Pages

Sunday, May 6, 2012

A review of the Avengers from someone who didn't like it




A review of the Avengers in three parts. I tried to be factual, but I made no effort to be objective.

Introduction:

If you will excuse the digression, I'd like to talk about Narnia by way of introduction.

There was a time when I thought "Hey, neat fantasy books," then "Wait, Aslan is Jesus?" and then "How could I possibly have missed that Aslan is Jesus?!" but even now that I'm a firm atheist, I enjoy the movies and books. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe remains solid, and I think The Magician's Nephew is one of the all time great fantasy stories.

However, some of the books are problematic.

Susan gets shabby treatment. I'll just crib from Wikipedia here.


In The Last Battle, Susan is conspicuous by her absence. Peter says that she is "no longer a friend of Narnia", and (in Jill Pole's words) "she's interested in nothing now-a-days except nylons and lipstick and invitations." Similarly, Eustace Scrubb quotes her as saying, "What wonderful memories you have! Fancy you still thinking about all those funny games we used to play when we were children," and Polly Plummer adds, "She wasted all her school time wanting to be the age she is now, and she'll waste all the rest of her life trying to stay that age. Her whole idea is to race on to the silliest time of one's life as quick as she can and then stop there as long as she can." Thus, Susan does not enter the real Narnia with the others at the end of the series.

Also, in The Horse and His Boy contains a nonstop parade of offensive stereotypes about Islam and Arab culture, but I'm not willing to dismiss that one out of hand, because it contains what's probably my favorite line from the Narnia books. The enemy Prince Rabadash has just been humiliated and captured, and now that the heroes have him at their mercy,  the prince starts mocking him, and the king puts a stop to it.

"Shame, Corin," said the King. "Never taunt a man save when he is stronger than you: then, as you please."

That's the mature response.  Every decent person hates a bully. It offends our sense of justice. We hate seeing people pick on those much weaker than themselves.

And that brings us back to Joss Whedon.

"When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."

Whedon's specialty is crafting a scenario where we can cheer for people who pick on those much weaker than themselves.

More precisely, he sets up a situation where the best, and only reasonable course of action is for the protagonists to defeat someone who has been opposing them, which is such a naked wish fulfillment to certain aspects of geek culture. They didn't want to do it, but they were forced into it by circumstances, and if they should gloat a little, who is to blame them?

But, you say, hypothetical Joss Whedon fan, his heroes, characters, defend the helpless, surely they're the good guys. To a point.

Buffy is the Slayer. The series ran for 145 episodes and let's figure Buffy dusts four or five vampires every episode. A normal person has basically no chance of defending himself against a vampire, but Buffy is to vampires as vampires are to people. They have no chance against her. And she kills them, and that's fine. I dare say it's better than fine, because they would have gone on to kill innocent people if not killed first.



Worthwhile? Absolutely. Good. Unquestionably. But I'll stop short of calling it heroic.  In the end, we're cheering for someone very powerful beating up someone much weaker. Whedon has framed the narrative that we can cheer for the bully without feeling bad about it. (And don't feel compelled to give me counterexamples. It's not present in every one of the hundreds of stories he's written over two decades, but it's pervasive enough a theme that it's the exception when it's not there.)

Angel is pretty much the same. Ditto Firefly. On the Serenity commentary track, Whedon giggles as he keeps a running tally of the unarmed men Reynolds executes. The most thuggish criminal, if he's funny, nice to his friends, and allowed to present events from his point of view, will be seen as a hero. Reynolds lives by a code of honor, that, much like Doctor Doom's almost always dovetails neatly with what he was going to do anyway.

Buffy is an action/horror/comedy ensemble show, so we extend considerably more leeway than we would elsewhere. And it's not about dusting the vamps; they're just a device to illustrate Buffy's personal journey. But none of that changes the facts. Buffy is a bully. She's a bully for all the right reasons, but a bully nonetheless.  Whedon wants us to accept his characters as heroes.

"Buffy, what is best?"   "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."

And it's fine that they're not heroes. There are plenty of properties where the main characters aren't heroes. This is a blog that began so I could review the works of Roger Zelazny, who wrote his thesis on the Revenger's Tragedy, and who made a career out of writing vengeance-seeking superman, many of whom would not be out of place as villains in other works. What's the difference between the two?

For me it's that Zelazny's characters oppose villains of their own caliber, and face legitimate challenges. When Corwin manages to cut down a couple mooks in pursuit of his goal, he doesn't spike the football, he doesn't pretend it was a challenge and he doesn't pretend he did it for any reason other than to get what he wanted.


"In the mirrors of the many judgments, my hands are the color of blood. I am a part of the evil that exists in the world and in Shadow. I sometime fancy myself an evil which exists to oppose other evils...and on that Great Day of which prophets speak but in which they do not truly believe, on that day when the world is completely cleansed of evil, then I, too, will go down into darkness, swallowing curses. Perhaps even sooner than that, I now judge. But whatever.... Until that time, I shall not wash my hands nor let them hang useless."

Crowing about your victory over a legendary hero who arrived half-dead to your fight because he took a nuke to the face saving twenty million people doesn't make you a hero. It just makes you the strongest guy in the room.

But if it makes you forget about all your dead Robins and your performance problems with Selina, I guess it's worth it, eh, Bruce?

And the actual Avengers review: 

(This part has some SPOILERS)

First, stuff I liked. Thor twirled his hammer before he flew. That was awesome. Mark Ruffalo's performance was great. (“I got low. I didn't see a way out. So I put a bullet in my mouth and the other guy spit it out.") I'd like to see him return for another Hulk movie, but my friend Eric made the quip that actors playing Banner are like Defense against the Dark Arts teachers, which was quite a bit funnier than anything in the movie. And Harry Dean Stanton was great. Agent Coulson was pretty awesome, as always.

It was, much like most of Whedon's work, competently crafted from a technical standpoint, though with a budget of a quarter billion dollars, I would hope it would be. I chuckled once or twice during the movie, (I liked the "Shakespeare in the Park" line), but I chuckle once or twice during just about any movie.

Stuff I didn't like. The characters often missed their beats when delivering a stinger, the writing was mostly flat. "As of now, we are at war." Is this what they mean by Joss Whedon's good writing? Or is it when they call the heroes "freaks"? Because that's not tired at all. Samuel L. Jackson can usually be relied upon to give a solid performance, but it feels like he was just phoning it in here. Another blog quipped that he's become the black Christopher Walken.

As I mentioned above and elsewhere, it's a distillation of Whedon's personal style. The people who like it happen to be vocal about it. I happen not to like it, for the reasons I outlined above.

The casting was.....questionable. Aunt Robin did not make a great Maria Hill. Particularly egregious was, in the aftermath of an attack, she's sitting with pursed lips as a medic swabs the mild scrapes on her face, when, in other parts of the carrier, bodies are being carted off.

Scarlett Johansson was excellent back in her Ghost World days, and increasingly, she's just like a mannequin with a good agent. I've seen reviews that praised her performance, but I don't know movie they were watching.

Whedon loves his heroes and is entirely dismissive of his villains. Hawkeye can't hit a damn thing when he's evil and suddenly turns into, well, Hawkeye, when he's not.

Loki, the villain of the piece, blunders into every trap there is, from the "catch the exploding arrow" trap to "the throw Tony Stark out the window when you've given him ample time to get ready for it" one, and gets schooled by not only Thor, the Black Widow, the Hulk, Cap, and Iron Man but also an elderly man in Germany, which goes back to what I said about Whedon's characters picking fights below their weight class.

It took you two and a half hours to beat this guy? Really?
And we get the other Whedon tropes, including the Council of Always Wrong Elderly White People, who exist only for the the protagonists to defy and thereby prove their maverick cred.

I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel.

Also, Thanos looked like a skinny purple skrull. That was terrible.

Final Grade: C, not terrible, but fantastically overrated, much like most of Whedon's work.

24 comments:

  1. Bet you can't wait to read my thoughts on Avengers. Also, nice Pee Wee reference.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Can't quibble with much here. Haven't seen The Avengers yet anyway. But I think Whedon's recent Cabin In the Woods did a decent job of putting the protags up against a superior force. They were being bullied by a force of shadowy manipulators and they fought back. And to his credit in that one, the villains were actually the most likeable guys in the movie (Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford were perfectly cast as bored, nebbishy Company Men). But it's a far different animal than his usual Heroes Vs. Villains work like Buffy, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I now want a Jackson/Walken buddy movie.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This... is... so... stupid.

    I can't comment on Avengers, as I haven't seen it yet; but based on this particularly absurd and misguided anti-Whedon rant, I have to assume you hate all comics and action movies, as the whole big rant against Buffy the Vampire Slayer could be applied to ANY of them virtually word for word. In fact, let's try it:

    "Peter Parker is Spiderman. The series ran for uncountable issues and episodes in innumerable formats and let's figure Spiderman beats up and holds against their will four or five armed criminals every episode. A normal person has basically no chance of defending himself against an armed criminal, but Peter is to armed criminals as armed criminals are to people. They have no chance against him. And he beats them up and holds them against their will, and that's fine. I dare say it's better than fine, because they would have gone on to rob innocent people if not captured first.

    "Worthwhile? Absolutely. Good. Unquestionably. But I'll stop short of calling it heroic. In the end, we're cheering for someone very powerful beating up someone much weaker. Marvel's stable of writers have framed the narrative that we can cheer for the bully without feeling bad about it."

    DC gets in on the action too:

    "Clark Kent is Superman. The series ran for uncountable issues and episodes in innumerable formats and let's figure Superman beats up and holds against their will four or five armed criminals every episode. A normal person has basically no chance of defending himself against an armed criminal, but Clark is to armed criminals as armed criminals are to people. They have no chance against him. And he beats them up and holds them against their will, and that's fine. I dare say it's better than fine, because they would have gone on to rob innocent people if not captured first.

    "Worthwhile? Absolutely. Good. Unquestionably. But I'll stop short of calling it heroic. In the end, we're cheering for someone very powerful beating up someone much weaker. DC's stable of writers has framed the narrative that we can cheer for the bully without feeling bad about it."

    Let's see, who else?

    "Luke Skywalker is a really important prophesied Jedi or some such. The series ran for 3 movies and countless expanded universe novels and comics and let's figure Skywalker kills four or five (*coughthousandcough*) stormtroopers every movie. A normal person has ... actually a pretty good chance of defending himself against a stormtrooper, because they can't fucking aim, but Luke is to stormtroopers as stormtroopers are to small retarded children. They have no chance against him. And he kills them, and that's fine. I dare say it's better than fine, because they would have gone on to kill innocent people if not killed first.

    "Worthwhile? Absolutely. Good. Unquestionably. But I'll stop short of calling it heroic. In the end, we're cheering for someone very powerful beating up someone much weaker. Lucas has framed the narrative that we can cheer for the bully without feeling bad about it."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you ever watch that cheesy 1990's era Hercules TV series? I did.

      "Hercules is the son of Zeus. The series ran for, I don't know, did it make 100 episodes? Well, let's figure Hercules beats up and drives off four or five armed soldiers every episode -- actually, twice an episode, on a very predictable schedule. A normal person has little chance against an armed soldier, but Hercules is to armed soldiers as armed soldiers are to people. They have no chance against him. And he beats them up and drives them off, and that's fine. I dare say it's better than fine, because they would have gone on to kill innocent people if not killed first.

      "Worthwhile? Absolutely. Good. Unquestionably. But I'll stop short of calling it heroic. In the end, we're cheering for someone very powerful beating up someone much weaker. Tapert & Raimi have framed the narrative that we can cheer for the bully without feeling bad about it."

      Hey, it's mad libs!

      "[Some dude's name] is [superhero name]. The series ran for [number] of episodes/issues and let's figure [superhero name] beats up and/or kills four or five [mook type] every episode. A normal person has little chance of defending himself against a [mook type], but [some dude's first name] is to [mook type] as [mook type] are to people. They have no chance against him. And he beats them up and/or kills them, and that's fine. I dare say it's better than fine, because they would have gone on to kill innocent people if not beaten up and/or killed first.

      "Worthwhile? Absolutely. Good. Unquestionably. But I'll stop short of calling it heroic. In the end, we're cheering for someone very powerful beating up someone much weaker. [Writer name] has framed the narrative that we can cheer for the bully without feeling bad about it."

      This is particularly fun when you slot in someone like Qui-Chang Caine from the TV series Kung Fu, who was supposedly a man of peace and yet still managed to beat the crap out of four or five vastly outclassed mooks every single episode.

      If you have a problem with this type of story, that's fine. I can respect that. But if you genuinely do, it should prevent you from enjoying virtually every work of fiction out there with a leading "hero". Singling out Joss Whedon for such a core element of many genres is just... petty.

      Delete
    2. I can see your point about the issue you are having with this review. Keep in mind it is just one persons opinion and in the blogosphere (that is still a thing, right?) if you don't like said opinion you can always stop following and reading that particular author when their views veer away from your own.

      I also want to add that after your second Mad Libs creation you went from having a point to acting like a hurt child having a tantrum. Makes you seem unreasonable rather than looking for some reasonable discourse on the topic. People don't like particular musicians, authors, artists, actors all the time for numerous reasons but that does not mean they hate all music/art/movies/stories as a whole out if spite. Have you considered the possibility it is "how" Mr. Whedon tells his stories that is not the 'cup of tea' and not the story itself? Also I think you missed the point that Mr. Whedon, by the authors own estimation, writes poor challenges for the heroes to overcome and that makes the heroes come off as bullies (in his opinion) as they beat the crap out of what lies ahead with minimal apparent effort. Even I felt that there was little global threat Loki was creating in the Avengers movie until the gigantic battle over NYC in the last 30 minutes of the movie. I also want to add I liked the movie too. It was fun but full of empty calories. It was the movie equivalent of a bag of Cheetos: it's full of cheesy goodness with no nutritional value but you get your money's worth out of it. But there is also nothing wrong with some folk saying they like spicy Cheetos over original Cheetos. They want more kick out of their purchased product. And there is nothing wrong with saying that. That was the point of this whole review: to say he didn't get what he wanted out of it and gave some reasons why he didn't. It was his own way of saying Chef Whedon didn't manufacture his Cheetos the way he would have liked. And just because someone dislikes a particular chef doesn't mean they hate food all together. To assume so is just ridiculous.

      Delete
    3. C, I see the point your trying to make, but I don't agree with it.

      I'm saying that the achievements of Whedon's characters tend to be inflated because they oppose villains who are inferior, if not in every way, then in such a way that easily exploitable by the main characters.

      I'm going to address your points about Spider-man, because he has a nemesis in Venom that is everything that is lacking in Whedon's villains. Venom knows all of Spider-man's secrets, is stronger, faster and immune to his danger-detecting spider-sense. (And on reflection, those are traits we find in Angelus, which is probably why I consider the episodes with him as the villain as the best work Whedon has ever done.)

      Spider-man's villains are generally substantially better than he is at something. Sometimes they're stronger than he is, sometimes, like the Juggernaut, completely invulnerable to anything he can dish out. Sometimes, like Venom, they outclass him in just about everything. If Spider-man facing, say, the Rhino, he can try to switch the battle to leverage his agility, but with Venom, he doesn't have that option, because Venom just does everything *better*.

      Buffy is Venom in her fights. There is nothing a vampire can do that she can't do better. There is nothing they can do to turn the fight to their advantage. Occasionally, but rarely she encounters a Big Bad that she can't outpunch, but that's seldom true with the monster of the week.

      Glory was much more powerful than Buffy, but dumber than a box of hair. The Mayor was protected by his position and legions, but he was only human. Angelus was a great villain because Buffy had to work. He had no easily exploitable Achilles heel. There was no easy way for her to beat him. In that, he's almost unique as a Whedon villain. That's why I like him.

      Delete
    4. Phil,

      Is there really such a thing as spicy Cheetos? Because that sounds delicious.

      Delete
    5. Yes there is. I believe they are called "Flamin' Hot". You can find them at some grocery stores. I'm not sure if they are special releases or just small runs though.

      Delete
    6. Josh, I still think you're being blatantly unfair. You compare "vampires" -- the nameless mooks of Buffy -- to Spiderman's name villains like Rhino and Venom. I mentioned "armed criminals" in my last comment for a reason -- the random street crime we periodically see Spiderman (or any other superhero) stopping is equivalent to Buffy's vampire slaying scenes.

      But if you want to talk name villains, let's talk name villains. The first one was the Master. He killed Buffy. Literally killed her. No challenge? Bullshit.

      Second one was Spike, who, to date, Buffy has never successfully slain. She might win most of their fights, but it's always presented as a difficult battle and he gets away in the end.

      Third we have Angel, who I think we can all agree was the best villain she ever faced from a story standpoint, and like Spike, is very nearly her equal in combat.

      Somewhere in there -- I can't recall if he came before or after Angel turned just now -- was the Judge. Buffy was incapable of harming him. When she eventually defeated him, it required the assistance of a bazooka.

      Then we have Faith, who *knows* Buffy, if less intimately than Angel. She has the role of Buffy's dark double, and again, no fight between them is ever easy -- physically or emotionally.

      The Mayor may be human, but his resources make him virtually untouchable throughout most of the season. And in the end, Buffy has to recruit a small army and a few tons of explosives to defeat him.

      Then Adam, who repeatedly kicks Buffy's ass until she uses a special ritual with nasty repercussions; then Glory, ditto (I'm not saying the later seasons were particularly original); then the Trio, who... well... were the worst villains of the entire series, and the less said of them the better. I'll give you that one. I won't even get into the First (who literally can't be destroyed), because 1) I think I've made my point, 2) my dinner's getting cold and 3) I'm sure you're still going to disagree with me anyway, so why bother?

      Sorry if these couple posts seem a bit rabid, but as I mentioned on another post, I usually find your criticisms of Buffy legitimate; even though it's one of my favorite shows, I agree it had its share of flaws. But this one bugs me a little, because I just find it a really unfair accusation.

      Delete
    7. Phil, since you admit to thinking I'm being childish, I'll excuse the condescending tone of your post. I don't necessarily agree that it was justified, but I can understand why you would use it.

      And why would I want to stop reading Josh's blog? Arguing with him is always much more fun :P

      Delete
    8. I'm turning in, but perhaps I have been unfair. I'll sleep on it and reply tomorrow.

      I will say that I've always been fond of the Master. He always seemed perpetually on the verge of breaking into song. How can you not love that?

      Delete
    9. cfc, there was actually no condescension in my tone for the post I submitted. The other versions I wrote out and reread before submitting and then deleting....well those were all pretty bad even for me. It is tough to judge anyone's tone in any online message board arena and condescension wasn't my intent so if there was any and I offended you at all I do apologize.

      Oh and sometimes watching Josh go off on something is quite enjoyable too. He can get more wound up than I on certain things. While he and I share some very similar thoughts about some things I still think he his wrong about Firefly. ;-p

      Delete
    10. Now that we're all getting along again, I think we should turn our attention to the real enemy. Firefly!

      Delete
    11. I knew this was coming. Heck I willingly but the golf ball on the tee so to speak.

      Delete
    12. You set me up for an easily predictable comeback? How does it feel to be a Whedon villain, Phil? I look forward to kicking you into one of the Serenity's turbine. Bwa ha ha!

      Delete
    13. I feel so....dirty and ashamed.

      But this proves I'm not a Whedon villian cause I am emoting more than 'smug'.

      I'm going to hide now as I see a mob of Browncoats with pitchforks and torches heading this way.

      Delete
  5. Children, children, stop bickering, what would other people on the internet think?

    I've simply sat here for a half hour pondering this instead of finding a cure for cancer, so here goes.

    Heroes in general like to bring a gun to a knife fight from time to time. Some are packing a .22 while others like Superman only need to show the holster and the situation resolves itself. Sometimes we do enjoy something more akin to a .357 Magnum, but that should be saved for the big bad guy, who is more appropriately armed.

    In my limited experience in the Whedon-verse, he likes his heroes to resolve every situation with a Desert Eagle, if not a sniper shot from a mile away before anything happens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your analogy but I still like my Cheetos analogy better! ;-p.


      With regards to the .357/ Desert Eagle comparisons. You're right, it does seem like Mr. Whedon's heroes do like to blow something away with far more firepower than needed. But on the flipside of the coin it does feel that the villains are not remotely equally equipped to do the same or to withstand the attack and REALLY put up a worthy fight.

      Let's look at that some more. I'll even pick a villain from Star Wars. Grand Moff Tarkin. Tarkin was nestled inside a heavily armored and fortified space station with firepower capable of leveling a planet called The Death Star. Tarkin also had no problem demonstrating the power he wielded when he blew up Alderann. He was cold, calculating and more menacing than Vader because he could boss Vader around. The man bossed around a Sith Darth. He was completely confident in his strategies and didn't see failure. The Rebels had the challenge of flying through a service channel on the surface of the Death Star while being assaulted by turbo laser turrets and attacked by Tie Fighters the whole time just for a chance to shoot torpedoes into a small exhaust port no bigger than a wamp rat. Now THAT is a challenge for he heroes. It's the case of showing the strength of one's villain and not just assuming they are worthy and not following up.

      Delete
    2. And this thread will probably not ever die because as geeks we can "discuss" our passions earnestly and infinitely. So sorry from causing you to take more breaks in your research into solving the worlds real problems Viscount. ;-)

      Delete
    3. Heh, I was looking at the stats for this post, and it got more pageviews in the past 24 hours than the entire blog did in the first two months of its existence.

      Delete
  6. I decided the best way to solve the world's problems was to go see the movie.

    Perseverate: I believe Josh does this a bit too much.... or

    Josh doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, you have the same word-a-day calender I do!

      (But you misspelled "Joss" there.)

      Delete
  7. Also, I was watching Superhero Squad with Lily. She enjoys it, but I don't but, hey, daddy-daughter time watching superhero cartoons. I was mildly amazed when Thor suggested going out for Shawarma in one episode.

    ReplyDelete