Search This Blog

Showing posts with label martin freeman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label martin freeman. Show all posts

Saturday, December 31, 2022

Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (3/5 Stars)



The first “Black Panther” was a product of its time. King T’Challa ended the film with a speech about the importance of openness and the responsibility that the enlightened and technologically superior Wakanda had to the greater world. It was an obvious rebuke to the present political climate in America, specifically the border wall politics of Donald Trump. The movie was wildly successful and Hollywood patted itself on its back for their political courageousness. Four years have since passed (maybe nine in Marvel time depending on the blip). At this time, I think it would be appropriate to take a step back and assess whether King T’Challa’s promises were kept. From the looks of it, the Wakandas haven’t started. 


This movie makes a big deal as to whether or not the Wakandans have shared the secrets of Vibranium, their exclusive and all-purpose natural resource. They haven’t, but I don’t blame them for that. America doesn’t share its nuclear weapons technology and the original Black Panther wasn’t making the argument that it should. No, I’m talking about the immigration policy of Wakanda. King T’Challa, the monarch of a nation with an eternally closed border and a 100% ethnically homogenous population, had made a veiled criticism of the United States of America, the most immigrant friendly and diverse country in the history of the world, for not being open enough. Surely, within four years, Wakanda would have allowed some migrants to enter their lands. How about some refugees from the interminable civil war in neighboring Congo or from the chaotic and famine stricken Horn of Africa? No? Well, then they must at least have let in some Indians with P.H.D’s in software engineering. Nope, not one. The people of Wakanda are as pure of race as they have ever been.  


Beneath the comic book facade of Marvel’s Black Panther franchise lies a fascinating philosophical conundrum. Its contradictions are manifestly apparent, but because of the political climate in Hollywood, they go unmentioned. Wakanda is based on an erroneous premise, one that has been taken to such extraordinary lengths and with such artful sincerity in these two films that it goes a full 360 degrees and unwittingly presents its own antithesis. 


It is one thing to be appalled by the evils of five hundred years of European hegemony: the Atlantic slave trade, colonialism, environmental degradation, etc.. It is something else to argue that Europeans (read white people) have contributed nothing good to human civilization during the same time period, no advancements in culture, morality, or political science, as well. But this is what the premise of Wakanda must argue. Otherwise, it couldn’t exist.


What is the Wakanda premise? It is succinctly articulated in the first minute of the first film. Five tribes in Africa had access to a special resource: Vibranium. They fought with each other until one man used Vibranium to become stronger than all the rest: the First Black Panther. This Black Panther imposed his power over the rest of the tribes and Wakanda became peaceful. The remainder of the world was without vibranium. Presumably without a material that would make one particular person stronger than the rest, it descended into chaos and war while Wakanda thrived.


According to that, what is the source of political power? It’s technology. The corollary to this argument follows: White people’s position of power in the last several hundred years is due solely to their advanced weapons technology. If the colonized people of the Earth had the same technology as the Wakandans, they would have been able to fight off the Europeans and keep their way of life, which in its natural state was advanced and peaceful. It is not a mistake to note that the Black Panther, although his position is one acquired and maintained by brute strength, is not the oppressor of his people, but it's protector, and that the Wakandans, even with their advanced technology, sought no conquest or colonialism over neighboring peoples. Why does the Wakandan monarchy not descend into bloody successionary wars or attack its neighbors like every other hereditary monarchy in history? Well, because Wakandans are a closed society with a pure race untainted by the outside world. In other words, because the Wakandans (see black people) are inherently good and the outside world (see white people) are inherently bad.


This train of logic goes so far as to argue against democratic principles. You see, if you take the premise that a society untainted by foreign elements will remain in its advanced and peaceful ideal form, then a democracy with its openness to expression and immigration and its wild swings from popular passion to popular passion is an obvious threat to the system staying the same. In other words, if everything is already perfect, a hereditary monarchy with absolute power handed down from superior man to superior man is a much better system for the job: keeping everything perfect. As the Queen points out in this movie, it is not that Wakanda will not share its secrets of Vibranium, it is that a country such as America (represented here by white people) cannot be trusted with it.


Like critical race theory, which appropriates much of its thought from non-racial Marxism, the Wakandan premise overlays a racial element from very ancient non-racial philosophy. (You can’t make any philosophical argument in America nowadays without including race somehow). It really goes back to that age old question: whether change makes things better or worse. A philosopher like Plato would argue the latter. He argued that the world in the past was composed of ideal forms that had since, via intermixing with foreign elements, become decayed and degraded. The idea of a secret utopian society bereft of the outside world’s ills is not new. Voltaire included it as El Dorado in Candide. The Shire in J.R.R. Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings is another good example. Modern fascism and totalitarian regimes embrace the idea and use it as the main reason for rigid censorship and propagranda. What has always struck me as absurd is why open and prosperous societies such as America and Athens of old consistently produce intellectuals that swear by the superiority of such evil states as the USSR and Sparta. Marvel’s continued practice of criticizing its own country and leaving such nations as China off its villain list is yet another iteration in this age-old tradition. But then again, there is something inherently unequal and undemocratic about superheroes in general. They are quite literally superior to the rest of us and according to the Wakandan premise, that superiority in strength entitles them to unquestioned political power. (I disagree of course, which is why I was firmly Team Iron Man for "Captain America: Civil War")


The interesting thing about both Black Panther movies is that this ugly premise is present but not belabored. I believe that the writer/director Ryan Coogler does not have a racist bone in his body nor do I believe he is philosophically pig-headed. He is working for a large corporation that has given him this premise to work with. Mr. Coogler follows it with reason and competence. In doing so, the Black Panther movies are good comic book movies with decent action and great production value, yes, but they are also plausible narratives of power politics. The main characters are Wakandan royalty and they act with a knowledge of their absolute power and a sense of entitlement to it. The main antagonist is royalty himself, King Namor of Talokan, an underwater Mayan secret society (appropriated from the myth of Atlantis). 


The interactions between the royal families are done so well that the two nations go to war for reasons so stupid and arrogant that it would fit right into the Hundred Years’ War. Neither King Namor nor Princess Shuri bother to seek counsel or permission from their respective populace’s before sending men to fight and kill each other. They just decide to do it and their subjects just obey orders without any second thoughts.  The war is fought to a draw and nothing is gained or lost that couldn’t have been negotiated by diplomats or voted on in referendums. Unless, that is, you count the lost lives of subjects, which the movie barely registers. 


You may be wondering why I’m talking at length about political philosophy and not the movie. Good question. These ideas are not new to me. In fact, I could have inserted them into my review of the first Black Panther movie. I didn’t because there was so much that was new and exciting about that movie that I just gave it five stars and talked about the good stuff. This movie, Wakanda Forever, though is actually quite mediocre. The plot is pretty simple and the action sequences, well, you’ve seen them before. Overall, I believe my philosophical digressions are more interesting than an in-depth review of the movie. At least this is what I was thinking while I was watching this movie. 


Here is my proffer for the plot of the third Black Panther movie. One or more of the tribes finds out that King T’Challa has a son and recognizes him as the proper heir to the throne as a direct challenge to Princess (now Queen) Shuri. Queen Shuri plots to murder her cousin and all other blood relatives in order to consolidate her power. A bloody and ruthless civil war ensues which depopulates the countryside and expends the wealth of the nation. In order to gain advantage, both sides start trading secrets of Vibranium to the outside world, which brings in other nations into the fight. Ultimately, the USA and UN intervene and insist that Wakanda install a democracy. Falcon represents both the USA and UN in this development and this is accepted by Wakandans as something other than a humiliation because Anthony Mackie is black. Finally, have someone other than Ryan Coogler do it. That man has done his time and should be choosing projects that are more personal in nature.

Friday, March 30, 2018

Black Panther (5/5 Stars)




I would hesitate to say this next thing if it hadn’t been for multitudes of people saying it before me. In fact, before seeing Black Panther I would have argued against it. I would have pointed to about thirty years of movies starting with Spike Lee and John Singleton to argue that black representation in film has been around for awhile. Important movies about the black experience in America have been made by distinguished filmmakers (say Amistad and 12 Years a Slave). There have even been black super-hero movies (Blade and Hancock). But Black Panther is a special movie. Never before has a very large studio thrown so much money and effort in such an unadulterated way towards making an arguably “African” movie. Black people have always been with us but not really like this. Like India in Slumdog Millionaire and China in the opening ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Black Panther can be categorized as a “coming out” party. And what a party it is.

For one thing, black people are being represented from a position of strength. The Black Panther, as a Marvel Superhero, is the crown-prince of the fictional kingdom of Wakaanda. Wakaanda is based on the old European myths of utopic cities such as El Dorado and Shangrila that stayed in static idyllic peace while the outside world suffered through the hell of progress. Wakaanda is situated on top of large deposits of Vibranium, a mineral that seems to literally do everything from providing energy, making airplanes, and cloaking entire cities from view of the outside world. As far as the country’s wealth in concerned, Wakaanda is a production designer’s magnum opus of contradictory elements. Wakaanda is essentially a science fiction version of Africa, traditional elements intertwined with technology several decades ahead of the rest of the world. The same can be said of the costumes and makeup of the movie, all three of which should run away with Oscars next year. Black Panther is a gorgeous movie in all its respects. Wakaanda is also an Enlightened country. Even though Wakaanda’s political model is based on fights to the death for dominance (this is a comic book movie after all), women apparently have equal status as men and actually form the most prestigious parts of the army as well as, as far as I could tell, the one and only scientific post in the whole country.

(For reasons that could fill several books, the idea of an isolated highly technological egalitarian utopia is stupidly wrong. The apparent location of Wakaanda, northeast Congo, also known as the world capital of anarchy, poverty, and rape, is the perfect location for the manifestation of a stupidly wrong idea. However, as this is a comic book movie, I will try to refrain from lecturing on the subject of economics.)

The main theme of the movie is whether or not Wakaanda should use its wealth and technology to help the rest of the world or to conquer it in revenge for the oppression of black people. In an interesting twist, the rest of the world is mainly represented by the projects of Oakland, California (where it should be noted, Director Ryan Coogler is from and where he made his first great movie Fruitvale Station). The movie handles this subject the way Nelson Mandela would handle it, with great maturity.

I’m not exactly sure what the black panther legend means in Africa or where exactly it comes from. Here, in America, the Black Panthers were a militant vigilante group that took it upon themselves to police the police, sometimes coming in direct conflict with them (I am also told they did community service). The Marvel superhero actually precedes the militant group by several years and simply does not have the same philosophy. Actually, the philosophy of the militant group is more closely aligned in Black Panther by the main bad guy, a man named Killmonger, played by Michael B. Jordan. This is a black panther in the American sense. Fueled by resentment and hatred, he is bent on using Wakaanda’s wealth and technology to burn everything down. Coogler’s treatment of Killmonger is empathatic but not sympathetic. He develops the character well and explains his actions, but ultimately does not agree with him.

There is one particular scene that stood out to me. When the Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) is first made a King, he goes through an ancient ritual in which he visits his ancestors in an ethereal version of the Serengeti. Later on in the movie, Killmonger goes through the same ritual. However, as his father was an exile from Wakaanda, Killmonger visits him where he ended up dying, a project in Oakland, California. It is a scene of great gravity and incongruity and one of the best manifestations of cultural displacement I have ever seen in a movie. It perhaps can be said that a King of a wealthy country like Wakaanda is privileged and can afford then to take a Nelson Mandela (also of royal blood) view of the world whereas Killmonger grew up poor and excluded and is entitled to his resentment. But no matter, the point I believe is that black people want to have the decision to choose to be included in the world. Given the choice, it seems that Black Panther is stating that they would choose inclusion. That’s fine with me. If that is where the words "black panther" lead now, I will follow.

So much of black culture seems to be simply reactionary to white culture (a dumb generalization but I don’t want to spend the space to get any more specific). By positioning Black Panther’s arguments and themes in a place outside of white influence, it allows the “peace and inclusion” choice to avoid the Uncle Tom label of appeasement. In recent years, I have been continually annoyed by other black movies (“black movies” another gross generalization but I won’t spend forever writing this) from the incompetent Selma to the insult-to-history which was Birth of a Nation to the multitudinous iterations of "untold stories" of the "first black ___ to do ___” like Hidden Figures that arrive in theaters in a ever-reliant stream. If the complete absence of white people in Black Panther indeed enabled its philosophical maturity and creativity, then we should start producing more "black movies" set entirely in Africa and/or space (having said that, the performance of Andy Serkis and Martin Freeman were fantastic in Black Panther). I also hope that Ryan Coogler can make some more personal movies. Chistopher Nolan got to switch between regular movies and blockbusters. Hopefully Coogler gets a similar deal.

Friday, September 27, 2013

The World's End (5/5 Stars)




If Seth Rogen’s ‘This Is The End’ seemed like the last dying gasp of a creative mind, “The World’s End,” which sees the reunion of director Edgar Wright and actors Simon Pegg and Nick Frost has to be the antidote for that same creative exhaustion. As far as end of the world comedies go they could not be more different. They both have plenty of laughs but where one comedy took the Apocalypse as an excuse for boyish men to become even more juvenile (ending in of all things a boy band concert from the late 1990s) the other uses it as an opportunity to finally grow up.

“The World’s End” is the third movie by Team Wright, Pegg, and Frost and as such is being the completion of the Cornetto trilogy. The term Cornetto refers to a brand of Ice Cream known (via Team Wright, Pegg, and Forst) as a decent hangover cure. The first two movies in the trilogy “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” apparently had a Cornetto joke in them, so the makers of “The World’s End” throw in one here and thus a trilogy is born with the ice cream linking all the movies together. This ignores the fact (or does it?) that what could be a far more obvious link between the movies is the setting of each movie: a seemingly innocent British town that harbors a massive conspiracy that each and every resident is in on. In ‘Shaun of the Dead’ the town was taken over by zombies. In ‘Hot Fuzz’ the entire town was a part of a religious cult dedicated to keeping the town picturesque via murder of its undesirable citizens. Murder I say! ‘The World’s End’ features an alien invasion, which turns the residents into things that are not exactly robots. Not-a-Robot Pierce Brosnan drops by as the chap’s old tweedy literature professor to explain exactly why they are not to be called robots per se. It is an enlightening discussion before he tries to eat them.

Another intertwining theme from the first two movies is the many scenes that take place in a pub. In fact, the reason why the chaps are in town for the first time in two decades is to placate the desire of their former ringleader, Simon Pegg, to finish the Golden Mile, a glorious Pub Crawl they started but did not finish twenty years ago on the last day of high school. Simon tells the story of this pub-crawl in rapturous detail to his Alcoholics Anonymous support group and inspires himself to get the gang back together to finally do it. (“It was the best night of my life. And still is.”) Simon is very much still stuck in the past so much that even wears the same type of clothes that he did in high school. Meanwhile all the other chaps have grown up and got real lives and jobs. They include Nick Frost, Martin Freeman, Eddie Marsan, and Paddy Considine. All of them are welcome faces from the first two movies. Martin Freeman has probably become the most famous of them all what with his uncanny ability to land almost all of the iconic roles in British culture (Bilbo Baggins, Dr. Watson, Arthur Dent, Tim Canterbury). After much cajoling and a bit of deception they embark on their journey. The wit flows and hilarity ensues in a way that generally happens when a bunch of funny people who know each other well get together in the same room. Little by little they notice that the bars they go to all strangely seem like the same bar, with the same handwriting, and the same beer. Everything is homogenized, sterile, and suburban. Nobody recognizes them either, that is until the meet the town crazy man played by David Bradley. Fans of “Hot Fuzz” will remember he had the best line in that movie, “A Big Bushy Beard!” Well, he has the best line in “The World’s End.” After revealing the town’s secret he exclaims, “Why do you think I drink from this crazy straw! Not so crazy now, is it!!!” I guess you just sort of had to be there.

But what sets “The World’s End” apart from your typical end of the world comedy and especially the slapdash “This is the End” is just how incredibly well done it is in a technical sense. This is where the filmmakers, especially Edgar Wright, have matured in leaps and bounds from the first movie. “Shaun of the Dead” is a typical low budget independent movie. “Hot Fuzz” although obviously low budget stuns the viewer with its hyper style of editing. Edgar Wright’s next movie, “Scott Pilgrim v. the World,” was also a low budget movie but had so many brilliant visual and audio effects that it could have easily been passed off as a movie with a budget over 100 million dollars. “The World’s End” has the same proficient editing and brilliant effects, but here Wright also adds extremely competent fight scenes. I mean the Not-a-Robot bashing going on here is some of the best hand-to-hand combat in a movie I have seen outside of Asia. Nick Frost in particular is a badass in this movie. It find it somewhat ridiculous that a movie like this can barely gross 10 million at the box office when it seemingly has everything modern blockbuster audiences say they want: Lights, fights, laughter, a little sex, and plenty of alcohol. Edgar Wright has got to be one of the most underrated directors in cinema today. To have already made so many great movies in the populist milieu he works in and to have so little people seeing them is disconcerting. I would think the American equivalent has to be someone like Robert Rodriguez. Theses people are fun talented people. Go see their movies.

The last five to ten minutes kind of get a bit preachy but since the first two hours were so good it is totally forgivable. I don’t want to spoil anything but the world kind of does end, but it is a bit of an afterthought. The main thing is that after much violent soul searching and funny enlightenment, the Simon Pegg character learns something about himself and people. So even if the aliens respond by giving up on the human race it not totally a downer of an ending.

I would be very interested in seeing what the Team of Wright, Pegg, and Frost do next. I figure they could do anything and in style.