The interesting thing about this perspective is that it presumes that bad art is divorced from intent.
We've had many interpretations of Batman over the years - the 40s incarnation was a noir-style detective; the 60s version was high camp. In 1986, Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns introduced audiences to a dark, dystopian Batman that one could argue forever altered the character. We wouldn't have had the darker edges in Batman: The Animated Series without Miller's work. That's not to say that The Dark Knight Returns is bad, necessarily - taste is subjective - but I think it's fair to say that it permanently altered the way that people perceive the character within the broader public consciousness. The 60s Batman is today referred to with a certain degree of condescension at best and outright scorn at worst. It is looked at as "bad art" now, a shameless cash grab. In many ways it was, but it also was a Batman that spoke to the zeitgeist of its time. Now, it's barely worthy of viewing by children. Another Batman has superseded the version that stood for hope and justice. The 60s Batman is, in many ways, dead in the public mind.
A quick search for "kids batman costumes" brings back results that are clearly more focused on the darker interpretations (Nolan, Burton) of the character, rather than the camp 60s one. The grey/blue color scheme is a rarity, not the norm. Society is already leaving it behind. Superman results are a bit different - that color scheme will always be associated with a certain degree of innocence due to its primary nature - but many of these costumes feature simulated musculature that is more keeping with Zach Snyder and the edgier comics from the 80s and 90s than the 40s cartoon or the 50s television show. The smiling, jovial Superman of black and white serials is dead in the public mind as well.
Today's culture cannot take its superheroes seriously unless they are angry, grim, and function on the border between vigilante and willing tool of a police state. Even young children now understand that, broadly speaking, heroes cannot be silly, or even fun. In the world of superheroes, innocence is something to be scorned. Hollywood is rebuilding the entire genre on that premise.
How did all of this start? There are different reasons. Frank Miller was mugged, and it enraged him, and made him long for a society in which the strong would defend the weak by any means necessary. Alan Moore viewed the superhero through the prism of Thatcher's Britain, noting with some cynicism (and no small degree of worry) that superheroes - powerful, untouchable beings whose powers rendered almost all forms of resistance futile - could just as easily be prone to fascism as, "truth, justice, and the American way." They could also just decide that our petty human squabbles were beneath them and leave us to twist in the wind while they took refuge in their fortress of solitude. Or Mars. Each superhero has been interpreted and reinterpreted through the authors that work with them, and each author leaves a mark that trickles down through the public consciousness until it becomes an unconscious knowledge. Few people know why Batman went from a technicolor comedy where heroes and villains dance the "Ba-tu-si" to an ostensible hero who manhandles a prisoner in custody. They just know it happened, and that this is Batman now. Even kids. Especially kids. They wouldn't blink at a Batman or Superman who kills now, because that's what we, as a society, have decided is right.
So there's a trickle down effect. Art, good or bad, is about an artist expressing their opinions, their emotional values, their spiritual truths. You can make the argument that this only applies to "good" art made by The Masters Of Their Craft, but plenty of objectively "bad" art is an attempt to make some sort of statement. Some of my favorite "bad art" is only enjoyable because it's trying to make a statement. Time Chasers is about the inevitable perversion that takes place when beneficial research is co-opted by corporate interests for monetary gain. I Accuse My Parents is a misguided, but sincere, attempt to remind parents that kids need stability at home. Just about every 50s film involving a giant, mutant creature is about fears about nuclear testing, the effects of the Green Revolution, and industrial pollution. Even The Room - yes, everyone's favorite bad film - is about a good man being slowly destroyed by an uncaring world.
So back to the original topic that kicked off this conversation - a horror movie based on Steamboat Willie. After my first post, I spoke with several of my friends to see if maybe I was being ridiculous. But all of them agreed with me to a certain extent. Some agreed with me that a movie in which a worldwide symbol of happiness being perverted into a murderer was mean-spirited and cruel. At least one worried about the inevitability of kids seeing it. The most charitable thing they were able to say about it was that the movie had nothing to say.
I try to give creators the benefit of the doubt when it comes to, "cynical cash grabs." Christmas singles are a guaranteed royalty check, but plenty of them are good. Some are even great. Music fans know why musicians make them, but it's fair to say that a broad majority of musicians don't go out of their way to record a low effort affair.
I had assumed that the creators of this film had a point, in the same way that Frank Miller did. After all, why bother to go through the effort of writing a script, auditioning actors, securing permits, hiring a crew and shooting a film if you have nothing to say?
"Because it's a shameless cynical cash grab, of course!" Well, yes. It's being made to take advantage of a newly available, highly recognizable piece of intellectual property. It is not there to say anything or do anything but make money for the person(s) who are betting that a combination of face recognition and shock value will make them fabulously rich. It's no different from a singing fish plaque.
The Steamboat Willie horror movie is not bad art. It's a stupid product that serves no purpose, aside from parting fools from their money. I was wrong to give the creators the benefit of the doubt by referring to them as filmmakers or artists. The people behind this cynical, shameless cash grab would be insulted.
I'm pretty sure the term they would prefer is, "opportunistic capitalists."
andulkaphoto
blakekathryn
prguitarman
turnnoffyourmind
yousharknotpass
jacobvanloon
dailybridgerton
ellievsbear
pixelskylines
