Skip to main content

There’s only one God, ma’am. And I’m pretty sure he doesn’t dress like that.

Avengers Assemble 
aka Avengers
(2012)

(SPOILERS) As a writer, Joss Whedon has an unwavering grasp of what makes for a crowd-pleasing moment. As a director, he has a less-than-perfect ability to achieve that. It’s striking on revisit how much Avengers Assemble (or plain Avengers if you don’t live in the Britain) resembles a big-budget TV movie, from its aspect ratio to the mild, contained staging of set pieces. It even opens in a basement. Despite this, for the most part, it does exactly what it needs to do, bringing Marvel’s superhero brands together in a manner such that they strike sparks off each other, both playful and antagonistic. 


However, the lustre of that main-event status, the one that made it such a phenomenal success, has worn off to the extent that Kevin Feige's formula is now somewhat unflattering. The hugely satisfying moments go hand in hand with trademark Whedon dialogue, such that everyone makes smart remarks and quips whether or not it's appropriate, and everyone is thrown hero moments whether or not they land. As often as the plot mechanisms succeed, they’re clunky and derived. When you're too conscious of the inner workings of an engine, it’s difficult to buy into the illusion that it’s magic.


On Whedon’s side, the structure of Avengers Assemble is suitably robust (he reportedly threw out Zack Penn's draft, telling Feige they should pretend it never happened). Loki as the villain was Marvel’s stipulation, but it's a good one, as he's erudite, witty and one you want to spend time with – pretty much the antithesis of most MCU bad guys, then. He's made a badass from the start, taking out everyone guarding the Tesseract (in that basement) or converting them to his will. He has a masterplan that shows he smarter than everyone else too – although I’m not sure if Whedon constantly nodding to this being the case before the reveal was wise. On the one hand, it means you can’t say it wasn’t up to much (and it hinging on Hulk hulking out isn’t really that clever, special or involved). On the other again, it over-eggs the anticipation. 



Whedon needs to operate continual twists by way of reversals; it's in his blood as a plotter. Which means a smart character in one scene has to be stupid the next, not always satisfying for a masterplan. Everything’s going swimmingly until Loki's hoodwinked by Black Widow, a scene that might have played better if you believed Scarlett Johanssen could believably hoodwink anyone. The scene's also notable for Loki, rather vulgarly, calling her a mewling quim, which has retrospectively worked wonders for Whedon's cred as a poster boy for progressing the feminist cause. There's a problem here structurally too, in that we know Loki is working for someone (the Other), and that he's under his own form of pressure. This is a GREAT choice, as if you give the villain stakes, forcing you to care about his outcome, you're more invested in the whole endeavour from all sides. Unfortunately, Joss doesn't remember to really dig into this aspect again. 



LokiI am a god, you dull creature!
HulkPuny god.

There's an interesting moment where Thor pleads with his brother to stop what’s coming and Loki replies "It’s too late. It’s too late to stop it". Worst case scenario: the movie turns into Terror of the Autons, with the Master and the Doctor working side by side because the former didn't bother to think things through. Fortunately, that doesn't happen, but what we needed and didn’t get was a repositioning of the ultimate villain where the stakes were raised. The Centauri are never anything more than cannon fodder and the Other (Alex Denisof), let alone his master, remains out of play, so the third act becomes a series of heroes vs Chitauri showboats, while Loki well and truly falls off his pedestal when Hulk smashes him. He retains his wit ("If it’s all the same to you, I’ll have that drink now") but the climax is more about a deed (Tony disposing of the payload) than besting the bad guy.



I mentioned Black Widow, and I should preface comments on the B-heroes by saying there’s little overall dissatisfaction with how Whedon services the coming together of the Avengerers. However, even when he's at pains to give them screen time, the lesser mortals consistently underwhelm. Sometimes because he's so at pains to do right by them. The only way he managed to keep Hawkeye central to the action was to turn him bad, but because Renner's got a face for playing shifty and because Hawkeye is utterly dull and has really shitty powers, he's only even a remotely compelling character when he's on Team Loki. It's pretty cool when he tries to kill Nick Fury, admittedly. Turn him good again, giving him a detox and letting him take out Chitauri with his frickin' arrows – while falling –  and he's not just out of his depth, you wish he'd been banished from the entire movie, never to return ("Just like Budapest all over again"). 



Black Widow. Well, I shouldn’t go on about Scarlett's her deficiencies whenever she’s in a movie, but Whedon’s basically doing his identikit sassy female, more Faith than Buffy, but less charismatic than either Eliza Dushku or Sarah Michelle Gellar. And some might call it foreshadowing that Whedon has her introduced fooling Jerzy Skolimowski – director of that Europudding masterpiece The Adventures of Gerard! – that he's interrogating her, just as she later fools Loki. Others might suggest it’s lazy repetition. Joss will no doubt say he saw something he wanted to develop between Natasha and Bruce here. Everyone else will attest it was the most clod-headed move imaginable. As ever, though, Scarlett's stunt double does fine work (the resemblance to an episode of Buffy is striking in the editing of these sequences).



CapWe have orders. We should follow them.
TonyFollowing's not really my style.
CapAnd you're all about style, aren’t you?

There's SHIELD too. It's probably fair to say Whedon hasn't had a great year. His work on Justice League went down like a bag of cold sick reingested and then regurgitated once more (doubtless he envisaged a salvaged-in-the-edit response on the level of Rogue One), his ex-wife levelled the accusation against him that he was a multiple louse, and he subsequently left (or was never really going to helm it at all?) Batgirl, since he was now deemed part of the problem rather than part of the solution (see "feminist cause" again). On top of that, Trump got made President and Joss' Twitter crusade has been preoccupied with how much he really wants him to die. Which must be exhausting for him, particularly since he seemed quite at home previously with voicing suspicion of anyone in power, not just the one with The Idiot's Guide to… sign hanging round his neck. 



SHIELD here is picking up from Iron Man II, the nominal powers-that-be who want destructive might for their own purposes and are inherently not responsible enough to be trusted with it. SHIELD’s justification is that there are external threats that need reckoning with, necessitating the development of the Tesseract as a deadly force rather than purely as an unlimited free energy source (I don't think we ever heard any more of Tony's similarly skewed experiment with powering Stark Tower with self-sustaining clean energy – "like Christmas, but with more me" – so maybe it and Wakanda's openness with advanced tech are destined to fall conveniently by the wayside); Phase II – surely an nudge-joke at this being the climax of Phase I – is code for its weaponisation. Hence Tony being cut out of the equation: "An intelligence organisation that fears intelligence? Historically, not awesome". The most effective thread here, in terms of the greater MCU, is the growling loggerheads between Cap and Tony that will eventually see them exchange places come Civil War.



Right now, though, the superheroes at their best are the outsiders, characterised as "a handful of freaks" and "exactly what we need". The likes of Nick Fury, Maria Hill (Coby Smulders) and Phil Coulson, and Black Widow and Hawkeye, as extensions of the establishment apparatus, very much do not fit that bill, so the device of resting the emotional turning point of the movie on Coulson's death is a lumbering blunder. Even more so in retrospect, as in a move worthy of Steven Moffat, it was undone with the mystifyingly-still-running TV spinoff Agents of SHIELD; remember kids, death carries no weight in the SF and fantasy genres. Whedon may have been in a bind – he couldn't permanently flatten anyone important as that would undo future plans – but you have to care about a character in the first place for it to mean something. He'd be at it again in Age of Ultron with Quicksilver. In a 13 or 22-episode TV show you can achieve this kind of thing. Truncate the proceedings and it becomes a bit of a shrug.  



TonyHis name was Phil.

The build-up to the big motivator ("Because if we can’t protect the Earth, we’ll be damn sure we'll avenge it") doesn’t carry enough oomph, so Whedon can’t quite deliver the emotionally-charged goods. All I can hear in Coulson geeking over Cap is Buffy's Xander (how he "watched you while you were sleeping" and wants his cards signed), while the hokey sentiment of "People might just need a little old fashioned" ill-advisedly hearkens to nostalgic value systems that never were. Then there's that awful eulogy scene in which Nick embellishes his passing with Coulson's blood-smeared cards ("They needed the push"); if you don't feel the loss in the first place, you can't underscore it. 



TonyApparently, I'm volatile, self-obsessed, don't play well with others.
PepperThat I did know.

At the time, the biggest rave point in respect of the main heroes was probably the bromance between Tony and Bruce, and rightly so ("Finally, someone who speaks English"). But you also tend to notice the things Whedon can’t resist overdoing with revisit (Tony’s movie references – Reindeer GamesPoint Break, Legolas – Bruce continually warning of how bad the Hulk is gets irritating very quickly). 



Rufffalo is a great low-fi Eeyore of a Bruce, but Feige prefacing the decision for a new Banner with the need for someone who would embody the "creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members" was a monumental "ouch" directed at Ed Norton. Likewise, getting to the point where Bruce explains how he controls his anger; a great beat on the first couple of viewings, but now it seems crudely over-deliberate ("I’m always angry"). I'm not sure I quite buy the sincerity of Tony's delivery to Bruce either ("Not just armour; It's a terrible privilege and you can control it"). Still, anything with the guys suited up works like gangbusters, be it the set piece of Tony fixing the propeller (he and Cap working in tandem), the gag of Hulk punching out Thor, or Hulk saving Tony as he plummets back to Earth. And the scene between Ruffalo and Harry Dean Stanton is also a nice touch.



You tend to notice where Whedon has done something clever, as much of the movie's progression is very linear. Having all the characters score points off each other at Loki's behest is satisfying but very schematic ("Take that off, what are you?": "Genius playboy millionaire philanthropist"; "Everything special about you came out of a bottle"). Likewise, the "heroes assemble" circular camera move during the New York climax – Whedon isn't the visual artisan that it doesn't come away whiffing slightly of cheese, particularly as the action all seems to take place on one street. 



In contrast, look at the (much) earlier confrontation between the Asgard brothers disrupted by Iron Man and then again by the arrival of Cap (you have to love the "SLAM", "BOING" of shield and hammer going at it). It’s a great example of virtuoso structuring and sleight of hand visually, in terms of character, and very funny too; the result is easily the best sequence in the movie.



Nick FuryHe killed eighty people in two days.
ThorHe’s adopted.

Whedon is like a pig in shit with these interactions, but they don't always play. The Thor line above is rather weak, a gag that might work in another context but not from the God of Thunder (Waititi would do this kind of thing with wild abandon in Ragnarok). Cap's "I do, I understood", in response to the "Flying monkeys" reference is better, playing off his innocence; Whedon generally has a better grasp of Steve's character, such that he doesn't feel the need to break the tension for an unmotivated joke, and when jokes do come, they're germane and deadpan ("There's only one God, ma'am. And I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that"). 



It's Whedon all over that the deconstruction (sitting around post-shawarma in the post-credits scene) takes precedence over the actual heroics, because at this point, he's still carrying around the mindset of the TV guy made good. When he steals from movies, they're invariably bad choices (The Phantom Menace Effect, whereby taking out the control centre brings the Chitauri invasion to a crashing halt). And when he wants to get self-consciously serious for a moment (the old German – Auschwitz survivor? –WWII veteran refusing to kneel before Loki) you end up wishing he'd just stick to glib.



Most of the MCU entries on this revisit have reconfirmed my initial or subsequent thoughts. Iron Man II improved somewhat, but Avengers Assemble is a marginal step down. It's frequently a very enjoyable picture, but it can't escape its indebtedness to the voice of Joss, or his limited directorial chops. It takes the Phase I silver medal, when previously, it might have been gold. Whedon's a writer who will try to make elements work (Black Widow, Hawkeye) even when he knows they don't, thus worsening matters by overcompensating, and he might even undercut what does work (Tony Stark) by turning everyone into merry quipsters. But that's not to undermine the balance he achieves here, a balance that not everyone can replicate. Just ask Zach Snyder.




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.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Would you like Smiley Sauce with that?

American Beauty (1999)
(SPOILERS) As is often the case with the Best Picture Oscar, a backlash against a deemed undeserved reward has grown steadily in the years since American Beauty’s win. The film is now often identified as symptomatic of a strain of cinematic indulgence focussing on the affluent middle classes’ first world problems. Worse, it showcases a problematic protagonist with a Lolita-fixation towards his daughter’s best friend (imagine its chances of getting made, let alone getting near the podium in the #MeToo era). Some have even suggested it “mercifully” represents a world that no longer exists (as a pre-9/11 movie), as if such hyperbole has any bearing other than as gormless clickbait; you’d have to believe its world of carefully manicured caricatures existed in the first place to swallow such a notion. American Beauty must own up to some of these charges, but they don’t prevent it from retaining a flawed allure. It’s a satirical take on Americana that, if it pulls its p…

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his …

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

Is CBS Corporate telling CBS News "Do not air this story"?

The Insider (1999)
(SPOILERS) The Insider was the 1999 Best Picture Oscar nominee that didn’t. Do any business, that is. Which is, more often than not, a major mark against it getting the big prize. It can happen (2009, and there was a string of them from 2014-2016), but aside from brief, self-congratulatory “we care about art first” vibes, it generally does nothing for the ceremony’s profile, or the confidence of the industry that is its bread and butter. The Insider lacked the easy accessibility of the other nominees – supernatural affairs, wafer-thin melodramas or middle-class suburbanite satires. It didn’t even brandish a truly headlines-shattering nail-biter in its conspiracy-related true story, as earlier contenders All the President’s Men and JFK could boast. But none of those black marks prevented The Insider from being the cream of the year’s crop.