This installment is going to be begin with a sad story. On April 15th, 2012, my cat, Scaredy Mary, passed away. She was my cat for almost 10 years and I loved her a whole metric ton, so I took the loss really hard. It was one of those losses that made it hard to go day by day, I was utterly devastated.
So it's weird to say this, but The Avengers was some of the best healing one could ask for. Marvel Studios' big crossover event came out on May 4th, less than three weeks after her death. It was the first, and will remain the only, movie I ever watched exactly at midnight the night of the nationwide premiere. The crowd I saw it with alone made the experience worthwhile, but it also helped that The Avengers was a shining example of everything that makes the Marvel Cinematic Universe work. Thanks to careful planning, brilliant casting, and years of build-up, these were characters we cared about and were excited to see interact and fight bad guys together.
This herculean task of bringing together the stars across four different franchises had to be pulled off by a writer and director who knew what they were doing. Naturally, that man for the job was nerd icon and celebrated screenwriter Joss Whedon, and the result he delivered is perhaps one of the most important superhero films ever made. So the big question is: how in the hell did he pull it off?
This was perhaps the movie's greatest feat. It was up to Whedon to find the flaws in each character and explore why each one would not play well with others. Whether it's Stark's narcissism, Banner's fear of himself, Rogers's old-fashioned values, or Thor's bold confidence; these factors had to be what not only brought the team together but put them in danger of tearing each other apart. It's boring to have a film where everyone gets along right off the bat, so the movie focuses its first two acts on bringing them all together and almost immediately clashing. Each one has a huge personality, almost overbearing even. So when they put all of their differences aside and fight for what's right, it's rewarding. Not only do they all grow as characters, but the audience's investment is paid off.
Cinema hardly ever gets as thrilling as the climax of The Avengers. Yes, there's a lot going on in all of the action, but what makes it all work is the realization that these characters are working together and working together well. So much emphasis is placed on the scene where Captain America delivers the orders and the team follows them. They would never have done that at the beginning of the film. Yes, this means that Coulson's death was necessary. He was the heart of the team whether they realized it or not, the stoic figure who believed in them from the sidelines. He was willing to die for that ideal, and that sacrifice was the wake-up call that the Avengers (cute play on the namesake there) needed to put their egos aside and save the world. That's good writing if you ask me.
Loki was a brilliant choice for the villain, not only because he's Thor's brother but because he is a master manipulator. You gotta have a villain who can really test the heroes, and what better way to test that than through mind games? If they had gone with a big, powerful villain like Thanos right off the bat, the movie would have been a boring punch-fest like Justice League. Choosing a physically weak character is a unique choice, and Tom Hiddleston once again plays the role with conniving aplomb. There are still flashes of regret, but the pressures of living up to his master and a rage that spiraled out of control push him into irredeemable territory.
Of course, the film would have faltered if the heroes weren't exciting to watch. Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, and Chris Evans all already proved they could carry these movies by themselves. Now, they had to play ball with their fellow stars, and the result is a stellar tug-of-war between the leads to bring out the A-game in each other. RDJ gets several chances to play around, improvising much of his dialogue which Whedon brilliantly worked in further as the movie progressed through production (the entire Galaga gag was improvised by Downey, so they sought out the rights from Namco Bandai to add the punchline later in production). Evans adds a new element to Captain America as the man out of time whose beliefs are tested by a changing world, though the strength and sincerity in Evans' portrayal weighs out the crushing reality of a crueler world closing in on him. Finally, Hemsworth probably makes it out the weakest of the leads here unfortunately. He really shines in any scenes where he's in combat or interacting with Hiddleston, but he feels out of place with the rest of the Avengers in dialogue-heavy scenes.
So, that brings us to our fourth franchise lead. However, as everyone knows by now, things changed between The Incredible Hulk and The Avengers. The most possible theory behind Edward Norton departing the role was that he wanted to co-write the script with Whedon, and when Whedon refused, Norton quit. This led Marvel Studios to recast yet another role, this time with the actor The Incredible Hulk director Louis Leterrier wanted to begin with: Mark Ruffalo. The result is a performance that leans in more heavily on a man who is deeply terrified with himself, and easily the best performance out of any big screen Bruce Banner to date. Thankfully, Ruffalo was finally the one who stuck for future appearance, and his nervous energy gives Banner the layer that had been missing for audiences to sympathize, or even empathize, with him.
Scarlett Johansson returns as Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow, and though she's given a lot more to do here, her character winds up falling into the same trap as every female character Whedon has written for. Her hard edges hides a sensitive and broken interior, and while this adds some much needed dimension to Natasha after her tacked-on appearance in Iron Man 2, Johansson really seems to struggle adding that element to her character. Her performances in the Captain America films are much stronger than her Avengers ones because they don't try to focus on her as someone who's only a badass because she had no choice.
Jeremy Renner by far gets the short end of the stick out of the entire Avengers crew because Clint Barton/Hawkeye spends a vast majority of the film brainwashed by Loki. It's a nice nod to his origins as a villain, but out of the whole team (minus Maria Hill), he's the character we barely know at all. To have him be twisted into a villain doesn't really resonate, no matter how much Natasha feels desperate to save him. Honestly, it's more heart-wrenching to watch Erik Selvig be turned because he was well established in Thor, so to see him become corrupted holds investment better. Renner does get his chance to shine after Clint returns to normal because we see him bring a cockiness to the team that's justified by his absolutely badass archery skills. Still, Renner will do way better in future installments, a lesson Whedon learned well because he's one of the highlights of Avengers: Age of Ultron.
What else can be said about the film? Well, it's not as quippy as everyone remembers. Yes, there are "Whedonisms" and a few of them definitely don't work. But the movie isn't that much more reliant on humor than Iron Man was. In fact, there are a lot of moments of heavy, almost humor-free dialogue with maybe one or two small lines to add some levity. The humor in this film is nowhere near as overbearing as later MCU films like Age of Ultron or Thor: Ragnarok. It doesn't undercut Coulson's death with a sight gag, it gives intimate character moments time to breathe. It uses its humor wisely and with purpose most of the time instead of having humor because "it's a Marvel movie, and Marvel movies are funny".
The cinematography by Seamus McGarvey is underwhelming outside of some iconic shots. The music, provided once again by Alan Silvestri, is strong and brought together by a brilliant theme. The special effects are probably the best out of any MCU film yet, some shots were accomplished through CG (like Hawkeye taking out his bow) that I didn't realize were until I watched some behind the scenes footage. Finally, despite being a crossover, the movie stands on its own two feet. I can imagine one can definitely watch this film without having seen another MCU movie. And judging from the record-shattering box office numbers (the first movie to open with over $200 million in one weekend, and it domestically grossed almost twice as much as Iron Man, the previous highest grossing MCU film), a lot of people did just that. The film also doesn't endlessly set up sequels, but it does put the changed characters in positions where further stories can come forward naturally.
I saw The Avengers four times in theaters, all within the first month of release. I can look back on it and spot the flaws in the film, but at the time, it was just the movie I needed. A movie where I could believe in heroes, that good can prevail. The story might be simple, but the characters and the action lifts this movie beyond a typical crossover. It is one of the few that was executed almost perfectly, in all the ways that audiences care about. It may not be the prettiest movie, and some characters might have gotten better treatment than others, but it gets so much right. It is one of the longest MCU films, but it is also one of the most rewatchable. It was a grand culmination of Feige's master plan, and its breathtaking success has changed the landscape of franchise filmmaking, for better or for worse.
Thus ended phase 1, with Marvel's most impressive success to date. At this point moving forward, Marvel Studios became more confident, green-lighting more ambitious projects and expanding aggressively into television. We'll be exploring all of those in time. But next time, we're going to diverge a bit and focus on all five of the short films that Marvel produced between phases 1 and 2. This will be one of the only times I do not go through the MCU in perfect release order, but this warrants its own section and I think placing it between the two phases makes the most sense. These shorts added more depth to the MCU by expanding on popular characters the movies didn't have enough time to focus on while also testing the waters for projects Marvel Studios was considering to place on television.
Next time: Marvel One-Shots
Honestly, Whedon had most of the hard work done for him. The key to the overall success of this film was that all of the major players had already been previously established. Even if they weren't the stars of previous films, supporting characters like Loki, Nick Fury, Agent Coulson, Black Widow, and Hawkeye were introduced and established even if their presence in those films weren't much more than cameos. Joss Whedon had a sandbox he was permitted to play in, his only task was to bring these well established characters together.
This was perhaps the movie's greatest feat. It was up to Whedon to find the flaws in each character and explore why each one would not play well with others. Whether it's Stark's narcissism, Banner's fear of himself, Rogers's old-fashioned values, or Thor's bold confidence; these factors had to be what not only brought the team together but put them in danger of tearing each other apart. It's boring to have a film where everyone gets along right off the bat, so the movie focuses its first two acts on bringing them all together and almost immediately clashing. Each one has a huge personality, almost overbearing even. So when they put all of their differences aside and fight for what's right, it's rewarding. Not only do they all grow as characters, but the audience's investment is paid off.
Cinema hardly ever gets as thrilling as the climax of The Avengers. Yes, there's a lot going on in all of the action, but what makes it all work is the realization that these characters are working together and working together well. So much emphasis is placed on the scene where Captain America delivers the orders and the team follows them. They would never have done that at the beginning of the film. Yes, this means that Coulson's death was necessary. He was the heart of the team whether they realized it or not, the stoic figure who believed in them from the sidelines. He was willing to die for that ideal, and that sacrifice was the wake-up call that the Avengers (cute play on the namesake there) needed to put their egos aside and save the world. That's good writing if you ask me.
Loki was a brilliant choice for the villain, not only because he's Thor's brother but because he is a master manipulator. You gotta have a villain who can really test the heroes, and what better way to test that than through mind games? If they had gone with a big, powerful villain like Thanos right off the bat, the movie would have been a boring punch-fest like Justice League. Choosing a physically weak character is a unique choice, and Tom Hiddleston once again plays the role with conniving aplomb. There are still flashes of regret, but the pressures of living up to his master and a rage that spiraled out of control push him into irredeemable territory.
Of course, the film would have faltered if the heroes weren't exciting to watch. Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, and Chris Evans all already proved they could carry these movies by themselves. Now, they had to play ball with their fellow stars, and the result is a stellar tug-of-war between the leads to bring out the A-game in each other. RDJ gets several chances to play around, improvising much of his dialogue which Whedon brilliantly worked in further as the movie progressed through production (the entire Galaga gag was improvised by Downey, so they sought out the rights from Namco Bandai to add the punchline later in production). Evans adds a new element to Captain America as the man out of time whose beliefs are tested by a changing world, though the strength and sincerity in Evans' portrayal weighs out the crushing reality of a crueler world closing in on him. Finally, Hemsworth probably makes it out the weakest of the leads here unfortunately. He really shines in any scenes where he's in combat or interacting with Hiddleston, but he feels out of place with the rest of the Avengers in dialogue-heavy scenes.
So, that brings us to our fourth franchise lead. However, as everyone knows by now, things changed between The Incredible Hulk and The Avengers. The most possible theory behind Edward Norton departing the role was that he wanted to co-write the script with Whedon, and when Whedon refused, Norton quit. This led Marvel Studios to recast yet another role, this time with the actor The Incredible Hulk director Louis Leterrier wanted to begin with: Mark Ruffalo. The result is a performance that leans in more heavily on a man who is deeply terrified with himself, and easily the best performance out of any big screen Bruce Banner to date. Thankfully, Ruffalo was finally the one who stuck for future appearance, and his nervous energy gives Banner the layer that had been missing for audiences to sympathize, or even empathize, with him.
Scarlett Johansson returns as Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow, and though she's given a lot more to do here, her character winds up falling into the same trap as every female character Whedon has written for. Her hard edges hides a sensitive and broken interior, and while this adds some much needed dimension to Natasha after her tacked-on appearance in Iron Man 2, Johansson really seems to struggle adding that element to her character. Her performances in the Captain America films are much stronger than her Avengers ones because they don't try to focus on her as someone who's only a badass because she had no choice.
Jeremy Renner by far gets the short end of the stick out of the entire Avengers crew because Clint Barton/Hawkeye spends a vast majority of the film brainwashed by Loki. It's a nice nod to his origins as a villain, but out of the whole team (minus Maria Hill), he's the character we barely know at all. To have him be twisted into a villain doesn't really resonate, no matter how much Natasha feels desperate to save him. Honestly, it's more heart-wrenching to watch Erik Selvig be turned because he was well established in Thor, so to see him become corrupted holds investment better. Renner does get his chance to shine after Clint returns to normal because we see him bring a cockiness to the team that's justified by his absolutely badass archery skills. Still, Renner will do way better in future installments, a lesson Whedon learned well because he's one of the highlights of Avengers: Age of Ultron.
What else can be said about the film? Well, it's not as quippy as everyone remembers. Yes, there are "Whedonisms" and a few of them definitely don't work. But the movie isn't that much more reliant on humor than Iron Man was. In fact, there are a lot of moments of heavy, almost humor-free dialogue with maybe one or two small lines to add some levity. The humor in this film is nowhere near as overbearing as later MCU films like Age of Ultron or Thor: Ragnarok. It doesn't undercut Coulson's death with a sight gag, it gives intimate character moments time to breathe. It uses its humor wisely and with purpose most of the time instead of having humor because "it's a Marvel movie, and Marvel movies are funny".
The cinematography by Seamus McGarvey is underwhelming outside of some iconic shots. The music, provided once again by Alan Silvestri, is strong and brought together by a brilliant theme. The special effects are probably the best out of any MCU film yet, some shots were accomplished through CG (like Hawkeye taking out his bow) that I didn't realize were until I watched some behind the scenes footage. Finally, despite being a crossover, the movie stands on its own two feet. I can imagine one can definitely watch this film without having seen another MCU movie. And judging from the record-shattering box office numbers (the first movie to open with over $200 million in one weekend, and it domestically grossed almost twice as much as Iron Man, the previous highest grossing MCU film), a lot of people did just that. The film also doesn't endlessly set up sequels, but it does put the changed characters in positions where further stories can come forward naturally.
I saw The Avengers four times in theaters, all within the first month of release. I can look back on it and spot the flaws in the film, but at the time, it was just the movie I needed. A movie where I could believe in heroes, that good can prevail. The story might be simple, but the characters and the action lifts this movie beyond a typical crossover. It is one of the few that was executed almost perfectly, in all the ways that audiences care about. It may not be the prettiest movie, and some characters might have gotten better treatment than others, but it gets so much right. It is one of the longest MCU films, but it is also one of the most rewatchable. It was a grand culmination of Feige's master plan, and its breathtaking success has changed the landscape of franchise filmmaking, for better or for worse.
Thus ended phase 1, with Marvel's most impressive success to date. At this point moving forward, Marvel Studios became more confident, green-lighting more ambitious projects and expanding aggressively into television. We'll be exploring all of those in time. But next time, we're going to diverge a bit and focus on all five of the short films that Marvel produced between phases 1 and 2. This will be one of the only times I do not go through the MCU in perfect release order, but this warrants its own section and I think placing it between the two phases makes the most sense. These shorts added more depth to the MCU by expanding on popular characters the movies didn't have enough time to focus on while also testing the waters for projects Marvel Studios was considering to place on television.
Next time: Marvel One-Shots
No comments:
Post a Comment