Directors: Anthony Russo, Joe Russo
Writers: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely
Cast: Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Sebastian Stan, Scarlett Johansson, Chadwick Boseman, Daniel Bruhl, Anthony Mackie, Don Cheadle, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany, Jeremy Renner, Emily VanCamp, William Hurt, Paul Rudd, Tom Holland, Frank Grillo, Martin Freeman, Marisa Tomei, John Kani, John Slattery, Hope Davis
Runtime: 147 mins.
2016
In the month since the release of Captain America: Civil War, I have been trying to parse my feelings about the film. I've always been a sucker for comic book cinema, ever since I was weaned on Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies,* but as I've become more discerning and my tastes have shifted, I've grown less and less comfortable with easy bankable formulas. In fact, my adoration of nerd culture in general has soured for reasons I'd prefer not to get into here.
*Spider-Man 1 + 2 still being the best pieces of superhero cinema in existence, with a sideward nod to The Dark Knight.
Over the years I've frequently pushed to redefine the arbitrary boundaries of what is fit to be included in discussions about art and academia to include certain "vulgar genre fiction" properties. I've tried to rally against biases folks have towards superhero fiction, children's movies, animation, speculative fiction, and so on. It's not about the surface level signifiers; it's about being able to meet a story on its own terms.
That being said, I've also had to flip that script on myself and confront my own delusions about properties that I wanted so badly to adore. 2012 was a watershed year for me; I had to face the one-two punch of The Amazing Spider-Man and The Dark Knight Rises, both movies that I wanted to love so badly that I was blinded to their myriad flaws. In both cases, my wake-up call came in the form of my favorite film critic, Film Crit Hulk, who wrote eye-opening screeds against both of these films. Here they are, if you're interested.
Film Crit Hulk Smash: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN HAS 99 PROBLEMS BUT AN UNCLE BEN AIN'T ONE
Film Crit Hulk Smash: HULK VS. THE DARK KNIGHT RISES
I became a diligent student of HULK's massive body of essays. Much of anything worthwhile I have to say about film has been informed by his structural and story insights. Even though I've never met him, I rank HULK among the most impactful mentors of my educational life.
So of course I would be remiss if I didn't sit up and pay attention when HULK dropped a harsh critique of Captain America: Civil War and the Marvel machine.
Film Crit Hulk Smash: CIVIL WAR, SPIDER-MAN 2, And The Dangers Of Assumed Empathy
Most of the other critics I respect have lavished praise on Civil War, for reasons you're likely familiar with. But this is the HULK we're talking about, a dissenting voice that rings louder and truer in my head than just about anyone else.
HULK makes a great deal of good points here, as well as a handful that I certainly disagree with. I can't get 100% on board with his critiques, but he does contextualize something that has been tugging at my consciousness since my viewing of Avengers: Age of Ultron, a film that left me entertained but overstimulated, amused but empty.
At what point do these big flashy team-up movies stop engaging and start ingratiating?
Thinking about all of this has crystallized my feelings about Civil War, which can be more or less summed up as follows: Captain America: Civil War is absolutely not the best movie in the MCU, though it may be the most impressive.
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) are at war, though they don't want to be. In the wake of a series of destructive mistakes made by the Avengers, General "Thunderbolt" Ross (William Hurt) has teamed up with Tony to put together the Sokovia Accords, a document meant to put the Avengers at the whim of the United Nations. Tony may have thumbed his nose at government oversight years ago ("I have successfully privatized world peace."), but his psyche has been repeatedly riddled with trauma to the point that he has become obsessively security-oriented, and the Sokovia Accords are simply the most recent example of that. Rogers, meanwhile, used to be a government stooge, but his arc has taken him away from putting any trust whatsoever in large bureaucratic bodies. Not to mention that he is personally implicated in this conflict by the re-emergence of his childhood friend James "Bucky" Barnes (Sebastian Stan), aka The Winter Soldier, who stands accused of engineering a devastating bombing during the signing of the Accords. Thus, at the core of this team-up film, we have the finest argument yet for the payoffs of long-form cinematic universe storytelling--a narrative that only works on the back of character development that the audience has witnessed unfold steadily over the past decade.
It works. The pitfall of Civil War would have been to make Tony the villain, but instead both of these characters are written as perfect foils to one another, caught up in a situation that is going straight to hell despite everybody's best efforts. Downey in particular puts in one of his best Stark performances. Tony is a tragic figure here, trying his best to do what's right, but with an arc that is bookended and compromised by personal loss. You'll talk to people who are anti-Stark, and you'll talk to people who are anti-Rogers, but they are in the minority; most folks who see these two titans whaling on each other simply want them to stop, embrace, and make their peace. The thematic work woven through the script may be a bit on the nose, but it's compelling nonetheless. You learn a lot about folks' politics and ethics by how they align themselves with these heroes, and that is an impressive feat for a big budget popcorn movie to accomplish.
Perhaps the most incredible aspect of Civil War, though, is the way it refuses to neglect even the smallest bit player in this conflict. Take a gander at that enormous cast list. The Russos, in conjunction with writers Markus and McFeely, have somehow managed to give each of those characters their due without allowing the narrative to buckle under its own weight, a feat that Whedon was not quite able to accomplish in Age of Ultron. Everybody has clear motivations and narrative progression, a juggling act that I wasn't quite sure the Russos could pull off. Take Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), a character who has quietly become one of my favorite players in the MCU. She has no personal stakes in whether or not the Accords are signed, and could have easily been lost in the shuffle. Yet the filmmakers take care to give here a clear and unique motivation--she just wants her friends to stick together no matter what--and translate that into an arc with surprising moments of depth (showing up to the funeral, the airport betrayal, etc.). Or, even better, take the debut of Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther character. Rather than wait until his solo film, his origin story is subtly spliced into the backdrop of Civil War's main events. This never feels artless or forced. Rather, Boseman sells the hell out of his pain, and only deepens the seriousness of the film's events. He makes arguably the climactic emotional choice of the film, ties a ribbon on its themes, and claims the trophy of my favorite character in the movie. It speaks to the Russos' meticulous method that they have been the first filmmakers to successfully wade through the mire of a dozen plus superheroes with aplomb.
Of course, it wouldn't be a superhero story without bombastic action, and Civil War does not disappoint. Although not quite as tight as the Russos' work on The Winter Soldier, the action here is far and away more engrossing than your typical MCU effort. If I could offer one complaint about it, it would be the blandness of the settings--but you could argue that this helps keep focus on the endless bombardment of characters. Each chase or combat sequence develops organically in the narrative, is given clear stakes that are continually heightened, and twists and turns like a roller coaster, featuring more rewards than you could have reasonably expected. Quality action is systematic. It's difficult to find big action that doesn't blatantly feel like mountains of pixels smashing against each other. Civil War, on the other hand, is elegant, humorous, and impactful in its combat. There are countless eye-popping did-you-see-that water-cooler moments scattered through every single fight scene. In other movies you would feel grateful if one or two of these banner moments snuck their way into each fight, but here you're inundated with them. It's glorious.
And also ingratiating. I could go on and on about the joy and craftsmanship of Civil War, but I can never quite shake the feeling that I'm being pandered to. Of course the pandering is never on the surface like it so painfully is for Civil War's counterpart, Batman v Superman. The Russos manage to stamp out the obvious ancillary stuff like Thor's hot tub dream quest in Age of Ultron, but it's still there structurally, buried deep and covered over with delightful playthings.
I'm talking about Spider-Man and Ant Man here, two characters that I am thrilled make their way into this movie, and absolutely steal the show, but who frankly do not belong in this story. The Russos aren't hacks, and they make sure these two insectoid heroes add bits and pieces to the themes of the film, but they can't transcend their roles as souped up cameos that hijack the central narrative for a while. The plotting of Civil War is a bit messy in places (namely having to do with the machinations of villain Baron Zemo (Daniel Bruhl) who is so surprising in his emotional impact that I will absolutely excuse any messiness), but it keeps a tight reign on itself... until the two sides start laboriously gathering their bands together.
Don't get me wrong, Spider-Man is my favorite hero, and they get everything right about him here. But of course they get everything right--they're Marvel. Superproducer Kevin Feige has made a science out of providing fans with the most pleasing sensational experiences possible, but it must be said that this comes at the expense of impact. The climactic fight between Tony and Cap, for example, is beautiful, tragic, and impactful; but the movie doesn't end there. The final scenes are the most conservative parts of the movie, declawing a lot of the drama and walking back some of the trauma.** Colonel Rhodes was paralyzed!... but now he's kinda not because Tony built him robot legs. Some of our favorite heroes were imprisoned!... except Cap shows up to bust them out no problem. Cap and Tony's relationship is irrevocably damaged!... only not so much, because Cap makes sure to let Tony know they can team up anytime, no problem. Perhaps these are the most pleasing choices, and perhaps they are necessary to keep the Marvel machine chugging, but no question about it they defy the consequential tone the Russos worked so hard over two hours to craft. If one were to cut Spider-Man and Ant Man from this movie, and end it immediately following the final fight, you suddenly have a much more powerful story about the consequences of heroism. As it stands, you still have that, but in a slightly watered down more palatable way.
**Not to mention the funny but shockingly tone deaf Stan Lee cameo, which could have more appropriately fit in any other part of the movie but here. That accurately describes the worst parts of Civil War: entertaining, but somewhat harmful in the grand scheme of things.
All of that said, the Russos may have told the best possible version of this story they could have under their corporate constraints. This is the good and bad of every movie that needs to also be a commercial for the next movie, and despite its inherent flaws, it could be said that Captain America: Civil War has perfected the form of perpetual shared universe cinematic storytelling. We just can't let ourselves be blinded to that format's flaws while we revel in its gifts.
3 / 5 BLOBS
No comments:
Post a Comment