“Wearing a costume was an
intense source of humiliation to me.” So
said Ben Affleck of his experience playing a comic book superhero in the
much-maligned Marvel film “Daredevil.”
Considering the definitiveness of such a statement, it seemed safe to
assume that Mr. Affleck would never return to the world of spandex-clad
vigilantes, especially after he reinvented himself as the Oscar-baiting
director of “Argo” and “The Town.” And
yet, return he will—it has been announced that the actor will play none other than
Batman.
On many levels, this news shouldn’t be surprising. Over the years, Mr. Affleck has developed a
strong relationship with Warner Brothers Pictures (which owns the film rights
to Batman)—the films he’s directed and starred in for the studio have resonated
with both mainstream audiences Academy voters.
It makes sense that they would choose an “in house favorite” to play
such a beloved character. And yet,
everyone seems enraged by the decision.
While Mr. Affleck’s reputation was salvaged long before he accepted a
best picture Oscar for “Argo,” the stigma of “Daredevil” lingers, so much so
that there’s been an almost-serious push from fans to get the White House to
bar Mr. Affleck from playing superheroes.
Some would say this is going too far. But superheroes are always a subject of
passionate discourse, discourse that I have always strived to encourage. Which is why I feel compelled to argue that
beneath all the rigorous reasoning and reactionary hysteria, there is a simple
truth—Mr. Affleck will, most likely, be a terrific Batman. You may disagree, but I believe that he is a
great and serious actor, a man who is ready to take on a complex mainstream
role.
Of course, I do have a love-hate relationship with Mr.
Affleck. Of late I have been distressed
by the acclaim he has received for “Argo,” a suspenseful period drama that was
still never compelling as its acclaim suggested. As far as I’m concerned, Mr. Affleck’s
directing is impressive work for an actor trying a new trade, but not
particularly compelling when measured by the standards set by the work of
experienced filmmakers. He may have won
the Oscar, but in the long run, I doubt he’ll impact the art form.
But Ben Affleck the director and Ben Affleck the actor
are two separate things. As a performer,
he’s second to none—he brings a seamless, easy gravitas to his roles. In “Argo,” he speaks in a soft voice that
makes him seem both professional and vulnerable and in Terrence Malick’s transcendent
drama “To the Wonder,” he holds the screen without speaking at all. Just the sight of him walking through a
grassy backyard is mesmerizing. That
image—the actor moving thoughtfully, hands on hips—is enhanced by Mr. Malick’s
smooth virtuosity, but it is Mr. Affleck who gives him the necessary building
blocks to construct a character.
I don’t think that anyone who has seen Mr. Affleck’s
performances in “To the Wonder” and “Argo” could deny that he’s a great
actor. But they might not be convinced
that he can play a superhero which is why I have one last plea—if you are not a
believer, watch “Daredevil.” You may
have already seen and despised the film, but I have a sneaking suspicion it has
been long enough that people may have forgotten what it was like to actually
sit down and watch the film. And as far
as I’m concerned, to watch it is to be taken in by Mr. Affleck’s
performance. As Matt Murdock, the blind
attorney who uses his heightened senses to fight crime as the vigilante
Daredevil, Mr. Affleck exudes a relentless anger. At the climax when he hurls a man from a
window and growls, “Bullseye,” his triumphant rage imparts a giddy thrill. But it also comes in handy in quieter
moments, such as when Matt’s legal partner Foggy is incensed by his friend’s
refusal to defend a crime lord. “Yes,
why is that, Mr. Murdock?” he asks, irritation rising. “Because,” Mr. Affleck replies with barely
suppressed fury, “we only take clients who are innocent.”
That’s just one of many great moments from an underrated
film and an even more underrated performance.
But when it comes down to it, what you really need to know is
this—superheroes are multifaceted characters and Mr. Affleck has the power to
credibly unify Batman’s many facets.
After all, he did it with Daredevil.
In that performance, the character never seemed to be split into man and
superman—he was the same person in and out of costume. Whether he was pummeling street thugs or
arguing over a morning cup of coffee, the same righteous anger and tenderness
could be found in his voice. He made you
believe that a well-dressed lawyer and a bloodthirsty vigilante could be one
man, and a human one at that.
While I have confidence in Mr. Affleck, I have to admit
that I can’t be sure he’ll be able to pull off the same feat as Batman. After all, he will be acting in a film
directed by Zack Snyder (who seems to be making a career of squandering great
performers in mind-numbing spectacles like “Watchmen” and “Man of Steel”) and
unlike in “Daredevil” where he was simply headlining one film, the new “Batman”
will see him becoming a cog in a mass of corporate machinery. Like Marvel, Warner Brothers is determined to
create a series of inter-linked superhero films, a strategy best-served by the
dull planning of executives, rather than the unpredictable but vastly superior instincts
of an auteur. And for all Mr. Affleck’s
talent, it’s almost a foregone conclusion that he won’t top Christian Bale’s
memorably fierce and witty portrayal of Batman in Christopher Nolan’s
tremendously exhilarating “Dark Knight” trilogy.
But then again, that’s not the point. The point is that Ben Affleck has it within
him the ability to play a superhero well, to make a comic book character a
plausible human being. Of course, he’ll
have to do it wearing that iconic mask, but I don’t he’ll let us forget the man
behind it, even if that man is a godlike savior, standing above Gotham City and
waiting for the right moment to take flight.
No comments:
Post a Comment