I guess it would be impossible to churn out great movies forever. Phase Three of the interminable Marvel continiuum of movies saw it hit peak Marvel with four great movies come out in a row: Spider-Man: Homecoming, Thor Ragnarok, Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War. (I liked Ant-Man and the Wasp too). Captain Marvel, merely a good movie, is a bit of a comedown. It is another prime example of the notion that the more powerful a superhero is, the more boring they become. Captain Marvel has something akin to Superman powers. At one point she is flying through space and shooting photon blasts from her knuckles. In a situation such as this, the other powers of the universe can only retreat, which they end up doing once they slowly realize they are outmatched. When a superhero's powers get so strong that they make all fights boring and predictable, there needs to be some human drama that will spice up the storyline and create suspense.
If
you can recall, Marvel had the exact same problem with Thor. The
first two Thor movies were
orverwrought and boring and presently scrape
the bottom of the barrel of Marvel's
20+ movies. Then Marvel realized that Chris Hemsworth was a talented
comedian, and instead of
taking this God of Thunder so seriously,
completely reworked Thor: Ragnarok too
take advantage Hemsworth
ability to play the clown.
Here Captain Marvel is played by Brie Larson, who is no doubt a
talented dramatic actress (Oscar Winnning!), but I'm not sure she can
play funny. If she could, the way this movie frames her and her
character severely hampers any
ability to do so.
You see, Captain Marvel is a woman and Marvel really really wants you
to know that they are
sufficiently progressive for
modern times. It's their
first superhero to be played by a woman after
(that is if
we exclude Black Widow and Scarlett Witch or
any of the female X-Men,
which I think we
are). This liberal
guilt complex at times can be
a bit too obvious. The use of the word "cockpit" comes to
mind or the repeated advice
that Captain Marvel needs to control her emotions.
There
is a line when a movie makes choices that seems less to do with story
and character than politics. One of my favorite examples occurs in a
little movie from 1997 called Titanic. Rose, played by Kate Winslett,
is taking a guided tour of the upper decks of the boat and she comes
to this realization. Why, she says, I've counted all the life boats
and it does not seem you have enough for everyone. Now, the movie
needs to establish to the audience that there aren't enough
lifeboats, but they have chosen to have Rose, a young
woman, make this calculation off the top of her head. Not some
employee, or some engineer, or some other guy who has been on the
ship for longer than a couple of days. This woman brings it up
without prompting. Not only that but she understands the importance
of Picasso, and can drink a beer, and well, what can't she do?
Meanwhile, in
stark
contrast, what hubris and arrogance of all
the other men
except, of course,
the one who falls in love with her at first sight and would die for
her within a week's time. (Titanic, I'm giving a pass too because at
the end of the day it is not about real people. It is a utterly
shameless 200% pro woman fantasy. The extent of its commitment to
that fantasy and the expertise
to which it is brought to
pass is among its great pleasures. I do admit the movie is great.)
But let's be honest. Rose wouldn't know
how many fucking lifeboats the boat needed. That scene is preaching
to the choir. Playing to the base as they say.
Historically, women are
greatly oppressed. But again there is line when it comes to
storytelling. Other great movies that feature women as action heroes
don't seem to come close to it: think anything with Sigourney Weaver,
Jodie Foster, or Noomi Rapace. Or this can be brought up with subtle
humor to great effect: Wonder Woman did
a very good job at that. The pitfall to going past that line is not a
political one. It has to do with unintentionally creating a one-note
character, someone whose purpose
seems to be to only exist in opposition to something or somebody
else. That is, an antagonist in the role of a protagonist. Captain
Marvel would likely work better as an evil villain. Anyway, we shall
see if Captain Marvel gets more interesting in later installments.
Here she starts off cool, remains cool, recovers her memory and
realizes she was always cool, and then becomes even cooler. But hey,
she's a woman. Points, please!
Captain Marvel
otherwise contains a leap forward in special effects. For the past
twenty years, movies have been making stop-and-start progress on
creating artificial humans from digital effects. Robert Zemeckis did
a rather poor job of it Beowolf.
David Fincher tried to bring Brad Pitt back to his most handsomeness
in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
He didn't quite make it and the scene is much helped by a dimly lit
room. But now we have Samuel L. Jackson's performance in Captain
Marvel. Samuel L. Jackson plays
agent Nicholas Fury, who you have seen in many Marvel movies in a
supporting role. But Captain Marvel takes
place in the 1990s and Samuel L. Jackson necessarily needs to lose
about twenty five years. This cannot be done with makeup. So Marvel
has done it with digital effects. The job they do is so complete that
it is hardly noticeable. It's incredible really. Sam Jackson does not
look exactly like he did in the 1990s. Presumably Marvel wasn't
trying to make a mirror image of him, but he looks like a person.
There is no uncanny valley. I'm not sure where we can go with this,
except I think someone at some point is going to start bringing back
old movie stars and start inserting them into movies with Andy Serkis
doing the acting. Or
actresses known for their hotness are going to start remaining
perpetually young. We shall see.
Goose is cool. I like Goose.
