Posted on 05/06/2016 7:06:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Captain America: Civil War confirms our national dumb-down. While the mainstream media pretzel themselves over the presidential primaries, Marvel Studios has steadily accomplished a rejiggering of the American publics cultural and political consciousness. Civil War completes this devolution in its story of superhero combat where one faction of pop icons, led by Captain America/Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), faces off against another faction, headed by billionaire genius Iron Man/Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.).
As momentary adversaries, Captain America and Iron Man almost represent the schism that now divides American voters, politicians, and pundits. I say almost, because the films comic-book premise doesnt inspire reflection upon the dire seriousness of our current ideological civil war.
If anything proves the triviality of Hollywoods comic-book franchises, it is this disregard of the class realities that truly separate Americans. Working-class poster boy Steve Rogers has no common cause with wealthy authoritarian Tony Stark; the superficial show of patriotism that binds them doesnt erase the difference between the formers grunt-worker sacrifice and the latters aristocratic expertise. Its the ultimate sentimental cynicism when Captain Americas devotion to his dangerously conditioned childhood friend Bucky/Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) who represents wars emotional cost is used to evoke ambivalence toward the military, while Starks authority celebrates the Military (and Hollywood) Industrial Complex.
Is it overreaching or being humorless to recognize and critique a piece of entertainment that takes Americas schism lightly? Will fanboys or for that matter film critics ever understand that Marvel Studios has engineered a cultural coup that prevents viewers from thinking? How did we get here?
Since comics and graphic novels became popular as counterculture, adolescents have been encouraged to reduce mainstream politics to their own sentimentality. Thus, Marvels various superheroes appeal to teenage rebellion: Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Falcon (Anthony Mackie), War Machine (Don Cheadle), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Vision (Paul Bettany), Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), and the others personify juvenile sensibility. They remain trivial, even as their divisions play out in serial chase scenes, explosions, and technological butt-kicking. Each ones predicament represents a denial of the moral complexities that come with maturity. Fear of growing up is implicit in both the devious terrorist plots of supervillain Zemo (Daniel Brühl), who harbors childhood dreams of vengeance, and the supercilious wit of Tony Stark, the George Soros/Steve Jobstype to whom the superfreaks all feel indebted. (As Stark, Downey achieves the same promiscuous waste of talent as hammy British actors of old.
Despite the supergeeks arguing either against working for the restrictive capitalist government or for their own sense of doing right and correcting injustice, the fact is, nothing here has gravitas. Civil War is politics as adolescents misperceive social/global crisis. This has been going on for so long (ever since Hollywood realized the bounty to be had in cajoling comic-book cultures ready audience; since, say, the 1978 Superman film, then 1989s Batman) that, by now, the brainwashing is complete. The trivializing has grabbed such hold that when a genuine pop artist like Zack Snyder deepens comics lore into visionary, moral art (the profound Man of Steel and Batman v Superman), many fanboys, and critics, react with anger, resentment and ignorance.
To praise Civil War as entertainment is to accept its puerile conflicts. This is the moral reduction that has happened to American youth culture in the wake of the generational dissents of the Vietnam War. Movies as violent as the Marvel flicks are not pacifist but are proof of anti-military sentiment such as became evident in the confused Ferguson protestations about militarized police, a foolish, redundant term exploited by manipulative media outlets and politicians. Civil War furbishes aggression simply to excite viewers who are as programmed as poor Bucky.
In a similar sense, Civil War exploits recent political trends such as Black Lives Matter. Black actress Alfre Woodard (whose portrayal of a comically psychotic wench was the only convincing characterization in 12 Years a Slave) appears as a grieving mother who blames Stark standing in for the Military Industrial Complex for the death of her child, a promising youth with a 3.6 grade-point average. Woodards Whos going to avenge my son? shamelessly taps the illusion of Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, and Tamir Rice as Boy Scouts and potential Rhodes scholars. Thats way out of bounds.
This pandering passes for political relevance among non-thinking viewers. So does the films multiracial superhero team, especially new inductee Chadwick Boseman (superb as Jackie Robinson in 42 and James Brown in Get On Up) as the offensively named Black Panther, a pseudo-African potentate who possesses suspiciously feline/feminine powers of vengeance. Black comics fans are an immediate target of Marvel Studios exploitation. Note the scene where Black Widow, played by the white, ultra-sexy Johansson, is confronted by Black Panthers aide, a Nubian queen with fore and aft protrusions and powerful swagger. She threatens Black Widow: Move or you will be moved!
This patronization is consistent with Marvel Studios political infantilizing. The vigilante Avengers inability to avoid collateral casualties when fighting the bad guys raises the global body count. These blithe depictions of tragedies precipitate the films basic ideological quarrel, similar to that in the powerful Batman v Superman. Yet Civil Wars evaluation of this dilemma, of whats at stake in American politics, is petulant and trite. Stark critiques the roguish Rogers: Even when hes wrong, he thinks hes right. That makes him dangerous. This tempts a Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warrenstyle American self-reproach, just as Sanders is the model for an early scene of Stark at MIT funding every students research proposal. Its alarming if not offensive to see an entertainment film feed this fatuousness to juvenile moviegoers so as to shore up their political fancies.
No wonder Civil Wars big blow-out half the superheroes pointlessly battling the other half in a Leipzig airport becomes repetitious and calamitous. Its the most pointless, decadent scene of the year so far. Directing team Anthony and Joe Russo work by-the-numbers, staging blurry, undecipherable action and rounding up extraneous Marvel characters Ant Man (Paul Rudd) and Spider Man (Tom Holland) for comic relief. Its rebooting on top of rebooting simply because fanboys love a reboot; thats how pathetically indoctrinated weve become. The Russos Iron Man versus Captain America competition appeals to comics fans sophomoric cynicism, but the head-banging among invincible beings amounts to nothing; it lacks the magnitude of Batman v Supermans soulful contemplation of wounded people who are torn and fighting against themselves.
Marvel Studios shows no appreciation of what civil war actually means. At least the Wachowski siblings were genuinely implicated in the race/sex struggles of The Matrix (1999), but here, the Russos imitation of the Wachowskis diversity carnival doesnt work; its not heartfelt theorizing, just exploitation. Without Zack Snyders visual wit, Marvels tedious, hackneyed formula costs this films political allegory its metaphorical heft. And a generation of filmgoers, now accustomed to comic-book pettiness, will lack the proper moral outrage. Theyre ill equipped to realize how Civil Wars quasi-politics cheer our current state of incivility as a thrill ride. When everybodys vengeful this is the trash we get.
Armond White, a film critic who writes about movies for National Review Online, received the American Book Awards Anti-Censorship Award. He is the author of The Resistance: Ten Years of Pop Culture That Shook the World and the forthcoming What We Dont Talk about When We Talk about the Movies.
Thanks for that, perfectly sums up what I was feeling and yet not quite able to say in one sentence, save me much typing, LOL. But you are totally correct, and besides, sometimes a Cigar, is just a Cigar...
The whole thing was ridiculous, it put this veneer of reality on something that can’t survive such scrutiny on that level.
“I need to sue/arrest the Hulk! He raged and smacked the earth with his fists for no reason so hard my mother slipped and broke her hip, a tree fell and killed my wife!”
Did the Hulk commit a crime or is he liable or what?
The other thing is that Mutants were always supposed to be stand ins for some type of repressed minority who couldn’t help what they were. But no one really made a big deal about weirdo alien thunder gods being strange and different. Now the two marvel movie camps can’t let mutants ands avengers be in the same room, or at least they haven’t brought up yet that I know of.
Freegards
Sounds like a Captain America fanboy doesn’t like Ironman as much. They need to remember that Loki woulda already killed him if it wasn’t for Ironman.
Good writing, there, IMO.
LOLO, that’s awesome. What site gave that recommendation?
Oh, I completely understand the sentiment — though some of the Marvel movies seem to be bucking that. (In particular remember Iron Man [2] where the government was trying to just flat-out confiscate Tony's armor? He basically told them, "you can't legitimately do that, now f-- off"… I mean that came really close to simply citing the 2nd amendment; though it did cite the 13th.)
So, the chance that there would be a good conclusion isn't the near-certain zero it would be.
That’s excellent writing; thank you for sharing it.
when a genuine pop artist like Zack Snyder deepens comics lore into visionary, moral art (the profound Man of Steel and Batman v Superman), many fanboys, and critics, react with anger, resentment and ignorance.
This is all you need to read in this movie "review."
I can't believe National Review actually pays this clown.
Man of Steel and Batman vs Superman are both embarrassing messes.
“Tony Stark, the George Soros/Steve Jobstype”
Umm, no, Tony Stark is based on Howard Hughes. He’s a brilliant individualist, distrusts the government, is a womanizer, with mental and substance abuse issues to boot... not like those prog pantywaists.
Yeah, that explains a lot.
Oops, sorry I didn’t post that.
Pff, my theory that Supreme Leader Snoke is actually Porkins the X-wing pilot is better :P
I don’t know if that theory is fully Kosher?
Captain American: Civil War: 92%
Man of Steel: 55%
Batman vs Superman: 28%
I've watched many Civil War reviews on Youtube the past week. Most of them from professional movie critics.
The reviews for Civil War are overwhelmingly positive.
This National Review clown is either a DC Fanboy or is completely incompetent about reviewing movies.
More BS and lies from National Review.
Batman vs Superman was embarrassingly bad. Completely incompetent at every level. From story structure, to editing, character motivations, dialog, and direction.
The same can be said for Man of Steel.
Zack Snyder is a hack, the DC movies so far have been awful, and this National Review guy is a fraud.
I'm rooting for DC. I love Batman and Superman. I just don't like crappy movies.
“Batman vs Superman was embarrassingly bad. Completely incompetent at every level. From story structure, to editing, character motivations, dialog, and direction.”
Don’t forget casting. If Ben Affleck couldn’t pull off a second string hero like Daredevil, everyone with half a brain knew he wouldn’t be able to pull off Batman.
Afflect was a great Batman!
Eisenberg as Luthor was AWFUL.
The problem with Captain America: Civil War
http://zap2it.com/2016/05/captain-america-civil-war-not-comics-adaptation-fans-want/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.