Okay, before anyone gets cranky: let me just say that I enjoyed the movie. That is, I enjoyed the experience of watching the movie. 10/10 would see again. Okay?
I mean, check out those two gorgeous men, being all intense.
Any minute now, my shipping dreams will come true.
Alright. Now that we got that out of the way...
I am so mad at Civil War. There are a bunch of reasons, but it boils down to this:
Thematically, I think it was shit.
I'm seriously having a hard time believing a thing like this exists, but hey.
Pics.
I guess it happened.
Lemme 'splain.
For months before this movie came out, people started declaring their allegiance. I kept insisting that I wasn't going to pick a side based off the trailer, but that didn't leave me blind to the posts that kept flying by. My friends were all Team Cap, loud and proud, and perhaps that was predictable. After all, this is the Captain America movie. You have to assume that he's the protagonist, and that his moral compass will steer true, right? But there might have been other reasons for their stalwart #teamcap showing. Some of them, no doubt, had read the comics, and assumed the movie would follow the general outline, and therefore they knew what side they would take. Others may have just been impressed by Cap's line in the trailer, "I know we're not perfect, but the safest hands are still our own." It smacks of the rampant individualism that Americans are so hot for. I should know. I'm an American, and I freaking loved it.
'Murica
But... but... but...
It turns out I'm Team Stark. I suspected it all along, and now that I've seen the movie it's confirmed. Which is kind of a bad sign for a movie that's about Cap, isn't it? Let's review the source of my "but"s.
"But" #1: The movie did NOT follow the comic outline.
Learn to plot, movies.
In the comics, the government is pushing for the registration of anyone with powers. In the movie, the Accords were designed to place a governing body over the Avengers, so they weren't acting completely independently. Those really aren't the same thing. The first is an act of discrimination that is only advocated for out of fear. The second... well, the second is just good sense. Which leads me to...
"But" #2: I know. Nobody likes it. But Steve was doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons. See, Cap's line was good, but it wasn't the one that I thought most pertinent to the situation. Know which one I picked out as most relevant?
"If we can't accept limitations, we're no better than the bad guys."
Yup. You got it, folks. That's Tony Stark, taking the moral high ground.
Now, a friend has pointed out that none of the Avengers should have signed the accords, because they only had three days to look over and discuss an extremely complex document of international law. I think that's fair. But I also think the movie didn't show Steve objecting to the time frame. He didn't say "You know, Tony, you're right. We should consider something like this, but I want to have a voice in writing the Accords. I want to negotiate." He just flat out refused. And why?
Because he wants to control his own choices.
It's understandable, we all have that drive, but it isn't reasonable. He's asking the world to trust his judgement, to just believe that he'll always make the right choice. It's frightening, because that's the way despots are created. And it doesn't matter if Steve just happens to be a benevolent one. What happens when that power structure is firmly installed, and then gets inhabited by someone other than Steve?
Oh. Right.*
Not only that, but it's hypocritical. Steve wouldn't leave a nuclear bomb in the hands of a random scientist, and just trust them not to set it off. In fact, he was furious when Tony chose to make Ultron, using his own best judgement without consulting the rest of the team. Steve wants there to be oversight in the world. He just doesn't want it to apply to him. And that's not cool.
But, Jessica, you say, don't you love Batman? Yes, of course I do. And yes, I realize he's a vigilante. But Batman would be the first to admit the dangers of unregulated powers. That's why he helped form the Justice League, so that (in addition to saving the world) they could also self regulate. It's also why he has a take-down plan for every member of the JL.
Superman might be the boy scout,
but Batman is the one who's really prepared.
He knows that such an extreme amount of power in the hands of individuals is a recipe for disaster. It's also why Batman doesn't think of himself as being particularly "good." He is making a choice of the lesser of two evils when he dons the cape to catch bad guys, but he doesn't try to excuse the fact that he's operating outside of the law.
Why is Captain America, one of our vaunted paragons of law and righteousness, skulking around in the shadows, acting like a vigilante at best, and a terrorist at worst? There are other ways to refuse what you see as an unjust command! Civil disobedience is a noble and worthy concept, and I would have stood by him if he'd refused publicly, and taken the consequences. But instead he said no and then just ran away, hiding from the authorities.
Hmmm... now, who does that remind me of?
Yeah, that seems about right.
But #3: It bugs the crap out of me that this was called Captain America: Civil War instead of just Marvel's Civil War. Here's why. This is a complex issue. I'm Team Stark, but I can still see why you might argue Team Cap. It's not a simple or straightforward thing when you're discussing the rights of the individual to determine their own path vs. the legitimate restrictions imposed by the state for the safety of all. There's no one right answer, but there are an awful lot of wrong ones. If you're going to make a movie like this, you have to be willing to treat that conflict of ideals with all the gravity it deserves.
A wild example appears. It's super relevant.
But branding this as a Captain America movie automatically chooses the "right" side for us. He's the hero. We know the movie is attempting to portray him as being in the right. And they do it, in the end, by a cheap fucking gimmick. Instead of delving into the actual issue, they have Tony go off the deep end when he finds out his parents were murdered. And I think that's utter bullshit.
Look, Tony isn't really a nice guy. He's neurotic, and self-absorbed, and he is single-minded to a level that can be (and certainly has been in the past) a danger. But he's also brilliant, and logical, and has purchased enough therapy to fund a small island economy. I simply do not believe that he (the Tony Stark we have seen in the Iron Man movies) would go full on death-rage monkey on Bucky, when he knows good and well that the guy was being mind controlled when he killed Mama and Papa Stark.
Also, really, Tony? You never suspected your dad--the weapons manufacturer,
the guy who helped found SHIELD, the giant munitions trump card in America's back pocket--you never suspected he might have been killed? Never?
Another friend pointed out that they thought Tony lost it because he realized Steve lied to him. I'm sorry. I just don't buy that, either. For one, I don't think Tony is the kind of guy to attack Bucky when he's really mad at Steve. He's not that cruel. He might want to punish a person, but he's not going to do it by killing their friend. That's some next level evil shit. Also, again, Tony is literally a genius. He knows that, just a movie ago, he kept something from Cap, and it literally tore apart an entire city and laid waste to countless lives. He's self-centered, but he's not blind. He knows he doesn't have any moral high ground, there.
All of which leads up to me saying this: It doesn't make sense that Tony went crazy at the end and tried to kill Bucky.
It was just a plot device to make sure that we saw Cap as being 100% morally in the right in the final moments of the movie. But that's BULLSHIT. And it wouldn't have been necessary, if this hadn't been branded as a Captain America movie. They could have just explored the actual conflict and the potential ramifications, and treated all their fans like we were thinking human beings who can handle a world where it doesn't always split easily into good and evil.
Shades of grey, people. It's not a naughty word, just because some naughty book co-opted it.
To be clear, though, we would watch that.
We would watch the HELL out of it.**
So, in conclusion, I'm not actually advocating that you hate this movie. I mean, it was fun to watch. But I do think it's time we start demanding more from the film industry. Just because we like comics doesn't mean we're simplistic. We don't need to be pandered to. And we certainly don't need our beloved characters acting in antithesis to their moral code, just so that you can strong-arm in a plot that vaguely resembles a really popular comic arc.
Do better, studios. It's a theme I'm coming down hard on these days. Give me women, give me minorities, and give me honest, thought provoking conflict. Because airport fight scenes are awesome, but you can do better.
*Art by Greg Land
** Art by Acid Vanity
No comments:
Post a Comment