Superhero Armageddon

By the end of Avengers: Infinity War (2018 Disney Marvel; directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo), I felt like I’d been worked over, and one young woman a couple of rows in front of me was bent over in her seat and sobbing (NEWS FLASH! At last report all of the actors in the movie were still alive, attractive, popular, and wealthy). I’ve decided not to review this movie. It has already been reviewed to death, resurrected, and reviewed again. Instead, I will make a short series of smugly insightful comments.

Insightful Comment 1:

It’s all about combinations.

This is both a strength and a weakness. While it is interesting to see characters together in novel combinations, there can also be too many irresistible forces and too many immovable objects.

Don’t try to understand why anyone is winning at any particular point in time. It’s not about logic. Stuff just happens with spectacular (and sometimes innovative) special effects. In that respect, consider the formula. The team suffers abject defeat, rallies (often with a stirring, inspirational speech), and goes on to a dramatic victory (often with unresolved plot elements to set up future stories). Did anyone really expect this superhero movie to be any different?

Insightful Comment 2:

The bad guys are really bad.

In particular, Thanos (well played by Josh Brolin) is an interesting, metaphysical villain. Originally conceived by Jim Starlin ( a trippy writer whose name appears in the credits) he is philosophical and mercilessly logical, which brings up another characteristic. He is very principled, albeit with very twisted principles. I like this kind of nuance in a villain. It deepens a story.

Insightful Comment 3:

There will be a reset. The first installment of a two part storyline in this genre should not be expected to end well for the good guys. If what I have just written is a spoiler for a superhero Armageddon , what else did you expect? Remember the formula, and take into account the number of superheroes and villains. By the way, do we really expect Disney Marvel to slaughter its cash cow and leave it dead?

Insightful Comment 4:

The outro tells us that you-know-who will be introduced. I look forward to seeing the development of this character.

In summary, this movie kept me absorbed and entertained, and it did pretty much what I expected.

For now, I’m getting superhero fatigue and am preparing to sign off, but I will definitely be in the theater for the next few installments of the MCU. To paraphrase Jack Black…

This isn’t a review. It’s a tribute!

 

A Film Of Her Own (Part 3)

Now for an analysis of the actual movie. Although the majority of the critiques I have read are effusive in their praise, there is an undercurrent of criticism. One is that the Wonder Woman movie (Warner Brothers) has nothing new to offer. I am reminded of how fickle critics can be. Make a movie that’s too different, and you have “a poor sense of genre.” Make it too formulaic, and it’s “more of the same.” I honestly thought that this cinematic effort struck a good balance between the extremes and that it actually was an original treatment.

Keep this in mind: it’s a superhero movie, for crying out loud. Their will always be similarities such as a backstory element, the conferring or possession of superpowers, and external as well as internal conflicts. One review I read accused this movie of being too much like Captain America, down to the wartime settings and unorthodox support teams. While there are similarities, I really felt that this was its own story. The test I apply is that I could not predict what would happen as I watched the plot unfold. I will also add that Wonder Woman is at least comparable to Captain America (which I own and have enjoyed repeatedly) in terms of quality. Both are nice period pieces with fanciful embellishment. This is the first effort by the DCEU which I would consider comparable to the output from Disney Marvel. They still have a long way to go in developing their extended universe, but this was a definite step in the right direction.

The combination of a World War I setting with themes adapted from Greek mythology invoked the neoclassicism of the early twentieth century. It was certainly one of the better applications of this that I have seen, and the special effects seemed appropriate to the plot, purpose, and themes of the story. Unlike a few reviewers, I was not put off by the CGI during the climactic battle. For once, I found the imagery of a DC film visually satisfying and easy to follow. This film also established a distinctive style of graphic art that I hope will persist in the DCEU.

I found the mythological concepts enjoyable, particularly the reveal of Ares. He was admirably portrayed with nuance and depth. Although many already know who played him, I will refrain from mentioning the actor to avoid spoiling anything for those who don’t know and who have not seen the movie.

The action sequences were good. The portrayal of trench warfare and civilian and military casualties was realistic enough to make me wince, and there were subtle touches of humor at the right times. An amusing sequence where Wonder Woman as Diana Prince attempts to make sense of women’s fashion is a nice contrast to the battle scenes and depictions of devastation.

In my opinion, this film is worthy of a theater viewing. I thought it was entertaining, and I appreciated the respectful treatment given to this iconic character. Initially short on experience, she is also portrayed as informed and intelligent, and the state this movie leaves her in by the end begs for more stories to develop her possibilities. If you haven’t seen it yet, I recommend that you do, whether in the theater or as a rental, depending on availability.

The lady is waiting…

 

A Film of Her Own (Part 1)

In the beginning – well, 1941, actually – Wonder Woman was unleashed on the world of men. Although her original adventures were set during the time of World War II, her movie debut was shifted to World War I, but this is beside the point I want to make first. Her initial presentation during the Golden Age of Comics was a nuanced contradiction between feminism…

… sexist stereotypes…

… and worse.

The approaches and themes used in her portrayal made at least the pretense of an effort at being mature…

… or lapsed into the juvenile.

This variety and disparity of treatments has continued through various incarnations. What I’m trying to say is that from this beginning concept and simple artwork  grew an iconic image that grew larger and more nuanced than even her creators, William Moulton Marston (writer) and H. G. Peter (artist), envisioned. Once in print, she escaped their mental bounds and entered into the synergistic collective of her readership. Individuals interacted with this character until, today, she has come to represent different things to different people.

For this reason, any adaptation of the comic to the silver screen would be likely to generate both praise and criticism. Gal Godot looks the part. She doesn’t. The movie is an original breath of fresh air for the superhero genre. It isn’t. The CGI is appropriate for the plot. It’s over the top. It’s kind of hard to blame us for our conflicting expectations of the first movie about Wonder Woman. After all, so many of us think of her as ours.

Whether you approve or not, this cinematic effort is considered socially significant because it is the first major movie of this genre where the main character is female (I’m not going to count previous efforts such as Elektra). The DCEU of Warner Brothers beat Disney Marvel to the punch on that one, and I suppose it’s only right from an historical perspective.

The “battle” over this representation will continue next week…

Wonder Woman (2017) Gal Gadot

Graphic Mythology: Wonder Woman Revisited

It has been over six months since I have discussed this character from comics/graphic novels, and I have had sufficient time to reflect on comments made by my readers back then. A mainstay of DC Comics, Wonder Woman is truly iconic and immediately recognizable. In trying to come to grips with her true significance, I have found the task more difficult than I originally imagined.

Wonder Woman by Alex Ross

Her history is nuanced in that she has been given very admirable qualities along with what I consider some serious flaws. All of this, of course, indicates the mindsets of her original and subsequent creators. First conceived by William Moulton Marston, a psychologist with fetishes for bondage and spanking, she was often used to portray and legitimize his obsessions. Since then, I would have to say that her various representations have covered the range from heroic dignity to sexual exploitation. All image credits go to DC Comics.

Were she, in all her manifestations, a real woman, I would say that she has a history of repeated abuse. She has been spanked and debased, allegedly playfully.

She has been bound repeatedly. The following image particularly concerns me because it represents a real danger of asphyxiation for anyone foolish enough to participate in imitating it.

She has been physically assaulted as a matter of routine, although one could argue that this is an expected consequence of being a superhero who combats villains. Some of the more recent imagery, however, makes me wince despite the fact that the associated story lines attempt to justify it in context, especially in the case of superheroes fighting one another. By the way, I have noticed some disturbing comments on-line which indicate unquestioning approval of the violence portrayed in some of the following  pictures. I know, I know… there are plenty of frames which show her dishing it out as well as taking it, but these  images collectively show an underlying motive which I will address a little later in this post.

To date, she has not been sexually assaulted in any DC issues (although a story involving this very topic was once in the planning stages by one of their writers), but what do  illustrations such as the following suggest nonetheless? Visuals can easily overpower accompanying words.

It is in no way inaccurate to say that all of the imagery to which I have objected was designed to arouse male readers. So, in a sense, those entrusted with the representation of this female character have repeatedly pimped her out for several decades. The use of feminist rhetoric to prop up this kind of imagery strikes me as rather flimsy.

Artist: Alex Ross

A woman’s body is not a piece of candy. It sweats, bleeds, and eliminates. It suffers through sickness and injury. It gets pregnant and gives birth. But much of the imagery I have included in this post is the candy, a sugar-coated version of violence and exploitation which lessens the severity of such treatment in the minds of less discriminating readers by not adequately showing its consequences. We live in a society which has a widespread problem with the negative acculturation of boys and young men, and I see this as a driving factor in the rape culture which plagues college campuses and other settings as well.

Artist: Alex Ross

I know I have said much of this before, but I don’t think that repetition of criticisms and warnings in this area is unjustified. In summary, I regard Wonder Woman as a character with a nuanced history of publication. As such, she has served as a lightning rod for discussions about feminism. Due to her importance in popular culture, I think she deserves better treatment than she often has received. I have included the panels by Alex Ross as evidence of how this can be done without mitigating the impact of this character. If anything, these examples have just the opposite effect.

Artist: Alex Ross

 

Graphic Mythology: A Goddess Of Sorts

Last week was the bait. I made mention of two characters (Wonder Woman and Thor) from the DC and Marvel comic book universes. Now for the switch. I decided not to look any further into those pantheons since I have already posted about some characters from the Disney Marvel cinematic universe. I have opted instead to enter the realm of Astro City by Kurt Busiek, Alex Ross, and Brent Anderson. My thanks to tomk74 at Gabbing Geek for his post about this series. The first character I will visit is Winged Victory. SPOILER ALERT for those who have not read the graphic novel titled Victory. You might want to do that before reading this.

She is an interesting, feminist superhero with a good backstory. Her treatment by Busiek  is mature and nuanced. It can be seen from the above picture that the artwork is wonderful. Prior to her transformation, “Vic” is a weakened, subservient woman whose boyfriend cheats on her and turns her out.  After seeing the statue of Nike in the Louvre, she travels to  Samothrace and is visited by the Council of Nike, a collective of high-achieving women whose communal psyche empowers her to become a champion for other women. She wears a pendant that is associated with her ability to transform herself from an ordinary woman into a goddess-like superhero.

Her power is derived from the feminist collective, and she must maintain their confidence in order to be connected to her source of power.

In the course of telling a pretty good story, this series examines some of the problems faced by women in a manner that is inherent to the plot and that in no way detracts from it. It also utilizes some good dialectic as the heroine’s perspective develops. I found this character to be subtle and compelling. Check her out.