It’s hard to talk about things I love. And its even harder to talk about things that put me in a puddle of conflicted emotions, irrespective of the love that has formed.
I am a fan of the show that preceded this (Daredevil | 2015-2018) – being unceremoniously cancelled by the streaming giant Netflix, despite the excellence of its last Season, Season Three way back in 2018.
It was a delight to fans of the show when Disney went ahead and brought back this Series after so long- albeit with a new coat of paint, being aired on its new streaming platform Disney +.
From what I gather, Daredevil Born Again had been mired with a plethora of production issues from re-shoots, original supporting cast not returning to coming back again, writers strike, changing of Showrunner and Executive Producer.
From what we ended up getting, the Man Without Fear becomes a shell of himself and what we have is a series that is an uneven mess, whilst struggling to find a strong foothold to reach the daring heights of the original series, let alone transcend it.
And I think that is where the problem lies: I think Daredevil Born Again is trying desperately to separate itself from the original series. That in itself is not a problem, but the problem arises from the failure to understand the characters at play.
There is a lack of consistent tone, focus and thematic storytelling with Daredevil Born Again, alongside the new supporting cast in Matt Murdok’s life being rather flat and uninteresting. There is no emotional investment that the audience can latch onto with these new supporting cast members being rather surface level.
The action and set pieces that the series was renown for has returned with some middling results. There is some noticeable CG used in the action and though the violence remains, there is a lack of ‘punch’ compared to the original fight scenes with the cinematography at times making it hard to see the intensity of the fight.
The new villain feels like a massive wasted opportunity that feels more like a footnote with no real depth and exploration. I would say more, but to say less is more of a compliment.
Besides any gripes and problems that I have with the new season of Daredevil. In terms of performances, the likes of Charlie Cox as Matt Murdock and Vincent D’Onofrio as Kingpin remain golden. The dynamic between the two on-screen works wonders, despite the dialogue being rather subpar at times.
I really wanted to love the glorious return of the Daredevil. But this time, rather than have a show than can stand on its two feet, which respect and advance the foundations laid from its predecessor.
It limps forward battered and bruised, though with glimmers of hope.
I’ll still be around and watch what comes next because at the end of the day, the love for Daredevil ain’t lost on me yet.
The influential film Bonnie and Clyde (1967) shaped how we see Hollywood today both past and present and serves as a reminder for Hollywood to change from stale and repetitive content kicking off a Hollywood revolution in how films can be made.
The context remains important to understanding the films longstanding significance in cultural and social discourse in how Bonnie and Clyde (1967) is a biographical western style film of a romantic couple descending into crime. The film’s plot was set in the 1930s of The Great Depression (1929-1939)of America which resulted in a habitual declineof the economy and many civilians were left homeless or deeply consumed in financialunrest.
This film had a very ambitious and bold task at hand. It is a film that aims to present a somewhat historical image to the lives of two infamous criminals (Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow) who are the destructive forces of the narrative, living very volatile and risky lifestyles. Whilst the film also wanted to not stray away from its core values of presenting America and its inhabitants with scrutinising depth and quality- this film does not detract from illustrating the inequality and lack of opportunities to those specifically of working-class and provides to us a sense of realism and grounded scope to how the financial and social crisis of America is an indirect extension to the main character motivations of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow.
Both these characters are in way by- products of the social climate as they choose to deviate towards crime to gain social mobility, notoriety and adrenaline coupled alongside a source of tangible income- albeit unstable and highly illegal. The financial predicament of America resulted in an increase of juvenile crime and delinquency, which the movie subtly portrays rather than censoring and completely cutting from the final cut of the film.
Many films released during the period of Bonnie and Clyde had to follow a strict conventional style of filmmaking and production, yet Bonnie and Clyde chooses to showcase its brutal and uncompromising style of narrative and filmmaking, to reveal to the spectators the harsh reality of life and how unfiltered acts of violence and conflict is not ‘taboo,’ but rather a potent tool to an already flavourful arsenal of ingredients that is compounded to an already plentiful array of creative expression that is available to every director.
The depiction of violence and conflict is a highly controversial topic and subject to extreme dissemination of disgust and disapproval from many critics and viewers- the masses of people who saw Bonnie and Clyde upon release branded this film with hardly any lukewarm reception with major concerns circulating on how violence seems to be glorified and satirised and a notable journalist/critic from The New York Times states how “it is a cheap piece of bald-faced slapstick comedy” (Bosley Crowther).
Movies had entered the realm of being ‘safe’ on Bonnie and Clyde’s original release in 1967 and from a business perspective this can be understandable, as the usage of ‘Ford model’ became prominent which can allow wider profit margins. Advertising for films and gaining investors is less daunting due to the tried and tested approach to filmmaking, yet the creativity and artistic scope of a film is diminished. A modern example, of the ‘Ford Model’ utilised to an extent was when Disney created their own extended Marvel Cinematic Universe (coined ‘MCU’). The superhero genre became profitable, and Disney were able to perfect their formula for producing entertaining and expansive movies which is linked to a shared universe with many movies down the pipeline with set release dates/schedules. The ‘Ford Model’ is results oriented, thus following tight schedules and rigorous/meticulous planning.
Many have pointed out that Disney’s Marvel films can feel almost rushed with the quality of each independent film not fully branched out or developed- resulting in wasted opportunities of storytelling with many directors not being able to achieve their intended vision.
Hollywood after the Hays Code transitioned into the typical age rating system made by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) which for the most part seems very reasonable and not necessarily obstructive to a filmmaker. The main issue with rating systems is that it remains entirely subjective to personal opinions on minimum age requirements, this day and age rating systems feel redundant as (labelled) ‘mature content’ (e.g., drug abuse) is now entering younger markets not necessarily as restrictive as the Hays period.
Linking back to Bonnie and Clyde, Warner Bros, and Arthur Penn (director) chose to go against the conventional standards of the Hays Production Code-producing a film that is heralded for its flaws and celebrated as an undeniable classic. Despite many people pointing out how the characters like Bonnie are arguably poorly written being superficial in characterisation, whilst promoting high levels of naivety, this is the unique selling point of the film. Bonnie and Clyde work well because it has no moral compass, and the unyielding tumult and disorder is used as a narrative tool to accentuate humanities’ fears of moral degradation, which is very upsetting to the highly religious and liberal America of the time.
What the film does is highlight two people descending on an adventure of trouble and pleasure, yet this permeates into a fun, bombastic and thrilling experience for all moviegoers to watch and remain suspended in disbelief. It is a film that knew how to be itself and knew that film as a visual medium can act as an experience and not just a source of entertainment. Another point to mention, the release of Bonnie and Clyde in 1967 is part of the emergence of New Hollywood (where vertical integration/new independent studios and outside collaboration is encouraged becoming the new ‘de facto standard’ used by many major studios). The film is not just differentiating itself from the filmmaking tropes of The Golden Age (it still utilised the 3-act story structure and linear narrative). However, it expanded upon the core values of filmmaking creating new leaps to how the industry designs and creates movies. There is no ‘status quo’ that needs to be followed, nor should films be designed to meet preconceived expectations.
Food for thought, if anything Bonnie and Clyde is a sharp meta commentary on how the established industry (Golden Age of Hollywood) is unsustainable in the long term, requiring a breath of new life with clear definition of visual storytelling and creative talent at the helm and forefront of designing awe-inspiring cinematic work. It (i.e., Hollywood) will inherently need a sort of ‘renaissance’ and update patch and ‘New Hollywood’ was able to fill in the blank void of intrinsic artistry, transiting onwards to modern Hollywood and thus forming the industry we see today. There is no defined way of making films and that is a gift worth savouring. Bonnie and Clyde are the perpetrators leading the charge and making us remember how films are boundless and imaginative.
lost pages 