I'm Dreaming of a Green Hulk, Just like the One I Used to Know

In a recent review of "Iron Man" I detailed some of the elements I felt were necessary for a successful comic to film adaptation of Marvel characters. These included good casting, acknowledgement of the depth and inner conflict that characterized most of these classic characters and a recapturing of the adventurous spirit of the comic. While the 2003 Ang Lee "Hulk" did a fair job with number one, and a great job with number two, it really dropped the ball on Number Three. "Hulk" was an ambitious combination of metafiction, pop culture myth and psychological thesis, but ultimately it never delivered on the "fun" quotient of the Marvel success equation. The film centered so overwhelmingly on the Hulk's inner conflicts that it left almost no time for the type of iconic, fondly remembered all out action that helped to define the comic, particularly in the 60s and 70s.

I'm happy to report that "The Incredible Hulk" has learned the "Hulk"'s lessons, and while it doesn't skimp on the turmoil and angst of the protagonist, it wisely recalls and recaptures the television series' vicarious thrills and the comic's escapist fun.

"The Incredible Hulk" gives us a redux of the "Banner on the run" scenario of the 70's TV show, with Banner picking up odd jobs here and there while simultaneously searching for a cure to his affliction and trying to find ways to control it in the meantime. This Banner works in a Brazilian bottling factory as a laborer who helps out with maintenance on the side. During his off hours he practices meditation techniques to control his anger (and wears a pulse monitor to warn him of impending anger attacks), and communicates with a mysterious "Mr. Blue" who purports to be able to help cure him. He's tracked by General "Thunderbolt" Ross (William Hurt, who just keeps getting better with age), with whom Banner worked on government projects involving gamma radiation. But while Banner sought to help heal injuries, Ross wanted to use Banner's research to create super soldiers to greater assure America's military superiority. After experimenting on himself, Banner became inflicted with a condition that turned him into a raging green behemoth when he is angered or upset, and Ross blames him for the injury of his daughter (and Banner's co-worker/love interest), Betty Ross (Liv Tyler, whom I was a bit leery of but who plays Betty with a terrific mix of spunk, vulnerability and sexiness). As in the comic, Ross continues to pursue Banner to the ends of the earth, determined to control his "project" and protect his daughter from the danger that Banner represents. Banner seeks to keep the research data (and his own irradiated blood) out of Ross' hands and find a way to rid himself of his inner beast.

"The Incredible Hulk" succeeds on many levels, chief of which is its lack of pretension. While "Hulk" tried to delve into dark Freudian analysis, "The Incredible Hulk" is quite content with Lee's original "Jekyll/Hyde" template piggybacking onto a rousing good adventure and loving tribute to the television series. This is a "Hulk" that isn't afraid to include knowing references to the comic and TV show. Stars and characters of the old show are given a respectful tip of the hat; the late Bill Bixby is seen in a long old clip of "The Courtship of Eddie's Father", Ferrigno has a cameo as a pizza loving security guard, and there's even a "Jack McGee" character, this time a college kid who witnesses the Hulk's rampage. In fact the entire experiment that lead to the creation of the Hulk is a virtual mirror of the same scene in the TV show, old school tech and all. The beloved "walking away" music is heard briefly as well.

The film is also very willing to bit of comedy when appropriate; there are a couple of scenes that poke fun at the Hulk's wardrobe and his day to day struggle with anger. And unlike "Hulk" this film doesn't shy away from long protracted fight scenes, particularly a very pleasing (but admittedly brutal) climactic brawl between Hulk and "the Abomination", a rogue operative of Ross's who overdoes on Hulk blood and becomes something even more monstrous than the Hulk.

The movie mirrors the TV show in another, more crucial way. Just as Bixby's measured, believable performance grounded the series' otherwise outlandish premise and action scenes, so too does Ed Norton's portrayal of Bruce Banner keep the viewer centered on the human element at the heart of all this fantasy, that of a decent man trying simultaneously to control a dangerous element of his own personality and do the right thing by his fellow man while avoiding the clutches of an old enemy. Like Bixby's Banner, Norton's is intelligent, driven, noble and tragic. He's handsome enough to be a leading man, but not so "hunkish" (a la Eric Bana) that he dilutes the contrast between brain and brawn that's so crucial to this story. He's believable in the comic and romantic scenes, and his earnestness in the role lends him an authenticity that keeps the viewer focused on character even in the midst of wild action. It's an admirable stance, that of an established, renowned actor willing to take on a role that I'm sure many would have scoffed at, whether because of affection for the character or just out of an intuition of the potential of the story.

I saw "The Incredible Hulk" shortly after having a surgical/testing procedure that I was nervous about, but which turned out quite well. I was in the perfect mood for a film like this, one that hearkened back to a fondly remembered TV show from my youth, contained some excellent action and honestly funny comedic scenes, boasted strong acting and didn't take itself too seriously. It was a rare convergence of "what I needed" with "what I got". I think it was fitting that even the popcorn tasted particularly good

Flame On!

When I was a teenager I read a novel by James Herbert that had a character in it who commented that he had expected his college experience to be much different from his high school one. He talked about how he had been picked on a lot in high school for being different, and looked forward to going to college where he assumed the peer group would be much more mature and accepting. The character then went on to express his disappointment that college turned out to be pretty much high school with older people, that the dynamics of the situations were almost identical and that he was no more accepted in college than he had been in high school.

I've had a similar reaction to the experience of participating in Internet message boards and forums. The promise of the net community has been that here, at last, we can all "be ourselves" and seek out and find other individuals who share our interests and accept us for what we truly are, divorced from things like appearance, economic or educational standing, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The net was to become the "great equalizer", emphasizing our thoughts and words over all these shallower concerns. We could exchange ideas and meet like minded people and generally escape all the cliqueishness of high school (and the post high school world).

After a few years of participating in quite a few different internet forums, I've found out that it isn't quite working out that way.

It's always dangerous to generalize, of course, but I've found that often the interchange on the internet is rife with the same type of rudeness, stereotyping and immaturity that characterized all we hated about similar interchanges in the "real world". Small disagreements can snowball into really nasty flame wars, people's comments are taken wildly out of context, posters get pidgeonholed and then find it hard to escape that unfair labelling...(all together now)...JUST LIKE REAL LIFE.

What went wrong? Why did the net end up being no different a community than the more general one? It's probably down to the fact that ultimately, the net is people. It's a different format for exchange, certainly. You don't have to worry about what you look like or who you are related to or what your job is, but after you have been on a forum for a while, you do develop an identity and are then evaluated and interacted with on that basis. The very positive thing about the net is that at least here you are evaluated on your words alone. The negative thing is that the anonymous nature of posting often emboldens people who would never be so courageous in real life to be much more aggressive and insensitive than they would be if they had to make such comments in person.

Another troublesome aspect of the net forums is the factor of, for lack of a better term, "topic insularity". That is, most forums deal with fairly specific issues, i.e. politics, sports, popular culture, health, etc. In fact, most are really even more specific than that. There are entire forums devoted to "The Andy Griffith Show" or windsurfing, or specific political proposals. You'd think that given such specificity, the people involved in such a forum would naturally bond together since there wouldn't be nearly as much room for debate. Guess again. What tends to happen is that people get terribly possessive of these increasingly specific interests and brook little or no disagreement upon their cherished, entrenched positions. There's nothing wrong with being so specific, of course, but when you are debating something very narrow it's easy to forget that there's a living, breathing person on the other end of your comments. I've seen people get inordinately riled up over what turns out to be a very miniscule issue, and I can't help but wonder if it's truly worth the energy expended. It's hard to imagine that if the two people debating were facing off in a bar or a living room, they'd feel quite so comfortable getting as shrill and personal as they do. It's bad enough to get red faced and short of breath over issues like abortion but when you're slandering someone's mother over when "Lost" jumped the shark, it seems like you've got a bit too much time on your hands.

Of course you can't blame the forums for what people do with them, but it just occurs to me that sometimes they fill a vaccuum in people's lives that might easily be put to more constructive use. And it seems as if the more specific you become in your argument topic, the more you hone in on some tiny bit of arcane interest or knowledge, the less you are able to see the broader person AS a person not just as a target. If you are arguing politics or ethics, at least, sometimes a personal tale will creep into the discussion threads that humanizes you and/or your opponent is forced (or compelled) to have a bit more sympathy than if you're just plain old "Tw1light R0cks88" or something.

I guess there's no medium or social format that ensures a sense of belonging or fellowship. People will find a way to dehumanize and polarize each other, no matter how specific the interest, no matter how targeted the format. It's a revelation that's simultaenously depressing and empowering. On one hand, it's sad to think that we always are able to so quickly revert our bickering and pettiness. But on the other, it's kind of nice to know that no technology can ever really defeat our essential 'humanness'; if the pettiness remains, so must the nobility.

Personally, I think the corner cafe is cheaper and less exhausting. Plus the pie is MUCH better.