Director: Taika Waititi
Writers: Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, Christopher Yost
Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Idris Elba, Jeff Goldblum, Tessa Thompson, Karl Urban, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Hopkins, Taika Waititi
Runtime: 130 mins.
2017
The Marvel Cinematic Universe here enters its 17th entry, and for at least the last ten of those it hasn't been able to shake a particular debate: Are all Marvel movies the same?
For my part, I tend to be impressed by the malleability of Marvel's formula. Ever since the anonymous Thor: The Dark World, every new film has very explicitly staked a claim to its own genre identity. The Winter Soldier is a political thriller, Guardians of the Galaxy is a space opera comedy, Ant-Man is a heist movie, Iron Man 3 is a Shane Black movie. These movies have gotten to a comfortable enough place that they can take aesthetic risks, and visually each film seems more differentiated than the last, a trend that is set to continue if the entrancing footage from Black Panther is any indication.
That being said, there are commonalities between the films that are worth paying attention to. Cameos, post-credit scenes, regrettable forgettable set-ups for future movies, weak villains, generic CGI portal-based action climaxes. By themselves these surface-level resemblances do not make the franchise samey, but they are interconnected with some deep tissue storytelling tendencies that I suspect are the major factor in making audiences feel like they are watching something they've seen before. Chief among these are a lack of consequence and character arcs that slyly cut corners in order to perpetually sustain the regressive status quo.
Ragnarok is very much a Marvel movie in that it yet again features all these issues in some measure. Despite being played by one of the most talented actors in film, Hela (Cate Blanchett) is somehow yet another underwhelming villain. The climax is trying its hardest to enliven the cliches, and it is admittedly badass eye candy, but remains a CGI throwdown with faceless villains and portal macguffins. The themes and character motivations are present throughout, but often occluded. Fortunately, just like Guardians of the Galaxy before it, Marvel found a director uniquely suited to exploit the shortcomings of the Marvel model.
There's a solid argument to be made that Ragnarok is the funniest Marvel movie, and perhaps the only one that could stand on its merits as a comedy alone. In terms of staking claim to its generic identity, I've seen folks say that Ragnarok is a farce, and I endorse that categorization. Waititi has an incredible ability to bring a sense of fun and play to every aspect of his work, while never undercutting the serious or cool aspects with Whedonesque jokeyness.* Waititi's comedy always feels natural because it is shot through the reality of his worlds, and as such never feels like an intrusion.
*Not that I want to add to the recent internet pile-on against Whedon's tone--he was perfect for The Avengers. But I do personally prefer the way that Waititi's humor moves.
Thor's character benefits greatly from Waititi's inclinations. This is a superhero who has been sort of a hanger-on since the beginning of the MCU. Branagh found some limited success with the character in his hit or miss initial film, but Thor has had a bad time ever since then. The Dark World may be the least enjoyable MCU film, and he has been consistently underutilized in the Avengerses, almost hilariously so in Age of Ultron.** Finally Hemsworth gets to have fun with the god of thunder, which he has so clearly been trying to do this entire time. Thor is petty, silly, and an enthusiastic anchor for all the strange otherworldliness we encounter throughout.
**cf pointless hot tub spirit journey exposition freakout scene
That weirdness splashes its way all across Ragnarok's phenomenal production design. Dan Hennah and Ra Vincent put adequate care into recreating Asgard, but their passion was clearly funneled into the realization of the trash planet on which Thor is accidentally exiled. The acid blasts of bright color, the chintzy grandeur of the architecture, the Hunger Games-esque style of the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum) and his ruling class... credit also to set decorator Beverley Dunn and Costume Designer Mayes C. Rubeo for their contributions here. These good folks built a fully realized fantasy/sci-fi world for us to enjoy the hell out of.
Of course, Goldblum's presence heightens everything around him, especially given free reign to indulge in his signature quirks. The cast in general is excellent, whether or not they have anything of substance to do, for which the answer is almost always no. The one exception to this might be Ruffalo-as-Hulk. His Banner work here is a bit sketchy, but verbal Hulk manages to provide surprising pathos. It turns out that when this Hulk is capable of speech, he becomes a petulant child. His rapport with Thor, a childlike character in his own right, is a definite highlight of the film. They bicker like siblings, and there's clearly a lot of love there. The big green rage monster achieves a couple moments of surprising, heartbreaking vulnerability that give an insightful window into the nature of anger. Getting Hulk into this narrative took maximum contrivance, but it was the right choice.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the best character in the film, Korg (Taika Waititi), a rock monster gladiator whose role in the film is to provide concentrated doses of comedy whenever he appears. The CGI is bad, almost purposefully so, allowing us to focus exclusively on Waititi's off-kilter line readings. Also worth mentioning: Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie. Thompson steals every scene in every movie I've seen her in, and she makes Valkyrie far more compelling than she ought to have been, with her generic dead end character arc.
Ragnarok manages to break another trend of Marvel mediocrity; Mark Mothersbaugh's score is a synthy orchestra that is absolutely in tune with the fantasy-metal vibe that populates the film with giant wolves and armies of pegasus-riding Valkyries.
Someone on The Internet said that beneath the A-material of Ragnarok lurks a 3-star Thor movie. This is so true. I wish there had been more commitment to telling the central story (note that I haven't even bothered with a plot recap). Thor's character has the same arc he always has (hubris ---> humility), and the film doesn't exactly know how to handle the themes that Waititi is trying to nudge to the forefront. Ragnarok is smart enough to hone in on the violent colonialism beneath the myth of Asgard, as represented by an excellent scene in which Hela destroys the beatific throne room mural of the royal family only to reveal a different interpretation of Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and Asgard's history: a mural of violence and bloody conflict. It's a daring commentary for such a high profile movie, especially as Marvel and Disney and the concept of superheroism itself are all tinged with a colonial ethos. Maybe that's why the message gets smothered. Waititi tries to make it a meditation on the concept of Home. At the end of the movie,
SPOILER
Thor and his people are displaced from Asgard. The lesson is that the people are more important than the place. But it still feels a little gross to have a refugee allegory populated by blonde-hair blue-eye white people. At least it's helmed by Marvel's first POC director.
END SPOILER
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a blast. It's oozing personality, a relative rarity for such a high profile blockbuster. If it's a bit more shallow than it could be, well, I'm inclined to believe that Waititi's achievements within the system are still notable, and that he rightfully prioritized making the film the funniest mainstream superhero movie of all time.***
3.5 / 5 BLOBS
***I would accept counterarguments about: Guardians of the Galaxy, The Lego Batman Movie, and Batman: The Movie ('66). Sorry Deadpool.
No comments:
Post a Comment