Then What?

I feel no need to give a comprehensive review of Avengers: Endgame (Disney Marvel 2019; directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo) because it has already been extensively reviewed. Rather, I will say that I like the way that Disney Marvel chose to end this phase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  The plot was mostly resolved, and I suspect that any unanswered questions will be addressed in subsequent movies since they don’t seem to involve the original characters.

Yes, their were some logical flaws and a couple of confusing visual sequences, but the splash panel scenes were terrific. Various beloved characters suffered injury, died, grew old, retired, came back to life, were reunited with their friends and families, and so forth. In other words, this paralleled real life, and the movie hit many of the right nostalgic notes. The big question remains. Then what?

Overall, I think the MCU has been a good escape, a prolonged fantasy from within which we can re-examine reality. Its characters are not real, but they have become friends of our imagination over the last eleven years. Losing any of them can produce a mild sense of grief. It is very human to desire permanence and immortality, to think as if the people and things we love will continue forever. You could say we were designed for it.

The cinematic gods are mortal, and so are the actors who portray them. Disney Marvel will continue churning out entertaining movies and making a huge pile of money. Eventually, we all die, and it behooves us to seek answers to that ultimate question…

THEN WHAT?

A Portrait Of Insanity

Consider the following excerpts from Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton:

The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. 

Now, speaking quite externally and empirically, we may say that the strongest and most unmistakable MARK of madness is this combination between a logical completeness and a spiritual contraction.

Such is the madman of experience; he is commonly a reasoner, frequently a successful reasoner. 

The madman is the man who has lost everything excepts his reason. 

Thanos, the brainchild of Jim Starlin in the Marvel comics and in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, is the personification of these ideas about madness. He is a nuanced madman: cruel with a twisted sense of compassion, a logical thinker who reaches intellectually compelling yet abhorrent conclusions. He is not irrational; he is rational – make that super rational. This was demonstrated in Avengers: Infinity War (2018 from Disney Marvel, directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo), and it was perhaps the aspect of the movie with which I was most impressed.

I have often heard the phrase, “that’s subjective,” stated to refute opinions and arguments. The simplistic implication of this is that objective thinking is right and that subjective thinking is wrong. This is misleading. Taken alone, each of them is wrong. Objectivity places some very necessary constraints on subjectivity while subjectivity informs objectivity. Objectivity relies on logic, and the potential weakness of logic is that it must be based on a premise. If the premise is wrong, logic, even perfect logic, built upon this foundation can produce atrocities.

Hitler and his minions demonstrated this with their Final Solution. The Holocaust was the creative, logical product of one of the most advanced scientific civilizations of its time. The destruction by Thanos of 50 percent of an interplanetary population is a final solution writ large. The justification: overpopulation, suffering, and ecological imbalance (solved very logically by mercy killing on an incomprehensible scale). A big picture which ignores individuals is the product of ignorant objectivity uninformed by a subjective understanding of the worth of an individual. Such numerical morality plagues policy making in real life as well as in fantasy.

Subjectivity informs the premise on which logic is based, and to ignore this is madness. I look forward to this week’s release of  Avengers: Endgame.

Thor: Ragnarok – What I Missed (Part 2)

Something occurred to me after I started writing last week’s post. The fact that I need a second week shows me that the movie had a lot of substance. The right concepts and plot elements were there, but as I wrote last week, I feel that they were covered up (to an extent) by the humor. I realize this is a matter of personal taste, so I won’t belabor the point. Thor: Ragnarok was obviously well-received by fans and critics alike, and I do intend to watch it again.

From this point on, there might be some spoilers for anyone who has not yet seen this film.

Now for the picky part of my critique, which I readily admit arises from my own unrealistic expectations. This is what I missed. First, as I’ve already alluded, I would have liked to see more emphasis placed on the mythological concepts and imagery. The Valkyrie flashback with the winged horses was brief enough that it teased that desire in me, and I had hoped to see more of that kind of scene.

Secondly, when I heard that the Hulk would be given more dialogue, I envisioned a more nuanced psychological  and emotional study of this character.

I have posted before that he represents an outsized version of what resides in all of us, and this could have created all kinds of possibilities for his character development.

I had also hoped the script would show a gradual evolution of his ability to speak coherently. The dramatic potential of such an approach is huge since it would provide a window into the soul of this creature.

That said, there were still some great ideas which were well executed. I liked every scene with Fenris the wolf, another character lifted out of The Prose Edda by Snori Sturluson. The only problem with his battle with the Hulk is that it was a little difficult to tell how it was resolved.

The evolution of Heimdall’s character was well done if not entirely consistent with his vocal style from previous movies. It was interesting to see him playing a different role in the story, and I’m glad they didn’t kill him off.

The climactic battle was typically spectacular for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I’ll reserve judgment on turning Thor into the new Odin. That will be depend on how it is approached in future efforts.

I particularly liked the scene showing the destruction of Asgard by Surtur. It was appropriately epic.

I liked the redemption themes as well: the relationship of Thor and Loki…

… the moral awakening of Skurge …

… the reunion of Odin and his two sons, and the persuasion of Valkyrie as played by Tessa Thompson.  I especially liked the story arc of Valkyrie’s fall, degradation, and ultimate restoration to her former glory. It was a unique treatment of yet another character from Norse mythology.

And that might be as good a place to end as any.

Thor: Ragnarok – What I Missed (Part 1)

I had mixed feelings as I sat in my seat waiting for the outro at the end of the credits for Thor: Ragnarok. On the one hand, I was thoroughly entertained for over two hours. On the other, I was disappointed by what I hadn’t seen. I realize that appreciation can be colored by prior expectations, and I really expected a lot out of this movie (maybe too much). I’ll have to see it again to get a more balanced perspective.  I’ll divide my comments into three areas: what I liked, what I didn’t like, and (perhaps most importantly) what I missed.

To begin with, I loved the first part. The opening sequence was visually satisfying, and the dialogue and action were engaging.

It is in this opening that we meet Surtur, the fire demon who is capably played by Clancy Brown.

We also meet Skurge, the negligent interim keeper of the Bifrost, as played by Karl Urban.

The segment with Doctor Strange might have been a bit incongruous, but it was visually effective and very interesting. I am very intrigued by this character.

The first scene where Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) speak one last time with Odin (Anthony Hopkins) was beautifully done, and I liked seeing Odin portrayed as an old man in normal clothing. The idea of gods among us in the guise of mere mortals resonated with me.

The set up and reveal of Hela was well-crafted and intriguingly done. She, like Loki, comes from Norse mythology, and (like Loki) she is a different kind of villain. I enjoyed the scenes in which she was depicted, and Cate Blanchett did a wonderful job portraying her.

Up to this point, I was satisfied with the development of the mythological elements in the plot. Then came the middle. I’ve always liked how Marvel uses humor to diffuse the tension, but I felt that this time it almost smothered it.

The introduction of the deranged Grandmaster as played by Jeff Goldblum managed to add a humorous sense of dread before the jokes threatened to take over.

There were good scenes and ideas throughout the rest of the movie, but I felt they were overly subordinated to the jokes. The contrast of dread followed by an instant of comic relief didn’t feel as if it had been given sufficient time to build. Also, I wonder if there was too much reliance on phrases and slapstick sequences from past movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The almost Shakespearian nobility of Thor is a great straight line for the punch lines which involve him. I was sorry to see that sense of nobility lessened as much as it was, partly because I thought it lessened the impact of the humor, which much of the time was genuinely funny. I’m all for evolving a character, but I’m also all for maintaining sufficient continuity to make that evolution more plausible.

Well, this is taking longer than I had anticipated, so I’d better continue this thread next week.

The Modern Pantheon: Guardians of the Galaxy

Last week, I mentioned two departures from the norm in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The first I reviewed is Doctor Strange. The second is actually two movies, so far. The first (as if you couldn’t tell from the above picture) is…

Let’s get this out of the way first. Guardians of the Galaxy (2014, Disney Marvel Studios, directed by James Gunn) has an extensive ensemble cast: Chris Pratt as Peter Quill (Starlord), Zoe Saldana as Gamora, Dave Bautista as Drax, Vin Diesel as the voice of Groot, Bradley Cooper as the voice of Rocket, Michael Rooker as Yondu Udanta, an unrecognizableKaren Gillan as Nebula, John C. Reilly as Corpsman Dey, Glenn Close as Nova Prime, Benicio Del Toro as The Collector, Djimon Hounsou as Korath, Lee Pace as Ronan, and Josh Brolin as the voice of Thanos. There are more, but I’m getting tired. Much could be said about the plot, characters, acting, soundtrack, and special effects of this very entertaining movie. I’m choosing instead to focus on the cosmic and mythological aspects of its well-scripted story.

This is the first movie which offers more information on Thanos, a multidimensional character invented by writer Jim Starlin for Marvel Comics. He has otherwise been seen only in outro sequences for Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron. A little of his backstory is provided in this movie. If the MCU does any justice to this character, he will prove a good psychological and mystical study. I look forward to seeing more of him.

From Guardians Of The Galaxy (2014), directed by James Gunn

Of course, Thanos and several others are after an artifact which turns out to be an Infinity Stone.

Benicio Del Toro does a good turn as The Collector. I enjoyed the sequence where he explains the history of the Infinity Stones. This scene infuses the MCU with an interesting cosmology.

One of my unanswered questions was the lineage of Peter Quill. His mother was an earthling, but the exceptional identity of his father is not revealed in this first movie. It hints at a mythological nature which enables him to hold onto the Infinity Stone for as long as he does without being destroyed.

I think it appropriate to mention Groot in this context as well. Despite his violent capabilities, he is a benevolent creature who looks out for his friends and ultimately sacrifices himself for them. Like many Marvel characters, though, he isn’t really dead. The comics as well as the movies of Marvel utilize a number of resurrection themes. I attribute this more to an economic need to provide suspense and to bring characters back for future installments than to any religious motivation, but I still appreciate the additional depth it provides when done properly.

Surf in again next week. There will be plenty more to follow…

The Modern Pantheon: Doctor Strange

I have seen two movies from Disney Marvel Studios that represent rather radical departures from what I had watched before. Doctor Strange is one of them, and I will take a look at the other next week.

Featuring a stellar cast and mind-bending special effects in an intriguing blend of eastern mysticism and science fiction, this was complexly designed, and appropriate attention was paid to the philosophical concepts underlying the strange physics. Even though there were no references to my own faith, my Christian orientation helped me to track with some of the themes – most notably, that of hidden dimensions within our everyday surroundings.

I also related to the theme of the arrogant but talented doctor who receives his come-uppance and learns humility as his understanding of the universe is expanded.

I’m a college professor, and I have humorously thought what it would be like to hear any of my students exclaim to me Strange’s earnest petition to The Ancient One: “Teach me!”

What a lineup: Benedict Cumberbatch as Doctor Strange, Tilda Swinton as The Ancient One, Chiwetel Ejiofor as Mordo, Benedict Wong as (well…) Wong, Rachel McAdams as Christine Palmer, and Mads Mikkelson as Kaecillius, etc.

Owing to the busy (but, strangely, not distracting) visuals and dense concepts, this is one movie that merits repeated viewings. This character makes an interesting addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The doctor is in.