Not-so-super hero
I read somewhere that Defendor (2009) was a comedy. I can’t remember where I read it, but I did. Having seen it, I can safely say it’s not really, but I’m also at a loss as to how to categorize it. It is, however, one of the more interesting ‘mainstream’ films I’ve seen this year. That said, I’m going to have to contradict myself again by telling you that its commercial success was far from great, which I genuinely feel is a crying shame when you see the work and care that went into making it. I can only take heart that The Big Lebowski (1998) opened on very few screens on its debut (Defendor took a measly $13,265 on three screens in February of this year). I’m not, of course, comparing the two, just wishful that this picks up some cult followers, as it deserves to be seen.
When we first meet Defendor (Woody Harrelson), he’s leaping from a rooftop into a dumpster, ready to interrupt a corrupt policeman, Dooney (Elias Koteas) in the act of taking advantage of a young hooker, ‘Angel’ (Kat Dennings). The comedy looks very promising at this point, as he hauls himself out of the dumpster, obviously in a great deal of pain, groaning “trash days, must remember the trash days”. He does make quite short work of beating up the cop, however, accompanied by some of the cheesiest dialogue imaginable. His story is picked up and told in the form of flashback, as he recounts his life so far to a police psychiatrist Ellen Park (Sandra Oh getting yet another small part, what a waste).
Having been scraped off the pavement by Angel (real name Kat Debrofkowitz) following a beating by three guys, the two form an uneasy alliance, sharing the workshop that Defendor’s real-life persona, Arthur Poppington, hides out in. The relationship is far from easy, made worse by the fact that Kat was also abused by a Serbian drug baron, Kristic (Alan C. Peterson). Poppington believes that Kristic is the arch-nemesis he seeks, codename Captain Industry. The reason he believes this is revealed in a series of flashbacks to his childhood.
We have a bumbling crime fighter in a ridiculous costume that looks home-made (because it is, complete with a capital ‘D’ logo made from gaffer tape) talking to a shrink about how he came to be talking to a shrink – surely this would be a platform for comedy gold? Possibly, but the route Defendor takes is far from formulaic. The Poppington/Defendor character isn’t merely an incompetent would-be hero. He has a solid reason for his actions, even if the execution of his plans is far from perfect. Indeed, there a good few genuine laughs at both his antics and some of the dialogue he delivers to the criminals. I particularly enjoyed the moment in the mirror where he practises his gruff superhero tones, a knowing and amusing homage to Christian Bale’s much-derided Batman voice.
The heart of Defendor is the heart of Arthur Poppington. He is a good man and honest. He may be a little bit ‘simple’, ‘slow’ or whatever euphemism you like, but he is honest, thoughtful and loyal. Deploying Harrelson in this role was quite possibly the best casting decision made this year. He has a natural charm and that indefinable oddness about him that, coupled with his sound acting skill, really brings Arthur Poppinton to life. You can’t help but love the guy. Over the course of the movie the laughs diminish and the drama ramps up. The relationship between Arthur and Kat solidifies a little – although she still rips him off to feed her crack habit. As denouements go, I’ve seen tidier ones, but I think it fits the quirky pace and timbre of the film in general so wasn’t disappointed.
As a first effort at both writing and directing (at the same time) by Canadian actor Peter Stebbings, I’d say it was hugely commendable. I find it so difficult to find a film that really makes you care about the characters, and not get lost in its own self-importance. Sure, there’s a message in Defendor. It’s written large from the outset, so once that’s out of the way, you can get on with taking sides. Highly recommended, but not for the funnies.
101 mins. In English and Russian.
James, having read your review this morning I ‘acquired’ the movie, as I was intrigued. You are not normally this uncertain of a film’s territory. Having just watched it, I now know why. I have to say I did laugh roughly once every 20 minutes but that’s not what it’s about (as you point out). I agree with all you’ve written and I too hope this is a slow burner. As for performances – there were excellent turns by the actors playing the Superhero, the Hooker, the Bent Cop and the Psychiatrist. Great acting aside, part of the movie’s charm is that it gives a nod to every cheesy superhero movie ever, but this is essential to explain Arthur’s childlike perception of what the ideal superhero (a la comic books) should be like. Or maybe it’s just because he’s ‘slow’? Slow, childlike, innocent? Does it matter? You choose… It’s very clever ‘simple morality’ territory that offers a different spin. As you say, there are some obvious layers/messages to this movie but, in the depth of it, I found that these lines between our ‘superhero’ and the psychiatrist made me think of another layer of ‘right and wrong’.
Defendor: “So I WAS wrong?” Shrink: “I’m not sure, Arthur.” Cue slow Defendor smile…
Leave it there, I reckon…
Hey Tony,
Thanks very much for your trenchant, intelligent response, much appreciated. Just the one thing – I didn’t write this review, Colin did, but I know I advertised it on my Facebook etc, so I can understand why you thought it was mine. Name of the author is always at the top of each post, for future reference.
Anyway, I will alert Col to your comment, and I am sure he will be similarly appreciative and back ‘atcha bientot.
Cheers again.
Hi Tony,
Yes indeed, I think you have nailed the exact emotional reference. I really don’t think the film would have worked as well as it did without Harrellson in the lead. If it wasn’t written with him in mind, I’d be surprised. His ability to be the cheeky chappie, the stooge, the fool and the straight man all in one scene is a gift very few actors have – or can make look so effortless.
I can only reiterate that it really should be a slow burn like …Lebowski. Well worth the time.
Thanks must go to James for being kind enough to put the ellipsis in front of ‘Lebowski’, and for italicizing it. I thought it stood well enough as was, but it appears that I may have been a trifle hasty. In the spirit of responsible editing, may I just point out that:
- It’s not “my Facebook”, rather “my Facebook page”
- “Name of the author” requires the definite article
- “backatcha” or “back atcha” if you must. There is no replacement of any letter preceding the first instance of ‘a’ – hence, it takes no apostrophe
- it’s “bientôt”. As we learned in French 101 (as our US cousins might say), the circumflex accent replaces the ‘s’ that was formerly used in Latin
That said, the ellipsis and the italicization look fantastic.