In truth, Bixbys Banner was his own kind of hero; a true moralist in the grand tradition of Atticus Finch. Which means the reason his manifestations of the Hulk resonated so deeply is because we truly cared about what happened to him. In truth, he was the last person you would ever want cursed with being the incredible Hulk. And thats what made the show dramatic. It was a basic understanding of motive. The audience cant just be sitting around waiting for the Hulk-out. Sometimes you have to be afraid of the Hulk. Sometimes you dont want him to turn at all. Sometimes you need him to because the characters we care about need him to turn. It was never about the joy of destruction, it was about the heart of empathy.
And that is precisely where the two recent Hulk films failed. They were interested in the character but had no idea how to play it for dramatic purposes. Sure, both films had some admirable qualities. Ang Lees film is at times beautiful and delirious, but so disappears into Banners own demons that the audience loses all sense of banner-empathy and motive. And Leterriers more recent film tries to rely solely on the tvs shows iconography and ends up doing that dreaded assumption thing hulk mentioned earlier. Both films even had a strong central actor playing Bruce Banner, but both Eric Bana and Edward Nortons versions of the character were defined by a sense of solipsistic detachment. It was as if they mistook the self-sacrifice element of the character for relentless dourism, which resulted in a rather un-bixbian sense of being closed off. Nobody likes their heroes mopey. And rarely do we like the central conflict to be a battle in the characters own mind. When it comes right down to it, neither actor seemed to realize that the lonely man didnt really want to be lonely at all.
Enter Mark Ruffalo.
Its safe to say that with his performance in Joss Whedons The Avengers some of those much needed qualities have returned. He doesnt quite have Bixbys paternal element, but he does have that same inherent kindness. He isnt moping or obsessed with his own problems, hes gentle and dignified. Theres something so unassuming and even cute about him. When we first meet Dr. Banner in India, hes doing medical work for the poor in the most stressful place in the world. But that doesnt seem to be an issue for him. Some years have passed and somehow he seems in full control. But he also seems impossibly weary and haggard. Hes a man who has lived and lost more than imaginable.
But luckily for the audience, Whedon and Ruffalo know the best way to make this sadness resonate. Rather than hammer it home over and over again like the films before, they put Banner out of his element and right into the thick of a somewhat joyful environment. Sure, the Avengers are dealing with some end-of-the-world gravitas, but all these giant personalities are bumping up against one another and having a ball. And as you watch Banner you can see these hints that hes having so much fun. Sure, he plays it demure, but watching him connect in the lab with Tony Stark is one of the more joyful interactions he (and as empathy dictates, thereby the audience) has ever had.
Which is exactly what makes Banners rueful admission of a suicide attempt later on all the more gutting. Note that Ruffalo does not play the scene for sadness or maudlin sympathy. Instead, there is an alarming normalcy to his admission. Hes simply cursed with ongoing life. And it is his performance in this scene that highlights just how much this Banner is unlike any version weve had before. Perhaps its Ruffalos slight mumble or the way he speaks as if hes always on the verge of a wry smile, but one cant help but sense that his Banner finds something funny about all of this. Its as if he is the only one who is keenly aware of a cruel joke being played on the world. And never is this secrecy more apparent then when his fellow avengers constantly express their concern for an imminent Hulk out. Instead of listening, he just casually dismisses these concerns as trivial. Hes in control. The question is, how?
Over the course of the film he constantly refers to his big green personality as the other guy. At first we think its one of those standard dissociative techniques. We assume this is motivated by simple fear, fear that we will grow angry and come to hurt people. But really this dissociation is about maintaining his secret, which is the very truth about how he stays in control and stops himself from getting too angry.
And then we learn the obvious truth: hes always angry.
And as such, we learn that Banner can call out his Hulk at a moments notice. Which, in this Hulks opinion, is a wonderful evolution of the character. It speaks to the idea that our emotions are something that always present. Anger cant be abstained from. It cannot be feared. Anger is simply an ever-present part of us, just as much as joy, sadness, or even something instinctual like hunger. It is something that is just felt. And Hulk believes this is precisely where the cruel joke comes into play. For years, Banner battled his own mind and merely turned out that fear of his own anger was a trap. Really, he had to understand it. To recognize it and accept it. And thats precisely what brought genuine control. The whole thing seems like a contradiction, but no more a contradiction than the idea that unleashing the other guy can be the very thing that makes his Hulk heroic. It is this ever-coiling duality of the Hulk that is paramount to our finding the character compelling.
...
Hulk came of age during a the comics period of disassociate identities. The era of the loquacious Joe Fixit and bumbling Savage Hulk. Heck, there were whole story-lines where Hulk would be banished by Dr. Strange to a weird space-limbo / cross-dimensional hell (dont ask), so weirdness never seemed all that outlandish. And more important, there wasnt a singularity to the Hulk identity. And the truth is there never has been. Especially today, when the character has evolved and changed and gone through so many different versions that you could say we Hulks contain Whitman-esque multitudes.
So again, Hulk gets asked the question all the time: what makes a good Hulk?
And the answer is anything if you can make it compelling enough. But theres no denying that Hulks seem to be most compelling when you ground them in contradiction and explore lifes grand duality. Ruffalos Banner/Hulk is one of the more dextrous and all-encompassing versions weve ever had and its no accident that people have been loving the crap out of him in the film.
So of course his version of the Hulk can be a contradiction, because the Hulk is a contradiction.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/05/the-hulk-on-mark-ruffalos-hulk.html
