hasn't even made Major yet.
May 12, 2018 8:48 PM Subscribe
We're The Good Guys, Right? - On The Marvel movies, Daniel Immerwahr
Looking Back on The Ultimates, the Most Uncomfortable Superhero Story Ever Told
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:01 PM on May 12, 2018 [11 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:01 PM on May 12, 2018 [11 favorites]
There are no Infinity War spoilers in the article.
There is an awful lot of hilarious truth in the article!
posted by artof.mulata at 9:01 PM on May 12, 2018 [7 favorites]
There is an awful lot of hilarious truth in the article!
posted by artof.mulata at 9:01 PM on May 12, 2018 [7 favorites]
Lots of quotes from all the movies. Def spolier for end of Civil War. Most everything else is as much as you’d glean from trailers. If you’re hugely spoiler-phobic, and you haven’t seen one of the ouvre, skip this. But for the vast majority of us, I don’t think it gives away anything we would consider a “surprise.” Except Civil War.
“Thor, played winningly by human protein shake Chris Hemsworth...” Heh.
posted by greermahoney at 9:04 PM on May 12, 2018 [5 favorites]
“Thor, played winningly by human protein shake Chris Hemsworth...” Heh.
posted by greermahoney at 9:04 PM on May 12, 2018 [5 favorites]
No Infinity War spoilers that I noticed.
Half the public officials in the Marvel films are secretly working for HYDRA. The Avengers dislike HYDRA, but not out of any sympathy for public governance.
I used to get eye-rolly about this, but...*gestures at current sociopolitical climate and omniscandal.* Also, come on. The Avengers dislike HYDRA because they're NAZIS. This article isn't explicit about this, but, uh, I think it's a pretty important point of clarification. HYDRA are Nazis. They're not just another "another shadowy governmental organization." And, again, I used to think it was kind of cheap to pin some real critiques of the military-industrial complex and surveillance culture on Nazis, but, again, *gestures at current sociopolitical climate.*
There are good points about the core ambivalence of the MCU: Fear is omnipresent, public institutions are not to be trusted, and the best we can hope for is benevolent vigilantes to take everything out of our hands. I think that makes the movies an interesting commentary on and reflection of our current times, the push and pull between wanting to trust an authority or institution, and knowing you can't, and longing in some way for some older, more pure model of heroism and trust in authority, as exemplified by Thor and T'Challa.
posted by yasaman at 9:10 PM on May 12, 2018 [25 favorites]
Half the public officials in the Marvel films are secretly working for HYDRA. The Avengers dislike HYDRA, but not out of any sympathy for public governance.
I used to get eye-rolly about this, but...*gestures at current sociopolitical climate and omniscandal.* Also, come on. The Avengers dislike HYDRA because they're NAZIS. This article isn't explicit about this, but, uh, I think it's a pretty important point of clarification. HYDRA are Nazis. They're not just another "another shadowy governmental organization." And, again, I used to think it was kind of cheap to pin some real critiques of the military-industrial complex and surveillance culture on Nazis, but, again, *gestures at current sociopolitical climate.*
There are good points about the core ambivalence of the MCU: Fear is omnipresent, public institutions are not to be trusted, and the best we can hope for is benevolent vigilantes to take everything out of our hands. I think that makes the movies an interesting commentary on and reflection of our current times, the push and pull between wanting to trust an authority or institution, and knowing you can't, and longing in some way for some older, more pure model of heroism and trust in authority, as exemplified by Thor and T'Challa.
posted by yasaman at 9:10 PM on May 12, 2018 [25 favorites]
If your first thought when reading criticism like this is "there are spoilers" then you're missing the point, the very purpose of the article.
It reminds me of the Wired article the other day, "Childish Gambino and how the internet killed the cultural critic":
"...Readers want to consume art, not consider it. They’ll take recommendations, sure – but reviews? Save your prose for Medium. ...How can you guarantee the review won’t ruin the end? Social media’s spoiler allergy is death to considered criticism of any kind."
Anyway, it's nice to consider what all of this pop culture means, once in a while.
posted by JamesBay at 9:35 PM on May 12, 2018 [20 favorites]
It reminds me of the Wired article the other day, "Childish Gambino and how the internet killed the cultural critic":
"...Readers want to consume art, not consider it. They’ll take recommendations, sure – but reviews? Save your prose for Medium. ...How can you guarantee the review won’t ruin the end? Social media’s spoiler allergy is death to considered criticism of any kind."
Anyway, it's nice to consider what all of this pop culture means, once in a while.
posted by JamesBay at 9:35 PM on May 12, 2018 [20 favorites]
Since we're on the topic of real world issues and comic book universes, I have a question to experts of Marvel or DC: Does either universe ever talk about or deal with climate change on Earth?
Because it would seem like a problem that Tony Stark or Lex Luthor could fix in a month. Or Superman could just suck up carbon dioxide with his lungs and blow it into the next galaxy or something. (Actually, maybe Supes shouldn't do that, I think that could actually make things worse).
posted by FJT at 9:57 PM on May 12, 2018 [2 favorites]
Because it would seem like a problem that Tony Stark or Lex Luthor could fix in a month. Or Superman could just suck up carbon dioxide with his lungs and blow it into the next galaxy or something. (Actually, maybe Supes shouldn't do that, I think that could actually make things worse).
posted by FJT at 9:57 PM on May 12, 2018 [2 favorites]
Readers want to consume art not consider it. They’ll take recommendations, sure – but reviews?
I... think I disagree with this premise. Yes, there’s a ton of listicle “journalism” and I wish there were far less of it, but there’s still a ton of reviews that come out after each big movie. And many are well-informed and thoughtful. They’re not intended to convince you to see the movie or not. They’re assuming you’ve seen the movie and want more. In fact, a top comment in the fpp for This is America had a link to a line by line, frame by frame explanation of the song/video. I’m sorry that Wired writer missed it, because it seemed to be exactly what he was looking for. But yeah, we generally don’t want that kind of analysis until we’ve seen the subject.
That said, we just had an FPP on the circus that is resteraunt reviewing. There’s a whole industry built on reviewing something that the vast majority of readers will never, literally, consume.
Yeah, paid reviewers are fewer and fewer, but that’s true of all journalism. We’re in this “throw it on YouTube and make money off the ads” thing and I don’t really blame papers for cutting people when the medium has changed.
posted by greermahoney at 10:24 PM on May 12, 2018 [7 favorites]
I... think I disagree with this premise. Yes, there’s a ton of listicle “journalism” and I wish there were far less of it, but there’s still a ton of reviews that come out after each big movie. And many are well-informed and thoughtful. They’re not intended to convince you to see the movie or not. They’re assuming you’ve seen the movie and want more. In fact, a top comment in the fpp for This is America had a link to a line by line, frame by frame explanation of the song/video. I’m sorry that Wired writer missed it, because it seemed to be exactly what he was looking for. But yeah, we generally don’t want that kind of analysis until we’ve seen the subject.
That said, we just had an FPP on the circus that is resteraunt reviewing. There’s a whole industry built on reviewing something that the vast majority of readers will never, literally, consume.
Yeah, paid reviewers are fewer and fewer, but that’s true of all journalism. We’re in this “throw it on YouTube and make money off the ads” thing and I don’t really blame papers for cutting people when the medium has changed.
posted by greermahoney at 10:24 PM on May 12, 2018 [7 favorites]
Looking Back on The Ultimates, the Most Uncomfortable Superhero Story Ever Told
Well, that wasn't very good. Not only does it ignore Watchmen, but also The Authority, Warren Ellis and Bryan Hitch's "widescreen" superhero book. Millar's Ultimates took Hitch, the original Authority artist, and his own storyline from his stint as Ellis' successor on that book, which featured a corrupt, cynical and extremely violent version of the Avengers. It was only "uncomfortable" if you hadn't read comics since the mid-eighties. And it gets the second and third Cap movies precisely wrong: "There have been vague stabs in that direction in the past, most notably in the two most recent Captain America movies, which tackled the trade-offs of security and liberty. But even there, the story fell short, positing that the security state was proposed by one-dimensional evildoers, not folks who see themselves as our champions."
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:41 PM on May 12, 2018 [6 favorites]
Well, that wasn't very good. Not only does it ignore Watchmen, but also The Authority, Warren Ellis and Bryan Hitch's "widescreen" superhero book. Millar's Ultimates took Hitch, the original Authority artist, and his own storyline from his stint as Ellis' successor on that book, which featured a corrupt, cynical and extremely violent version of the Avengers. It was only "uncomfortable" if you hadn't read comics since the mid-eighties. And it gets the second and third Cap movies precisely wrong: "There have been vague stabs in that direction in the past, most notably in the two most recent Captain America movies, which tackled the trade-offs of security and liberty. But even there, the story fell short, positing that the security state was proposed by one-dimensional evildoers, not folks who see themselves as our champions."
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:41 PM on May 12, 2018 [6 favorites]
I've unabashedly stated in the past how much I love the Chris Evans/MCU presentation of Cap as the true Blue Boy Scout, defender of the weak.... I really strongly feel like this article really reaches for the idea of Cap's motives. Yes, he steps outside of Governmental control, but precisely for the reason that it no longer stands for the true blue ideals that he holds dear. It's read almost feels like like "you must bend your will to the decision of the central authority", which is point blankly against Cap's philosophy or:
'Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move."posted by drewbage1847 at 10:48 PM on May 12, 2018 [16 favorites]
If your first thought when reading criticism like this is "there are spoilers" then you're missing the point, the very purpose of the article.
You are not correctly distinguishing between "reading criticism" and "deciding whether or not to read this particular piece of criticism yet."
posted by straight at 10:52 PM on May 12, 2018 [15 favorites]
You are not correctly distinguishing between "reading criticism" and "deciding whether or not to read this particular piece of criticism yet."
posted by straight at 10:52 PM on May 12, 2018 [15 favorites]
I get bugged by things like Carol Danvers holding the rank of Major before she becomes Ms Marvel. The average age of Captain pilots in the US military is 40. I don't know if the comics ever say her age, but Brie Larson is only 28. Gabrielle Union? Charlize Theron? RDJ is 53. C'mon, Hollywood, stop it.
posted by Brocktoon at 11:02 PM on May 12, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by Brocktoon at 11:02 PM on May 12, 2018 [5 favorites]
There are good points about the core ambivalence of the MCU: Fear is omnipresent, public institutions are not to be trusted, and the best we can hope for is benevolent vigilantes to take everything out of our hands.
And quite honestly, the MCU is less oppressive and dystopic than the regular Marvel universe, even before the Ultimates. Black op government groups targeting minority populations with robots of Mass Destruction, a government agency trying to take over a major company in order to gain access to it's high technology, all kinds of dodgy legislation and jurisprudence...I think the only way the legal system in Marvel makes sense, is if in its version of the Constitution, there is no Bill of Rights.
posted by happyroach at 12:00 AM on May 13, 2018 [1 favorite]
And quite honestly, the MCU is less oppressive and dystopic than the regular Marvel universe, even before the Ultimates. Black op government groups targeting minority populations with robots of Mass Destruction, a government agency trying to take over a major company in order to gain access to it's high technology, all kinds of dodgy legislation and jurisprudence...I think the only way the legal system in Marvel makes sense, is if in its version of the Constitution, there is no Bill of Rights.
posted by happyroach at 12:00 AM on May 13, 2018 [1 favorite]
I haven't watched any of the movies, and I don't plan to. This part is depressing enough for me:
So that's what the kids are being raised on these days? Straight-up imperialist jingoism?
posted by clawsoon at 5:48 AM on May 13, 2018 [5 favorites]
...it’s hard to find talk of avenging injustice in Iron Man. Or, at least, you won’t find it coming from Tony. His enemies, however, speak of it constantly. One promises to teach the United States “lessons” for its slaughter of Native Americans, another seeks to avenge “all the lives the Stark family has destroyed,” and a third kidnaps Tony, calling him “the most famous mass murderer in the history of America.” Tony suits up and dispatches all these terrorists, exposing them as bitter, self-serving, and duplicitous in the process. Defending himself, he boasts not of his righteousness but of having delivered “the longest period of uninterrupted peace in years.”[sigh]
So that's what the kids are being raised on these days? Straight-up imperialist jingoism?
posted by clawsoon at 5:48 AM on May 13, 2018 [5 favorites]
To those made uneasy by this, the Marvel movies offer consoling fictions.
It's almost as if... they are fiction.
posted by 1head2arms2legs at 6:26 AM on May 13, 2018 [9 favorites]
It's almost as if... they are fiction.
posted by 1head2arms2legs at 6:26 AM on May 13, 2018 [9 favorites]
I get bugged by things like Carol Danvers holding the rank of Major before she becomes Ms Marvel. The average age of Captain pilots in the US military is 40.
[Etrigan takes deep breath.]
Carol Danvers is consistently an Air Force officer. "Captain" is the third Air Force officer rank. Assuming that Cadet Danvers was a fairly average high school and college student and graduated college at 22, she would be a Second Lieutenant until 24, a First Lieutenant until 26, and a Captain until 32. There is currently no early promotion ("below-the-zone") for Air Force pilots to Major, so the only way she could be a 28-year-old Major would be to have graduated college at 18, which is also the youngest one can become a commissioned officer. (This happens so infrequently that "never" is a pretty good way to state it.)
However, in the U.S. Navy "Captain" is the sixth officer rank ("Colonel" in the Air Force). The shortest possible time for a Navy pilot to make Captain is 18 years; the usual timeline is 20.
Hollywood always bones this up; the best I expect is an actor who seems of the right age -- I buy Don Cheadle as a mid-40s Colonel rather than his actual age of 53.
Forty is an "average" age for an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel or a Navy Commander, the fifth officer rank.
posted by Etrigan at 6:29 AM on May 13, 2018 [16 favorites]
[Etrigan takes deep breath.]
Carol Danvers is consistently an Air Force officer. "Captain" is the third Air Force officer rank. Assuming that Cadet Danvers was a fairly average high school and college student and graduated college at 22, she would be a Second Lieutenant until 24, a First Lieutenant until 26, and a Captain until 32. There is currently no early promotion ("below-the-zone") for Air Force pilots to Major, so the only way she could be a 28-year-old Major would be to have graduated college at 18, which is also the youngest one can become a commissioned officer. (This happens so infrequently that "never" is a pretty good way to state it.)
However, in the U.S. Navy "Captain" is the sixth officer rank ("Colonel" in the Air Force). The shortest possible time for a Navy pilot to make Captain is 18 years; the usual timeline is 20.
Hollywood always bones this up; the best I expect is an actor who seems of the right age -- I buy Don Cheadle as a mid-40s Colonel rather than his actual age of 53.
Forty is an "average" age for an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel or a Navy Commander, the fifth officer rank.
posted by Etrigan at 6:29 AM on May 13, 2018 [16 favorites]
> You are not correctly distinguishing between "reading criticism" and "deciding whether or not to read this particular piece of criticism yet."
A comprehensive overview of the modern Marvel Movies, intended to contextualize its moral bearing within real-world global politics, without spoilers is pretty much impossible, wouldn't you think?
But to answer your question: Infinity War was release April 27, the N+1 article was datelined May 1, and no, aside from acknowledging the box office success of Infinity War it is otherwise not discussed.
posted by ardgedee at 6:45 AM on May 13, 2018
A comprehensive overview of the modern Marvel Movies, intended to contextualize its moral bearing within real-world global politics, without spoilers is pretty much impossible, wouldn't you think?
But to answer your question: Infinity War was release April 27, the N+1 article was datelined May 1, and no, aside from acknowledging the box office success of Infinity War it is otherwise not discussed.
posted by ardgedee at 6:45 AM on May 13, 2018
It's almost as if... they are fiction.
I’d go beyond that: It’s opera. Everything is heightened and dramatic and centered on individuals. The logic of realism is suspended in order to support that.
(And yeah, undermining that to highlight it can work too? But it’s not 1986, so that’s a pretty old trick.)
posted by Artw at 6:51 AM on May 13, 2018
I’d go beyond that: It’s opera. Everything is heightened and dramatic and centered on individuals. The logic of realism is suspended in order to support that.
(And yeah, undermining that to highlight it can work too? But it’s not 1986, so that’s a pretty old trick.)
posted by Artw at 6:51 AM on May 13, 2018
Jeepers, someone should call Alan Moore to let him know that superheroes can be interpreted as fascistic.
I agree that there could be better representation of democracies in the MCU but the article is kind of making a mountain out of a molehill and characterizes the characters and the world they live in in ways that don't make sense if you have seen the films.
posted by Query at 7:22 AM on May 13, 2018 [5 favorites]
I agree that there could be better representation of democracies in the MCU but the article is kind of making a mountain out of a molehill and characterizes the characters and the world they live in in ways that don't make sense if you have seen the films.
posted by Query at 7:22 AM on May 13, 2018 [5 favorites]
Readers want to consume art not consider it. They’ll take recommendations, sure – but reviews?
I also disagree with this, coming from my experience in fandom. Some of the most interesting criticism I've read has come out of fans talking to each other. Generally, when people from outside of fandom thinking they're sharing a hot new take, they aren't.
That's not to say that fans are the only ones making this kind of criticism. There are definitely others. Fans are just fast, because there are a lot of them, and because the platform - social media - is quickly accessible. The day Infinity War was released I was reading a pretty interesting discussion of Thanos's motives and how they reflect real-world political views.
Sure there are a lot of shipping conspiracies too, since there is very little gatekeeping, but this idea that readers want to consume without thinking is just ... wrong. Thinking about this stuff is a hobby for many, and it's not all who's boning based on triangulated screenshots or whatever. People have been discussing what Captain America's motives are1 and what Captain American means since forever. The distance between his values and what might be the right thing to do from a systemic perspective is one of the things that makes him interesting rather than just pretty idealized beefcake.
1 clearly his l'oreal bf(f)
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 7:38 AM on May 13, 2018 [12 favorites]
I also disagree with this, coming from my experience in fandom. Some of the most interesting criticism I've read has come out of fans talking to each other. Generally, when people from outside of fandom thinking they're sharing a hot new take, they aren't.
That's not to say that fans are the only ones making this kind of criticism. There are definitely others. Fans are just fast, because there are a lot of them, and because the platform - social media - is quickly accessible. The day Infinity War was released I was reading a pretty interesting discussion of Thanos's motives and how they reflect real-world political views.
Sure there are a lot of shipping conspiracies too, since there is very little gatekeeping, but this idea that readers want to consume without thinking is just ... wrong. Thinking about this stuff is a hobby for many, and it's not all who's boning based on triangulated screenshots or whatever. People have been discussing what Captain America's motives are1 and what Captain American means since forever. The distance between his values and what might be the right thing to do from a systemic perspective is one of the things that makes him interesting rather than just pretty idealized beefcake.
1 clearly his l'oreal bf(f)
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 7:38 AM on May 13, 2018 [12 favorites]
A comprehensive overview of the modern Marvel Movies, intended to contextualize its moral bearing within real-world global politics, without spoilers is pretty much impossible, wouldn't you think?
But to answer your question: Infinity War was release April 27, the N+1 article was datelined May 1, and no, aside from acknowledging the box office success of Infinity War it is otherwise not discussed.
You see that these two sentences contradict each other, right? "Duh, obviously there would be spoilers. Why would you ask such a thing? Oh, but there aren't."
Asking which works you should have seen/read before reading an article of criticism is not a sign of being uninterested in or unwilling to engage with criticism.
posted by straight at 8:31 AM on May 13, 2018 [6 favorites]
But to answer your question: Infinity War was release April 27, the N+1 article was datelined May 1, and no, aside from acknowledging the box office success of Infinity War it is otherwise not discussed.
You see that these two sentences contradict each other, right? "Duh, obviously there would be spoilers. Why would you ask such a thing? Oh, but there aren't."
Asking which works you should have seen/read before reading an article of criticism is not a sign of being uninterested in or unwilling to engage with criticism.
posted by straight at 8:31 AM on May 13, 2018 [6 favorites]
Captain America is "a rabidly nationalistic off-the-books soldier"
Lol.
The rest of the article's analysis is just as good, a Wikipedia skimming level of correct and nothing new or interesting to talk about.
Want real criticism of Marvel and its values, an understanding of who Captain America is and how he's often misused?
Read Colin Spacetwinks.
posted by MartinWisse at 8:43 AM on May 13, 2018 [3 favorites]
Lol.
The rest of the article's analysis is just as good, a Wikipedia skimming level of correct and nothing new or interesting to talk about.
Want real criticism of Marvel and its values, an understanding of who Captain America is and how he's often misused?
Read Colin Spacetwinks.
posted by MartinWisse at 8:43 AM on May 13, 2018 [3 favorites]
I get bugged by things like Carol Danvers holding the rank of Major before she becomes Ms Marvel. The average age of Captain pilots in the US military is 40.
During the Space Race in the '60s it was a thing, for a while, for an astronaut (most were military) to be bumped up a full grade after their first spaceflight.
So it's not huge stretch for this space flying, indestructible person to be Major at a young age.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:57 AM on May 13, 2018 [3 favorites]
During the Space Race in the '60s it was a thing, for a while, for an astronaut (most were military) to be bumped up a full grade after their first spaceflight.
So it's not huge stretch for this space flying, indestructible person to be Major at a young age.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:57 AM on May 13, 2018 [3 favorites]
The rest of the article's analysis is just as good, a Wikipedia skimming level of correct and nothing new or interesting to talk about.
It's rare that I read something that Martin writes and disagree with it, but in this instance I don't think the criticism is fair. For one thing, although it addresses the history of Marvel's characters, this isn't an article about the comicbooks (which is mostly what I've read Colin Spacetwinks criticise - very effectively btw). For another, it's published in a left-leaning literary magazine, not on a fan forum, so it's perhaps aiming to say something more general about the films and the characters, without delving into the stupifyingly complex Marvel canon.
I know that there are a lot of fans of the MCU on MetaFilter and I'm not trying to troll anyone (e.g. 577 FanFare comments on the new Avengers movie, most of them coming from a place of positivity and engagement with the MCU as a whole) - but I liked the article and found that it spoke to the increasing discomfort that I have with today's superhero movies, most especially MCU. I've seen a lot of MCU movies on planes and in the cinema, and they're mostly not for me - they do reasonably well at funny moments, and the SFX are impressive, but overall they feel designed by committee, waaaaay too long, suffer the same "the stakes are meaningless / non-existent" that plagues franchise characters in general, and - most importantly - their politics are often really, really questionable.
I think that the article does a good job of nailing many of the uncomfortable assumptions that lie under the films. I also think it's instructive to compare the politics of the MCU with that of the X-Men movies, and particularly how Magneto is treated as a character - sympathetically and with the acknowledgement that he raises genuinely uncomfortable questions, that are hard to resolve (versus, say Killmonger in BP, whose views are treated as obviously wrong, who is defeated in large part by a white CIA agent, and whose worldwide revolution is substituted by the opening of a community centre in Oakland).
posted by chappell, ambrose at 10:28 AM on May 13, 2018 [9 favorites]
It's rare that I read something that Martin writes and disagree with it, but in this instance I don't think the criticism is fair. For one thing, although it addresses the history of Marvel's characters, this isn't an article about the comicbooks (which is mostly what I've read Colin Spacetwinks criticise - very effectively btw). For another, it's published in a left-leaning literary magazine, not on a fan forum, so it's perhaps aiming to say something more general about the films and the characters, without delving into the stupifyingly complex Marvel canon.
I know that there are a lot of fans of the MCU on MetaFilter and I'm not trying to troll anyone (e.g. 577 FanFare comments on the new Avengers movie, most of them coming from a place of positivity and engagement with the MCU as a whole) - but I liked the article and found that it spoke to the increasing discomfort that I have with today's superhero movies, most especially MCU. I've seen a lot of MCU movies on planes and in the cinema, and they're mostly not for me - they do reasonably well at funny moments, and the SFX are impressive, but overall they feel designed by committee, waaaaay too long, suffer the same "the stakes are meaningless / non-existent" that plagues franchise characters in general, and - most importantly - their politics are often really, really questionable.
I think that the article does a good job of nailing many of the uncomfortable assumptions that lie under the films. I also think it's instructive to compare the politics of the MCU with that of the X-Men movies, and particularly how Magneto is treated as a character - sympathetically and with the acknowledgement that he raises genuinely uncomfortable questions, that are hard to resolve (versus, say Killmonger in BP, whose views are treated as obviously wrong, who is defeated in large part by a white CIA agent, and whose worldwide revolution is substituted by the opening of a community centre in Oakland).
posted by chappell, ambrose at 10:28 AM on May 13, 2018 [9 favorites]
I really strongly feel like this article really reaches for the idea of Cap's motives.
The problem with this article is that it is unwilling to admit its own ignorance.
It talks a little bit about Captain America in the comics, but then goes straight for the movies without admitting that for many, the movies are only the tip of the iceberg. You can’t talk about how morally bankrupt you think Civil War was, without talking about the fact that it is a movie that had to shorten the amazing comic book arc of Civil War, which was mostly about the Patriot Act, and how adherence to American ideals means challenging unjust laws.
Captain America is easy to shorthand to “har har jingoism” but it’s actually a deeply complex character. One of the most meaningful comics I ever read about him has him in Central America to rescue soldiers - and as he’s getting them out, he finds they have committed war crimes, and refuses to turn on those coming for justice simply because the war criminals are Americans.
posted by corb at 10:34 AM on May 13, 2018 [3 favorites]
The problem with this article is that it is unwilling to admit its own ignorance.
It talks a little bit about Captain America in the comics, but then goes straight for the movies without admitting that for many, the movies are only the tip of the iceberg. You can’t talk about how morally bankrupt you think Civil War was, without talking about the fact that it is a movie that had to shorten the amazing comic book arc of Civil War, which was mostly about the Patriot Act, and how adherence to American ideals means challenging unjust laws.
Captain America is easy to shorthand to “har har jingoism” but it’s actually a deeply complex character. One of the most meaningful comics I ever read about him has him in Central America to rescue soldiers - and as he’s getting them out, he finds they have committed war crimes, and refuses to turn on those coming for justice simply because the war criminals are Americans.
posted by corb at 10:34 AM on May 13, 2018 [3 favorites]
You can’t talk about how morally bankrupt you think Civil War was, without talking about the fact that it is a movie that had to shorten the amazing comic book arc of Civil War, which was mostly about the Patriot Act, and how adherence to American ideals means challenging unjust laws.
This is not 1,000,000 miles away from the much-mocked suggestion that gun control advocates cannot take a position on gun control because they don't know what the AR in AR-15 stands for.
I think it's perfectly fair to criticise the reactionary politics of the MCU without having to have read every comic book that they are based on, especially since fewer and fewer of Marvel's hardcore fans are able to keep up with the books.
(Incidentally, is Captain America still a Nazi in the books? Or did that get reset?)
posted by chappell, ambrose at 10:42 AM on May 13, 2018 [7 favorites]
This is not 1,000,000 miles away from the much-mocked suggestion that gun control advocates cannot take a position on gun control because they don't know what the AR in AR-15 stands for.
I think it's perfectly fair to criticise the reactionary politics of the MCU without having to have read every comic book that they are based on, especially since fewer and fewer of Marvel's hardcore fans are able to keep up with the books.
(Incidentally, is Captain America still a Nazi in the books? Or did that get reset?)
posted by chappell, ambrose at 10:42 AM on May 13, 2018 [7 favorites]
Captain America is easy to shorthand to “har har jingoism” but it’s actually a deeply complex character. One of the most meaningful comics I ever read about him has him in Central America to rescue soldiers - and as he’s getting them out, he finds they have committed war crimes, and refuses to turn on those coming for justice simply because the war criminals are Americans.
On the one hand: I like MCU Cap and am fascinated by Comics-Cap, although my knowledge there is eclectic. Plus, I've loved genre fiction since I could read, so I'm sympathetic to how you feel about this: handwaving makes me grrr too.
On the other hand, as a fellow hardcore SF/etc. fan, I'd argue that the popular conceptions of characters almost never hew to these sorts of details: see Flanderization and Kirk Drift. Most characters are written one way and understood in more simplistic and exaggerated terms in wider discussions, especially with casual fans who will outnumber us by orders of magnitude.
That makes the dumb Flanderized version of any given character important when talking about culture at large, because that's both all most people know of them, and also because it's very telling which elements of a character stick and which ones get lost when they get big. (Like, we can determine a lot about what's going on from which stories even get adapted into movies or which characters get what merch.)
Overall, I agree with this:
I think that the article does a good job of nailing many of the uncomfortable assumptions that lie under the films.
And again, big fan of the MCU, (apart from Danny Rand, the Hand and Attilan), but parts of it do bother me, and the article did touch on some of that in ways I found effective.
Just to pick an easy one, I'm uncomfortable that while both Thor and T'Challa have had meaty, interesting storylines about the problems with monarchy, neither of them broke the cycle, or even offered any real discussion about the problems with trying to. That does say something, and it's worth picking at it to figure out exactly what.
I also agree with the article that making HYDRA be behind stuff in some of Cap's plotlines was taking the easy way out - I would've preferred him up against legitimate misguided patriots.
*shrugs*
This isn't perfect, but it's still a good springboard for the rest of us to chat about this stuff.
posted by mordax at 11:16 AM on May 13, 2018 [4 favorites]
On the one hand: I like MCU Cap and am fascinated by Comics-Cap, although my knowledge there is eclectic. Plus, I've loved genre fiction since I could read, so I'm sympathetic to how you feel about this: handwaving makes me grrr too.
On the other hand, as a fellow hardcore SF/etc. fan, I'd argue that the popular conceptions of characters almost never hew to these sorts of details: see Flanderization and Kirk Drift. Most characters are written one way and understood in more simplistic and exaggerated terms in wider discussions, especially with casual fans who will outnumber us by orders of magnitude.
That makes the dumb Flanderized version of any given character important when talking about culture at large, because that's both all most people know of them, and also because it's very telling which elements of a character stick and which ones get lost when they get big. (Like, we can determine a lot about what's going on from which stories even get adapted into movies or which characters get what merch.)
Overall, I agree with this:
I think that the article does a good job of nailing many of the uncomfortable assumptions that lie under the films.
And again, big fan of the MCU, (apart from Danny Rand, the Hand and Attilan), but parts of it do bother me, and the article did touch on some of that in ways I found effective.
Just to pick an easy one, I'm uncomfortable that while both Thor and T'Challa have had meaty, interesting storylines about the problems with monarchy, neither of them broke the cycle, or even offered any real discussion about the problems with trying to. That does say something, and it's worth picking at it to figure out exactly what.
I also agree with the article that making HYDRA be behind stuff in some of Cap's plotlines was taking the easy way out - I would've preferred him up against legitimate misguided patriots.
*shrugs*
This isn't perfect, but it's still a good springboard for the rest of us to chat about this stuff.
posted by mordax at 11:16 AM on May 13, 2018 [4 favorites]
I love Daniel Immerwahr! One time I almost burned down the group house he was living in in Berkeley because I was sleeping on the couch and he gave me a hot water bottle and it leaked and I put the wet couch cushion cover on what I thought was a floor vent but that floor vent was in fact, and I can't believe the landlord was getting away with this, a space heater under a grate in the floor. Daniel is a very nice person and was very nice about it.
But, speaking as someone who has never seen a Marvel movie or, to my knowledge, read a Marvel comic book, and who therefore doesn't have a dog in this fight, I must say that Daniel does take puckish pleasure in playing the left-wing professor game of "that thing you like actually has reprehensible political antecedents/implications/consequences," the other two examples I can think of being Little House on the Prairie (probably partly fair, to be honest) and my grandfather.
posted by sy at 11:47 AM on May 13, 2018 [3 favorites]
But, speaking as someone who has never seen a Marvel movie or, to my knowledge, read a Marvel comic book, and who therefore doesn't have a dog in this fight, I must say that Daniel does take puckish pleasure in playing the left-wing professor game of "that thing you like actually has reprehensible political antecedents/implications/consequences," the other two examples I can think of being Little House on the Prairie (probably partly fair, to be honest) and my grandfather.
posted by sy at 11:47 AM on May 13, 2018 [3 favorites]
I think that the article does a good job of nailing many of the uncomfortable assumptions that lie under the films.
You're afraid of offending fans for questioning those assumptions, but it's a mistake to think that fans don't question them too. The entire superhero genre has issues with uncomfortable assumptions, which is why there is literally decades worth of criticism - including a movement within comics itself (e.g. Miller) reacting to those assumptions.
And I get it: Most viewers probably don't question it that deeply. But this is the era of twitter hot takes and tumblr discourse, and before that there were people on blogs and usenet.
What I'm reacting to isn't so much the criticism of the films, but the way that this criticism is being presented as if it's new. For a piece that includes quite a bit of the history of the characters and how they developed over time, it has surprisingly little on the history of criticism of those characters.
And to be honest, some of my reaction is because I am coming at this from primarily female-dominated fan spaces, which have had a history of being ignored or dismissed as vapid. I don't know that I necessarily expect Immerwahr to be aware of all of the discussion that exists out there, especially since a lot of it isn't easy to find, but it does make the framing - that he's presenting this new angle, or whatever - a little grating.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:57 AM on May 13, 2018 [9 favorites]
You're afraid of offending fans for questioning those assumptions, but it's a mistake to think that fans don't question them too. The entire superhero genre has issues with uncomfortable assumptions, which is why there is literally decades worth of criticism - including a movement within comics itself (e.g. Miller) reacting to those assumptions.
And I get it: Most viewers probably don't question it that deeply. But this is the era of twitter hot takes and tumblr discourse, and before that there were people on blogs and usenet.
What I'm reacting to isn't so much the criticism of the films, but the way that this criticism is being presented as if it's new. For a piece that includes quite a bit of the history of the characters and how they developed over time, it has surprisingly little on the history of criticism of those characters.
And to be honest, some of my reaction is because I am coming at this from primarily female-dominated fan spaces, which have had a history of being ignored or dismissed as vapid. I don't know that I necessarily expect Immerwahr to be aware of all of the discussion that exists out there, especially since a lot of it isn't easy to find, but it does make the framing - that he's presenting this new angle, or whatever - a little grating.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:57 AM on May 13, 2018 [9 favorites]
say Killmonger in BP, whose views are treated as obviously wrong, who is defeated in large part by a white CIA agent, and whose worldwide revolution is substituted by the opening of a community centre in Oakland
I think we watched very different movies if you thought Erik Killmonger was defeated "in large part" by Martin Freeman's character. This is, to me, an utterly baffling take that entirely ignores every single other main character. Martin Freeman's Everett Ross is pretty much only there in the movie to 1) deliver some exposition and 2) be the one somewhat non-crap white character who gets a small heroic moment. How in the world is Erik Killmonger defeated "in large part" by him? Nakia is the one who gets the heart-shaped herb to give to T'Challa, and who is validated as being the true moral core of the movie. M'Baku is the one who brings his people to turn the tide of battle. Shuri is the one whose tech is pretty much the only reason Everett Ross even gets the chance to have a hero moment. Okoye is the one who leads T'Challa's forces in battle, and who puts her country first. And of course T'Challa is the one who actually defeats Erik. In what possible way is Erik Killmonger defeated "in large part" by the random white CIA agent who gets at best five minutes of screen time in the movie? And while Erik's views are treated as wrong, his anger isn't pushed aside or ignored by the narrative, we get plenty of opportunities to see why and how he is the monster America and Wakanda both have created.
I'm a big fan of the MCU, but I'm not blind to the uncomfortable assumptions and tensions underlying it, and all superhero narratives. The linked article is one lens to view the MCU from, and I don't think it's entirely wrong. But it's just one lens, and it's not exactly a new one. Like Kutsuwamushi says, this is the kind of analysis and discussion fans themselves have. Personally, my lens for engaging with the MCU is usually character-centric, and on that level, this analysis isn't super compelling to me. (Which is fair emough, like mordax says, the more shallow popular conception matters.)
posted by yasaman at 12:44 PM on May 13, 2018 [11 favorites]
I think we watched very different movies if you thought Erik Killmonger was defeated "in large part" by Martin Freeman's character. This is, to me, an utterly baffling take that entirely ignores every single other main character. Martin Freeman's Everett Ross is pretty much only there in the movie to 1) deliver some exposition and 2) be the one somewhat non-crap white character who gets a small heroic moment. How in the world is Erik Killmonger defeated "in large part" by him? Nakia is the one who gets the heart-shaped herb to give to T'Challa, and who is validated as being the true moral core of the movie. M'Baku is the one who brings his people to turn the tide of battle. Shuri is the one whose tech is pretty much the only reason Everett Ross even gets the chance to have a hero moment. Okoye is the one who leads T'Challa's forces in battle, and who puts her country first. And of course T'Challa is the one who actually defeats Erik. In what possible way is Erik Killmonger defeated "in large part" by the random white CIA agent who gets at best five minutes of screen time in the movie? And while Erik's views are treated as wrong, his anger isn't pushed aside or ignored by the narrative, we get plenty of opportunities to see why and how he is the monster America and Wakanda both have created.
I'm a big fan of the MCU, but I'm not blind to the uncomfortable assumptions and tensions underlying it, and all superhero narratives. The linked article is one lens to view the MCU from, and I don't think it's entirely wrong. But it's just one lens, and it's not exactly a new one. Like Kutsuwamushi says, this is the kind of analysis and discussion fans themselves have. Personally, my lens for engaging with the MCU is usually character-centric, and on that level, this analysis isn't super compelling to me. (Which is fair emough, like mordax says, the more shallow popular conception matters.)
posted by yasaman at 12:44 PM on May 13, 2018 [11 favorites]
I'm uncomfortable that while both Thor and T'Challa have had meaty, interesting storylines about the problems with monarchy, neither of them broke the cycle, or even offered any real discussion about the problems with trying to.
And I think this is the problem with the Flanderization of the stories - the format of the movies don't really allow that, and what that mass of fans want don't allow it. They are so, so short! Keep in mind how very, very long those battle scenes are, and think how very little time they actually have to delve into it. And think about how these characters have been changed from the books to the comics.
And Thor is a great place to start. Remember the comics? (I mean, even if you're just going with broad strokes) When Thor needed to be taught humility and was sent to earth not as a hunky stud who just happens to not be able to wield his hammer, but as a disabled doctor who had to actually juggle a medical practice in addition to being Thor? And the comics were able to go far deeper into the problems with monarchy and with Thor specifically in the monarchy than any brief movie can.
But also - look at the differences between how Thor/Jane Foster were handled in the movies and the comics. In the comics, when Thor wasn't able to be with her, she was returned to Earth with memories wiped and was able to live an actual life and marry a different guy. In the movie, when Thor is gone, she has awkward dates but can never lose the Memory Of Her True Love.
But so - as I talk, I am talking about the huge problems with the Marvel movies, right, including the fact that they are allowing people to just have 'Hero Thor, Whose Life Has No Real Problems And Whose True Love Waits Like Women Should', because right now people are wanting feel-good stuff and especially there's some problematic attitudes in comics - but it's not boiled down as neatly as this article would suggest either. The problem isn't with the characters, it's with what people want of the characters right now and what lessons are being taken.
posted by corb at 12:54 PM on May 13, 2018 [4 favorites]
And I think this is the problem with the Flanderization of the stories - the format of the movies don't really allow that, and what that mass of fans want don't allow it. They are so, so short! Keep in mind how very, very long those battle scenes are, and think how very little time they actually have to delve into it. And think about how these characters have been changed from the books to the comics.
And Thor is a great place to start. Remember the comics? (I mean, even if you're just going with broad strokes) When Thor needed to be taught humility and was sent to earth not as a hunky stud who just happens to not be able to wield his hammer, but as a disabled doctor who had to actually juggle a medical practice in addition to being Thor? And the comics were able to go far deeper into the problems with monarchy and with Thor specifically in the monarchy than any brief movie can.
But also - look at the differences between how Thor/Jane Foster were handled in the movies and the comics. In the comics, when Thor wasn't able to be with her, she was returned to Earth with memories wiped and was able to live an actual life and marry a different guy. In the movie, when Thor is gone, she has awkward dates but can never lose the Memory Of Her True Love.
But so - as I talk, I am talking about the huge problems with the Marvel movies, right, including the fact that they are allowing people to just have 'Hero Thor, Whose Life Has No Real Problems And Whose True Love Waits Like Women Should', because right now people are wanting feel-good stuff and especially there's some problematic attitudes in comics - but it's not boiled down as neatly as this article would suggest either. The problem isn't with the characters, it's with what people want of the characters right now and what lessons are being taken.
posted by corb at 12:54 PM on May 13, 2018 [4 favorites]
What I'm reacting to isn't so much the criticism of the films, but the way that this criticism is being presented as if it's new. For a piece that includes quite a bit of the history of the characters and how they developed over time, it has surprisingly little on the history of criticism of those characters.
I totally get what you're saying, and understand the frustration of not being acknowledged.
However, I think that you'd be making a more reasonable criticism of the author, had the MCU movies made any attempt to engage with that criticism, and had that criticism materially affected the politics of the movies; in that case, a history of criticism would be much more relevant to the piece, given that the piece is drawing out those qute overt political messages (again, for N+1 readers and potential subscribers, not necessarily for those already immersed in fandom)
Speaking personally, I feel like after Watchmen, there isn't much further to go in criticising the concept of superheroes and the limited - mostly either unpleasant or ridiculous - directions that the concept takes you if you pursue it seriously. To make an honest superhero product which "grapples with the issues", at this point you need to either engage with the Romantic, Ubermenschen undertones, and the dark, libertarian or authoritarian outcomes that are likely (The Dark Knight Returns; The Dark Knight Rises sorta) or the inherent ridiculousness (Kickass, The Incredibles), or both (Dredd, which predates Watchmen in many ways but as a satirical pulp scifi isn't as specific in its criticism of superheroes qua superheroes).
The MCU has sombre moments and silly moments, but its much, much better at recognising the fundamental silliness of (some of) its characters - Guardians of the Galaxy, Antman, Thor to some extent - and to my mind their strongest properties, often also the most dramatic and moving ones, are the light-hearted ones.
For commerical reasons, it's unsurprising that they don't explore the other direction to much of an extent, as that would get dark quickly, and probably would end up reflecting unsympathetically on some of their most valuable properties. However, since the writers don't really follow through on this aspect, but they do spend a lot of time blowing things up in an easily recognisable version of our own world, you're left with a similar level of intelligent political commentary and criticism of US military hegemony to, say, a Michael Bay movie.
The movies have a lot more reach than the books, so I think it's fair to take them at face value and criticise their messages without needing to look at the history of Marvel and its fan community - of course that would also be valuable, but it would have been a different article, probably for a different audience.
[aware that I'm taking up a lot of oxygen in this thread, so I'm going to bow out at this point without responding to yasaman, although point taken - I still think that the character and the role that he plays in the movie is tone-deaf in the extreme, but I'll recognise that I overstated his role.]
posted by chappell, ambrose at 12:59 PM on May 13, 2018 [3 favorites]
I totally get what you're saying, and understand the frustration of not being acknowledged.
However, I think that you'd be making a more reasonable criticism of the author, had the MCU movies made any attempt to engage with that criticism, and had that criticism materially affected the politics of the movies; in that case, a history of criticism would be much more relevant to the piece, given that the piece is drawing out those qute overt political messages (again, for N+1 readers and potential subscribers, not necessarily for those already immersed in fandom)
Speaking personally, I feel like after Watchmen, there isn't much further to go in criticising the concept of superheroes and the limited - mostly either unpleasant or ridiculous - directions that the concept takes you if you pursue it seriously. To make an honest superhero product which "grapples with the issues", at this point you need to either engage with the Romantic, Ubermenschen undertones, and the dark, libertarian or authoritarian outcomes that are likely (The Dark Knight Returns; The Dark Knight Rises sorta) or the inherent ridiculousness (Kickass, The Incredibles), or both (Dredd, which predates Watchmen in many ways but as a satirical pulp scifi isn't as specific in its criticism of superheroes qua superheroes).
The MCU has sombre moments and silly moments, but its much, much better at recognising the fundamental silliness of (some of) its characters - Guardians of the Galaxy, Antman, Thor to some extent - and to my mind their strongest properties, often also the most dramatic and moving ones, are the light-hearted ones.
For commerical reasons, it's unsurprising that they don't explore the other direction to much of an extent, as that would get dark quickly, and probably would end up reflecting unsympathetically on some of their most valuable properties. However, since the writers don't really follow through on this aspect, but they do spend a lot of time blowing things up in an easily recognisable version of our own world, you're left with a similar level of intelligent political commentary and criticism of US military hegemony to, say, a Michael Bay movie.
The movies have a lot more reach than the books, so I think it's fair to take them at face value and criticise their messages without needing to look at the history of Marvel and its fan community - of course that would also be valuable, but it would have been a different article, probably for a different audience.
[aware that I'm taking up a lot of oxygen in this thread, so I'm going to bow out at this point without responding to yasaman, although point taken - I still think that the character and the role that he plays in the movie is tone-deaf in the extreme, but I'll recognise that I overstated his role.]
posted by chappell, ambrose at 12:59 PM on May 13, 2018 [3 favorites]
Let’s not forget that some of these characters have fifty years of monthly stories plus decades more of various team-up stories, often with multiple “origin” stories and retcons along the way (less so in the MCU than the DCEU, but still, there have been a lot of “interpretations” in the books). Whereas the movies (so far) have pretty much just one set of stories, carefully shepherded. Often, when fans say “Well, but in the comics...” what they mean is “In the particular version that I like most and/or is the least problematic as regards the complaint that I’m trying to rebut right now...”.
posted by Etrigan at 1:03 PM on May 13, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 1:03 PM on May 13, 2018 [5 favorites]
Carol Danvers was never an astronaut, and she didn't get any super powers until after she left the military and joined NASA as an "intelligent agent".
posted by Brocktoon at 1:15 PM on May 13, 2018
posted by Brocktoon at 1:15 PM on May 13, 2018
I think he's right that the MCU heroes are reactionary, responding to threats to the status quo much more than trying to right injustices, but I think that's largely driven by a desire to set these stories in a world that somewhat resembles ours.
A world in which Wakanda had been so far advanced ought to have had a completely different history for the continent of Africa (and thus for the rest of the world). But then we would have an alternate history story in which America, if it existed at all, would be unrecognizable and not a country that could have produced Erik as he exists in the film.
Whether that desire to have superhero stories set in "our" world is itself reactionary, I'm not sure. It's one thing to fantasize about being Superman and trying to help people, it's a whole other thing to start wondering what the hell you would do about Syria or Palestine or Baltimore if you were Superman. And it's not clear to me that such fantasies would be of any use toward imagining and inspiring more progressive politics. However much fun it is to tell stories about Superman, he's never going to swoop in and fix the climate change crisis for us.
posted by straight at 1:15 PM on May 13, 2018 [1 favorite]
A world in which Wakanda had been so far advanced ought to have had a completely different history for the continent of Africa (and thus for the rest of the world). But then we would have an alternate history story in which America, if it existed at all, would be unrecognizable and not a country that could have produced Erik as he exists in the film.
Whether that desire to have superhero stories set in "our" world is itself reactionary, I'm not sure. It's one thing to fantasize about being Superman and trying to help people, it's a whole other thing to start wondering what the hell you would do about Syria or Palestine or Baltimore if you were Superman. And it's not clear to me that such fantasies would be of any use toward imagining and inspiring more progressive politics. However much fun it is to tell stories about Superman, he's never going to swoop in and fix the climate change crisis for us.
posted by straight at 1:15 PM on May 13, 2018 [1 favorite]
And while nothing about "set in our world" requires Asgard or Wakanda to be monarchies, I would take issue with his assertion that Asgard is a society more functional than ours. That "system" has twice put Loki on the throne. And I think we are supposed to be horrified by Odin's callous presumption in Thor 2 that he has the right to sacrifice as many Asgardian lives as necessary to retain power and defeat the Dark Elves, as well as by the revelations about Asgard's past in Ragnarok. I was disappointed in Thor sitting down on a throne at the end of the third movie, but it made sense in terms of his character (he's seen the problems with his family's rule, but not really got to the place of questioning monarchy itself) and what would probably be seen as providing comfort and stability (always the buzzwords of monarchy) to the Asgardian diaspora.
And Black Panther also seemed partly about the flaws in the way Wakanda chooses its rulers. And here the primary conflict seems more about T'Challa deposing a bad ruler than asserting his own right and fitness to rule. His story in the MCU is just beginning and we don't know whether he will cling to the monarchy of his ancestors or not.
posted by straight at 1:45 PM on May 13, 2018
And Black Panther also seemed partly about the flaws in the way Wakanda chooses its rulers. And here the primary conflict seems more about T'Challa deposing a bad ruler than asserting his own right and fitness to rule. His story in the MCU is just beginning and we don't know whether he will cling to the monarchy of his ancestors or not.
posted by straight at 1:45 PM on May 13, 2018
I didn't see the movies as being nearly as critical of monarchy as you did, straight. Sometimes bad things happen - but I don't think the movies identify the problem as the monarchy - rather, the problem is imperialism, or isolationism. This is where all the discussion is centered. Getting to the monarchy as the underlying problem is an extra analytic step that I don't think the movies take (or will take, but we'll see). It's up to viewers to take that step, and most of them ... probably won't.
I think we're supposed to feel gratified when Thor and T'Challa defeat their enemies and take control, not uneasy. I think the story frames that as a victory.
But this puts the movies in the same basket as a lot of popular culture. It's always been popular to write about royalty, and rightful kings are a dime a dozen. The Marvel movies aren't leading some new wave of authoritarian-endorsing media.
Gosh, when I was a teenager I even swore off ever writing a "rightful leader" trope because it was in so much of the genre fiction I was reading. TVTropes has multiple pages for various flavors of the trope.
Though with T'Challa, the material for an interesting story that questions the monarchy is there - I'm just pessimistic about how far the men in charge will be willing to go when royalty is part of the romantic appeal of the characters.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 2:21 PM on May 13, 2018
I think we're supposed to feel gratified when Thor and T'Challa defeat their enemies and take control, not uneasy. I think the story frames that as a victory.
But this puts the movies in the same basket as a lot of popular culture. It's always been popular to write about royalty, and rightful kings are a dime a dozen. The Marvel movies aren't leading some new wave of authoritarian-endorsing media.
Gosh, when I was a teenager I even swore off ever writing a "rightful leader" trope because it was in so much of the genre fiction I was reading. TVTropes has multiple pages for various flavors of the trope.
Though with T'Challa, the material for an interesting story that questions the monarchy is there - I'm just pessimistic about how far the men in charge will be willing to go when royalty is part of the romantic appeal of the characters.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 2:21 PM on May 13, 2018
In Black Panther, Ross’s contribution to the final battle was merely preventing shipments of Wakandan weapons from reaching sleeper cells in other continents. In the end it turned out unnecessary, since the sleeper cells would only activate at their King’s request, and T’Challa regained his throne. So the white CIA agent helped, sure, but if he hadn’t been there the outcome wouldn’t have been different.
posted by ejs at 3:31 PM on May 13, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by ejs at 3:31 PM on May 13, 2018 [3 favorites]
I would take issue with his assertion that Asgard is a society more functional than ours. That "system" has twice put Loki on the throne.
Could be worse, could've put Donald Trump on the throne.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 4:05 PM on May 13, 2018 [3 favorites]
Could be worse, could've put Donald Trump on the throne.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 4:05 PM on May 13, 2018 [3 favorites]
Loki swanned around and directed amateur theatricals, so definitely less dangerous than Trump.
posted by tavella at 4:08 PM on May 13, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by tavella at 4:08 PM on May 13, 2018 [4 favorites]
Ross’s contribution to the final battle was merely preventing shipments of Wakandan weapons from reaching sleeper cells in other continents. In the end it turned out unnecessary, since the sleeper cells would only activate at their King’s request, and T’Challa regained his throne. So the white CIA agent helped, sure, but if he hadn’t been there the outcome wouldn’t have been different.
Or, to put it the other way around, T'Challa regaining his throne was unnecessary because Ross shot down the weapons shipments and prevented them from reaching the sleeper cells. T'Challa regaining his throne helped, sure, but if he hadn't been successful the outcome wouldn't have been different.
(Additionally, I feel like everyone who is jumping to microlitigate the amount that the white CIA agent helped out is maaaaaybe missing the forest for the trees, and why the presence and contribution of that character is problematic in the first place.)
posted by chappell, ambrose at 4:28 PM on May 13, 2018
Or, to put it the other way around, T'Challa regaining his throne was unnecessary because Ross shot down the weapons shipments and prevented them from reaching the sleeper cells. T'Challa regaining his throne helped, sure, but if he hadn't been successful the outcome wouldn't have been different.
(Additionally, I feel like everyone who is jumping to microlitigate the amount that the white CIA agent helped out is maaaaaybe missing the forest for the trees, and why the presence and contribution of that character is problematic in the first place.)
posted by chappell, ambrose at 4:28 PM on May 13, 2018
Or, to put it the other way around, T'Challa regaining his throne was unnecessary because Ross shot down the weapons shipments and prevented them from reaching the sleeper cells.
I don't understand how "T'Challa regaining his throne was nunecessary," could you clarify? To me, it seemed that him defeating Killmonger to regain his throne and establish a blend of ideas in his Wakanda was a key point of the movie.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:38 PM on May 13, 2018 [3 favorites]
I don't understand how "T'Challa regaining his throne was nunecessary," could you clarify? To me, it seemed that him defeating Killmonger to regain his throne and establish a blend of ideas in his Wakanda was a key point of the movie.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:38 PM on May 13, 2018 [3 favorites]
I'm "microlitigating" it because I think it's bullshit to focus on Black Panther's single non-antagonist white character and lift up his minuscule role as somehow being pivotal, in a movie that is otherwise full of black protagonists with agency, who are all the heroes of their own stories. To me, it is a profound misreading of the text of the movie to at all focus on Everett Ross.
There are valid criticisms to make about the maintenance of the status quo and conservatism of upholding a monarchy with characters like T'Challa and Thor. But when it comes to Black Panther, I think it's a huge mistake to ignore just how very much it means to, for once, have the Rightful Ruler, Chosen One, Honorable Man type character be a black man like T'Challa. Are there any other pop culture black kings and warriors out there like T'Challa? Is this in any way a common character type? To me, the value of seeing a depiction like that far outweighs any more meta concerns about what the maintenance of a monarchy means in the context of our superhero narratives. Also, as others have noted, it's not like the comics haven't taken on the conflicts and complexities of Wakanda as monarchy. T'Challa's still at the beginning of his story in the MCU. We might yet get some version of Ta-Nehisi Coates' A Nation Under Our Feet.
posted by yasaman at 4:38 PM on May 13, 2018 [6 favorites]
There are valid criticisms to make about the maintenance of the status quo and conservatism of upholding a monarchy with characters like T'Challa and Thor. But when it comes to Black Panther, I think it's a huge mistake to ignore just how very much it means to, for once, have the Rightful Ruler, Chosen One, Honorable Man type character be a black man like T'Challa. Are there any other pop culture black kings and warriors out there like T'Challa? Is this in any way a common character type? To me, the value of seeing a depiction like that far outweighs any more meta concerns about what the maintenance of a monarchy means in the context of our superhero narratives. Also, as others have noted, it's not like the comics haven't taken on the conflicts and complexities of Wakanda as monarchy. T'Challa's still at the beginning of his story in the MCU. We might yet get some version of Ta-Nehisi Coates' A Nation Under Our Feet.
posted by yasaman at 4:38 PM on May 13, 2018 [6 favorites]
I'm "microlitigating" it because I think it's bullshit to focus on Black Panther's single non-antagonist white character and lift up his minuscule role as somehow being pivotal, in a movie that is otherwise full of black protagonists with agency, who are all the heroes of their own stories. To me, it is a profound misreading of the text of the movie to at all focus on Everett Ross.
To honest, I wanted to write something even strongly worded than this, because yeah, focusing on Ross seems like it's way out in left field. If anything, Killmonger's plan was defeated by Nakia.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:44 PM on May 13, 2018 [7 favorites]
To honest, I wanted to write something even strongly worded than this, because yeah, focusing on Ross seems like it's way out in left field. If anything, Killmonger's plan was defeated by Nakia.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:44 PM on May 13, 2018 [7 favorites]
We might yet get some version of Ta-Nehisi Coates' A Nation Under Our Feet.
Fair enough, and fingers crossed.
I agree that BP was a huge step forwards in many ways, and was happy to pay to see it in the cinema and vote for more movies in that vein, at least as far as the cost of my ticket counted.
But... I still think that reactionary attitudes towards the status quo are unfortunate (especially as I come from a reactionary monarchy myself, albeit one that unfortunately lacks trial by combat for succession these days). As far as my original point goes, I think that the conservatism of BP is reflective of the MCU's politics in general - and BP is conservative, even if by Hollywood standards it's a big step forward in terms of representation.
To honest, I wanted to write something even strongly worded than this, because yeah, focusing on Ross seems like it's way out in left field. If anything, Killmonger's plan was defeated by Nakia.
I'm genuinely sorry if I dismissed the ways that BP is important as a movie (or even more than that - as a cultural event), or the ways that other characters contributed to the plot: wasn't my intention.
Unfortunately, despite the pushback, I still think that Ross got quite a lot of screen time, particularly at the end of the movie, and I don't really see why his character was necessary at all.
I'm not going to patronise anyone by talking about the CIA's relationship to America's black community, or the CIA's relationship to the anti-imperialist movements in the global south that are caricatured by Killmonger's plan. But yeah, I thought his inclusion was fucked up.
posted by chappell, ambrose at 5:02 PM on May 13, 2018 [1 favorite]
Fair enough, and fingers crossed.
I agree that BP was a huge step forwards in many ways, and was happy to pay to see it in the cinema and vote for more movies in that vein, at least as far as the cost of my ticket counted.
But... I still think that reactionary attitudes towards the status quo are unfortunate (especially as I come from a reactionary monarchy myself, albeit one that unfortunately lacks trial by combat for succession these days). As far as my original point goes, I think that the conservatism of BP is reflective of the MCU's politics in general - and BP is conservative, even if by Hollywood standards it's a big step forward in terms of representation.
To honest, I wanted to write something even strongly worded than this, because yeah, focusing on Ross seems like it's way out in left field. If anything, Killmonger's plan was defeated by Nakia.
I'm genuinely sorry if I dismissed the ways that BP is important as a movie (or even more than that - as a cultural event), or the ways that other characters contributed to the plot: wasn't my intention.
Unfortunately, despite the pushback, I still think that Ross got quite a lot of screen time, particularly at the end of the movie, and I don't really see why his character was necessary at all.
I'm not going to patronise anyone by talking about the CIA's relationship to America's black community, or the CIA's relationship to the anti-imperialist movements in the global south that are caricatured by Killmonger's plan. But yeah, I thought his inclusion was fucked up.
posted by chappell, ambrose at 5:02 PM on May 13, 2018 [1 favorite]
Ross's role in the narrative is to establish that Erik is an African-American. Ross can say "We (the US Govt and America in general) made him a monster. He's doing to Wakanda what we sent him to do in other countries" in a way that has a different meaning than if one of the Wakandan characters pointed it out.
Also it's darkly humorous to have him sitting there safely flying a drone, the way Americans do, because he'd be useless in the real fighting. But then one of Erik's ships shows up and he's actually not safe after all.
(And if T'Challa fails, Erik kills or deports Ross and sends out another shipment of weapons. There's no sense whatsoever that Ross's contribution means anything if T'Challa and his allies don't win.)
posted by straight at 6:28 PM on May 13, 2018 [4 favorites]
Also it's darkly humorous to have him sitting there safely flying a drone, the way Americans do, because he'd be useless in the real fighting. But then one of Erik's ships shows up and he's actually not safe after all.
(And if T'Challa fails, Erik kills or deports Ross and sends out another shipment of weapons. There's no sense whatsoever that Ross's contribution means anything if T'Challa and his allies don't win.)
posted by straight at 6:28 PM on May 13, 2018 [4 favorites]
Continuing on the Carol Danvers derail:
I can't find what rank she's supposed to be in the MCU (set in the 90's), but the Marvel wiki page on Captain Marvel points out:
"NASA eventually requested her for an open position as head of security which she accepted, resigning from the Air Force bumping her to full Colonel at retirement."
Although the note at the bottom shows:
"At the time that she lost her memories (due to Rogue), Carol was reportedly 29-years-old. She was a retired Major of the United States Air Force. She was also chief of security at the Kennedy Space Center, and former editor of Woman Magazine. Her Air Force file was classified, but she was reportedly one of the best people they had. Top-notch pilot, fluent in three languages, and expert in armed and unarmed combat."
When Kelly Sue DeConnick wrote the Captain Marvel relaunch, she wrote in the gag about Danvers outranking Rogers.
Personally, I just hope that the first line in the CM movie is somehow, "Paging Carol Danvers. Paging Carol Danvers."
posted by Mutant Lobsters from Riverhead at 6:29 PM on May 13, 2018
I can't find what rank she's supposed to be in the MCU (set in the 90's), but the Marvel wiki page on Captain Marvel points out:
"NASA eventually requested her for an open position as head of security which she accepted, resigning from the Air Force bumping her to full Colonel at retirement."
Although the note at the bottom shows:
"At the time that she lost her memories (due to Rogue), Carol was reportedly 29-years-old. She was a retired Major of the United States Air Force. She was also chief of security at the Kennedy Space Center, and former editor of Woman Magazine. Her Air Force file was classified, but she was reportedly one of the best people they had. Top-notch pilot, fluent in three languages, and expert in armed and unarmed combat."
When Kelly Sue DeConnick wrote the Captain Marvel relaunch, she wrote in the gag about Danvers outranking Rogers.
Personally, I just hope that the first line in the CM movie is somehow, "Paging Carol Danvers. Paging Carol Danvers."
posted by Mutant Lobsters from Riverhead at 6:29 PM on May 13, 2018
If the Avengers fail to protect the earth, isn’t avenging beside the point?
I think Immerwahr is missing the background here. Superheroes are stand-ins for America's idea of righteous force. In the Golden Age this was variously Superman (the quintessential migrant who becomes an American), Batman (who exemplifies noblesse oblige on the part of Old Money), or Captain America (whose power is literally the power of America). What they do is, they punch the bad guys, who are subsequently locked up for being bad. What would be police brutality if they were lesser beings is OK because the force they use is necessary; which you can tell because it's being used by definitively Good Guys. America, in other words.
This concept worked for decades, all the way through WW2 and after, even if people could recognise that punching people didn't always solve the problem. What brought this to an end was the Cold War: the stalemate caused by the existence of nuclear weapons and was crystallised by the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. That's why they're The Avengers: if punching bad guys makes things worse, what morality does American force exemplify? Vengeance. American force might not be able to protect people, or bring about justice, but it could discourage bad guys by giving them no more than a Pyrrhic victory.
Old-timey superheroes with their focus on law and order were hokey; the new ones were angsty children who were always, always conscious of impending doom and whose victories represented no more than a deferment. In that context Iron Man's speech makes perfect sense: he and his fellows are missiles flying overhead that follow the end of everything. Like those nuclear weapons, they're a deterrent that can only be used after it has already failed. The satisfaction isn't saving lives, it's the ability of the last person standing to say "I told you so."
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:25 PM on May 13, 2018 [4 favorites]
I think Immerwahr is missing the background here. Superheroes are stand-ins for America's idea of righteous force. In the Golden Age this was variously Superman (the quintessential migrant who becomes an American), Batman (who exemplifies noblesse oblige on the part of Old Money), or Captain America (whose power is literally the power of America). What they do is, they punch the bad guys, who are subsequently locked up for being bad. What would be police brutality if they were lesser beings is OK because the force they use is necessary; which you can tell because it's being used by definitively Good Guys. America, in other words.
This concept worked for decades, all the way through WW2 and after, even if people could recognise that punching people didn't always solve the problem. What brought this to an end was the Cold War: the stalemate caused by the existence of nuclear weapons and was crystallised by the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. That's why they're The Avengers: if punching bad guys makes things worse, what morality does American force exemplify? Vengeance. American force might not be able to protect people, or bring about justice, but it could discourage bad guys by giving them no more than a Pyrrhic victory.
Old-timey superheroes with their focus on law and order were hokey; the new ones were angsty children who were always, always conscious of impending doom and whose victories represented no more than a deferment. In that context Iron Man's speech makes perfect sense: he and his fellows are missiles flying overhead that follow the end of everything. Like those nuclear weapons, they're a deterrent that can only be used after it has already failed. The satisfaction isn't saving lives, it's the ability of the last person standing to say "I told you so."
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:25 PM on May 13, 2018 [4 favorites]
Ross can say "We (the US Govt and America in general) made him a monster.
I kind of kept expecting a bit more literal version of this, where Ross would reveal to a post-defeated T'Challa, something like:
"Well, y'know the US government has been trying to copy the Super Soldier Serum for decades, but it's never worked out because of side effects. They've always gone Robocop 2. And Erik is one of the ones experimented on. So, the only reason he defeated you T'Challa was because he's permanently enhanced. TLDR; he's cheating."
posted by FJT at 7:41 PM on May 13, 2018
I kind of kept expecting a bit more literal version of this, where Ross would reveal to a post-defeated T'Challa, something like:
"Well, y'know the US government has been trying to copy the Super Soldier Serum for decades, but it's never worked out because of side effects. They've always gone Robocop 2. And Erik is one of the ones experimented on. So, the only reason he defeated you T'Challa was because he's permanently enhanced. TLDR; he's cheating."
posted by FJT at 7:41 PM on May 13, 2018
"Maybe it's something about our violent past that every now and then some strange craziness breaks loose and the result is a killing spree" - Spideredm'n
posted by I'm always feeling, Blue at 7:44 PM on May 13, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by I'm always feeling, Blue at 7:44 PM on May 13, 2018 [1 favorite]
In the movie, when Thor is gone, she has awkward dates but can never lose the Memory Of Her True Love.
Huh. That's a good point, corb. Maybe I'm misremembering The Dark World or I missed a reference somewhere else, but the inference I took from Ragnarok was that Jane DTMF because his unreliable ass was never around, and that being defensive about it was one of Thor's previously-unhinted-at superpowers.
posted by MarchHare at 8:29 PM on May 13, 2018
Huh. That's a good point, corb. Maybe I'm misremembering The Dark World or I missed a reference somewhere else, but the inference I took from Ragnarok was that Jane DTMF because his unreliable ass was never around, and that being defensive about it was one of Thor's previously-unhinted-at superpowers.
posted by MarchHare at 8:29 PM on May 13, 2018
I think one of the missed opportunities in a lot of the deconstructions of superheroes and what they mean is that they're almost always totally centered on superheroes, and I think that kind of distorts the way we talk about superheroes and what they mean. Like, Watchmen is centered on superheroes, The Dark Knight Returns is a Batman story, they had to accomplish being superhero stories to talk about superhero stories and those are the popular deconstructions and most people after that just kinda copied those templates, and that's how we talk about it. But there's so much more to talk about. I wish there was a lot more stuff like Steven T. Seagle's It's a Bird... out there to broaden the horizons of what superhero fiction can be and can mean.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:33 PM on May 13, 2018
posted by jason_steakums at 8:33 PM on May 13, 2018
So I just wanted to supply a datapoint here, because I’m largely not eloquent enough for like, actual discussion.
I think it’s pretty well documented by now on the Blue what I do for a living these days. And I’ll say that I don’t ever think I’ve been in a campaign office that didn’t, somewhere, have some little bit of Captain America insignia. I think Cap is really important, as a symbol. On the other side I tend to see the Punisher skull.
Y’all do with that information what you will.
posted by dogheart at 9:36 PM on May 13, 2018 [5 favorites]
I think it’s pretty well documented by now on the Blue what I do for a living these days. And I’ll say that I don’t ever think I’ve been in a campaign office that didn’t, somewhere, have some little bit of Captain America insignia. I think Cap is really important, as a symbol. On the other side I tend to see the Punisher skull.
Y’all do with that information what you will.
posted by dogheart at 9:36 PM on May 13, 2018 [5 favorites]
and whose worldwide revolution is substituted by the opening of a community centre in Oakland
That’s an odd take. It’s obvious by bringing in the ship and showing it to the kids, the community center is phase one of sharing their tech with the world. But he’s giving that tech first to the community that his father personally failed. And in case anyone thought otherwise, the first credit scene confirms that the tech is going out to the entire world. Killmonger wanted to arm people for violence. T’challa is sharing technology for peace.
posted by greermahoney at 2:56 PM on May 14, 2018 [2 favorites]
That’s an odd take. It’s obvious by bringing in the ship and showing it to the kids, the community center is phase one of sharing their tech with the world. But he’s giving that tech first to the community that his father personally failed. And in case anyone thought otherwise, the first credit scene confirms that the tech is going out to the entire world. Killmonger wanted to arm people for violence. T’challa is sharing technology for peace.
posted by greermahoney at 2:56 PM on May 14, 2018 [2 favorites]
« Older Your Saddest Desperation Cocktails, Ranked | “...literally every single week is Fashion Week,” Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by reductiondesign at 8:53 PM on May 12, 2018 [1 favorite]