Originally published August 26, 1994, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #1084
Some years back, author Gary K. Wolf wrote an offbeat mystery titled Who Censored Roger Rabbit? It told the story of a down-in-the-mouth detective named Eddie Valiant, and his involvement with cartoon-strip actors… i.e., “characters” who posed for comic strips and spoke in word balloons that materialized over their heads.
It was fairly hard-boiled stuff, considering the subject matter. The titular rabbit was pretty pathetic, and even became pretty dead (hey, how big a spoiler can that be? It was in the dust jacket.) Most of the supporting characters were unpleasant, including Roger’s wife, Jessica. Ultimately, although the book was good reading, it was fairly bitter and kind of depressing.
Then the story was made over into Who Framed Roger Rabbit (no question mark, as if Doctor Who were the culprit). Roger became framed rather than dead, the characters became more accessible, Jessica became a doting wife rather than a literally one-dimensional bìŧçh. The entire story, in short, became family entertainment.
Now history repeats itself, as The Mask opens at a theater near you.
The original Dark Horse series focused on a loser of a guy who got his hands on a bizarre ancient mask. Compelled to put it on, he became–in essence–the Mask. A berserker entity, utterly amoral, who went on a killing spree before being brought to a halt through fairly brutal means. The humor was black, the violence was genuine, and the character frightening and unpredictable. One never knew on whom he was going to turn.
But, like Roger Rabbit before him, the Mask has been toned down. “Disneyized,” although Disney is not the film maker.
In this version, Stanley Ipkiss (Jim Carrey) meanders through life as the quintessential nice guy who finishes last. He gets great concert tickets for himself and a bank co-worker after whom he lusts, only to give them to her so that she can go with a girlfriend (and you just know… just know, although it’s never said… that there is no girlfriend and she is, in fact, going with a guy. Odds are, Stanley knows it, too.)
He brings his car in for an oil change and learns it “needs” a brake job and new transmission. His landlord is a harridan who howls at him if he blinks too loudly. He lusts after a nightclub singer named Tina (Cameron Diaz, in her motion picture debut) but it’s never going to go anywhere.
He keeps trying to flash a smile through it all, which is easy enough for Carrey. The man is a set of teeth with a face and body attached. (If there’s ever another live action Alice in Wonderland, Carrey must play the Cheshire Cat.) But you can sense that he’s tiring of having the world’s foot prints on his face, and is, in fact, a walking timebomb. It’s the kind of mental attitude that led to Michael Douglas wigging out in Falling Down.
Douglas, however, did not acquire the green wooden mask that Ipkiss happens upon. Something compels him to don it and, just as in the comics, he becomes the Mask.
Whereas the comics portrayed the Mask as pretty much unstoppable, the film takes it one step further. The Mask is, quite simply, a cartoon. The justification is that Ipkiss himself is an animation buff. He has decorations from Merrie Melodies and Tex Avery cartoons strewn throughout his apartment. Rather than unleashing a closet homicidal maniac, the Mask turns him into the animaniac of his secret heart.
He pulls props from nowhere, he can survive any impact. When we first see him he’s just pulled out of a spin on par with the Tasmanian Devil, turns to the camera and hisses what will likely be the summer’s new catch phrase: “Sssssssmokin’!” Five minutes later he’s crashed to the street, copping the flat-as-a-pancake riff from Judge Doom in Roger Rabbit. He reinflates and goes off to paint the town weird.
But this is a watered down Mask, an amiably antic Mask. Gone is the unpredictable homicidal madman, and instead we’ve got the cuddly, family-safe nutcase. Sure he causes havoc, but it’s only aimed at those people who did Ipkiss dirt (and, by extension, representatives of the types of people we have encountered in our own every day lives) and thus it’s “okay.” It’s cathartic. No “innocent” bystanders are injured, no lines are crossed.
Nowhere is the difference between comic and film more clearly delineated than the Mask’s confrontation with the police. In the comic, the Mask simply mowed them down with a variety of hardware. In the film, the Mask transforms himself into a Spanish singer and belts out a rendition of “Cuban Pete” (sung sprightly by Carrey) that literally becomes infectious. The police are unable to refrain from joining in (due to the Mask’s apparent ability to change the world around him into a cartoon environment) and within minutes have formed a conga line.
One depicts the unfunny slaughter of cops. The other gives us a showman. The Mask has gone from Bugsy Segal to Bugs Bunny.
The comparison to Roger Rabbit is never more apparent than in a cabaret where the Mask watches Tina in action. What we’re seeing here is the reversal of Eddie Valiant laying eyes on Jessica Rabbit for the first time. Jessica is now the human being whereas Eddie is the toon, right down to changing into a Tex Avery wolf’s head and howling. He does a wild eye take, plus his tongue rolls out of his mouth.
The Mask’s interest in Tina, however, brings him into a collision course with would-be crime lord Dorian Tyrel (Peter Greene). The Mask swipes both Tyrel’s intended money and intended girlfriend, Tina, and Tyrel targets Ipkiss for the fall guy and the mask itself for his ticket to power.
Director Charles Russell, known for other such low-key films as Nightmare on Elm Street III, appears to keep matters under control… no easy trick when one is doing, basically, a live action cartoon.
The problem with producing a cartoon, though, is that when all is said and done, one winds up with just that. No more, no less. Being a cartoon brings both advantages and disadvantages. Because the outrageousness is so out there, so over the top, ideally the need for grounding in humanity becomes that much greater. If we’re going to have a balanced film, then the extreme of one type should be matched by the extreme of another.
Doesn’t happen. Doesn’t come close. The characters in the Mike Werb screenplay (story by Michael Fallon and Mark Verheiden) are largely one-dimensional. The Mask himself is rarely quite as zany as he imagines himself to be (one wonders what Robin Williams would have done in the role). The police are uniformly incompetent, with the exception of Peter Riegert’s “Lt. Kellaway.” The creeps are creepy, the bad guys are bad, the good guys are good (although there’s some nice playing against expectations with both Diaz and Amy Yasbeck, who plays reporter Peggy Brandt.)
Oh, Carrey does an excellent job. His body seems to be held together, not by tendons, but by wishful thinking. He mugs, he slithers, he slinks in a manner reminiscent of Buster Keaton or, of more recent vintage, Ðìçk Van Ðÿkë. When the boys from ILM work to wildly distort his body, there are times where it seems almost unnecessary. Carrey’s limber enough to make virtually any contortion believable, no matter how warped. Greg Cannom’s special effects make-up does nothing to hinder Carrey’s mugging, and actually accentuates it. It’s a visually arresting film.
Carrey faces stiff competition from two supporting characters. One is in the small but pivotal role of an expert on masks, played by noted columnist Ben Stein. Stein made an indelible mark on the psyche of America’s youth for his role in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, portraying with teeth-gnashing perfection the teacher everyone had… sometimes repeatedly. The one whose monotone is so deadly that the brain goes into vapor lock (his intoning “Anyone? Anyone?” as he would ask and answer his own questions because the students had gone into intellectual cardiac arrest was priceless.)
The other, greater problem is Carrey’s genuine co-star. Never work with kids and dogs. No kids here, but Ipkiss’ dog, Milo (played by Max, like we care about the name difference) plays more and more of a role in the proceedings, eventually displaying intuition and ability rivaling, if not surpassing, Lassie.
Ultimately, though, when it comes to The Mask–as Dorothy Parker said–there’s no “there” there. We’re entertained, we have a good time watching the characters go through their paces. But they’re never more than just characters. In terms of screen nice guys, Ipkiss never comes alive for us the way that, say, Kevin Kline’s Dave did, or any Jimmy Stewart character… or even Rob Petrie. We’re rooting for him, because we want the good guys to triumph. But the whole film is too goofy, too silly, to get really worked up over.
This seems to be a recurring problem in the genre of comic book related films. The emphasis is on visual, visual, visual… and visually, The Mask looks sensational. Just as The Shadow did. Just as Batman and Batman Returns did. No one has quite managed to take us beyond the look into the heart of the characters. To make us care about them as human beings, striving to overcome odds. The film to come closest to doing so was The Crow, and it’s impossible to determine how much of that comes from the sheer melancholy attached to the fate of that movie’s star.
Then again, it’s not like comic books themselves are immune from this problem. Characters no longer need a coherent storyline or an interesting, or even original, characterization, in order to succeed. As long as they look good and divert us, audiences are more than happy to take that as sufficient.
In a way, it’s ironic. Several hundred years ago, this country was founded by settlers. And now here we are, and we’re “settlers” once more; we’ll “settle” for something that captures us visually, even though it doesn’t come close to challenging our emotional core.
Paddy Chayefsky, in his groundbreaking screenplay Network, saw it coming. Saw the embracing of the visceral reaction, the easiest means of stimulating audience attention as the be-all, end-all of entertainment.
“We are in the boredom killing business!” declares Peter Finch’s visionary newsman in a euphoric epiphany. And so he was, and so are today’s producers of films and comic book. If it diverts, if it entertains, then the emotional depth need not be so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church door. ‘Tis enough. ‘Twill serve.
The Mask is a film that literally could not have been made a few years ago. The advancements with seamless computer animation have made it possible. They’ve substituted for effects that would have been far more elaborate, more expensive, and quite likely, unconvincing and unmanageable. All hail the computer, the movie maker’s newest friend.
But although the computer can give us the Mask’s heart literally leaping out of his chest, it cannot produce something that touches the heart. That’s left for the writers and actors to do, and in that respect The Mask–for all its energy and eagerness to please–comes up short.
(Peter David, writer of stuff, (who can be written to at Second Age, Inc., PO Box 239, Bayport, NY 11705) saw a trailer for a film with Carrey and Jeff Daniels called Dumb and Dumber. It looked moronic. The audience was cheering. A nation of settlers are we.)





15 or so years on this review is pretty prophetic.
.
THE MASK will probably be best remembered in Hollywood as the movie that made them realize to never, ever, EVER make a movie with sequel potential without nailing down the main cast members with a contract that Daniel Webster could not break.
So much for Carrey as the Cheshire Cat.
Peter, did you post this today because it is Jim Carrey’s birthday or was that just a remarkable coincidence?
I’m assuming it’s coincidence.
.
PAD
Yes, it’s coincidence. Still just running the columns in order semi-weekly.
I’m guessing that, since it’s been 17 years, this no longer counts as a spoiler:
.
I remember when I saw The Mask, I figured Diaz would be the one to turn on Stanley, and Yasbeck would be the one to stick with him. Shows how much I knew.
Minor bit of trivia: When Stanley does the Tex Avery wolf bit, and his heart is pounding out of his chest, his shirt buttons (maybe you can see it by freeze-framing a DVD; i saw it in a still in a magazine at the time) are little purple hearts.
.
Not the military decoration.
Cameron Diaz was the hottest thing I had ever seen when this movie came out but then she got so dámņ thin it’s depressing.
And while the movie definitely puts kid gloves on the source material I enjoyed it thoroughly. They changed it and made the movie it’s own thing.
I remember seeing “The Mask” in the cinema twice during its original theatrical run. I was about 12 years old at the time and I thought the film was pretty great, but I don’t think I ever sought out to watch it again after that, for whatever reason. Recently I was channel-surfing and I came across “The Mask” and whilst watching it…I thought it was pretty mediocre. Whether the film doesn’t hold up, or I’ve gotten more cynical, or both, I don’t know.
Yeah, I think that goes back to what Peter said.
.
For repeat value, there has to be a solid story there, that appeals to the heart. Dipping a toe or even confronting the darkness in the original story I think could have lifted the movie higher. It would have made for a better movie…and something enjoyable on repeat viewings.
I have very happy memories of this film, as I went on a lazy Saturday afternoon with my parents when I was 10. “Smokin'” certainly was the catchphrase in our house that Summer.
I rewatched it recently and the bit that really stood out for me was the Cuban Pete sequence. Ended up rewinding about 4 times…Carrey’s excellent in that scene.
I liked this film mainly because I hadn’t read the comic and therefore had no basis for comparison.
Well, that and Cameron Diaz was just, well, SMOKIN’.
I worked for an insurance company who used to give away a humidor at forums and industry events, so of course after the movie came out the posters talked about how the company was ssssssssmokin’!
.
.
The irony of a health insurance company giving out a humidor seemed to be lost on everyone but me.
Peter, are you going to make a blog entry or otherwise comment on the decision to give Spider-Man mechanical webshooters in the upcoming movie? (I find it kinda ironic.)
.
Also, are you writing the novelization again?
Ironic? It seems pretty straightforward to me. Not only is it from the comics (and even the comics are back to that), but it also differentiates it from the previous movies. In a series that’s being rebooted so soon, differentiation is useful.
Clarification: The source I read this it didn’t explicitly admit they were webshooters; Rather, Emma Stone, who plays Gwen Stacy, said at the Golden Globes that “it’s a device”. While it’s certainly possible, even possible that they’re webshooters, it has yet to be officially confirmed by the production.
.
Source: http://splashpage.mtv.com/2011/01/17/spider-man-costumes-web-shooters-emma-stone/
“The Mask looks sensational. Just as The Shadow did. Just as Batman and Batman Returns did. No one has quite managed to take us beyond the look into the heart of the characters”
Hey, Peter, do you think any of the movies in the last ten years managed to look into the heart of the characters? If so, which ones?
Back in college for a detective fiction class, I did a paper titled (IIRC) “Soft-Boiled: Noir Influence on WHO CENSORED ROGER RABBIT?” That was a fun write.
I think this film is still great and eminently rewatchable. It’s just silly fun, and sometimes that’s plenty.
I have always loved the movie ‘The Mask’. I found it to be a charming, funny film with great special effects. I’ll watch it any time it happens to be on TV, and sometimes I’ll put in the tape just ot watch interruption-free.
I think it did indeed have ‘heart’, and that was Stanly’s main feature and virtue. He was a ‘nice guy’, and by the end of the film, he learned that tho The Mask could save the day, it was Stanley’s own human skills that won over the girl, made his dog love him, and saved the day. He gave up the wooden magical mask (threw it off a bridge!) because he didn’t need it any more…being human was good enough. I think that lesson (not learned by his best friend, who jumped in after the floating mask)ended the film very well, and elevated it above being just a special-effects film.
Just my two cents, y’all!
I think it’s important to remember that The Mask was also kind of a cartoon character in the comics, as well. In fact, that was the point – he was a larger-than-life homicidal version of a Tex Avery character surrounded by this gritty reality, and routinely pulled off the same type of over-the-top stunts that the character did in the film, except with more blood. Of course, the difference is one of tone – the comics are all about the consequences that someone having this power would have on the real world, and the mood (at least for the first three arcs) is dead serious, and see the people who end up putting on the Mask driven to insanity and addiction to its effects. Stanley Ipkiss in particular becomes a physically abusive, militaristic boyfriend, and Kellaway (who is younger and far more important to the world of the comic) ends up shot in the back because of it. There’s a lot of Jungian stuff there, and all sorts of things.
But, we must remember that it wasn’t the directors or the producers who urged the screenwriter to take the character in this direction, but the writer and co-creator of the comic himself, who found that the initial drafts of the script, which were much more geared toward the kind of urban horror that populated the comics, lacked the kind of Tex Avery stunts that were so much fun to begin with. In that respect, I totally enjoyed the film.
Although, I would like to see someone else take a crack at the character on screen in the future, utilizing the blood-stained, tribal history of the Mask and how it passes from one pair of hands to another, leaving ruined lives like a storm in its wake.