Skip to main content

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel
(2019)

(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

In Black Panther’s case, T’Challa was roundly eclipsed by villain Eric Killmonger. Here, Brie Larson’s Carol Danvers is outshone by… well, pretty much everyone, except maybe her anodyne best bud Maria (Lashana Lynch). There have been various theories on why this is, perhaps the most common being that the fractured nature of her tale – an amnesiac gradually piecing her memory and supreme potential back together – rather impaired her chances of hitting the ground running as a fully conceived character. I’m not sure I really buy this, in that the movie’s structure had the potential for a relatively fresh take on an origins story, if only there had been more attention to making the mystery compelling and pushing the plot along (Memento comes to mind, where that lack of self-knowledge drives the story).

Carol rather listlessly comes across who she is/was, with convenient flashes of information here and there: nothing that really makes you sit up and take notice. Indeed, for Marvel’s mostsuper-powered superhero – I mean, she pretty much is, isn’t she? – there’s something curiously indifferent about the project. Brie is fine, but like Chadwick Boseman’s T’Challa, there’s little for her to chew on, and what there is is of the corniest “control your emotions/unleash them to realise your potential” variety (that “get back up again” montage is processed cheese incarnate). Which is why her arc doesn’t land. It’s both over-familiar and artificially foisted upon her; with any other superhero who has really taken off on the big screen, you can be sure that their sense of conflict/arc has actively translated, but Carol Danvers has been rather too schematically planned out, and as a result, she isn’t terribly interesting.

In terms of plot, the strongest element only peripherally relates to Captain Marvel, by virtue of her being duped: the Kree, who have trained her as a warrior, aren’t guardians of peace and justice at all, but aggressors bent on exterminating the reptilian, shapeshifting Skrulls (good lizards? What the…?) Accordingly, both Jude Law as initially hard-but-fair mentor Yon-Rogg, later revealed as bastardly, and particularly Ben Mendelsohn as initially dodgy interrogator Talos, later revealed as a sympathetic family lizard man, are more engaging presences than the lead (which is not to say the Skrulls-Kree conflict stuff is any better fleshed out, as a whole, than say the world of Green Lantern). I was a little disappointed that the paranoia potential of the Skrulls wasn’t developed more, but that makes sense in retrospect as (a) the Skrulls are good guys here and (b) it sets up a flip for the inevitable Secret Invasion movie. It’s a nice touch to have both Law and Mendelsohn use their natural, non-RP accents, but most of all it was nice to see Mendelsohn, typecast as a go-to Hollywood villain (well, it’s his fault really for accepting the parts), getting to play a good guy and be really funny.

Indeed, if there’s one thing that saves this movie from descending into the forgettable, it’s mining that patented Marvel seam of humour. Which is to say, it’s very formulaic humour, like the movie itself, but it provides a lift that the competently staged (by the second unit no doubt) but disappointingly sluggish action can’t (there’s one strong pursuit scene in an underground facility, but that aside, you’d be hard pressed to single out anything great, certainly not Captain Marvel’s “becoming”).

This is easily the best time Samuel L Jackson’s had in a Marvel movie – playing a version of himself a good decade younger than he actually was in the ‘90s, by the look of the actually pretty good de-aging; Agent Coulson doesn’t fare so well, but mercifully the character’s barely in it – and he’s very much the sidekick to Danvers. Indeed, while Fury works well (“If toast is cut diagonally, I can’t eat it”), there’s a vague annoyance when an emerging character is so engulfed by continuity that they don’t get the chance to take those all-important baby steps on their own. The presence of SHIELD here most hearkens back to their intrusive presence in Phase One, and if it wasn’t for Fury being an enjoyable element – as opposed to an extraneous one back then – it would grate just as much.

Also in his favour is his making best friends with cat-shaped alien/Flerken Goose (“It’s a cat, not Hannibal Lecter”), possibly the highlight of Captain Marvel (though the tentacled maw thing is a bit over-used design wise at this point). Still, it’s odd that Boden, Fleck and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (credited with inert Tomb Raider reboot, but also prospectively penning Gotham City Sirens, Sherlock Holmes 3 and a new Dungeons and Dragons, so maybe she was very unlucky first time out) should choose to undercut Fury by having Goose be responsible for his loss of sight in one eye. I mean, it’s funny, but it’s still a surprising choice.

Also in the cast are Annette Bening (barely makes an impression), Lee Pace (I actually thought they’d got someone else in as Ronan, à la Red Skull, as again, he barely makes an impression) and Stan Lee, cutely – or not, given the detritus that film is – swotting up on his lines for Mallrats.

How do Boden and Fleck fare? Well, okay… I mean, there’s absolutely no evidence of style or personality anywherein the movie (honestly, I’m surprised they even have a screenplay credit, since there’s nothing remotely as distinctive as their work on Half Nelson). Captain Marvel seems entirely made to order, nothing more so than the half-hearted attempts at ‘90s nostalgia, which principally consists of a Blockbuster drop-in and some sadly unimaginative and intrusive needle drops on the soundtrack (Come As You Are and Just A Girl being the most egregious). There seems to be a wide range of takes on the MCU directors, few seeming to be in unison on who’s handled their house-style requirements most heroically – I’d pick Shane Black, Jon Watts, James Gunn and Scott Derrickson, while I’m contrastingly not overly impressed by star journeymen the Russo brothers – but few can disagree at this point that, whatever the DCU’s deficiencies, and let’s face it they’re writ large in basic storytelling, they aren’t afraid to let talented filmmakers lead the way, rather than the producer.

Captain Marvel doesn’t turn up the feminism dial to eleven particularly, which might be to its credit – Maria’s flying the gender-warfare flag more pronouncedly than Carol – or perhaps to Marvel’s sheepishness, since it’s taken them so long to get there. There’ll be those who read topical commentary into the thing in dribs and drabs, but that kind of tack only invites a spotlight on its essential shallowness. Indeed, anyone looking for a progressive message here needs only observe how refugees and minorities congregate in awe around another white saviour figure. Don’t tell Brie that, though, or she’ll get right mardy with you. Captain Marvel will do, and has the box office to prove it, but that shouldn’t really cut it.



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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?