dream and archetypes (kings, ancestry, etc) - the symbolic. Whilst I don't think Black Panther cultivated much powerful symbolic imagery, there are powerful symbolic moments in the combat sequences and the reclamation of the throne. Beyond this, however, I have felt that superhero films have lacked a distinct oomph and have ignored the place of heroism primarily due to the fact that they are uncomfortable with melodrama as the only way in which heroism of their genre's kind can be accessed. Let us think for a moment about the Transformer series. This is drowning symbolic melodrama (kings, ancestors, warriors, the good, the bad, fair maidens, teams, leaders, robots, stars, sparks, cars, knights, soldiers, etc, etc, etc, all have a symbolic presence) and it is because of this that the films are so viscerally affecting when the action gets going. (It must be said that the thematic and characterlogical support of the symbolic melodrama is often questionable). Superhero films shy away from this. Venom makes a huge mistake in doing so.
As said, the heart of this film is found in the monster archetype. Symbolic melodrama naturally emerges from this premise. Venom is a potential symbol of a shadow, a character's dark side, their depression, their evil thoughts, their underlying torture. This narrative should have been about Brock confronting his shadow, seeing that he has constructed for himself a persona of a hero when, deep down, he is selfish and blindly egotistical. Venom should have been the entity that played with his egoism, that had him wallow in depression and anger, before finding subtle beauty in the the world. From this a deep relationship between Venom and Brock should have been developed - both of the two being losers at heart. The second Venom which emerges as the evil thing in Drake (this is a major plot point that abruptly takes us into the third act) should have represented a shadow without the tenderness that the Venom in Brock had. The struggling shadow should have fought the pure shadow, both being symbols of corruption in men who are apparently trying to do good in the world.
More details could be drawn out, but I am not fussed with mapping out a hypothetical narrative that should have naturally found its way to the screen through the hands of better filmmakers. To recap before coming to an end, in Venom, we see many issues that emerge from superhero films more generally. The key issue concerns character and drama: the superhero genre's inability to fully confront the different facets of drama inherent to the form. In total, this is a mess that needn't have been. With more focus on the script - and also a bit more of a budget (the CGI and fight scenes/action were a disappointment) - this could have very easily been much more. I turn to you now. Have you seen Venom yet? What are your thoughts?
Previous post:
The Coen Bros Hero Narrative Pt. III
Next post:
Beshkempir - Mud Fights & Honey
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
