A
friend and regular reader, Bruce, writes:
“What's your take on Ben Affleck as Batman? I
think he has come a long way as an actor/director but I think it's a very odd
choice and he does have the Daredevil baggage. “
Great
question, Bruce, and one that has certainly traveled from one end of the
Interwebs to the other.
Personally,
I don’t really get what all the uproar is about.
Although
I feel it is kind of insulting to declare that Batman isn’t King Lear (as Matt
Damon did recently) -- because in today’s culture, Batman is very much King Lear -- I nonetheless
feel that the casting of Ben Affleck is in line with the character, and the
character distinction that the film creators (Nolan and Snyder) are looking to
make vis-à-vis Cavill’s Superman.
Specifically,
Affleck is both older (meaning less-fresh-faced) and far more world-weary than
Cavill is, and should prove a good contrast.
My
take?
Anyone
who survived the Gigli-Bennifer press/public onslaught and yet somehow came back
to direct an Oscar-winning film like Argo just nine years later is
someone who is well-acquainted with life’s ups and downs, and a man who can
absolutely play Batman.
Affleck’s
got the experience in him, just from what we know of his public life. He took the public fall for the J.Lo
relationship in the press, and his career took a colossal hit, just as Batman
took a hit for Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight.
In
short, Affleck understands what it means to victimized by a fickle public, or
in this case, a mob.
In
fact, if I were coaching him (which I am most assuredly not…), I would instruct
Affleck to draw on that experience while playing the role; of a fickle public
demanding his head one minute, and then feting him the next.
Batman
is sometimes beloved and sometimes hated, and sometimes both in the same
day. Can you name one other contemporary
actor (except perhaps Kevin Costner…) who you can honestly say went through the
same thing so publicly?
For
those who argue that Affleck isn’t physically fit enough to play Batman, I merely
say: huh? I would argue that right now --
and without any further training -- Affleck is already more athletic and fit than either the
beloved Adam West or Michael Keaton were at the time they each donned the cowl.
As
for Affleck being a bad actor and not boasting the gravitas to play Batman, I
would suggest only that naysayers take look at him (literally) busting heads as
Loki, a vengeful renegade angel in Dogma (1999) and judge his capacity
for intensity. And that movie was a
comedy.
And
finally of all the actors with the “chops” or ‘gravitas” to play Batman,
wouldn’t you say that George Clooney topped that list?
And
if so, how did that work out?
I
didn’t think Daredevil was a very good film, but I don’t know if the blame lands
on Affleck. Do we blame Ryan Reynolds
for Green
Lantern’s failure? Eric Bana for Hulk’s? Halle Berry for Catwoman’s? I don’t know that starring in one bad
superhero film disqualifies a performer from being in another, better one.
In
short, Affleck as Batman doesn’t seem that much of a stretch to me as Batman,
and I think the whole kerfuffle is much ado about nothing. He’ll either rise to the occasion (which I
predict), or he won’t (and I’ll be shocked…), but the same fact would be true
of any actor cast in the role.
Ben
Affleck? He’ll be just fine as Batman, and we’ll
wonder what all the fuss was about once the movie is out.
John excellent answer to the Benman or Batfleck question. Dogma does show he can do it. When Mr. Mom(1983) Micheal Keaton was chosen there were negative comments that Keaton proved wrong. Affleck will be fine as Batman as long as the script for Man Of Steel 2:Batman vs. Superman is good..
ReplyDeleteSGB
I’m mostly indifferent to Ben Affleck. Always have been. One thing I’m tired of hearing about, which perplexed me from the get-go, has been this guy’s underdog, comeback narrative. Comeback from what, exactly? It’s a funny, western world we live in where an Oscar winning movie star with a movie star salary, handsome good looks and list of high-profile sexual conquests loses his 'Burt Reynolds' momentum (as all leading-man stars eventually do at one point or another) only to be showered with adoration some ten years later as if he’d survived heroin addiction, cancer or some Russian gulag. I’m sorry, am I supposed to give a standing slow clap to a dude for enduring the painful years in his life where he was paid single digit millions instead of double and got to bang Jennifer Lopez on a nightly basis?
ReplyDeleteYou know what I was doing back in 2003? Digging fuckin' ditches for minimum wage ...and NOT banging Jennifer Lopez on a nightly basis. Where’s my Aqua Man audition?
Okay, that was my rant. Moving on.
“Specifically, Affleck is both older (meaning less-fresh-faced) and far more world-weary than Cavill is, and should prove a good contrast.”
Except, Affleck is hardly the actor who springs to mind over such descripts as "world-weariness" and "weathered countenance". If anything, he still has that boyish, befuddled, 'my-puppy-just-died' persona that can, at most, shift into his alternate smolder à la 'Jenny From The Block' video. Josh Brolin was originally up for the part. Now there’s an actor who was never boyish even when he was a boy/Goonie; with a now aged, dogged face that can pull off a genuine Batman scowl. That being said, Affleck is not without promise. There are moments in Hollywoodland where his performance as the melancholy George Reeves almost sheds entirely his aforementioned characteristics. If he can go back to that place and work forward, a decent Bruce Wayne he could make. There is, of course, one minor problem: none of this matters. It’s irrelevant. A moot point.
Why? Because Snyder and Co. already painted themselves into a corner with the latest depiction of Superman. The logical, practical implication of teaming up Batman with Superman was always silly, yet nonetheless fascinating on a thematic level. The reason for which is simple dichotomy: dark versus light, human versus god, the symbolism of fear versus the symbolism of hope, the internal psyche versus the external myth, et cetera, et cetera. Perhaps more significant is the tonal contrast, as Superman beams bright and shining in the sun with a feel-good disposition, yearning to build a better future, while Batman lurks pensively in the shadows, forever haunted by a tragic past. The problem is that because Man of Steel is already so tonally lopsided in its joyless, colorless state of perpetual angst and gloom, there’s no arc. No transition. Going from a moody, navel gazing Superman to a sullen, older Batman? Woo, boy! That sounds fun ...a real day at the waterpark, let me tell ya.
I have no more interest in this sequel than I do with Disney/Abrams’ muzak-infected Episode VII. The only real gem catching my fancy for summer of 2015 is Jurassic World.
I tried replying to this last night and for some reason my post didn't take. But your points about the "tonally lopsided... joyless, colorless state of perpetual angst and gloom..." was exactly the point I was going to make about this whole venture. I'm more concerned about the films tone and atmosphere than I am about Affleck's ability.
DeleteHowever, I am interesting in seeing Abram's take on "Star Wars". We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. :)
Val Kilmer once played Batman. Yes....THAT Val Kilmer! I think it is okay for Ban Affleck to don the bat suit.
ReplyDelete