Close Search Close

 

  • Comics
  • Theatre
  • Site News

Venom

A movie, much like its antihero, split across two minds.

One of the little fun things about our ol’ Year Of The Month feature is that you can often contextualize a work in its specific year in some way, and Venom is interesting mostly because it became a minor cult hit specifically because it managed to successfully straddle a line between two eras. It’s part of the terrible, short-lived attempt Sony Pictures made to cultivate a small superhero media franchise a la the Marvel Cinematic Universe out of the Spider-Man villains they had the rights to; out of all of them, the Venom films are the only ones to make any money, let alone to generate a notable fanbase.

Part of this, obviously, is that Venom is the only one of the characters anybody had ever heard of, although that’s never stopped a sufficiently talented and enterprising filmmaker before. It’s also that – and this was widely noted at the time – Venom is a bit of a throwback. Superhero films in the 00’s were generally noted to be gritty, ugly, and cynical; there’s a joke in the first X-Men (2000) where Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is complaining about the leather outfit he’s wearing and Cyclops (James Marsden) quips “What would you prefer, yellow spandex?” This was often pointed to as an example of superhero films being vaguely embarrassed to be superhero films at the time, but it also articulates the general aesthetic goals – leather, not spandex.

The film Venom most reminds me of is Daredevil (2003), although you can also see connections to Blade (2002), the most successful expression of this style, as well as Hellboy (2004), Catwoman (2004), and Elektra (2005). These are films with a self-conscious edginess and a lot of leather, rain, and angst that you could probably trace back to The Crow (1994). Venom definitely takes many of these visual ideas; every set looks dirty as hell, even the Apple-like shiny offices of the bad guy.

Except Venom also throws in an extremely modern and fashionable idea: a wise-cracking nihilist who takes none of this seriously. Obviously, quips are nothing new to superhero films; Joss Whedon and Buffy The Vampire Slayer (1997) introduced the idea of the wise-cracking genre-savvy character to genre works, and the world has largely run away with it and expected it in basically everything. Venom’s quips also strike me as a descendent of Mystery Science Theater 3000 (1988) – not a direct reference, but building off the same idea that one responds to a movie by cracking a joke about what’s happening on-screen.

Now, what makes MST3k work is the sheer density and variety of gags; there are references, puns, made-up characters, and satire on top of simple insults. MST3k’s weaker followers – which definitely includes Venom, as well as CinemaSins – usually resort only to the insults, which gets tedious after a while. However, the canny thing about Venom is that it puts these insults in the mouth of a character; audiences definitely respond to what is otherwise a generic flick with the novelty of some new element. I particularly think of a scene where Eddie (Tom Hardy) is having dinner with his Love Interest Who Can’t Understand (Michelle Williams), and the scene would be utterly risible and cliched if it weren’t for Venom making stupid jokes the entire time.

Even better, it’s in the mouth of a character to which another character responds. Eddie and Venom are distinct people with, importantly, distinct motivations; Eddie is genuinely trying to get the plot moving in a sensible direction and Venom just wants to eat people, a combination so simple it’s basically a road-map, and it made people sympathize with both Eddie and Venom. There is no easier way to characterize a character than to bounce them off someone else, and the Eddie/Venom relationship created a dynamic people could project homoerotic tendencies on.

So what you ended up with was a movie that seemed to fall out of 2004 with a 2018 character breaking in and mocking the whole thing without quite throwing it out of whack. There’s still a terrible CG-heavy climax, it still looks like dogshit, and the plot is both pointless and groundless (Eddie is a terrible reporter), but it at least is just original and competent enough to be compelling – it helps that Hardy is a good actor who wants to be a weird actor, and takes the opportunity to play with an otherwise goofy movie.