Hey Wisecrack, Jared here. Today we’ve got
a self-aware, fourth-wall-breaking spectacular for you. That’s right, we’re talking about Deadpool. Deadpool is experiencing unprecedented popularity
in mainstream media. The film is the highest grossing R-rated movie ever, and the
biggest opening for Ryan Reynolds, but I guess that part isn’t a surprise. How has this
film achieved such success despite shirking the traditional superhero formula? "Bob? I haven't seen you since-" "Jacksonville." Fighting for the greater good? Nope. Selfless? Not really. Fun for the whole family? Uh... "I'm touching myself tonight." No. For a Marvel character who is an overt ripoff
of a DC competitor that constantly makes fun of the medium that he inhabits, the merc with
a mouth is doing pretty well for himself. Deadpool’s popularity represents a trend
in media that may be gaining steam lately, but is otherwise quite old. And it all has
to do with a 400 year old book, sort of. I’m an arrogant asshole and welcome to this
Wisecrack Edition on The Philosophy of Deadpool. Part 1: Achieving Fuck It There are a few defining features that set
Deadpool apart from the rest of the Marvel universe. He’s an inveterate wiseass, he knows he’s a superhero and is, as a result, constantly breaking the fourth wall and commenting
on comic book tropes and culture. Deadpool takes nothing seriously. Even the ad campaign for the film was imagined in an entirely Deadpoolian fashion. The film’s Valentine’s Day ads
were simultaneously a great way to troll soon-to-be furious partners and a setup for a self-referential
joke. They even created a Tinder profile. Perhaps the best way to describe Deadpool
is as a postmodern work. Let me explain. Postmodernism is a movement in the arts and
philosophy that typically rejects the kind of grand narratives used to make sense of
the world in the good old days. For instance, the battle of good against evil, democracy
against communism, the inherent promise of technological progress, science or divine
salvation, the very idea of “the good old days”. You get the idea. Postmodern
works are quick to thumb their nose at tradition and have a tendency to embrace being “meta”
and self-reference. Deadpool is hyper-aware of himself and his
place in the superhero genre. The film is full of Ryan Reynolds jokes, like the reference
to the cinematic abomination “The Green Lantern", his face on People Magazine’s “Sexiest
Man Alive” or the face of his vastly more appreciated counterpart also on People
Magazine. If the grand narrative that permeates superhero
films is the triumph of good over evil, Deadpool, in good postmodern fashion, says “fuck it
let’s go bowling,” I mean, killing. Wrong movie - same idea. There is no grand
battle of good over evil, just a guy out there killing a bunch of people for revenge and
love. This tension, between the old world and postmodernism,
is played out in a couple different ways in the film. Colossus is constantly asking Deadpool
to cut out the shenanigans and join the XMen, as if to rope him into the role of a good
superhero, family friendly, righteous, and so on. Likewise, the Dopinder subplot subverts
classic narratives of courtly love. Win the heart of your beloved through chivalry and
compassion? Nah. It’s more effective to to just kidnap her current lover and stuff
him in the trunk. Even Blind Al is essentially a deranged version of a classic narrative.
Deformed protagonist who takes refuge with a benevolent blind benefactor? Yep sounds
familiar, except this time… Not to mention that the apple of our hero's eye isn't a fair
maiden. She's a prostitute turned stripper. In this way, Deadpool can be seen as a spiritual
successor to a 400 year-old novel that also made fun of the heroes of its eras, employed
meta-narratives, and is called by some a proto-postmodern work: Don Quixote. Remember that the story
of Don Quixote is the tale of a fictional author who discovered the fictional accounts
of Don Quixote, a story within a story, way before The Blair Witch project. Don Quixote understands he is being written about, and the fictional author
retelling his tale constantly breaks the fourth wall. At one point in Don Quixote, the story
just cuts off when the fictional author claims the rest of the story was lost. We’re not
saying this parallel is intentional, but it is worth noting that Deadpool kills Don Quixote
in the comic books. To understand Don Quixote’s relation
to Deadpool, we have to understand its historical context. Don Quixote was written at a time
when radical skepticism of the existing order started to bud in popular society. It was
written just before the Enlightenment gripped Europe, which would respond to this skepticism
by touting the virtues of rationality and science. But Don Quixote wasn’t setting
out to invent a new ideology: he just wanted to have a few laughs at the expense of Spanish
society. Deadpool signals a similar disenchantment
with all those old righteous narratives in our society. But this time it’s a little different, and whether or not it’s a good thing is up for debate. Part 2: Ironic Distance and Cynicism In a recent interview, Joss Whedon, the man
behind such self-aware titles as Firefly, Buffy and the Avengers, finds in Indiana Jones
a microcosm for all that’s wrong with today’s culture. In the original Indiana Jones film, our protagonist
famously deals with a gratuitous display of swordsmanship with a modest display of marksmanship. In the Temple of Doom, we’re confronted with a similar scene but, oh my, there’s
now two swordsmen. Indie reaches for his gun, but it’s not there. He delivers a shiteating-grin
to the audience, as if to say, “see what I did there? You saw that last movie, and
I made an inside joke about it. I’m so glad we had this moment together, now that you
feel like you’re in on this collective joke that doesn’t even make sense because Temple
of Doom is a fucking prequel.” That moment of self-reference for the sake of self-reference, Whedon says, has engulfed our culture. Film, television, literature it’s all becoming that
moment. This selfawareness is increasingly taking
a cynical tone. It’s almost everywhere you look. In the new Tarzan trailer, a reboot/remake/adaptation of a film nobody asked for, Jane overtly references the fact that she’s playing the tired role of a damsel in distress. Now what really chaps my ass about this is that the film is recognizing that it’s using tired recycled tropes, but instead of doing something new, it simply
apologizes for it, and expects us to perceive this self awareness as something clever and
new. The end of Star Trek Into Darkness is just an excuse to say “Hey remember this
great scene in cinema? Now it’s opposite day!” 22 Jump Street is the same exact plot
as 21 Jump Street, but it’s ok, because we can collectively identify with Ice Cube
for calling them out on their bullshit. Or, as South Park frames it: As if to out-meta each other, this cynical
attitude has transcended self-reference into self-effacement. Hollywood, that decrepit
machine fueled by the ideas of yesteryear, is always stuck referencing itself. In an
effort reinvent itself while still remaining the same, it gleefully acknowledges its lazy
cliches, with a wink and a nod, like in Tarzan, or by employing irony to undercut a dramatic
moment. Deadpool does both. It breaks the fourth wall to let us in on
the joke and it avoids serious drama like the plague. Hollywood still employs familiar
structures and tropes, but distances the audience from any kind of sincerity so
that it feels new. Is this Hollywood version of #sorrynotsorry gratifying for the viewer, or have we just come to terms with the fact that there is nothing new to say? Deadpool’s humor is largely driven by this
sense of cynicism and ironic distance. Whether he’s being tortured, or about to be gruesomely
maimed, Deadpool remains unphased in the face of what would normally be considered high
stakes situations. Even the tension of combat scenes are undercut by selfaware humor.
Also he can’t die so that probably helps. If Deadpool is immune to criticism, it’s
because he is defined by his cynicism. He relentlessly deconstructs any trope that would
endow meaning to film. Deadpool is more or less Wade Wilson’s journey to become hot
again, itself a shallow endeavor, even if to reclaim his lost love or really lust. Deadpool
evades criticism become he has no moral scruples or values to defend, his identity is purely
reactionary. He risks nothing. He just makes fun of everything.
Deadpool doesn’t claim to be a good guy. The film also has 0 fucks to give. Its ad
campaign doesn’t take itself seriously and the movie points out its glaring flaws: The
overuse of superhero tropes, or the obvious budgetary constraints. I mean, Negasonic Teenage Warhead
is the Marvel Universe equivalent of a Walmart bargain bin DVD. But just because the movie
is aware of, and sort of apologizes for, it’s lacking qualities, does that make it good? I have to admit, I’m conflicted here. On
the one hand, I find Deadpool’s selfreflective edgy commentary to be undeniably enjoyable.
At the end of the day, Ryan Reynolds is damn charming, the action is awesome, and the jokes
are disarming and quite fun. But then again, should we really give so much praise to a
movie that essentially functions like an Honest Trailer for other comic book movies? Therein lies a danger with this trend: it
never creates anything. An obsession with being meta that devolves into an endless
spiral of meta. In this way, Deadpool isn’t entirely dissimilar from another cultural
movement: one that ironically loves the cliche, endlessly recycles culture and constantly
positions itself against the mainstream-hipsters. As Douglas Haddow once aptly noted, the danger
of the hipster is the end of Western civilization itself, “a culture lost in the superficiality
of its past and unable to create any new meaning.” Deadpool isn’t reinventing the superhero
genre, it can only exist to make fun of the genre. Here’s the real problem with Deadpool
and other films like it. Bashing the system may feel good, it may make us laugh, but it’s
ultimately powerless it doesn’t change the system at all. As our old friend and alleged Mark Hamill
bodydouble Slavoj Zizek notes, “cynical distance, laughter, irony, are, so to speak,
part of the game. The ruling ideology is not meant to be taken seriously or literally.” Hipsters fancy themselves members of the counterculture by drinking
PBR and having ironic mustaches. Deadpool fancies itself a countercultural movie by
celebrating its own played-out cliches and an overused storyline, the cinematic equivalents of gross hipster mustaches and non-prescription glasses. This cultural impasse reflects a society that
doesn’t quite know what to do with itself. We beat the Commies, our music, film and literature
dominate the world market, and as a society we’re not exactly on the brink of collapse
despite what political pundits are telling you. If Deadpool can say “Fuck it,” it’s
because he doesn’t fear death. How can he take anything seriously when there are no consequences? Can life be sacred when it has become limitless? Hell, if the superhero genre survived
these dumpster fires, then maybe it can’t die either so fuck it. Why not break all
the rules? Interestingly, the very sanctity-breaking
of the comic book was inspired a similar problem. Except, rather than feeling that Deadpool
the comic was uncancellable, they felt it would be cancelled at any minute. What ensued
was a similar attitude of “fuck it,” if the comic was already dead, why not write
it like nothing mattered? If we, as a society, can say “fuck it,” perhaps it’s because death or really any real existential threat has become either so distance, or so close that we no longer care. So where does Deadpool land in our cultural
landscape? Does it just use the fourth wall breaking to put a shiny makeover over the
same old shit? Is it the ultimate cynical film? Or does it actually achieve something
new? Let us know what you think in the comments.
Something about this video rubs me the wrong way. I think it's because I disagree with the idea that there is a definition of creativity so narrow that it excludes deconstructions. When viewed through this narrow lens, valid ideas are excluded because they don't meet some sort of unspecified criterion.
Nobody creates anything new. Period. Sometimes someone discovers something about nature, but short of discovering the atom or other fundamental forces of nature, everything is an evolution of what came before it. The art of being creative is combining existing societal constructs and ideas in new and interesting ways.
Being self-referential does not mean that something is devoid of creativity. The scene from the second Indiana Jones was bad and it was self-referential, it wasn't bad because it was self referential, it was just lazy. The scene from the first Indiana Jones film was creative because it was a subversion of our expectations. In serials and action films, the protagonist would have matched the flashy display of swordsmanship with an act of martial prowess of his own. In fact, Indiana Jones was supposed to engage in a cliched fight sequence with the swordsman, but Harrison Ford had a bad case of traveler's diarrhea so all he could manage for that day of filming was being able to walk out and shoot someone. You can even see it in the shot, Harrison Ford looks like a man unable to stand up straight for fear of shitting himself. That limitation lead to a creative scene that subverted audience expectations and illuminated the character brilliantly. New and Interesting.
Nearly everyone with a vocal opinion about the three Indiana Jones films will tell you that the second was the weakest of the trilogy. It was all around lazy. Yes, the idea of chasing a macguffin around and having adventures along the way is not new and interesting because it's not the end product in and of itself. If you boil the first and second Indiana Jones film down too far, you lose what is both good and bad about them: An intrepid archaeologist battles the forces of evil in search of a mystical artifact. This is why sequels are so hard, what was New and Interesting in the first one is now Old and Boring in the second and giving the audience more of the final product from the first is not enough. The creator has to recognize that the elements from the first work are now an "old idea" and have to combine those elements in New and Interesting ways.
When they made the second Indiana Jones, they just gave the audience more of the same without adding anything truly creative to the mix. This is why the MCU Marvel Movies have held up so well. The first Captain America Movie wasn't really a superhero movie, it was a WW2 film with superhero set dressing. The second Captain America movie wasn't a Superhero movie, it was a 70's spy thriller with superhero set dressing. I haven't decided what Captain America 3 is, other than the fact that poor Cap always ends up deeper in the hole at the end of his movies than at the beginning and can only catch breaks during the Avengers movies. The folks at Marvel keep combining familiar movie genres with superhero movies in new and interesting ways so that all of the movies don't feel samey.
The problem with the second Indiana Jones film was that it didn't combine anything in a new and interesting way. The first took existing adventure serial ideas and presented it to a modern 80's audience. The new and interesting was presenting the old ideas with modern 80's polish and sensibilities. The third took the "old idea" of indiana jones and added the new and interesting of "What happens when this alpha dog has to run with his dad?" It's almost the final act of a coming of age story because the entire movie is filmed through the lens of atonement with the father. He's not fighting to save the world, he's fighting to become a man in the eyes of the man who dominates his psyche. See? New and interesting. The second tried to make the new and interesting "let's do the first movie, but in india, and instead of a cult, it's nazis, and let's add a kid sidekick!" which failed miserably to excite an audience expecting to see something that they hadn't seen before.
So I've gone on a rather long and wordy tangent, but now that you have gotten to this point, you might see my point that creativity does not depend on using existing tools like a machismo-martial-arts-battle to allow tension to play out (because somehow that's a knock against deadpool adding something to the cultural dialog in the OP vid), and it does not depend on pulling never-before-seen ideas from the aether. It is easy to dig into any revolutionary movie to tease out it's cultural contextual cues. Neo is Jesus and Jesus was in a book written 2000-1600-400-20 years ago, right? Jaws is just a story about the Tsavo man-eaters but in the water, right? Deadpool is just Scream/Cabin in the Woods but for superhero movies, right?
"just"
The moviegoing audience has not seen a superhero movie that uses humor to deconstruct existing superhero tropes. Sure, we had orgazmo and other superheo parodies, and sure, what deadpool says when he asks why there aren't more xmen is what some of the more cynical of us are thinking when we notice budget limitations, but there is creativity there because (and this is where the movie's creator and I disagree) deadpool adds something new by creating talking points for the ongoing cultural dialog. Just like the scene in the Indiana Jones film was New and Interesting because instead of seeing the expected spectacular brawl, the audience saw a character subvert their expectations in a New and Interesting way. I don't want to appeal to the masses and say that because Deadpool was popular it had something New and Interesting, so I'll try to tease out why Deadpool was took old ideas and made them New and Interesting on its own.
Ever seen a ZAZ film? Airplane or top Secret? These are generally classified as parodies, but their rapid fire joke scheme that pokes fun at every chance has been resurrected for Deadpool. However, while the targets of their parody tended to stay in-universe, deadpool's bread and butter is his awareness that the universe the audience sees is not all there is in his world. But that's the comics too, so this isn't original because it's just pulling from the comics, right?
Deadpool in the comics is used to deconstruct quirky comic book heroes like spiderman and the x-men while also deconstructing anti-heroes like the punisher. The quirky and the anti were the heroes of the time (late 80's and 90's) and Deadpool was created by taking the most popular traits and pushing them until they broke. Spiderman would be snarky to enrage his enemies, Deadpool is snarky all the time. Punisher was morally ambiguous but always on the side of good, Deadpool was morally ambiguous. The idea of deconstructing popular comic book hero tropes didn't start with Deadpool either. The watchmen came out in the mid eighties and paved the way for the deconstruction/reconstruction of Batman as well.
So what's original about Deadpool? If it's not his deconstruction/reconstruction by itself, or his meta-awareness by itself, or its application of the ZAZ parody to superhero films, then what is it? What deadpool brings to the table, creatively, is just how satirically it holds a mirror to the audience's expectations. It holds up every single piece of what audiences love about superhero movies, the huge gun fights, the romantic interest, the costume, the quirky assistant, and breaks them hard, but says "You want [X]? Well, I'll give you [X] that is broken beyond recognition and you'll love it." The world isn't at stake, Wilson wants to be pretty again.
By breaking and recombining everything we love about superhero movies and presenting them to us, Deadpool has cleared our palettes and declared "You don't need all these tropes to make a superhero movie. You don't even need a superhero." By breaking and recombining the existing ideas and remixing them, they do become something new.
FWIW, I also disagree with how he defines hipster, I've written a few words on that subject in the past. He seems to be focused on the mass consumption aspect that every generation of teens and twenty-somethings has focused on since the dawn of "kids these days" where they try out different mass marketed ways of rebelling against the culture they feel trapped in. I'll get off this guy's lawn.
A bit out of topic, but in my opinion this is a really well put together content which does not serve a gazillion annoying ads and pop ups and/or half-hour introduction. It does serve ad in the very end of the video, but I gladly watched it and I actually checked out the site when it was done. Now if only most content creators follow this format instead of mindlessly drowning us with ads and marketing like in every video and website ever.....
Wisecrack insulting Deadpool for not revolutionizing the comic book movie genre is hilarious. They churn out youtube videos every week using the same tired and predictable format with clickbait titles to complain about the most petty parts of other people's art. Congrats on the ad-revenue.
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)