Monthly Marvel Musings - Analysing some of the negative responses to Avengers Age of Ultron...

Despite the fact Captain America Civil War has started filming (with a huge and hugely impressive cast), I wanted to talk Avengers Age of Ultron spoilers this month.  However I've changed tack slightly; there has already been loads written about the spoilers and easter-eggs in this film - what I wanted to talk about specifically though is the reaction to the film.  From some quarters there has been the beginning of a backlash forming, and I want to discuss that - firstly, how in many ways it's unjustified, and secondly what it means for the movies of Marvel Studios going forward.  There are SPOILERS for Age of Ultron, so if you haven't seen it yet proceed with caution!

MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS

Analysing the response to 'Age of Ultron'

The film industry is peculiar - the one thing it loves just as much, sometimes more, than a great success is an abject failure.  You'll see industry insiders and critics getting their knives out for a film, setting it up for failure, even before it has even been released  Sometimes it's justified, others it's not entirely (this is worthy of a discussion on it's own, but as an example check out how critic reactions to 'The Lone Ranger' varied from those in the US to the rest of the world, after it was already considered a 'flop' there; the consensus internationally was that it wasn't as bad a film as the US critics said).  There's been more than a little bit of this schadenfreud creeping in to a handful of reviews of Age of Ultron; whilst I'd agree that it does have it's flaws, and isn't as good a film as it's predecessor, a few critics have jumped beyond those and tried to make out that it is an out and out disappointment and failure of a film.  And for my life, I can't see why.

Yes, the plot has some issues, and the film suffers in a few places because of how many character arcs are in play, including some that - even director Joss Whedon admits - were cut down more than they needed to be.  It is worth pointing out that repeat viewings of the film clarifies some of the issues with the various character arcs; a number of critics have acknowledged this, and I would go further and say that (with the exception of Thor's savagely cut arc) repeat viewings do make everything make sense.  For example, some have argued that Tony Stark's arc is kind of a non-arc; he doesn't seem to bear any consequences for creating Ultron, or that he doesn't have a reason to leave the Avengers.  It's worth bearing in mind that this film continues the character development that has been happening in the previous MCU films; At the end of 'Iron Man 3' Tony Stark hasn't 'quit' being Iron Man ( as some people have interpreted it), rather he has become comfortable with his capabilities as someone who can engineer and science a solution to overcome problems and adversity.  These inform his motivations to create Ultron, as well as the PTSD you can see he is dealing with in 'Iron Man 3'.  In that film you can see how his obsessive suit-building behaviour has been informed by taking on an Alien army, but by being alongside people whose actual physical powers exceed his own; but his ego exceeds that, and his experiences have given him a saviour complex.  Of course, Ultron goes totally wrong, and he has to deal with the consequences of that, and the guilt that's left.  There's hints of the guilt he still feels over his pre-Iron Man life as an arms manufacturer as well.  And if 'Iron Man 3' sees him coming to accept his limitations, I think that informs his decision to leave the Avengers: Ultron has been dealt with, so he has made amends in that respect, the Avengers are still going under Captain America alongside the newly re-established SHIELD - he can move on.

There are that many character arcs woven through this film, it really does take more than one viewing to fully grasp and appreciate them...

I'll admit though that whilst multiple viewings of this film will help you get to grips with the numerous character arcs, there's two issues that also underpin the negative reactions to the film that can't be addressed that easily, so they deserve further investigation.  I'd say that these can be summed up by a lack of surprise, and a growing familiarity with the Marvel Studios 'formula'.

Careful what you wish for...

There's a saying that there are two tragedies in this world: the first is not getting what you want.  The second is getting what you want.  I think that applies to Avengers Age of Ultron, in both respects.  Remember, it was almost a miracle that 'Avengers Assemble' worked as well as it did, but it is an euphoric, punch-the-air triumph.  I've talked previously about why it is so great - the witty script, the excitement of seeing this team working together and fighting alongside each other.  Well, we all hoped that we would get this from the sequel - if not, even more so.  And Age of Ultron does give us that - numerous thrilling scenes of The Avengers together, fighting, rescuing people, being awesome - and having some really funny interactions with each other in their downtime.  But for some people, this wasn't enough.  Why?

I think this film should mark a turning point for Marvel Studios - because it is the point where, despite their success, there is familiarity beginning to creep in, and familiarity breeds contempt, as the saying goes.  What has worked for Marvel Studios is an emphasis on character, 'levity', and action.  Whilst all of these were handled well in Age of Ultron, the formula is becoming amply clear - especially in the final act which is the sixth Marvel Studios movie to feature something falling from the sky; not to mention that scenes of The Avengers fighting hordes of faceless minions felt a lot like the finale of 'Avengers Assemble'.  I get that there's a part of that you're always going to see with The Avengers - they're the only team powerful enough to deal with villainous hordes, in whatever form they take.  But there are other sides to their team-work and powers which could be emphasised in future films - in the final act of AoU it was more exciting seeing them work to protect and rescue civilians, for the most part, than punching Ultron Drones.

As well as this, I believe there is a sense that the film, in delivering exactly what audiences were hoping and expecting in terms of humour and spectacle, actually feels like the first Marvel Studios film in a while that DIDN'T exceed expectations.  Looking back at the films that have come before it, they either contained a killer twist that no one would have seen coming (The Mandarin in IM3, Loki on the Throne of Asgard, SHIELD being infiltrated by Hydra), or by the sheer fact that they were so good that no one could have anticipated it (Captain America The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy).  When I walked out of my first viewing of AoU, the thing that struck me as the only REAL surprise was that there were no BIG surprises.  Sure, we learnt about Hawkeye's family (spoiled for me before seeing it by the IMDB cast listings, thank you!) and Banner & Romanov's relationship, but there were no massive shocks, no revelations, no plot twists.  With the talk of the team's line up changing at the end of the film, and Hulk's absence from the next few films, many fans were anticipating his exile to space (like the Planet Hulk comic arc), or (given that it's a Whedon trademark) the death of a major character (while we got one, it wasn't as impactful as others might have been).  Then there was anticipation this would set up Civil War, either through some calamitous event or growing tensions in the team - but at the end Thor and Stark's departure is with friendly banter and a hand shake - no signs of conflict.  On top of that, we know we're getting The Infinity War in a few years' time, so setting up the Infinity Stones feels like a tick-box exercise to set things in motion - even though, yes, it is cool that this is where the MCU is headed.

So if AoU is a disappointment at all it's not because it's a failure as a film - it's just that it is a well-made and entertaining blockbuster that didn't exceed expectations, unlike its predecessors.  Yeah, I get that unlike 'Avengers Assemble' it doesn't feel like the culmination of something, but it is what it is - another part in an ongoing series.  It could have set things up more for the next films, but Whedon made it clear that he didn't want to make a film that had a cliff-hanger or unsatisfying ending; you can't argue that AoU ties up its story  whilst providing a starting point for the ones to follow.  If people think that's disappointing, how much more so would a more open conclusion have been?

Don't Feed the Trolls

As I've said, AoU is not a perfect film, it has many flaws, but it's still an entertaining, witty and spectacular blockbuster.  I can't understand that it's not okay for this film to do what people expect, when a film like 'Fast & Furious 7' can similarly deliver more of the same, effectively, and that's accepted uncritically.  It comes back to what I was saying - people in the film industry love setting things up to fail after they've been successful.  Joss Whedon made the most successful super-hero film of all time with 'Avengers Assemble', so it's sad that people have been, in some respects, clutching at straws to tear him and Marvel Studios down.  I've responded to the (at best) questionable criticisms of misogyny levelled at the film (which I think are missing the point spectacularly), but there are some people so desperate to claim the film a failure they've even tried to use the Box Office as an indicator of this.  Okay, the film didn't open higher than its predecessor (as many had anticipated), but $185 million is still the second highest opening of all time (that's right, only the first Avengers is higher).  It broke records in most international territories when it opened (in the UK it was the biggest Superhero movie opening of all time), and is set to be one of the top-five highest grossing movies of all time (it's currently the highest grossing film of the year in the US - and it's still got a while to run).  It is not unusual for sequels to see their box office drop from their predecessors - especially if they open bigger (for example, 'Spider-man 2' had a much lower opening and final gross than'Spider-man' - you wouldn't see anyone using that as an argument to suggest it's a weaker film, when the opposite is largely held to be true); bearing in mind that (as unlikely as it sounds!) there are people who say 'Avengers Assemble' and didn't want to see a sequel.  I don’t think you'll see a film beat the first Avenger's box office until 'Infinity War Part 2', so using a slightly decreased gross as 'proof' of AoU being a 'failure' is an incredibly flawed argument.

Don't worry team, the Trolls are a minority - everyone else still loves ya!

By and large though it is pleasing that the overwhelming majority of the audience, and of course MCU & comic fans, thoroughly enjoyed AoU.  So does that mean no one should take heed of the naysayers?  Far from it - I believe Marvel Studios needs to listen, and put everything they can in to their upcoming slate to ensure that each film does more than fulfil the MCU formula; they should aim to surprise the audience as much as possible with each film.

That's it for this month - this column will be back in June with more discussion about the upcoming MCU slate, possibly including a new Spiderman, some Ant-Man, and maybe some Doctor Strange...

"Age of Ultron is misogynistic", they say. "I think you've missed the point", say I.

I had intended to finish and post my spoiler-filled analysis of 'Avengers Age of Ultron' this week, but in the last couple of days a controversy has arisen which has seen an internet backlash against the film, and more personally, against the films writer/director Joss Whedon.  There have been criticisms of the films plot (some of which aren't unjustified, but do not deserve the level of abuse that has apparently been directed at Whedon), but what has really had me scratching my head are the accusations that Whedon's portrayal of women in the film, and specifically the Black Widow character, are misogynistic.  I can't help but feel that these accusations are based upon people not really understanding what is going on with that character in the film, or with her back-story.  Note: there are big SPOILERS for AoU in this article, so please proceed with caution if you've not seen the film yet!

Now, to be fair this is by-and-large a storm in a teacup; Guardians of the Galaxy Director James Gunn has taken to his Facebook page to express his thoughts on the matter, and he quotes Joe Russo (who alongside his brother directed Captain America The Winter Soldier) who rightly states "This kind of vitriol should be reserved for issues that actually demand outrage. Look around at your world... fiction is not one of them."  This is true.  But when a significant number are jumping to a conclusion which is, at best, based on a misunderstanding, or at worst just plain erroneous, I feel the need to speak out and try to counter these opinions with a measured and considered response.  I've already spoken about Age of Ultron's plot issues - even Whedon himself has admitted there is at least one strand they edited so much it almost doesn't work - however these aren't enough to derail the film at all; it is still an entertaining, fun, spectacular and witty blockbuster.

But the claims regarding women in the film, and specifically the portrayal of Black Widow, really need to be examined more closely as I'm not sure they're justified at all.  I must acknowledge that there are a huge swathe of people who will point out that as a white male of European heritage, I am arguably in no place to offer a counter to feminist critique.  In my defence I would like to say that I am someone who is vehemently opposed to all forms of inequality, injustice and oppression, whether it is based upon class,race, income or gender.  I have been a member of Amnesty International, have worked for charities, and have taken part in goodness knows how many campaigns on issues related to the rights of workers, women, oppressed minorities, people in poverty, and many others.  Okay, I'm a man, and I realise I can't fully comprehend the experience and perspective of women battling sexism, misogyny and oppression in its many forms across all cultures in the world; it does not mean I cannot have sympathy, as one human being to another, when I see or read about these struggles.

One of the things I love about cinema is that it enables the viewer to get the perspective of someone else, from a different culture, race, class, or gender - either through the direction or the characters in the story being told.  So in that respect I fully welcome feminist perspectives in cinema, not to mention feminist critiques of films.  The Superhero genre is ripe for feminist critique, especially as there have been so many portrayals of female characters (including Superheroes) that at which accusations of misogyny and sexism can be fairly placed.  So when I write this I'm not coming from a place where I am hostile to this sort of criticism (sadly, there are a lot of men who are).    But the level of criticism being aimed at Whedon (to the point where death threats have been made) is, on a personal level, absolutely absurd.  He apparently needs to learn how to write 'strong female characters'.

Really, Joss Whedon needs to learn how to write strong female characters?  Joss Whedon, who brought the world Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and the several strong female characters in that series?  Who wrote at least 3 strong female characters in 'Firefly'?  Who wrote 'Dollhouse', centred on a premise fronted by a strong, female character?  Who was writing a version of Wonder Woman for Warner Bros (that sadly never saw the light of day)?  Do you really think he's a misogynist??? As far as criticism goes, it is one of the most flawed you will ever see - there is just no evidence to support it.  Still, it hasn't stopped people jumping on the bandwagon, and yesterday news broke that Whedon had quit Twitter.  This has been seen as a victory for those levelling criticism and abuse at him - but before they begin their victory dance I'd just like to point out that Whedon had probably already planned to do this; he has spoken recently about how exhausting the making of AoU was, and in interviews to promote it he has sounded very, very tired too.  Now the film is out across the world (except China), is doing massive business (still there are haters claiming the $191 million, second highest US opening of all-time, is a disaster.  Yes, really.), and his promotional commitments are done, it's hardly surprising that he is taking a break, is shutting out the world, and is enjoying some rest and recuperation, probably with his family and loved-ones.  Who can blame him?  He has since confirmed the abuse isn't the reason, but he's doing it for some 'quiet' - I'd say he's earnt it!

I'll admit there are more substance to criticisms over the portrayal of individual female characters in AoU; but do they hold up to scrutiny?  The biggest is over Natasha 'Black Widow' Romanoff (played by Scarlett Johansson), and it stems to a scene (probably my favourite in the film) where she confides in Bruce 'Hulk' Banner (Mark Ruffalo) that she was sterilised as part of her training to become a Soviet assassin.  So, the feminist critique here stems to being fine with when she is snapping people's necks and delivering barbed quips, but the admission regarding sterilisation amounts to her saying 'I just want to have kids and be a stay at home mother'; and as Whedon has put those words in to the character, he is therefore denigrating female Superheroes and comic characters, by making them all disempowered women who secretly just want to be housewives.  Yes, this particular scene and admission by the character takes place in a bedroom with children's toys and drawings in, in a 'picture perfect' rural farmhouse, where lives another female character who is a stay at home mother (apparently another negative portrayal of a female character in this film).

I can't help but think people are putting 2 and 2 together, and getting 5 - they are misreading the situation, the context, and above all the character herself.  Is Black Widow REALLY saying all she wants is to have kids and be a stay at home Mom?  Not necessarily.  In the scene Banner and Natasha are opening up to each other about the prospect of a normal relationship.  Banner suggests he can never have a 'normal' relationship - marriage, children, as per the setting for the scene - because of the Hulk.  Natasha reveals how she can't have that either as she was sterilised.    It was literally taken from her by the people running the programme that raised her, from childhood, to be a super-spy assassin.  In my opinion this admission is not regret at losing out on being a mother, it is that Romanoff has had the opportunity to choose this taken from her.  Surely, one of the central aspects of feminism is choice - that a woman can choose her level of education, her own career path, what she does with her own body in terms of relationships and having children (or not).  It's not totally clear from the films, but in the comics she is taken in to the 'Black Widow' program as she was an orphaned, effectively brain-washed in to being an assassin, and sterilised to ensure she would always be compliant to her orders and mission.  In this scene Whedon is spelling out the connection she and Banner have within the Avengers - neither truly fit in as archetypal 'Heroes' like Cap or Thor; in fact throughout the MCU films we learn that Romanoff joined SHIELD, and in turn the Avengers, as she no longer wanted to be an assassin and is seeking to atone for some of the terrible actions she was ordered to carry out in the past.

Basically, this scene emphasises that as a child she had the choice about what sort of life she could leave effectively taken from her.  The sterilisation is part of that - her sadness is not necessarily entirely due to her not being able to become a mother, but is arguably that she had the ability to choose this taken from her.  She has since chosen to turn her back on her past, and has chosen to put her training and skills to better use protecting people and taking on genuine baddies.  Where this issue is so strongly related to choice, I'm amazed that women criticising this film have not been able to make the connection to, what would seem to me anyway, is a key idea to feminism.  But what do I know - I'm just a guy, and I've never even read any Germaine Greer.  Perhaps then criticism over making Hawkeye's wife a stay at home mother is valid.

I can sort of see the point.  You add a new female character to this series about superheroes, and just write her as a 'home-maker', who stays at home while her husband is out 'saving the world' with the Avengers.  On the other hand, is this jumping to conclusions about her character?  We don't know anything about her other than she is Hawkeye's wife, and mother to his 2 (soon to be 3) children; there is no suggestion about her past.  How did she and Hawkeye meet?  How did they fall in love?  A single line confirms that they were together before Hawkeye joined SHIELD.  Perhaps they both worked in the military; perhaps she was an intelligence officer with ranking over him, and she sent him on missions, which is how they met?  Perhaps she was part of a team of agents alongside him?  Or perhaps he just bumped in to her on his day-off, they hit it off and started dating - which, *gasp* does happen in actual life..!  Whatever has happened, at some point she has made the choice (there we go, that word again...!) to stay at home and raise their children.  I think that people are imprinting a negative feminist-based critique on the character just because of the singular context she is presented in this film, and reading her as a statement that "A WOMAN'S PLACE IS AT HOME, BIRTHING CHILDREN AND RAISING THEM."  I find it hard to believe that a series which has kick-ass female super-assassins, female scientific genii, and female corporate CEO's would actually be making that sweeping statement about women.  Yet, ironically, it's women making a feminist reading of the film that are making this conclusion..!  Yes, I guess we could know more about Laura, Hawkeye's wife.  But in a handful of scenes, with a few lines, Whedon skilfully establishes that she is smart, perceptive, and level-headed; in fact, her conversation with Hawkeye is fairly pivotal in keeping him on the team, and in turn keeping the team together.  Could she have done the same if she wasn't 'just' a stay-at-home mother?  Yeah, she probably could have.  But bear in mind also that Whedon wanted to make audiences think that Hawkeye could potentially die in this film, and he was gently satirising the way in which war films kill off people who refer to their family or loved-ones back home.

So a deeper consideration of the context, characters and story telling in this film, in my opinion, would indicate that the feminist anger directed at this film is largely misjudged.  There are further criticisms that simply don't hold up, that Black Widow doesn't do enough ass-kicking or wise cracking (err, sorry, but she knocks up quite the tally of Hydra henchmen, mercenaries, and Ultron Drones, I think you'll find, and she delivers at least 3 witty lines whilst she does so); and that Wanda 'Scarlett Witch' Maximoff (Elisabeth Olsen) is portrayed as neither bad-ass nor wise-cracking enough (you obviously missed the part where she's an angry opponent of the Avengers, so 'wise-cracking' her way through that wouldn't have been appropriate; and you clearly missed the moments where she decimates a load of Ultron Drones with her Telekinetic powers.  Oh, and the bit where she literally tears out Ultron's heart in grief-filled rage; that's pretty bad-ass if you ask me).  To the women (and men) angry at the way female characters are portrayed in this film, I recommend watching the film again, bearing in mind my arguments, and see to what extent your criticisms hold up; I'm not entirely sure they do.  And to all the other Trolls who have jumped on these criticisms as an excuse to tear down a man after he finally hit mainstream success and respect with the first Avengers movie - I leave you with James Gunn's words:

"Anger - especially aggressive and abusive anger - is a way to deal with feeling insecure, sad, hurt, vulnerable, powerless, fearful, or confused. Those feelings, for many of us, are a lot more difficult to deal with and acknowledge than anger. Anger makes us feel "right". And powerful. But it also usually exacerbates whatever the underlying, more uncomfortable feeling is... whatever these angry tweeters are in need of, I don't think it's more anger and more rage thrown back at them on Twitter. I actually think that's what they're seeking. But what they need is something different. Compassion, maybe? A kind request for boundaries? I don't know."

If you're angry, that's up to you - but find a cause that deserves your anger; in the real world, not at fictional characters and those that write them...