Clayface - Oct 26

 Obligatory disclaimer: real life sucks, so let us talk about the ‘‘Clayface’’ film. It works… but why does it work? Because it is actually generic. Pause.

No, seriously, come on. Why did people go to watch it in the first place? Because it is about a DC villain character, usually associated with Batman, (but not necessarily), and yet another one of his origin stories. Nanomachines, son! – But how different is it from a TAS-verse mutagen or the mystical goop from the oldest comics? Fundamentally, it is the same. What is different is the absence of Batman or of anyone else, really, to check ‘Clayface’s’ rampage of rage and terror. Pause.

A side effect of the Lanterns was I revisiting the original GL animated cartoon, and it is as different from the new live TV series as they come, and perhaps that was intentional – who knows? The point is that in the original cartoon the main antagonist was Atrocitus and his Red Lanterns of Rage, and so the conflict was will and hope against rage and despair with loss being the catalyst – where are we?

Ah yes, DC’s new Hagen is reacting to his loss with rage and despair after all attempts to recover his life and his face. He fails, in part because the society failed him, and then comes Dr. Naomi with a new hope. Nanomachines, son! Hagen accepts, he recovers, but because this is a comics-based movie, his recovery comes with a price – he begins to lose his humanity as well as his personality… or rather, his old personality and develop a new one, and we all can see what it is. Put otherwise, the nanomachines, son, can only uncover what was hidden inside all along, they do not add anything new, and they are only engines, passageways, of development and discovery. Hagen discovered that he’s a monster on the inside long before he became a monster on the outside, and his sewer-state is a result of his own making as much as the good doctor Naomi… who really should begin re-think her nanomachines, son, before Gotham is waist-deep in ‘Clayface’s, what?

…If this sounds like a good movie, it is because it is – a good monster movie, just as the Lanterns were good mystery drama show. The problem is that the Lanterns are supposed to be a superhero show, and this is where it fails. The end. The Green Lanterns are DC’s most cosmic show, and without the cosmos, the Green Lanterns fail. Conversely, for Batman the DC franchise, body horror and monsters are quite appropriate, and so the ‘Clayface’ succeeds… as a monster movie, a better, improved version of Sony’s Morbius and in a different way, from Kraven, but nothing more. Where is the Batman, hon? Without Batman showing the audience how to deal with loss and trauma in non-monstrous manner, a movie like ‘Clayface’ falls short from greatness. Nanomachines, son, can take you only so far. What else?

Actually, nothing. Unlike MCU that tends, or tended, to have tie-ins with the real world, at least initially, ‘Clayface’ and its fellow DC films does not have them. Yes, DC used the movie to show the damage of the cancel-culture or whatever you want to call it inflicts on people like Hagen… but that is negated by Hagen inflicting his own damage… on himself (cough, scissors vs. nanomachines, son), and on the others too. ‘Clayface’ is a straightforward, impressive, gorefest of a movie, and should be treated as such. Hey, it is not real life, so it does not suck too much. Nanomachines, son!

…Well, this is it for now. See you all soon.