Hello Fellow Lunchers!
Introducing -- A new Lunch Table exclusive!!
So we've decided to implement a new regular blogpost that'll be highlighted on a weekly basis. It's a new way for us to speak our minds outside of just movie reviews or random blurbs. So in essence, you all get to read about what goes on in the inner workings of our respective minds, whether you like it or not (Sorry). But don't be fooled... these new posts are more than just random rantings. Our goal is to provide thought-provoking editorials and commentaries about the film industry, cinema, or whatever else our collective hearts' desire. So make sure to check back in every Friday to get your weekends started off right. And now, without further adieu, we'd like to present Food 4 Thought Fridays.
- "The Lunch Table" team
"G.I. Joe" and Action-Adventure Heroes
Okay, that's a somewhat tough intro to follow. I think I'm capable of deep, throught-provoking ideas about cinema, but, if you guys will bear with me, my more "intelligent stuff" will come in the next round of this column. This is actually a fun idea that I've been thinking over for a while (blame years of action and adventure movies...and many months of making fun of Channing Tatum), so I figured I gotta get it out now...before it sneaks into one of my reviews, and makes it even more unbearably long. So, with that, let's ponder some "G.I. Joe" ridiculousness...
I’m going to guess a good chunk of you saw “G.I. Joe” last weekend. I'm with you completely-I couldn’t resist seeing Cobra rise either, particularly with the actually-pretty-cool work of Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Cobra Commander and all the nifty gadgets, fights, and world locations. If I was 10 years old, this would’ve been hands-down my favorite movie...probably ever! But that’s getting off track. If you haven’t, check out Ace’s solid review of the flick here—for the most part, I agree with him, but I was actually a bit more forgiving. And, if it’s any consolation, of the two movies this summer based on Hasbro toys, I thought “G.I. Joe” was the much more enjoyable and coherent one.
But I’m here with a bit of other food for thought. For those who saw it, remember that quick, minute-long cameo by Brendan Fraser as Unnamed G.I. Joe Trainer? I’m a big fan of Fraser in general (particularly his more serious work, like "Gods and Monsters"), and, likely as a favor for his “Mummy” director, Stephen Sommers, this was a cute, simple cameo—a kind of passing of the torch from one goofy franchise to another. But it also got me thinking. Fraser had a few lines at best, all capped off by the G.I. Joe-lore standard line of “Yo, Joe.” Yet he said it with that perfect tone—that mix between selling it honestly, but with a slight, amused detachment. Fraser’s a master of this—he’s believable in ridiculous situations, but, without really breaking character, manages to convey that he’s actually having fun with the role. Same with “The Mummy”. I might be in the minority on this, but I think a major reason why that movie works is due to Fraser. He understands that the material needs to be played not so much with a wink to the audience, but a sly understanding that this isn’t exactly high art. He lets the audience know that he’s in on the joke, essentially telling us it’s okay to have a little fun with the story.
And he’s not alone. Imagine “Star Wars” (ahem, as Han Solo himself put it in a tribute to George Lucas, “the earlier, funnier ones”) or “Indiana Jones” without Harrison Ford. Not too many actors could’ve traveled at hyper speed, worn that fedora, or bickered with Chewbacca and Sean Connery with half as much charisma. A lot of people railed against “Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull,” but I really enjoyed it. Sure, it wasn’t as good as my favorite of the trilogy, “Last Crusade,” but in watching it, I remembered why Harrison Ford is a star—because he engages with the material in a way lesser actors can’t. He gets the rhythms and humor of the character, the outlandish situations, the big, giddy fun of the action sequences, and sells it perfectly to the audience. He is Han Solo, that loveable space scoundrel, and Indiana Jones, the most ass-kicking archaeologist in history, but he never forgets that these characters can’t work if you take them too seriously.
The same could be said for Shia LaBoeuf in “Transformers,” Johnny Depp in “Pirates” (in all his chameleon-like genius), Robert Downey Jr. in “Iron Man” and many, many more of our favorite stars. That nimble approach to playing such larger-than-life characters is an interesting (and very necessary) skill, and it often distinguishes the smart actors from the far less experienced ones.
That’s not to say that this particular style will work for all films. Imagine Daniel Craig’s James Bond in a Sean Connery Bond film, say “Goldfinger”—ridiculous, right? You’d keep wondering why this bastard is so freaking serious and intense amidst all the fun villains and gadgets. Daniel Craig will probably kill someone before he’s forced to banter or make some sort of cheeky pun. And it works both ways: the loose and jokey James Bond of the past would be awful in the newer, more complicated films—tonally, it wouldn’t match at all. Each type of film really demands a certain style of acting, and fun, over-the-top action films are no exception.
Which brings me back to “G.I. Joe.” I give Channing Tatum, “G.I. Joe’s” leading man, a lot of crap, and maybe he doesn’t deserve it. I heard he was terrific opposite Shia LaBoeuf (Indiana Jones Jr. himself) in “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints,” and, who knows, maybe he has good work ahead of him. But, to me, he doesn’t seem to have much range yet, and, as I sort of expected, he just wasn’t that good in “G.I. Joe.” Unlike Fraser and Harrison Ford, Tatum just didn’t have a handle on the character—he wasn’t a strong enough lead for a movie that needed a solid center, especially one with a good sense of humor about himself. I get that Duke, the perfect military man, isn’t exactly the deepest character, but Tatum played him straight—honorable, strong, super-determined…and very, very boring—and I think that brought the movie down.
Fraser’s cameo in the movie made me think we needed someone like that in the lead. He might not exactly be right to play a hard-core military dude, but someone that talented would’ve done the movie a world of good. Someone who could be believable as a badass fighter, but still charming enough to guide us through the lunacy that is this entire movie. Someone who could have some fun with the material—who could look at all the accelerator suits and Celtic-language planes and underwater fortresses, and just crack a smile…or at least a very subtle one—G.I. Joe’s are soldiers—they shouldn’t be smiling too much anyway, right?
I read somewhere that Sam Worthington (the best part of “Terminator Salvation” and the star of James Cameron’s uber-epic this December, “Avatar”) was up for the part as well, but things didn’t fall through. That’s too bad—no offense to Tatum, but Worthington would’ve brought the movie (and the character) up another level. Judging by his work on “Terminator,” he would’ve nailed Duke’s action side during the big set pieces, while also sneaking in that necessary, sly bit of humor for the lighter moments in between (a vibe he gives off in all his interviews and his recent Comic-Con appearance).
I could be very wrong here, but this is my long train of thought from watching “G.I. Joe.” Shia LaBoeuf made “Transformers 2” better for me than it had a right to be, and that‘s just another indicator that actual talent is far more important than who looks right for the part. I would love for Channing Tatum to surprise me—to see him rise to the challenge, and lead the team in the inevitable sequel with a newfound gusto, instead of more bland machismo. By all means, I’d love to see him tackle some serious acting challenges as well—prove to us that he’s not a musclely, dancing once-trick pony; Ford, Fraser, Downey, Shia, Depp—all the actors I listed before proved that they have actual chops to back up their more popular roles. We’ll just have to see. The “G.I. Joe” series (as it most definitely will be soon) has definite potential, and could reach that level of just being an amusing, clever ride like the old Bond films or director Sommers’ own “The Mummy”…but it will need (besides a much better script) a leading man that clicks with its lively, somewhat-campy tone.
Either way, it got me thinking. Many people look down on respected actors for taking roles in giant blockbusters. But I like to believe that there’s that earnest 10-year-old in many of my favorite stars—at the end of the day, you know it’s pretty sweet to bring down the Cobra organization or defeat an evil, cursed Egyptian priest, or “choose wisely” and find the Holy Grail. It’s how you embrace it that’s the challenge. Fraser and Ford found that balance between giddy fun and commitment to character. Maybe someday Channing Tatum will too.
In the end, we could always use a great, charming, new adventure hero - after all, somebody has to eventually step in for Jack Sparrow, Indiana Jones, and Rick O'Connell when they retire their pirate hats and fedoras (not to mention compasses, whips, cutlasses, and dual hanguns). If you spent this whole post thinking: "Rusty, why the hell are you talking about "G.I. Joe"? Do you seriously have nothing better to think about?!" Very fair point. But, somewhat-crappy first movie aside, I honestly thought it had great potential. And while Duke might never be all that interesting, he could still, with a stronger script and performance, become a good long-term favorite for a whole new generation of 10-year-olds (and maybe the rest of us too).
Images courtesy of Universal Pictures, Paramount Pictures, and Hasbro.
No comments:
Post a Comment