LOGAN and 'Transcending the Comic-Book Genre'

In the week running up to Logan’s release I was trawling around on twitter and came across a quote from a USA today review of Logan, which stated that the film manages to transcend the comic book genre. I’ve read more of the same review and it seems pretty clear that the reviewer means for this to be a positive thing, as though by avoiding being lumped into the category of the comic-book genre, Logan is somehow a better film for it.

This kind of pissed me off, if I’m being honest, because it seems indicative of an idea people have that for a film to give into a prescribed genre (particularly the comic-book genre, it seems) must mean that it is lesser than a film which manages to ‘escape’ that genre.

Now this piece is not intended as a personal judgement or attack on the USA Today reviewer, but rather a critique of the train of thought apparent in the review (I think we can cheerfully call this the ‘Inarritu mindset’, which I’ll delve into further on). After watching Logan, I feel the urge to break down why this mindset is complete bullshit, starting with:

Logan is a comic book film

Logan is a film in which Logan – a man who can grow adamantium claws and, to an extent, regenerate himself – must travel cross country with Charles Xavier – a man whose telepathic abilities suffering from a degenerative brain disease, whose mind the government has labeled as a ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’ – in order to take a girl called Laura – who also has adamantium claws – to a place called Eden where there are other children with mutant powers. It is based off a comic book story arc. It is a comic-book film. It is also a film about family, generations, minority persecution and not being what people make you. So it is in fact a comic-book/western/sci-fi/road trip hybrid and it owns each and every one of those elements.

See, when people talk about Logan as being ‘above’ other comic-book films. I get the feeling that what they’re really talking about is mostly textural. The film is definitely unshackled from the watery-piss aesthetics of a lot of Marvel movies (I like Marvel movies, but they could stand to look better) with its dust caked, Western-based aesthetic. Most notably the tone is incredibly heavy, with a great deal fewer quips and jokes than in Marvel films. The USA Today review even says “There's a distinct lack of tights and an abundance of emotional grit in the excellent adventure” before comparing it to The Dark Knight as though that immediately makes it better than other comic-book films. (It’s reading stuff like this that makes me realise how, for all of the impact that the Avengers had on the industry, The Dark Knight still represents the apex of the genre for a lot of critics and filmgoers.)

But, as I said, Logan owns each of its genre elements and so all of that Western genre fusing that’s going on doesn’t stop it from being a comic-book film. I guess it was just a bit different to what we’ve seen recently, so it must be better than a comic-book film, right?

The point is, despite comic book movies dominating the box office and pop culture conversation each year, there’s still seems to be this idea, or I suppose it’s more of a general feeling, that being a comic book film means you’ve got some extra hurdle to overcome in order to be good. On some level I sort of get the backlash. I can see that Marvel’s conveyor belt approach means most of their films share a general aesthetic and for all Marvel movies do right, it’s telling of their storytelling approach that even Civil War – which is billed as a big seismic shift in the overarching story – has less of an impact on the MCU than Empire Strikes Back did on Star Wars. But those Marvel movies, despite any feelings of apathy (or stronger feelings, perhaps) that you might feel towards them, are still good movies. Some of them are great and one of them even marked a pivotal change in my approach to film watching. Certainly, being a comic book movie does not make it more difficult for a film to be great, no more than Logan being grittier makes it easier for it to be great. You don’t get elevated above the pack because your film is really serious; you get elevated because your film is good. Likewise, Logan isn’t great because its main character is really fucking angry. It’s great simply because it’s a great film and its story is well told.

Genre is not an obstacle

So, on a broader level, the USA Today review has traces of a train of thought that I earlier called the ‘Inarritu mindset’. This refers to the director Alejandro G. Inarritu, who in an interview regarding The Revenant claimed that:

“...the problem with genres is that it comes from the word ‘generic’, and I feel that this film is very far from generic.”

Look, I’m not looking to launch into some sort of personal tirade against Inarritu – I’ve never met him, I can’t claim to know with any kind of authority what he as a person is like and it would be incredibly unhelpful to this discussion to get into that kind of conversation. Really, the issue is that I don’t have much patience for the filmic philosophy he appears to be espousing and that quote really sums up why. Ignoring the fact that ‘genre’ doesn’t come from the word ‘generic’, to claim that genre is so damaging to films seems to me to be weirdly contemptuous of the medium and it’s this kind of mindset that can be seen in the USA Today review.

And I just don’t get it.

Because, genre isn’t a cage your film is trapped in that you must escape from in order to be great – embracing genre is simply a way of embracing storytelling. If that sounds pretentious (I mean I don’t get how it can sound more pretentious than the mindset I’m attacking, but hey ho) then how about the fact that embracing genre often just makes your movie more entertaining and fun? I don’t know of anyone watching Indiana Jones and saying “You know what would have made that more enjoyable? If it was less pulpy and adventure-y.”

Not only this, but genre is pragmatic and malleable. There’s a reason not all dramas or sci-fi or fantasy films are the same: because the space and breadth in which to grapple with the elements, aesthetics etc. of that genre is enormous. That’s why Inception and Looper can both be lumped under sci-fi and yet still be completely and utterly distinct. Ultimately, masters of genre go on to make some of the greatest films of all time, whether its Tarantino’s treatment of the Western in Django Unchained or The Hateful Eight, or anything Edgar Wright has made (seriously, Edgar Wright’s understanding of genre and the way it reflects/interacts with character is fucking stratospheric).

Now I’m not saying your film absolutely needs to fit into a rigid genre or obey its rules. Film as a medium is fluid and genres are made to be messed and tinkered with as much as they are to be understood (though you’d need to understand genre in order to effectively mess with it). Still, it seems crazy for me for anyone to impose some sort of blanket attack on genre as a whole.

So, if we bring this back around to Logan where we started, we don’t find a film that manages to somehow transcend its own comic book origins, but one that understands them.

Love Logan for what it is, not in spite of what it is.

---

Inspiration for this article goes to Film Crit Hulk for the tweet linked in the opening as well as his phenomenal essay on Inarritu. I’ve linked both below:

https://twitter.com/FilmCritHULK/status/837534930095616000

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/05/12/the-revenant-mad-max-and-the-nexus-of-cinematic-language1

Also the link to the USA Today review:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/02/17/review-logan-wolverine-hugh-jackman-movie/97995042/

#Logan #Marvel