Skip to main content

What if I told you the reality you know is one of many?

Doctor Strange
(2016)

(SPOILERS) It isn’t as if Doctor Strange is breaking the Marvel formula in any real way – indeed, it’s adhering to it quite rigidly – but the fourteenth official entry in their cinematic universe is just different and fresh enough to invigorate it. Scott Derrickson’s movie is almost entirely absent of the bloat and over-stuffed continuity encumbering the most recent clutch, which even though they have been mostly entertaining and engaging, have also begun to feel rather tired and undifferentiated, beset by obligatory cross-fertilisation of characters, plots and MacGuffins. Indeed, it’s something of a disappointment when our titular character meets Thor in the (first) post-credits sequence, since it’s a signal he’s been cut down to their decidedly less faux-psychedelic and more pedestrian environs (and, while it’s a passive scene, it’s also suggestive that Taika Waititi’s direction may be tonally disposed towards the Superman III end of the superhero genre).


Perhaps the clearest sign that Doctor Strange is ready to embrace its chance to be different is the manner in which it eschews the traditional, over-grand climax. Even Civil War, which opted not to finish on the world (or a city) going to pot, came down to two (or three) guys duking it out. Here, in contrast, Derickson et al are confident enough to conclude with their hero being frightfully clever (well, relatively; in Marvel movie terms, he’s being frightfully clever) as he engineers a dose of Chronic Hysteresis-style time-looping on big bad Dark Dimension entity Dormammu, who is poised to engulf the Earth.


As such, Stephen Strange has already arrived too late to save Tokyo, his attempts to engineer a temporal reversal via the Eye of Agamatto (revealed as an Infinity Stone, but unobtrusively so) being cut short before fully enacted. The “turn back time” device has been used before in a movie climax (not least Superman: The Movie, and the imitating Doctor Who TV movie), but generally it leaves a feeling of dissatisfaction, cheating, or cop-out. Here, Strange’s facility for manipulating time has been introduced early on, recurring as an element separating the material perception of reality (highlighted astrally during The Ancient One’s deathbed discussion with Strange), and it’s merely supporting strata to the icing on the cake… which is also derivative.


Yes, one might point to the picture as simply lifting Tom Cruise’s comically-accented Edge of Tomorrow tribulations, but even if that was the inspiration (or Doctor Who’s Heaven Sent, one of the precious few – Mummy on the Orient Express being another – half-decent episodes of the Capaldi era), Derrickson is at least co-opting commendable fare. Mostly, it just makes for an immensely satisfying means of facing down a nigh-on omnipotent force.


That Dormammu keeps its side of the bargain came as something of a surprise, particularly as I’m so resigned to Marvel’s requirement for butt-numbing over-extension of their movies, far past their most suitable duration; it’s a pleasant change that the picture is willing to forgo a wearisomely pixelated tsunami climax (not that there isn’t a preceding smorgasbord of effects anyway). At a tidy 115 minutes, Doctor Strange is hopefully the shape of things to come, but I wouldn’t count on it (I suppose Ant-Man also clocked in under two hours, but as a comedy it should have been closer to 100 minutes).


Mention of Dormammu (whose most disappointing aspect is that it’s rendered as unadventurously floating head) also raises Doctor Strange’s distinctive approach to questions of ethics and morality. We’ve seen the thorny conundrums concerning self-appointed use of power playing out between Captain America and Iron Man, emphasising moral grey areas (sometimes to the point of fudging what has set up as an opportunity to give its characters depth). Strange appears to be built on moral greyness, so much so that it could almost be regarded as one in the eye for the traditional, polarising light/dark, good/evil, positive/negative magical/spiritual realms of Harry Potter, Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings.


Wiki-ing the Ancient One, it appears the character’s drawing on the power of the Dark Dimension to prolong her longevity is unique to the movie, and it would be interesting to learn the thinking behind this decision; the suggestion appears to be that a limited life span is within the bounds of the natural order, and so to extend it would require using dark rather than light magic. Such compromise on the part of the Ancient One, in claiming her choice is in the service of a greater good, is suggestive of a “power corrupts” element, for all that she appears to be entirely Yoda-ish in her sense of balance and discrimination. We can’t help but side with Mordo and Kaecilius in recognising the hypocrisy of her decision, and one hopes there’s an intention to address this later in the series, as it oughtn’t to be taken on (Strange’s) trust. The writers have set up a moral quandary on the Ancient One’s say-so (that she needed to utilise this energy: did she?) yet provide variations of those who flat-out use the Dark Dimension for evil aims (Kaecilius) or who are so rigid and inflexible that they feel betrayed by her duplicity (Mordo).


Charitably, this may be intentional, since her vouch-safer Strange is seen to exhibit a similar capacity for compromise. The question is whether there’s a line to be drawn, and where that line is; the movie series mentioned above would suggest any hint of dabbling in the dark arts is a slippery slope of no return. The Ancient One emphasises the need for selflessness and letting go of ego, but it’s Strange’s ethical weakness, that of a man who took on patients to advance his career, rather than being guided by those most in need, that remains later but differently manifested, as a capacity for malleability and willingness to use forbidden magic (messing with time) if he judges that the ends justify the means.


In this regard, it’s disappointing that, while Chiwetel Ejiofor imbues Mordo with subtlety that isn’t on the page, the picture codas on starkly villainous terrain as he incapacitates Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt) on the grounds that there are too many sorcerers in the world (and more specifically because he regards Pangborn’s self-serving use of magic as profane). Mordo has a legitimate beef, so why not let that legitimate beef play out sympathetically rather than instantly go to the easy option? Again, I don’t really know the comics, but Mordo appears to have been a bad seed from the start (with that kind of name how could he be otherwise?), provisioned with a backstory where he becomes jealous of the favour with which the Ancient One held Strange when he was still just a boy. It’s a shame they’ve gone to the trouble of starting with something more nuanced here, but have then (apparently) rushed to throw it out the window.  


I can quite see why picking up with Strange as an arrogant surgeon appealed in terms of origin story. It hearkens back to Marvel’s greatest success, Tony Stark, with the less than whiter-than-whiter protagonist on a clear arc/journey of discovery. It’s enormous fun to watch Strange’s progress, from self-involved and struggling (being left to fend for himself on Mount Everest is a lovely touch), with his flashes of being a fast learner, getting it wrong during fights but thinking on his feet (be they on the ground, wall, ceiling or with nothing whatsoever beneath them). When Mordo observes ‘You’re not just any magician”, it has the kind of charge it ought to, because we’re willing him to succeed rather than assuming it as a fait accompli; Derrickson and Jon Spaihts and C Robert Cargill get that part exactly right.


On the subject of Strange’s “noble” change of direction, though. Well, yeah…. Kind of. Yes, he’s no longer overtly into ego-driven self-gratification, and is working for the greater good, but that path of service conveniently involves him being able to do much cooler shit than he ever could with his now gammy hands. It hardly feels like he has made a sacrifice, and so it’s a bit of a cheat, because Strange’s reward for a training/learning montage isn’t merely self (or soul)-realisation, it’s unlimited ability to play with the fabric of the universe. An ability that comes super-quick. Sure, it’s cool that he’s willing to lock himself in an eternal struggle with Dormammu, but even then it’s a bit glib; it’s a gambit he knows has a likely outcome of his prevailing. Strange has only become “selfless” at the end in so much as he’s been enshrined as such narratively; we are told he is selfless. There’s no emotionally exacting dimension to it, so it’s almost an arbitrary fulfilment of the hero’s journey.


Not that I’m especially complaining; I just don’t see any great justification for claiming Strange is distinguished or meritorious in his path. As for the actor personifying him, while Cumberbatch is entirely reliable, professional (although his accent is Exhibit A in English players hoping they can pass themselves off as American by virtue of a throaty growl) and hits all the necessary beats of comedy and drama, he doesn’t knock the role out of the park the way Robert Downey Jr did with Stark (or the way it looks like Tom Holland has with Peter Parker). Accent aside, this is very familiar territory for him, and even Strange’s arrogance pales in comparison to his Sherlock. I’d have favoured a more daring choice, and certainly one that could pull off a better fake beard.


Everyone else is very much doing their best with standard types. Ejiofor I’ve mentioned, and he brings the goods effortlessly in emphasising Mordo’s underlying intensity and inner pain. Mads Mikkelsen is likewise a trooper in making much of that bane of the Marvel cinematic universe – the underwritten villain (Kaecilius). He isn’t really given enough for us to see recognise his motivations (his point of view with regard to the Ancient One is clear enough, but that’s it), so hopefully his extraction by Dormammu won’t hamper a rematch, but with more substance next time.


Whatever the shortcomings of characterisation, on one level it’s simply fun to see actors of this calibre bouncing off each other in this kind of movie, particularly when the bad guy gets a comic moment (“You don’t know how to use that, do you?” Kaecilius asks Stephen of a glowing magic pot he has just picked up, mid-fight). Benedict Wong’s natural timing also ensures some rather laboured repartee with Strange (Wong’s singular name, his lack of levity) actually play. Michael Stuhlbarg is rather wasted in the supporting subordinate doctor role while Rachel McAdams fulfils the thankless obligation of the non-super hero who also isn’t comic support (so, like Rosario Dawson in Daredevil, she practices medicine).


The ethnicity issue in terms of casting Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One has been much discussed elsewhere, so there’s little point following suit; suffice to say, there was probably a better solution than the one reached. Swinton’s as commanding as she always is, and as always is a pleasure to see, be it in an indie or a blockbuster, even if there’s little that’s distinctive in her character’s employment of platitudes and ancient wisdom.


In terms of where this picture doesn’t go – almost as much as its moral focus – the avoidance of any mention of reincarnation is curious, since it would surely be part and parcel of the belief systems Strange and co inhabit. Perhaps it’s a case of Disney hedging its bets (I don’t know how prominently reincarnation figures in the comics), wary of falling foul of Christian audiences, or of Chinese censors (it would be interesting to know how touch-and-go it was for Strange getting a release there, and it’s notable how Tibet has been conspicuously substituted with Nepal, appeasement-wise).


Yet the embrace of moral greyness in depiction of magic (coming from Derrickson, a committed Christian, no less) is curious in that regard. Interviewed at the time of the release of his last movie, he commented “If we're not compelled to gain a deeper understanding of good and evil, how can we make the world a better place?”; he’s clearly struggling with this in terms the polarities presented both in the Marvel universe and his religious convictions, which makes for engaging but also conflicting impulses in his movies (his conception of evil is particularly interesting in the piece, suggestive he definitely needs a strong scriptwriter to aid him in expressing in his ideas).


While I don’t generally seek out post-converted movies, this is one I actually wish I had seen in 3D; Derrickson rises to the challenge of an effects-laden blockbuster as few Marvel employees have (previously, The Day the Earth Stood Still remake was his highest peak) with a series of cascading, eye-popping delights. The Matrix/Inception-esque, Escher-esque folding cityscapes may be nothing mind-blowing given the various visualisations of such concepts over the last two decades, but in context of a fully-fledged action sequence they’re frequently a giddy wonder.


Elsewhere, some of the doors of perception Strange breaks down – Stan Lee is reading Huxley’s book in his cameo – including the first time he exits his body, shooting down a 2001 stargate and on into a kaleidoscopic, fractal multiverse, or touching down on a purple, red and green Dark Dimension asteroid (for such a negative place, it has some pretty groovy colours, man), an effective rendering of ‘60s Marvel comics, may not send the picture into the DEEPLY weird territory some might have hoped for, but it’s still far more than one could reasonably expect from this type of movie.


Added to which – and this is not to be underestimated, given the Russo brothers’ competent but hardly invigorating action; while it’s clear they were handed Infinity Wars because they’re cheap and reliable, no-frills hires have become a hallmark of the MCU – Derrickson delivers a series of well-composed, commendably coherent action set pieces and creative fight sequences, as Strange dukes it out in astral form, throwing himself and others through magical spatial gateways, across those aforementioned cityscapes, up buildings, down buildings (there’s a lovely moment where, in a now-vertical corridor, Strange uses his noggin, ejecting one of his adversaries into a desert by simply letting go), through the Mirror Universe and, in the finale, a pursuit through a recomposing Tokyo, during which Mads is immersed in a wall and Benedict disinterred from one. Sure, maybe there are one too many shots of Kaecilius and his pursuers running down a crazy street, but that’s small beans.


Doctor Strange’s humour is at its best when it derives from its visual audacity; indeed, when it goes for the standard, baseline Marvel quippery, the results frequently flounder or feel out of place. Pretty much anything involving Strange’s cloak of levitation is a hit (a Best Supporting Garment Oscar nomination in the offing?), be it pulling its designated owner in the opposite direction he wants to go, or attacking a bad guy of its own recognisees.


In terms of cinematography, the picture is nothing ground-breaking (cinematographer Ben Davis returns to the Marvel fold after Guardians of the Galaxy and Age of Ultron); it’s Derrickson’s oversight that makes this distinctive. Michael Giachhino scores his first Marvel effort, and it’s more memorable than most of their scores, perfectly respectable, but not up to the best of what he’s done in the past (a Strange theme doesn’t leap out, and really, if there was an opportunity for something psychedelically-inspired, he missed the boat).


Hopefully Derrickson will be back for the sequel; his rep as a decent horror director took a tumble with the sloppy mess that was Deliver Us from Evil, but this surely propels him back into everyone’s good books. He’s also keenly engaged philosophically, which a character like this needs.


Will Doctor Strange be as big as Marvel’s last few offerings? I guess it depends whether its unique furrow is as favourably received as the more standard, combustible, action-orientated fare; as an out-of-the-gate franchise-starter, it isn’t quite as audience-friendly as Guardians of the Galaxy. But, given the popularity of other magical franchises there’s no reason it shouldn’t make a mint. I didn’t have high expectations, since both the central casting and the trailers’ visuals seemed derivative, so I came away very pleasantly surprised. The only question is whether they can keep Strange sufficiently distinctive; slotting him in with the other Marvel alumni seems like a recipe for dilution, and they need to be going more, not less, outré.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.