Batman, Wonder Woman, and Identity Politics

I thought about this a while back when people were complaining about the casting of Scarlett Johansson as a traditionally Japanese character in the upcoming "Ghost in the Shell" movie and flashing back to Idris Elba being cast as Heimdall in "Thor".

That the Norse gods should be a definitively thought of as a white group of characters, seeing as the Vikings were in fact white.  This argument ignores that the Vikings also traveled the world as sailors and discovered many different races and could have acknowledged this diversity in their myths.  This also ignores the fact that the myths were collected 200 years after they stopped being actively practiced, this collecting was done by a white person in a predominantly white world and... the "races" of the gods become a little more fluid as the original iconography of Vikings in the pre-Christian academic world is not very clear.

Heindall as he might have once been perceived.

And as the fictional character is now perceived.

I would also see online people asking, "What about a white/Caucasian Luke Cage? Or Black Panther?" saying that you could color blind cast in both directions.  Ignoring for a second that taking one of the few recognizable minority characters and casting them with a white actor is in no way equivalent to casting a minority into one of the many-many roles that has been traditionally considered white, my response was that being black is a big part of those character's identities.

Luke Cage is blacker than the ace of clubs and Black Panther was designed to be a distinctly Black character, with a mythology that is all about being a mysterious and powerful head of an African nation that itself is cloaked in mystery.  Most (if not all) white heroes of the Gold and Silver Ages of comics are white because that was the default at the time they were created.  The books were marketed to white children and teens and the characters were white "role models".  Race as it informs or relates to their characters is nil and the number of times the subject is approached it is very lightly touched and then moved away from (mostly because of an industry wide “mums the word” policy of not discussing social issues).

So I asked myself what character would be the definitive WHITE character because you could easily see how their position in their world is informed by and tied to their being white.

Mr. Sunshine and Happy Times himself.

It's Batman.

Bruce Wayne is old money New England elite.  His family has a crest, they have an estate, and they have been part of Gotham (New York) high society for decades or centuries and can trace themselves back further.  The KNIGHT part of Dark Knight seems to very much infer the idea of old time very wealthy royalty using their money and means to protect the people of their Barony/County/Kingdom.  Bruce is the Prince of Gotham and Batman is his suit of armor both literally and figuratively.

Now other cultures have crests and shields.  They have totems that can be utilized to strike fear into the hearts of their foes.  They have family lines... BUT! We live in a culture in which the idea of a wealthy landed elite family THAT WAS BLACK did not, and still for the most part does not exist.  If Thomas and Martha Wayne were seen as upper crust high society people descended from well to do old money and they managed to navigate the racial politics of their day to plant Bruce as the wealthy playboy and Inquirer target… well, that just doesn’t exist in Americana.  It would ring false to the audience.  So, with that in mind, Batman is very "white".

In fact, we already know what you would have to alter and tweak to make a black Batman work, I have already mentioned him.  Black Panther is basically Black Batman.  The totem, the royal trappings, the legacy of wealth, and being the best as a service to one’s city/nation.  Also the reliance on gadgets and martial arts but also having frequent elements of mysticism present in the background.  That is how you would have to change the character to make the premise work, by so fundamentally changing the setting that the idea of changing the race becomes a non-issue.

"I don't see the resemblance." -Moron.

Superman could be any race (you can tell because they have made 10,000 knock-offs of the character and many of them are of different skin tones).  Martian Man Hunter frequently is multiple races and different authors have expressed the Martian race as being gender fluid as well, because of their shapeshifting (and I personally see that as the better interpretation, that when “he” refers to his “wife” who died on Mars, “he” is using terminology that makes the most sense to those “he” is talking to).

Wonder Woman, Flash, the various Green Lanterns (though they really need more women from earth to be considered diverse to audiences), and nearly everyone else on the Justice League could be a different race. Mr. Terrific was a white guy in the Golden Age of comics and Michael Holt, the character that carries the mantel now is a black guy (and atheist which is its own sort of minority in the Comics industry).

The NEXT person to hold a particular mantel (including that of Batman) could be any race without question, and many characters do have minority characters taking on the role of following the legacy of a character (Rhodes served as Iron Man, Sam Wilson is currently a Captain America, Miles Morales is a Spider-Man… Notice how much of this is taking place under the MARVEL header?  They are better at this).  BUT, Bruce Wayne-Batman makes the most sense in the context of Americana as a White person.

Let me take this a step further with discussion of another character that I imagine people would insist is “white” or “Mediterranean” depending on how particular you are of ethnic and racial identity.  You know, Wonder Woman really doesn't have to be Greek.

I think I might be the only person who thinks that the trailer to her upcoming movie looks awful too.

Like the Vikings, the Greeks were sea fairing and were aware of lots of races and cultures outside of their own. They would have seen black people.

The idea that Wonder Woman’s homeland of Themyscira is some extra dimensional utopia that is nothing but white women is also really fucking racist.  Like on its face.  Writing tip, if you ever make a Utopian society in fiction and go out of your way to point out that everybody is the same racial group, it is explicitly racist.  Having Themyscira be a multi-ethnic/racial matriarchal utopia that follows the principles and religious guidance of a very modern interpretation of the Greek Gods... not racist.  It is still SEXIST, no question there, but that is kind of the whole point/conflict of the character of Wonder Woman when she acts as a liaison between Themyscira and Earth.

I would also draw comparisons to Asgard and Marvel’s mythical Asian city of K'un-L'un (a popular destination for the superhero Iron Fist).  Certain earth cultures saw advanced and mythical civilizations and chose to emulate them creating the distorted myths that we know today in our world.  So, rather than the Marvel comics being inspired by the myths and everyone in real life bitching about how the comics and movies do not follow the myths, instead the myths were inspired by the Marvel civilization.  In that case Wonder Woman, Thor, or any other mythical figure could look however the comic artist wanted to draw them (African, Chinese, Hindi, Samoan, or European) and the "real" myths and history could be seen as the white washed versions.

Essentially in the DC universe Greek civilization emulated the Amazons (who are actually very diverse and “wise” … though still somewhat big into misandry) rather than the Amazons following and emulating Greek society. When the Greeks copied the history and myths of the Amazons they just made everyone Greek, and made Hercules the good guy of the story and played up the "masculinity = Good" angle (in the Wonder Woman comics Hercules was a villain).  You could even see this as a form of… It is white washing, but it is also male-ifying things… Penis-Washing?

Not to mention all the typical weird stuff going on in comics from the era of her creation that got thrown in right along side the strange sexual imagery.

This sort of Greek re-writing of Amazon myth would explain the disdain Themyscira has for Earth, and why the Amazons did not interact with "Man World" for thousands of years.  The Amazons did not like being taken out of their own stories and having their worldview coopted and corrupted to a Patriarchal and Misogynistic Greek culture which saw women as inferior.

“Women are the weaker sex… being born a woman is a divine punishment, since a woman is halfway between a man and an animal.” -Socrates

“The Male is by Nature superior and the female inferior and one rules and the other is ruled… This inequality is permanent because the woman’s deliberative faculty is without authority, like a child’s.” -Aristotle

Nothing going on here.

            It is easy to see how the Amazons might have interacted with Ancient Greece, taught them some things about the gods, art, and their history, and then left because they saw it getting appropriated.

            Of course this is all the diegetic explanation of things.  All of this is fiction.  Made by people to sell books and toys to children.  Batman was not made to push an Alt-Right dream of a world protected by its white betters, but I would point out that Wonder Woman was specifically designed to be a female icon in the genre and is rife with text of female empowerment, and subtext of bondage and sexual politics.

All of this is up to the authors and readers to decide what they want.  But the idea that a fictional character must be a certain way should be looked at in the context of what that character is and where they exist in their world.  Whether race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or politics makes sense for that character should inform and be informed by who and what the character is.  Otherwise it is all just weird.

There is a great big multiverse out there, waiting to grow with weirdness though.  So whose to stop us?

______________________________

If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter, Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Whitewashing and "Ghost in the Shell"

This will be a fun topic.

 I am a big fan of the Japanese animated series called “Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex” a series I have mentioned before in this blog though in a very different context.  The show is set in Japan, decades from now in a dystopian cyber punk future in which people have so augmented themselves with robotic parts and computerized thought processes that the ability to hack into the minds of others and alter their memories and perceptions has caused many to question what it is to be human.  It has a lot of action, with battles between futuristic tanks, cyborgs, and terrorists, but punctuated by deep discussions on what the nature of intelligence, individuality, reality, and the number “0”.  It is one of my favorite shows.

 

The woman with the Purple hair is the source of this blog.

They are making a movie starring Scarlett Johansson, the biggest female action star in film currently as the main character.  And this has caused some controversy because the main character is a Japanese woman, and Scarlett is not.  To be fair, in the context of “Ghost in the Shell” the main character is actually a cyborg, with only her brain as the biological part of her and she could function in the body of a white woman, a black man, or an Asian person of ambiguous gender.  The fluidity of self is a part of the show.

However, there are not a lot of opportunities for Asian actors in Hollywood to star in a big budget science fiction action film, and considering the setting and origin of the story, to have a movie that could be the break out role for a young Japanese actress and cast of Japanese actors to instead go to a star that is already huge seems to be a problem that I can understand and appreciate.

I do find it strange that a movie set in Japan about Japanese characters is being cast with white actors, but I also know that cannot really be avoided.  Max Landis, who at this point seems to be more a person who complains about the movie industry rather than functioning as a writer in that industry spelled out in his vlog how important having a star in this kind of movie is.  And what he is saying makes sense.  It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, you need a star, there are no Asian stars, you don’t use an Asian star in the movie, there continues to be no Asian stars because no one will take a risk on trying to make one.

I would propose a compromise, it would be prudent to do what they did with "Edge of Tomorrow".  Localize the material by changing names and locations.  “Edge of Tomorrow” was originally a Japanese novel called “All you need is Kill” (the stupidest name ever) and they changed the setting from Asia to Europe, the star is now an older white movie star rather than a young Japanese man, and (I say this having read the book) the story is far more coherent and streamlined (though still not perfect by any stretch).  For “Ghost in the Shell” make Tokyo into San Francisco, Kusanagi becomes Kathrine, and Section 9 becomes Section 9 because somethings don't need to be localized.

And if they did localize the property they could also Americanize some of the designs rather than slaving themselves to remaking those found in the original property which often times scream of being overly sleek and stylized.

The story of "What is human in a world of cybernetic augmentation and robotics" is not a new one (I have talked about "Bladerunner" in this blog before, along with "Deus Ex: Human Revolution", and “The Matrix” too for that matter). Saying that the story is somehow inherently Japanese and incapable of being adapted in such a way is meaningless. I've seen all of "GitS: SAC" and the idea of government officials being manipulated by a pharmaceutical company for massive profits at the expense of people's health is a pretty universal story in the US too.

I would go further to point out that Japan has adapted American stories like Spiderman to suit their needs in the past, and we have done the same with Sentai in the form of Power Rangers.  Many anime are based in Europe (or Europe-esc areas) like "Fullmetal Alchemist" and "Attack on Titan" and Japan has cast Japanese actors in their live action adaptations of these movies. This sort of racial compromise is seen as necessary because there are not a lot of white people in Japan for them to make the movie with, just as there are not a lot of Japanese actors in the US to make movies set entirely in Japan.

This actor portrays a guy named Eren Yeager.  Cause I guess he was the most German looking person to show up at casting.

I suppose the industry could compromise and cast "Asian" actors in the various roles, most people in the US wouldn't notice the difference between someone who is Korean or Chinese playing a Japanese person, but those who do would find it offensive I am sure.  This has happened in the past (though I didn’t notice until told) with John Cho, a South Korean actor being cast a Lt. Sulu in the new “Star Trek” reboot, replacing George Takei, a Japanese actor.  But then Takei voiced a Japanese man in “Mulan” a movie that used many different actors of different races to play parts in China.

But, maybe they are doing the worst possible compromise, by keeping the setting and the names and just using white actors, which is white washing, even if there is a canonical explanation as to why a Japanese brain could be in a white looking body.  If they use a white actor to play a character that has in all previous instances has been Japanese, this echoes a practice of casting white actors in roles where they portrayed minority characters, though in those past instances it was done without class and is frequently the blemish that keeps movies of the past from holding a place in the modern cultural lexicon, for instance when John Wayne played Genghis Khan. In general studios should avoid such practices when adapting properties by taking care with adaptation and casting decisions.

 

Yeesh!

Let’s talk about a movie that has done the opposite of this and cast a black actor in a traditionally white role: Idris Elba played Heimdal in Marvel’s “Thor” Franchise.  Heimdall was described as “the whitest” in Norse mythology, a mythology that is entirely composed of white gods, for a white people.  The stories were adapted by a white artist/author (Jack Kirby) for an overwhelmingly white comic industry to sell to a white audience.  He is played by Idris Elba, who if you are unaware, black guy.  So why am I so okay with this?  A number of reasons.

In the Marvel Universe the Asgardians are aliens that inspired the Norse myths.  In my mind (as in this is my explanation, feel free to ignore it, but I think it works pretty well)… In my mind the Norse people saw the Asgardians, saw them as gods, and as the legends of them passed into myth people started to re-write the legends to better suit how they wanted them to be.  In the Marvel cinematic universe, the Norse people white washed Heimdall to be a white person so that they could feel that they could claim to more closely resemble their gods.

Heimdall as he might have once been imagined.

And let's also be clear, having a cast that looks like the international audience they are trying to attract is helpful to recoup all that money they spent on special effects.

 In the real world, the Norse gods are not real.  They are stories and we as the story tellers are free to picture these fictional people as however we want.  As aliens, as gods, as people who did exist and have since been elevated to godhood in myth (like how Abraham Lincoln hunted vampires).  BUT, “Ghost in the Shell” is not about aliens or gods, it is about Japan.  It is about people who look a certain way and live in a certain place.  If you want to take the thematic trappings of that story and put them in another setting with people who look different in a different place that makes sense.  But to put a white person in a story where she is Japanese is downright silly.

Cyborg or no, watching Scarlett tear her own arms off trying to break into and disable a tank would be a rather interesting thing to see.

______________________________

If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter, Tumblr, or 

Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

My thoughts on "Avengers: Age of Ultron"

            A whole that is not as great as the sum of its parts.  Really ironic all things considered.  Much like my issues with “The Amazing Spiderman 2” this seems more like multiple scripts put together as there is stuff that just does not have to be in there.  Since this is one of the most watched movies of the year and came out months and months ago I feel comfortable talking about numerous issues at once and will be moving between them freely, kind of like how I reviewed “X-Men: Days of Future Past” (which also had a robot apocalypse as its plot… and it’s sequel will have an Apocalypse apocalypse).  There are SPOILERS thru out this review and that cannot be avoided.

            Why is Ultron Magneto?  In the comics Magneto has three children: a green haired woman with magnet powers, Polaris; a silver haired guy with super speed, Quicksilver (Pietro); and a red headed magic user, Scarlet Witch (Wanda).  In the comics all of Magneto’s children realize that he is dangerous and join superhero teams to thwart him, Polaris joins the X-Men while Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch join the Avengers.  In this movie, Ultron talks frequently about evolution, humanity’s need to change, and talks to Wanda and Pietro in terms of being rejected.  Their ultimately turning against Ultron makes him act very hurt and betrayed.  There is also a scene of Ultron using magnetic powers to pull and toss Iron Man.  I feel like this script would have worked better with Magneto in the role of Ultron… Or they should have done away with Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver.

            Wanda and Pietro are kind of useless to the narrative.  They are colorful goons for Ultron and they ultimately turn to heroes when they see how he wants to kill everyone, but their role in the story could have just been played by Vision.  Have Ultron create Vision after escaping Avenger’s tower and he fills the same role in the story as Wanda, using the mind gem to drive all the Avenger’s into strange VISIONS of their own nightmares and turning the Hulk into a rampaging monster in Africa.  As the movie continues have Vision be defeated by Thor, have Ultron carry him off and put him into that pod, the movie could then continue mostly unchanged, as the Avengers capture the pod, download Jarvis into it, rewriting Vision as a good guy.

            Thor’s side quest to be shirtless in a pool of water was a waste of screen time, by having him fight Vision or Ultron in the middle of the movie (like I talked about in the previous paragraph) he would have been put to better use.

Though Marvel might have it in his contract that they must have a shirtless scene with Hemsworth.  The man lives on nothing but white rice and lean chicken for months at a time, have to make the most of that.

            While having Wanda and Pietro in the movie was unnecessary but if they had been taken out we would have missed out on the best scene in the movie, Hawkeye being the team’s dad figure.

            “Hey, look at me.  It’s your fault, it’s everyone’s fault, who cares?  Are you up for this?  Are you?  Look, I need to know because the city is flying.  Okay?  The city is flying, we are fighting an army of robots, and I have a bow and arrow. None of this makes sense.  But, I am going back out there because it is my job. Okay?  And I can’t do my job and baby sit.  It doesn’t matter what you did or where you were.  If you go out there,you fight.  And you fight to kill.  Stay in here, you’re good.  I’ll send your brother to come find you.  But if you step out that door, you are an Avenger.”

            I can picture in my mind a younger version of Clint giving a similar speech to a younger version of Black Widow, saying instead, “You step out that door you are a SHIELD agent.”  And contextualizing that speech and what we know about how he has a family you can picture him using he skills as a field operative as a dad, and his skills as a dad in the field.  He greatly deepens his character.

            Tony Stark is TOTALLY CORRECT in trying to create Ultron. Captain America is ENTIRELY WRONG in trying to stop it.  Earth is under threat of alien invasion at all times and since Thor refuses to let Earth utilize the Tesseract (Cosmic Cube) to build ray guns and other super weapons, Earth will be at a hopeless disadvantage should a full fleet of alien ships come and attack.  Constructing a legion of robots that are capable of repelling such an eminent threat should be a top priority before it shows up again, waiting until the attack comes is not a winning strategy, and relying entirely on the Avengers to protect Earth is a foolish decision on the part of Captain America, and one he should in no way be in charge of making as he is a tactical genius, not a strategic one.  We cannot count on Thor and Asgard to protect us from someone like Ronan or Malakith, who were only defeated by the slimmest of margins.

            Vision is awesome.  I like his look, I like Paul Bettany in the role, I like how Jarvis became Vision, the only problem I have with Vision is that he was not in more of the movie.

            This movie is too long, especially the action scenes which often go on for such a long time that I start to get bored by them, which is a shame because they are all so good, that had they each been the final highlight fight of another movie I feel they would have worked better.  By the time we get to the flying city I am so tired from all the action that the whole final act drags for me.

            Unfortunately Hulk and Black Widow’s romantic subplot does not get enough time.  I saw it in the first movie more than most people (for some reason people thought Hawkeye and her, but I never saw that, do those people just not have friends of the opposite sex?)  And since they are both living weapons as a result of outside forces compelling them to become such monstrous things I think they make a good match to one another narratively.

            I would also like to point out and underline: TONY DID NOT CREATE ULTRON.  He and Bruce were not in the room when the machine switched itself on.  The OS they were using to create Ultron was taken from Loki’s scepter, which in turn was (most likely) created by Thanos.  Thanos is in love with Death, and the idea that the software he used for the scepter would be an artificial intelligence bent on omnicide makes sense.  Sure Ultron was the name of the robot legion Tony wanted to create, but it is pretty clear Thanos was the guy who got the ball rolling on all of this.  Just like you can’t blame Hulk for being mind-controlled to rampage, you can’t blame Tony because his robots were high jacked by a killer alien computer (especially because he left it turned off).

For some reason this has become the most used image of Ultron afterword.
Which just looks like he is about to give the audience the finger.

            Pepper Potts and Jane Foster should have made guest appearances in this movie.  What is the problem?  The script is already bloated but you don’t have time for existing valuable supporting characters?  Just drop hints that they might get their own powers because in the comics they both end up doing just that.  Pepper gets a suit of armor and becomes Rescue, a super hero who specializes in fighting natural disasters.  Jane gains the ability to wield Mjolnir and becomes THOR, while Thor becomes Odinson… Which is stupid on several levels as his name is Thor, but whatever.

            As I mentioned in my Predictions for future Marvel movies, I do not think Vision destroyed Ultron, and instead Ultron is trapped in the Mind Gem on Vision’s forehead.

Score: 6/10

______________________________

If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Movies 2013, Superhero, pt3, Thor

Yesterday I went into the other weird alien in a red cape.  Today I walk about the Space Viking.

Thor the Dark World, or "What if 'Man of Steel' hadn't taken itself so damn seriously."

Overall: 8/10

He's adopted.

            In some ways this was the best movie I saw last year.  It has grand stakes (the fate of the universe), it has numerous environments (alien worlds, cities of the gods), cool costuming, and it is funny.

            Thor as a hero has grown in the movies he has been in, from headstrong naive warrior to a much more deliberate and capable leader.  Stand this in contrast to Tony Stark in "Iron Man 3" which failed to confront his underlying insecurities almost entirely until the last few minutes of the third movie, symbolically removing the broken shards of metal in his heart that were killing him and discarding the thick metal skin that he used to protect himself from the world.  Thor completed that character arc by the end of his first movie, softening and becoming more about self sacrifice rather than personal glory, and by the end of "The Avengers" Thor was on a crusade to bring order to his kingdom.  By the end of this film he has become such a knight errant romantic that he decides not to take the throne of his homeland, Asgard, instead going to Earth for love (people claim that this love plot happens too fast and won't last.... To which I answer, all gods in all mythologies have the exact same attitudes toward love: fast and fleeting).

            Thor's numerous Space Viking sidekicks also each get their moments, though really they could have gotten more, doing all their heavy lifting in acts one and two then disappearing... In many ways the third act is both the most exciting because of the action, and the most boring because the character interactions are all about fighting the bad guys and not about any sort of interpersonal dynamic (though two of Jane Foster's sidekicks kind of get together in a comedic romantic development).

            That brings me to my next point, Malekith the Accursed is a boring villain, he is a very standard evil doer wanting to take the magical item from the non-warrior protagonist, and use it to cloak the world in darkness for his people and way of life.  He is a step down from the Mandarin, which is a parody of Malekith's type, and is an elevator trip away from Loki, who is a far more interesting character.  I actually think you could have given even less time to the elves and more time to Loki and the movie would still not have suffered.

            THE DOUBLE BEAT.  Much like "Man of Steel" this movie has a real problem with a scene in the second act and the opener.  The opening is a full blown war between Space Vikings and Space Elves for control of the universe (HOLY CRAP "LORD OF THE RINGS") with narration by Odin, explanations of the threats posed by the bad guys and clear explanations of their motivations.  Then in the second act Odin tells the protagonist Thor and Jane what was already shown to the audience in the opening scene.  Again, much like "Man of Steel" the presentation is very pretty with magical books with moving stylized illustrations.  Gorgeous really, and a total waste of time.  They could have fixed this too, don't have the battle opening, the heroes confronting weird aliens, and then having giant black ships that can turn invisible mysteriously appear and attack, then have hulking monsters, and magical swirling blood all without an upfront explanation... it would add a lot of mystery.  Then in the second act after the initial attack have the magic books open with all of their cool illustrations on display and then transition to show the battle in narrated historical reenactment.  That way for the first half of the movie the heroes are under threat from an unknown and powerful force that they don't understand, and the audience is on that journey with them.  But whatever.

            Another problem is with yet another case of hack job writing just like in "Man of Steel", maybe even more so.  "Star Trek" 2009 had a pointy eared villain in a big black powerful spaceship, with a red weapon capable of causing the apocalypse for an multi-world empire, this culminates with the blonde head strong hero (whose father was killed by the villain) and his dark haired emotionally damaged second in command (because the bad guy killed his Mom) using black holes to kill the bad guy.  "Thor the Dark World" has a pointy eared bad guy in a big black sometimes invisible spaceship, with a red weapon capable of causing the apocalypse for a multi-world empire (and the universe), this culminates with the blonde head strong hero (whose mother was killed by the bad guy) and his dark haired emotionally erratic reluctant ally (whose mother was killed by the bad guy) to use portals to other worlds to try and stop the villain.  Soon all action movies will have this or a similar dynamic, because if it can make the boring old Star Trek franchise into profitable action schlock it can work for any damn thing.

Their ear mutilation is even the same.

Who needs emotional stability to be in charge?

            Regardless, this movie has a very light tone to it, mostly good pacing, lots of distinct characters with a variety of design and flourish, a complex brother and father dynamic at the core, with a romantic science vs magic theme surrounding it.  It is fun and does not diminish its characters, it tries (and for the most part is successful) in elevating the various characters, adding to the script rather than detracting.  And as a small final compliment, I like how in the climax Jane foster does not just get saved, she uses her scientific knowledge to make weapons and contribute to the action, ultimately providing Thor the means to beat the bad guy (SPOILERS: the bad guy loses), she has her own side kicks, it is cool to see her as a sort of hero in her own right.

"Avengers" Review, No Spoilers

            I saw "The Avengers" a few days ago, and I loved it, what is more I still love it, I am looking back on it remembering scenes that were awesome, funny, exhilarating, or pathos inducing and wishing I were watching it again.  I have watched a good 8 episodes of the cartoon series (which is spectacular, go watch it on Netflix, I would say it is in many ways better than the "Justice League" cartoon from 10 years ago if for no other reason than the Avengers don't form for 7 episodes and an over arching plot is established in the first episode, basically it just has a more epic structure).  What I'm saying here is, I find myself saying over and over again, "AVENGERS ASSEMBLE" and picturing myself in the action alongside these characters helping to save the world.

This has so much fun in it.

             I am a huge comic book, and more specifically superhero fan.  My uncle John introduced them to me when I was a kid and grew up with the 90's X-Men and Spiderman cartoons alongside Batman and Superman, but the first comic book I ever bought was an issue of Thor, and I had a subscription to Captain America (comics I read so many times that they literally fell apart, something I really regret because I had the first appearance of the super villain, Superia who has become really important in the Avengers recently and the comic probably would have been valuable).  There is an underlying nostalgia in this movie that, to a degree colors my ability to evaluate it, but even when I turn that part of my brain off, I still love the movie.

            It might seem insane to say this, but the greatest strength of "The Avengers" is the structure.  It should go without saying that movies should have foreshadowing, effective pacing, character interactions, action beats, and awareness of plot elements, but many movies don't have those basic elements, and few movies can claim to do it as well as "The Avengers" do it here.  There is punctuation to scenes, small jokes, visuals, little elements that makes everything transition on a high note.  Like a comedian telling an effective joke, each seen has set up, the meat of why the scene exists, and then a mini pay off which makes an impression on you so that when they reference the scene later you can easily remember it.  This ties things together better.

            There is even good camera work.  There is a shot in which two characters, Bruce Banner (the Hulk) and Tony Stark (Iron Man) are talking as Bruce and Tony, and they are each explaining how neither of them asked to be a hero.  Bruce getting his powers through a lab accident while trying to recreate the Captain America program, and Tony having to build a mechanical heart for himself because terrorists used his conventional weapons against him.  Bruce and Tony's development mirror each other as Tony stops manufacturing weapons for use by anyone other than himself as Iron Man, and Bruce literally has to run from the military to keep them from using the Hulk as a weapon.  This conversation happens on either side of a clear glass screen, so that Tony's reflection on the glass overlays Bruce, and in the reverse shot Bruce's reflection overlay's Tony, the glass screen serves as a literal frame around each of them.

Seriously, these two have great chemistry on screen and do a lot to sell the movie.

            And what is the screen between Tony and Bruce?  It is a stylish computer monitor that is busy processing two different functions.  They are looking for the bad guy, Loki and they are hacking into SHIELD computers because they don't entirely trust who they are working for.  In others words, they are both weapon makers, hunting down a guy who would use weapons to inflict evil on the world, and while doing that they are making sure they are not going to just turn this weapon in to a group who would use it for evil, and they are doing this because both characters have been burned in the past.  This is a flawless visual metaphor.  It is a perfect scene in a movie, and in addition to all it tells you about the characters through their great dialogue, it also tells you huge amounts with just the visuals about how these two see each other.  And the movie is loaded with that type of scene.  Beautiful.

            For the sake of criticism here is my biggest complaint: Captain America's mask was not quite as cool as it was in his own movie "Captain America: The First Avenger".  That is it, and that is me at my most nit-picky.

Then again, he doesn't really wear it that much, and he doesn't need to.

            If you have not seen "The Avengers", go watch it.  The previous films are not required viewing to enjoy it, but it will add to your appreciation.  And if you have already seen it and liked it, I hope my analysis of that one particular scene between Tony and Bruce helped you to appreciate the movie on another level.

            I think I will end up seeing it again at a matinee.

Intro to Comics: Thor (Upgrade)

(This was originally a Facebook note, I am reprinting it here with some more about the movie, as the movie had not been out at that point.  Hence: Upgrade.)

            Here is a character you'll end up seeing soon as I just saw the movie and it was pretty good, the character is The Mighty Thor.  Created by Jack Kirby who seemed to be very much obsessed with the idea of god societies, having created "The New Gods" and "TheEternals" he and Stan Lee created Thor as a cast out member of the Asgardian race of gods that existed in a world parallel to our own and had interacted with us in past centuries being the inspiration for Norse myth.  In spite of claiming to be superior to humans, who being mortal could not hope to attain the levels of wisdom and might that the Asgardians had, the truth of the matter is the Asgardians were an aloof and stagnant society who had not done anything other than internal warmongering for hundreds of years.  Seriously, they had no need of technology to supply them, or devices to fly so they just chilled in a castle all the time when they weren't out killing trolls and giants.  The movie makes it seem less stagnate and more just committed to peace regardless of their warrior culture.

But then, what would be the point of a summer cottage if you don't spend your time there?

            Thor being a forward thinking member of the society was cast out by Lord Odin and was forced to live as a mortal man, the doctor known as Donald Blake.  Unaware of his banishment Blake wandered on his spare time unaware of what he had lost until he found a walking stick balanced on its point in a cave, upon taking it he recalled his origin and struck the stick to the ground, transforming into Thor Son of Asgard, and the stick transforming into Mjolnir, hammer of the gods.  Kind of Freudian if you look at it long enough.

Tony, don't get on my ass, because you are starting to look very nail like.

            Thor, via his hammer can control the weather and conjure lightning, it also allows him to fly, and when thrown can kill or terribly wound anyone in the Marvel universe, it is an omega level weapon and can only be yielded by a select few.  You see while Thor is super strong and nearly unkillable due to his divine heritage, it is his strength of will and great personal virtue that allows him to hold Mjolnir whose weight is infinite to those of poor character.  Only a handful have been able to hold it in the past, though Captain America is a notable person who has been able to lift it.  Others have also carried it, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, and Superman have all done so in crossovers, showing how many more pure and just hearted beings per capita are in DC comics as opposed to Marvel.  I actually wonder what goes into the decision making process for who gets to pick it up, does Mjolnir work like the Sorting Hat from Harry Potter?  Regardless, in the film Thor himself falls short of holding it for a good portion of the movie (Spoilers: the title character of the movie undergoes a character arc that allows him to save the day).

            Thor's banishment was lifted after a time, and when Odin perished stopping Surtur, the fire giant that heralded the Apocalypse, Thor was made Lord of Asgard... It went to his head.  He took Asgard and transported the city to Earth, floating over New York, he then gave out medicine and became the target of worship throughout the United States, eventually coming under fire by the government, and deciding to conquer the Earth.  He succeeded killing legions of superheroes and ruled for decades till his son (Magni god of strength) overthrew him and utilized Asgardian magic to hit the reset button returning Thor to the moment when he decided to conquer the Earth, and allowing him to take a different path.  Thor instead returned Asgard to its home dimension, and set to undertaking a series of trials that would grant him Odin's insight.  Turns out Odin had not made Thor into Donald Blake to banish him, but instead to grant him a connection to mortality, wisdom and insight Odin himself lacked, the wisdom that comes with a life lived according to the laws of death and mortality.  That insight allowed Thor to use his knowledge to bring about Ragnorak, the Twilight of the Gods, in which he destroyed the home dimension of the Asgardians... And vanished.  This was done specifically because he viewed the Asgard culture as stagnating, held down by still higher gods who were feeding off the power of Asgard.  Destroying the universe to burn off cosmic leeches.

Also, Thor-Frog exists.  Yeah.

            Thor was not around for several big events in the Marvel Universe, Avengers Disassembled, where the Scarlet Witch killed people wholesale; or Civil War in which Iron Man tried to deputize the Heroes of Marvel, and Captain America thought that was a violation of civil liberties (the right to be a vigilante I guess); but Thor returned from the void of death when his wayward soul found Donald Blake on Earth and so Blake became Thor once more.  He then sought out the other gods trapped in human bodies on Earth.  Which was either a rip off of a Grant Morrison story, who had Kirby's DC creations the New Gods (space gods who often interact with and occasionally fight Superman), well the New Gods died and were reborn on Earth in the bodies of living people who slowly turned into the gods, so maybe it was a salute...

And this is his brother Loki possessing the body of Thor's wife.  Nothing weird about that.

            Thor's quest has recently come to an end, and he has taken this time to rejoin The Avengers along with Iron Man and Captain America.  Seeing how the world fell apart without these heroes at the helm of it all.  And he is awesome!  In just a short time they have had a story where he single handedly stopped an alien invasion from a parallel time line, kamikazed himself through the skull of the space god Galactus (lot of space gods, the universe is a big place), and has fought alongside the king of Atlantis and the Red Hulk against a guy hell bent on collecting the bedrock stones of the universe and remarking all creation in his own image.

Logic is relative.  Especially with the Hulk.

            Some of Thor's greatest foes include his step brother Loki, who is a god of trickery and illusion; the Egyptian god of evil Set, along with a large number of evil Egyptian creatures; the Troll King Ulik, and his trolls; the dark elves; Thor's own hubris; the Wrecking Crew, who are a bunch of super strong thugs from earth who were granted there powers by Loki; the Absorbing man and his wife Titanna, Absorbing man got his powers from Loki and Titanna got hers from Doctor Doom; and just like everyone else in Marvel comics Thor has fought Doctor Doom.  His allies include The Avengers, a gathering of the worlds mightiest heroes (of which Thor is the mightiest); the Warriors Three, who are Asgard Special Forces, Fendral, Volstag and Hogan; his brother Baulder (who wasn't in the movie); and his wife Sif (who was his platonic work girlfriend in the movie).

The Warriors Three.  No chin up requirement for entry in the Asgard Special Forces.

            Thor is a very mythic character, and is arguably the most powerful hero in the Marvel Universe aside from the Hulk (who when mad enough can crack the world with his footfalls), and the Silver Surfer (who has the power to manipulate energy across entire continents), but really I've only recently really figured out what to think of Thor overall.  He works better when he touches on but isn't confined to Earth in the Marvel Universe, when he is allowed to do his own thing in alternate worlds populated by pantheons and cross dimensional demons and giants, and only occasionally running into masked crusaders and mutants, and guys in power armor in books like "The Avengers".  I am glad that the Thor movie is good, as I have very much like the character.

            If I could be a super hero, I would want Thor's powers because he has the capacity to use his weather and other less clearly defined healing abilities (didn't list because they seem to only work when the story needs them to) to exert a positive change in the world beyond punching evildoers... He never uses them as such without losing his gourd and taking over the world, but I'm confident that is Marvel holding the status Quo over writers heads (after all superheroes are metaphors for ideas present in out current lives fighting it out, not science fiction which takes an idea like gods in the real world and rides it out to logical conclusions).

            Oh, and the guy who is playing him in the movie, was the guy who played Captain Kirk's dad at the beginning of JJ Abram's "Star Trek" movie, the guy who kamikazes his ship into Nero's to save the fleeing escape pods.  Yeah, he does look the part.  And Anthony Hopkins is Odin, and he doesn't phone in the performance like he did with "The Wolf Man", he seems to actually give a shit when things happen and conveys as such through emotion... you know acting, like when he gives a shit.

Seen here. Giving a shit.