Historically-speaking,
the science fiction and fantasy cinema has battled high camp -- a form of art notable because of its
exaggerated or over-the-top attributes -- for over five
decades.
That
long battle is definitively lost in Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze
(1975), a tongue-in-cheek film adaptation of the pulp magazine hero (or
superhero) created by Henry W. Ralston and story editor John L. Nanovi (with
additional material from Lester Dent) in
the 1930s.
The
seventies movie from producer George Pal (1908 – 1980) and director Michael
Anderson brazenly makes a mockery of the titular hero’s world, his missions,
and even his patriotic belief system.
That the film is poorly paced, and looks more like a TV pilot rather
than a full-fledged motion picture only adds to a laundry list of problems.
First
some background on high camp: when camp is discussed as a mode of expression,
what is really being debated is a sense of authorial or creative distance. When a film is overtly campy, the author or
authors (since film is a collaborative art form…) have made the deliberate
decision to stand back and observe the property being adapted from a dramatic
and in fact, critical distance. They find the subject matter humorous, or
worthy of ribbing, and have adapted by that belief as a guiding principle.
Notably
not all creative “standing back” need result in a campy or tongue-in-cheek approach,
and instead can help a film function admirably as pastiche or homage. In movies like Star Wars (1977), Raiders
of the Lost Ark (1981) and even Scream (1996), there is a sense of
knowing humor at work, but a campy tone is not the result.
In
short, then, the camp approach represents sort of the furthest artistic distance a creator can imagine him or herself
from his or her material. Worse, that great
distance often seems to emerge from a place of genuine contempt; from a sense that the adapter is better than or superior
to the material being adapted…and thus boasts the right/responsibility to mock
said property.
Although
Dino De Laurentiis’s King Kong (1976) and Flash
Gordon (1980) are often offered up on a platter as Exhibits A and B for
“campy” style big-budget science fiction or fantasy films, those examples don’t
actually fit the bill very well.
Rather,
close viewing suggests that Kong and Flash boast
self-reflexive qualities and a sense of humor, but nonetheless boast a sense of
closeness to the material at hand. In
both films, in other words, the viewer gets close enough to feel invested in the characters and their
stories, despite the interjection of humor, self-reflexive commentary or rampant
post-modernism. When King Kong is gunned
down by helicopters…the audience mourns.
And when Flash’s theme song by Queen kicks in and he takes the fight to
Ming the Merciless, we feel roused to cheer at his victory. We may laugh at jokes in the films, but we
aren’t so far – distance-wise - that we can’t invest in the action
However,
a true “camp” film negates such sense of meaning or identification, and instead
portrays a world that is good only for a laugh, no matter the production
values, no matter the efforts of the actors, director, or other talents.
Doc
Savage: Man of Bronze
is such a campy film, one that, post-Watergate, adopts a contemptuous approach
to anyone in authority, and, in facts, makes heroism itself seem ridiculous and
unbelievable. There are ample reasons
for this approach, at this time in American history, but those reasons don’t
mean that the approach is right for the Doc Savage character. After all, who can honestly invest in a hero
who is so perfect, so square, so beautiful that the twinkle in his eye is
literal…added as a special effect?
Although
many critics also mistakenly term Superman: The Movie (1978) campy
that film revolutionized superhero filmmaking because it took the hero’s world,
his powers, and his relationships seriously.
Certainly, there was goofy humor in the last third of the film, but that
humor was never permitted to undercut the dignity of Superman, or minimize the
threats that he faced, or to mock his heroic journey.
Again,
Doc
Savage represents the precise opposite approach. The film plays exceedingly like a two-hour
put-down of superhero tropes and ideas, and wants its audience only to laugh at
a character that actually proved highly influential in the World War II Era. The result is a film that might well be
termed a disaster.
"Let us be considerate of our country, our fellow citizens and our associates in everything we say and do..."
International
hero Doc Savage (Ron Ely) and his team of The Fabulous Five return to New York
City only to face a deadly assassination attempt upon receiving the news of the
death of Savage’s father.
After
dispatching the assassin, Savage decides to fly to Hidalgo to investigate his
father’s death. He and his Fabulous Five
are soon involved in a race with the nefarious Captain Seas (Paul Wexler) to take
possession of a secret South American valley, one where gold literally
bubbles-up out of the ground…
"Have No Fear: Doc Savage is Here!"
With
a little knowledge of history, one can certainly understand why Doc
Savage: The Man of Bronze was created in full campy mode.
In 1975, the United States was reeling from
the Watergate Scandal, the resignation of President Nixon, the Energy Crisis,
and the ignominious end of American involvement in Vietnam. The Establishment had rather egregiously
failed the country, one might argue, and so superheroes – scions of authority, essentially – were not to be taken seriously. You can see this quality of culture play out
in the press’s treatment of President Gerald Ford. An accomplished athlete who carried his
University of Michigan football team to national titles in 1932 and 1933, Ford
was transformed, almost overnight, into a clumsy buffoon by the pop culture. It
was easier to parse Ford by his pratfalls than by his prowess.
High
camp had also begun to creep into the popular James Bond series as Roger Moore assumed
the 007 role from Sean Connery, in efforts like Live and Let Die (1972)
and The
Man with the Golden Gun (1974).
And on television, the most popular superhero program, TV’s Batman
(1966 - 1968) had also operated in a
campy mode
But,
what films like Doc Savage fail to do, rather egregiously, is take a beloved
character on his or her own terms,
and present his hero to an audience by those terms. Instead of taking the effort to showcase and
describe why Doc Savage’s world exists as it does in the pulps, the film wants
only to showcase a world that easily mocked.
The message that is transmitted, and which, generously, might be
interpreted as unintentional is simply: this
whole superhero world is silly, and if you like it, there’s something silly
about you too.
In
some sense, Doc Savage is a reminder of how good the British
Pellucidar/Caprona movies of Kevin Connor are.
Their special effects may be poor by today’s standard, but the movies
take themselves and their world seriously.
You can see that everyone involved is generally working to thrill the
audience, not to prove to the audience how silly the movie’s concepts are.
Alas,
camp worms its way into virtually every aspect of Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze. An early scene depicts Savage pulling an
assassin’s bullet out of a hole in his apartment wall, and knowing instantly
the caliber and the make of the weapon from which it was fired. In other words, he is so perfect (a scholar,
philosopher, inventor, and surgeon…) that his skill looks effortless…and therefore
funny.
Yet
the pulp origins of the character make plain the fact that Doc Savage achieved
his knowledge through hard work, and rigorous training. When you only see the end result in the movie,
his intelligence and know-how is mocked and made a punch-line. The movie-makers didn’t need to do it this
way. Savage could have undertaken an
investigation, but it’s funnier just to make him all-knowing, to exaggerate his
admirable qualities as a character.
Another
example of how camp undercuts and mocks the heroes of the film occurs later in
the action. Doc and his team of merry
men (The Fabulous Five) are invited aboard the antagonist’s yacht for a dinner
party. While
the bad guy, Captain Seas, and his henchmen drink alcohol, Savage and his men
drink only…milk. Again, this touch is so ludicrous when made
manifest on screen that it only succeeds in stating, again, the essential
“silliness” of the Doc Savage mythos.
Worse, Batman had done this joke, and better, in its 1966
premiere. So the milk joke isn’t even original.
Perhaps
the campies aspect of the film involves the atrocious soundtrack. The movie is scored to the work of John
Phillip Sousa (1854 – 1932), the “American March King.” Rightly or wrongly, Sousa’s marches have
become synonymous with Americana, Fourth of July parades and firework displays,
with the very archetype of patriotism itself. To score Savage’s silly
adventures to this kind of stereotypical “American” march is to say,
essentially, that one is mocking that value.
I
have nothing against mocking patriotism, if that’s your game. I can’t pass judgment on that or you. For me as a film critic, the question comes
back to, again, the sense of distance created by the adapters, and whether that
distance serves the interest of the
character being adapted. In the case
of Doc Savage, I would say that it
rather definitively does not serve the character. The choice of soundtrack music essentially
turns all action scenes -- no matter how brilliantly vetted in terms of stunts
and visuals -- into nothing more than grotesque, unfunny parody.
Why
do I feel that the character Savage is not well-served by this approach? Consider that all five of Savage’s “merry
men” are important, philosophically not in terms of raw strength or athleticism,
or even super powers.
Indeed,
one is a legal genius, one is a chemist, one is a globe-hopping engineer, one
is an archaeologist and one is an electrical wizard. Throw in Savage -- both a man of action and also a surgeon, for example – and consider
the group’s original context: post-World War I.
These
men survived the first technological war in human history, but a war – like all
war – spawned by irrationality and passion.
Their quality or importance as characters arises from the fact they are
a modern, rational group of adventures, dependent on science, the law,
medicine, and other intellectual ideas…not emotions or super abilities. In 1975, the world certainly could have used
such an example; the idea that being a superhero meant rationality and intelligence. But the movie completely fails to deliver on
the original meaning of the characters it depicts. Instead, Doc Savage makes a mockery of these
avatars of reason, and fails to note why, as a team, they represent something,
anything of importance.
Some
of the camp touches in Doc Savage are also downright
baffling, rather than funny. One villain sleeps in what appears to be a giant
cradle, and is rocked to sleep. The
movie never establishes a reason -- even
a camp one -- for this preference.
Although
it is great to see Pamela Hensley -- Buck Rogers’ Princess Ardala -- in
the film, I can think of almost no reason for anyone to re-visit Doc
Savage. Who, precisely is this
film made for? Fans of the pulps would
be horrified at the tone of the material, and those who didn’t know the
character before the film certainly would not come away from the film liking
him.
In
1984, The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai successfully captured what
was funny about characters like Doc, while at the same time functioning as an
earnest adventure. Indeed, though I
often complain about all the doom and gloom superhero movies of today, and what
a boring drag they are, they are, as I have often written, a valid response to
the era of Camp.
What
is needed for the genre now, I think, is some kind of judicious middle
ground. The humorless, joyless,
mechanical, special-effects laden superhero movies of today are a drag on the
soul (and the patience), and yet I am so
glad to be rid of the mocking humiliation of high camp.
At
either extreme -- camp or angst -- the superhero film formula proves almost immediately
tiring and unworkable, it often seems. A
clear exception is Chronicle, which is the most original, dynamic, high-flying
superhero-themed film we’ve had in years.
I agree completely with your assessment of this film as a failure. I probably have seen the whole thing, but only as a composite of efforts to watch through the years (it was shown quite a few times in the UK in the late seventies, often during holiday scheduling in childrens TV programming). Would you agree that a major difficulty is that the traits of the character are simply not that familiar to a mainstream audience? Batman could take a camp makeover because the source material was readily accessible, and engrained into the popular conciousness. Doc Savage, in a worldwide sense certainly, existed barely as a pulp memory, with no strong image to contrast with the camp. I think that is where the sense of meaness comes in, the mockery is not affectionate because neither film makers or audience have neither affection or distain for the subject matter, just puzzlement. See also: The Shadow, The Phantom et all.
ReplyDeleteHi James,
DeleteI agree with you that the character is not familiar to mainstream audiences today. I think he would have been more familiar to older audiences in 1975, but it's hard to say for certain.
I also agree with you that the sense of meanness and mockery comes through, and repels people who want to engage with the movie.
Although not great films, The Shadow and The Phantom are both better than this movie.
I understand why you could never get through Doc Savage in one sitting. It's nearly unwatchable.
Excellent comment!
John
I think you hit the nail on the head with this one and I agree with James Kerr. There was a cynicism about such films back then where a studio acquired a property, then handed it off to a production team that had no understanding of it. I can picture George Pal reading the first novel and saying, "This is like a superhero. Let's make the movie like Batman." Where Lucas and Spielberg were fans of cliffhangers and therefore made an affectionate tribute to the genre with Raiders of the Lost Ark, these people really had no idea what to do with Doc Savage.
ReplyDeleteAnd any artistic person must ask, "Who is my audience?" If they had given that question any thought at all, they would've realized that they were offending the fan base. Rather than try to figure out the target audience, they cynically defaulted to the notion, "Oh, the kids'll like anything with action and we'll throw in some clever inside jokes to keep the adults awake." That's a problem when people who aren't clever try to be clever.
You're right, Amicus should have made these films, not a doddering old fool like George Pal who arrogantly declared at the time that it was the studio who botched the marketing because "We made the film too good!" Gag.
Neal -- you say it so perfectly. How could the producer/writer/etc. not ask "who is my audience?" Or perhaps, how is the movie's intended audience going to feel about this approach? That seems so basic.
DeleteI never knew George Pal made that assertion, but that assertion is plainly nuts. Doc Savage is a horrible and insulting effort. Just the pits...
great comment!
John
Do I read your mind? I just finished saying something to this effect today.
ReplyDeleteToday's superhero movies are indeed a "drag on the soul". They just don't succeed on special effects and quite frankly they are getting tiresome.
I know I enjoyed Man of Steel more than you but I understand your problems with that film and I'm going to offer another barometer on films I cover.
Will I buy the Blu-Ray? Well, I haven't bought a superhero movie on Blu-Ray since the Batman films.
I won't buy Man Of Steel. It was entertaining and more so for me than The Avengers but I simply cannot stomach more of these films. My interest in them is very low at the moment. Maybe that will change but your second to last paragraph says it all for me.
Funny you and I should land on two sci-fi films on the same day with fairly negative reviews. That's not something we look for, but how else can you respond when a film is just campy or empty.
SFF:
DeleteYour excellent comment has prompted me to make a terrible confession. One that I have never made publicly.
I fell asleep in The Avengers when I watched it on DVD.
The next night, my wife and I tried to watch it a second time. We got about two hours through and it was so damned boring and lacking in any humanity or connection with humanity that we turned it off.
It was -- like Snow White and The Huntsman or The Wrath of Titans -- a big budget film with great special effects, a great cast, and absolutely zero in terms of anything I might find interesting as a thinking human being.
I took notes on all three films to review on the blog, and never reviewed any of them, because there was simply nothing of interest to report about them. They are expensive time-wasters and that's it. I could think of nothing pertinent to say about any of those films. Special effects...good. Ideas: none.
I know a lot of people love The Avengers and I am glad someone can find enjoyment from it or merit in it. I don't. I am a huge Joss Whedon fan and I find the film to be one of the most thoroughly uninteresting movies I've ever sat through, without a trace of his personality, individuality or humor.
I have rarely seen a film less interesting than The Avengers. But Man of Steel would certainly be close for me. :)
I think the superhero film needs to find a new groove that isn't a drag on the soul, and that doesn't preach to only the converted, who want to see what happens if Hulk meets Thor, or if Superman meets Batman. To me, Chronicle points the way. I think it is about ten million times better and more human than either Man of Steel or The Avengers.
Great comment!
Interesting. I didn't dislike THE AVENGERS, though it's not one of those movies I have much interest in ever seeing again. It was just... meh.
DeleteThe big problem, I think, is the whole concept. To paraphrase Roger Ebert: It's the Westminster Dog Show of superhero movies. The only point is to get a bunch of money-makers from other franchises together at the same time to beat the crap out of each other and some anonymous baddies and make even MORE money. Outside of that objective there doesn't seem to be much point to the exercise. It's all fan service and nothing but fan service all the time. Like eating a giant, greasy hamburger with a heaping, gooey hot-fudge sundae on top. I guess you can do it just to say you did it but what did you actually accomplish? Not much.
Count Zero.
DeleteI love what you wrote there:
"It's all fan service and nothing but fan service all the time."
That's the perfect description of The Avengers, and a reason why it just didn't resonate with me.
Although "Meh" may also be the perfect one word review of the film...
True count zero. Though I would take that sundae over the Avengers. You know, I have many avengers comics and People compared it to the comics. Well, I liked the comics alot better. Sff
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I concur. I've gotten into the Doc Savage stories in the last ten years through Nostalgia Ventures' ongoing facsimile reprint series (I'm too young to have caught the originals or the first reprints published through the 60s and 70s). I didn't see the movie until recently and, as you so correctly guessed, I was horrified. The worst part of it is that there is so much fantastic material that could make a really kick-ass movie (or series of movies) yet all they could come up with was mockery. And humor's not the problem. The original pulp stories are filled with fun and comedy but never at the expense of making the characters look like fools. Doc and his bunch have their foibles and they're all the more lovable and relatable for them. Why would anyone want to spend the time, money and energy to make a movie that holds its subject and audience in contempt? They could even have made it a no-holds-barred comedy and still respected the material. Look at AIRPLANE!, one of the most merciless spoofs ever made -- even it has a tangible affection and love for the cliches and tropes it's roasting.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're absolutely right about KING KONG and FLASH GORDON. Neither remotely qualifies as camp. Kitschy? Okay, I'll buy that (especially FLASH -- KONG maybe not so much), but at least there's a clear commitment to the material, a sense that the filmmakers aren't looking down their noses and sneering; what laughs there are are steadfastly WITH the movie not AT it.
Shane Black (director of IRON MAN 3) has been saying for years that he wants to do a DOC SAVAGE movie. It seems to be an on-again, off-again thing that's never gone anywhere but we can hope...
Count Zero:
DeleteI love your comment, and I feel you are absolutely right. This movie fails because the makers absolutely refuse to engage with the material on its own terms. There is humor aplenty in the Doc Savage stories, but also thrills, excitement and great ideas. Why choose such a nasty, mean-spirited approach when the material offers everything a movie audience could want in terms of entertainment?
It's just baffling to me that filmmakers would undertake an adaptation of this material without first understanding the material. If they stopped to examine the material, they would have fallen in love with it, and thus behaved more respectfully.
I would like to see a straight-up, faithful Doc Savage movie, but I fear that audiences will still stay away. I have a Rule: Period Superhero Films always fail at the box office, even if I love them. I apply this not just to The Shadow and The Phantom, but greats like The Rocketeer, or even John Carter. For some reason, we want our superheroes MODERN all the time.
best,
John
Yep -- same here. I love the whole Depression-era milieu, so I'm a sucker for anything taking place during that time. Give me a story where most of the men still wear Fedoras and the bad guys carry Tommy guns and I'm a happy camper. THE SHADOW, PHANTOM and ROCKETEER are all criminally underrated. Which is weird because people seem to love Indiana Jones. Is it just because he doesn't wear tights and a cape? I dunno...
DeleteAnother thought: Ron Ely really was perfect for the part. The filmmakers let him down as much as the audience.
DeleteI can't explain Indiana Jones, and why we accept him there, except for the fact that he is not parsed on-screen as a superhero, just as you indicate. Even though his feats sometimes seem super-human (like hanging onto a submerged Nazi u-boat at sea...), we don't see him as being of the super-heroic tradition.
DeleteYou know, I would really love a film festival of just period superhero flicks...that would be awesome. I'm with you on the tommy guns, the fedoras, and the 1930s architecture. I just don't see how it gets much better than that...
best,
John
Indiana Jones, as played by Harrison Ford, is really everyman with doubts and fears being revealed to the moviegoers. Basically, we can all relate to him because he is not overly confident and without emotions.
DeleteSGB
Not to mention films based on already established properties. Just funny.
ReplyDeleteAs proof of that, I recently purchased The Fountain and Never Let Me Go based on your readers polls. I am looking forward to seeing those films which will no doubt be more rewarding science fiction films.
Amen regarding The Avengers John. Bored me to tears. I am so happy I am not alone on that one. It was like the anti-Serenity, a film filled with character and humor and originality.
DeleteI was terribly disappointed, but it was flat out uninteresting cinema, which is why I yearn for something like The Fountain even if its slow.
Thanks for coming out of the wilderness on that one. It was truly dreadful and I've been up front on that feeling since seeing it.
SFF:
DeleteYou have been so courageous about your distaste for the film. I realized I had to join you, even if belatedly.
I appreciate you for saying what I felt, and doing so without any fear or back-up. You're awesome!
best,
John
John simply brilliant on the money review. I agree with all your thoughts on what could have been a good film. I did not know of the character, but I saw this film, as a boy in 1976, just because former Tarzan Ron Ely was Doc Savage and I felt disappointed.
ReplyDeleteSGB
Hi SGB:
DeleteGreat thoughts...
I should note too that I think Ron Ely could have done a fine job as Doc Savage in a movie that treated the character respectfully. The fault is not with Ely here, who I also like as Tarzan. The fault is with the approach to the material.
John