summercomfort (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
summercomfort) wrote2016-05-07 10:32 pm
summercomfort) wrote2016-05-07 10:32 pm
Cap3 pt.1
Okay, writing this here before I wade onto tumblr.
Wow, that was definitely a complex, tightly edited movie. There was some great action choreography that got ruined by the amount of shaky-cam, though. :( (I kept thinking, "follow that punch!" or "pull out for a wide shot!")
And it was definitely an ambitious movie. Structurally/thematically, there were a number of complex questions that they tried to tackle:
- Do superheroes need oversight?
- What happens when the Avengers are not united by a common enemy?
- Given their "enhanced" powers, can superheroes allow the personal to drive their actions? (Or: exploring the humans behind the suit: personal choice, responsibility, and vengeance)
How well was each question explored and answered? Taking these one by one:
Do superheroes need oversight?
This is basically the plot thread involving the Sokovia Accords.
Tony's stance is yes, that subjecting the Avengers to oversight by a UN committee is a way to have accountability, and a way to pay penance to the people harmed. Steve points out that having accountability is actually taking personal responsibility for the casualties and the damages caused, and not passing the buck to a UN committee. More importantly, that the choice of taking action as a superhero is ultimately made by humans, and he'd rather it be the superhero himself than a UN committee. Everyone else kind of falls behind one or the other for various, more personal reasons, and I'll talk more about each character later on.
I definitely side with Steve here. The in-universe reason is that the UN committee thing sounds like a bureaucratic clusterfuck. (I mean, the UN Security Council has been super effective this last 60 years, right? And isn't at all about petty power maneuvers, right? haha.) I'd be much more interested if they came up with a criteria for "superpowered crimes" the way we have war crimes and corporate crimes, and then figured out a way to hold people accountable that way. The meta reason is that a universe populated with superheroes and supervillains means that government organizations can at best keep them contained for about half of a movie, and Superhero stories as a genre tends to be about personal choice.
Anyway, this is an interesting question, but I don't think it was properly answered.
Firstly, the Accords are never quite clear regarding the consequences. Tony signs the Accords, but then flouts them to go to Siberia, and yet continues to do whatever. Natasha signs the Accords, but then flouts them to help Steve, then has to go into hiding. Clint didn't sign the Accords because he was retired, but when he messes up, he gets thrown in superjail. T'Challa didn't sign the Accords, but when he wreaks havoc, he just goes back to Wakanda. And after the Accords were signed -- the UN bombing was perpetrated by someone who didn't have any superpowers, and no civilians were harmed in the airport fight and the Siberia fight. The Bucharest chase scene might have lead to civilian casualties, but no one took Steve to task about that. So the Accords just aren't shown to be useful at all.
In fact, the only thing that the Accords did was to make Steve not trust Tony with info about the Siberian supersoldiers, which is what lead to the airport fight, etc etc. Jeez so much communication breakdown.
Secondly, neither Steve nor Tony really follow through on their arguments. Tony never actually does the bidding of the UN -- he just keeps trying to deal with it himself. Like -- it's not the Avengers' fault that Bucky broke out, and they weren't asked to stop him. Why *not* let the CIA or whoever deal with Steve? If you're going to promise to do the UN's bidding, then wait for the orders. What would have been interesting is if Tony's about to fly somewhere and a directive comes that they want the Avengers to do something else. And if Steve's argument was that the Avengers should actually start taking responsibility for their actions -- why doesn't he even once check in with the families of those who died in the events? The numbers on the screen aren't very high -- under 100 in each case. The UN bombing happened after Steve's speech -- why was Nat the only one of the Avengers to say "hey, son of T'Chaka, you all right?" Steve *does* take responsibility for his personal choice to take on the world for Bucky -- he leaves his shield and becomes a fugitive.
I guess that's the other consequence of the Accords: drive more superpowered people underground. Tony chose to sign the Accords and now has to deal with losing over half of the Avengers. (But ... accountability, right?!)
What happens when the Avengers are not united by a common enemy?
I feel like this was much better carried through the movie -- the answer being "bicker, but with punches pulled."
This is really what makes Cap3 an Avengers movie. Given that the initial Avengers were pulled together because holy shit aliens attacking, it makes a lot of sense that when there isn't an external threat, personal tensions can run high. And even though the whole "lure Steve, Bucky, and Tony to Siberia to get them to turn on each other" plan seems a bit convoluted (why didn't Zemo just send Tony the tape earlier? How could he guarantee that only Tony would go, and not Vision?), I did like the whole turn and double-turn that happened at the Siberian base:
1) Tony shows up and is willing to mend fences and work together because turns out there's an external threat
2) Turns out that Zemo had eliminated those other winter soldiers. (Because he knows that the team would just bond more if they had to fight the winter soldiers)
3) Tony watches the video, and (a) desires vengeance on Bucky, and (b) feels betrayed that Steve knew and didn't tell him. Cue epic fight.
And it does a good job of showing the sort of punch-pulling that's present in the rest of the movie: Steve just wants to deactivate Tony's suit, and Tony just wants to knock Steve down. (Too bad Steve's a little shit who keeps standing back up.) When Steve had Tony on the ground and raised his shield to strike, me (and Tony) both thought that Steve was going to deliver a killing blow. But of course not. The flaw in Zemo's plan: superheroes won't kill each other.
(Of course, they pull punches because they're friends, and because they see each other as "good people." Apparently that courtesy is not reserved for bad guys like Bucky. Going back to the previous question about superhero accountability, I'd have loved it if there was discussion about the consequences of stopping the wrong person. Why do the Avengers get to decide who the bad guys are? And what consequences are "worth it"?)
And the larger scale consequences, unfortunately given the nature of comic book movies, are temporary -- Bucky's frozen, sure, but it's pretty easy to thaw him out. Rhodey has some paralysis issues, but he's also on the mend. The Avengers are down to Tony, Rhodey, and Vision, but you know the others are just a phone call away. (And when there's a common enemy that the governments can't take care of, then it'll be suddenly okay to have unsanctioned superheroes save the day.)
Given their "enhanced" powers, can superheroes allow the personal to drive their actions? (Or: exploring the humans behind the suit: personal choice, responsibility, and vengeance)
So I feel like this was the personal version of the theme that's introduced in the Sokovia Accords. The flub-up in Lagos happened because Steve got distracted thinking about Bucky instead of stopping Rumlow, so the Accords are really about the superheroes subjecting their personal choice (and responsibility thereof) to the government, separating personal desires from public actions. Tony's desire to take responsibility for Sokovia casualties was what drove him to sign. Steve's desire to keep his personal choice was what pitted him against it.
(Ironically, Steve kept Tony in the dark about the cause of his parents' death out of a desire to protect Tony, thereby flipping their roles and taking Tony's choice of reacting to the information out of his hands.)
This whole movie is about how superheroes are flawed humans, often driven by personal needs to protect or avenge than by consideration of the public good. T'Challa going all Black Panther in order to avenge his father's death, Tony trying to kill Bucky to avenge his mother's death, Steve putting everything on the line (his friends, his reputation, his morals) just to protect Bucky. The beginning of the movie had Tony and Steve speaking eloquently about their stance re: the Sokovia Accords, but the middle of the movie have them (in the pen scene) reveal that it's personal, after all -- Tony's desire to protect Pepper vs. Steve's desire to protect Bucky.
And of course, the most successful vengeance-seeking of all: Zemo. Who manages to flush out Bucky, turn the Avengers in on themselves by eliminating the external, "for public good" threats, leaving only the personal motivations.
This theme is very well carried out, and neatly tied up at the end with T'Challa stating the thesis, which is that they must have the power/strength to let go of their vengeance.
Except that that conclusion was an answer to a question that wasn't posed. The questions that were posed at the beginning of the movie was about the Sokovia Accords and whether the Avengers could stay together. Yet the climax/resolution was about whether they could let go of their personal motives for protection/vengeance. So sometimes the movie seemed like two that were glommed together. The first half is political, the second half personal. By the time they bring up the Sokovia Accords again, it's in the stinger, almost as an afterthought.
And overall, the answers to these 3 questions were undermined by the nature of the superhero movie. After all, superheroes can't have *actual* accountability -- then there'd be no story. And of course superheroes will end up choosing to protect rather than destroy.
This whole movie could have been avoided if the Avengers had combed through the HYDRA file releases more closely -- Tony would have found out about his parents' death when he's calmer, and Steve would have found out about the trigger phrases earlier.
Wow, that was definitely a complex, tightly edited movie. There was some great action choreography that got ruined by the amount of shaky-cam, though. :( (I kept thinking, "follow that punch!" or "pull out for a wide shot!")
And it was definitely an ambitious movie. Structurally/thematically, there were a number of complex questions that they tried to tackle:
- Do superheroes need oversight?
- What happens when the Avengers are not united by a common enemy?
- Given their "enhanced" powers, can superheroes allow the personal to drive their actions? (Or: exploring the humans behind the suit: personal choice, responsibility, and vengeance)
How well was each question explored and answered? Taking these one by one:
Do superheroes need oversight?
This is basically the plot thread involving the Sokovia Accords.
Tony's stance is yes, that subjecting the Avengers to oversight by a UN committee is a way to have accountability, and a way to pay penance to the people harmed. Steve points out that having accountability is actually taking personal responsibility for the casualties and the damages caused, and not passing the buck to a UN committee. More importantly, that the choice of taking action as a superhero is ultimately made by humans, and he'd rather it be the superhero himself than a UN committee. Everyone else kind of falls behind one or the other for various, more personal reasons, and I'll talk more about each character later on.
I definitely side with Steve here. The in-universe reason is that the UN committee thing sounds like a bureaucratic clusterfuck. (I mean, the UN Security Council has been super effective this last 60 years, right? And isn't at all about petty power maneuvers, right? haha.) I'd be much more interested if they came up with a criteria for "superpowered crimes" the way we have war crimes and corporate crimes, and then figured out a way to hold people accountable that way. The meta reason is that a universe populated with superheroes and supervillains means that government organizations can at best keep them contained for about half of a movie, and Superhero stories as a genre tends to be about personal choice.
Anyway, this is an interesting question, but I don't think it was properly answered.
Firstly, the Accords are never quite clear regarding the consequences. Tony signs the Accords, but then flouts them to go to Siberia, and yet continues to do whatever. Natasha signs the Accords, but then flouts them to help Steve, then has to go into hiding. Clint didn't sign the Accords because he was retired, but when he messes up, he gets thrown in superjail. T'Challa didn't sign the Accords, but when he wreaks havoc, he just goes back to Wakanda. And after the Accords were signed -- the UN bombing was perpetrated by someone who didn't have any superpowers, and no civilians were harmed in the airport fight and the Siberia fight. The Bucharest chase scene might have lead to civilian casualties, but no one took Steve to task about that. So the Accords just aren't shown to be useful at all.
In fact, the only thing that the Accords did was to make Steve not trust Tony with info about the Siberian supersoldiers, which is what lead to the airport fight, etc etc. Jeez so much communication breakdown.
Secondly, neither Steve nor Tony really follow through on their arguments. Tony never actually does the bidding of the UN -- he just keeps trying to deal with it himself. Like -- it's not the Avengers' fault that Bucky broke out, and they weren't asked to stop him. Why *not* let the CIA or whoever deal with Steve? If you're going to promise to do the UN's bidding, then wait for the orders. What would have been interesting is if Tony's about to fly somewhere and a directive comes that they want the Avengers to do something else. And if Steve's argument was that the Avengers should actually start taking responsibility for their actions -- why doesn't he even once check in with the families of those who died in the events? The numbers on the screen aren't very high -- under 100 in each case. The UN bombing happened after Steve's speech -- why was Nat the only one of the Avengers to say "hey, son of T'Chaka, you all right?" Steve *does* take responsibility for his personal choice to take on the world for Bucky -- he leaves his shield and becomes a fugitive.
I guess that's the other consequence of the Accords: drive more superpowered people underground. Tony chose to sign the Accords and now has to deal with losing over half of the Avengers. (But ... accountability, right?!)
What happens when the Avengers are not united by a common enemy?
I feel like this was much better carried through the movie -- the answer being "bicker, but with punches pulled."
This is really what makes Cap3 an Avengers movie. Given that the initial Avengers were pulled together because holy shit aliens attacking, it makes a lot of sense that when there isn't an external threat, personal tensions can run high. And even though the whole "lure Steve, Bucky, and Tony to Siberia to get them to turn on each other" plan seems a bit convoluted (why didn't Zemo just send Tony the tape earlier? How could he guarantee that only Tony would go, and not Vision?), I did like the whole turn and double-turn that happened at the Siberian base:
1) Tony shows up and is willing to mend fences and work together because turns out there's an external threat
2) Turns out that Zemo had eliminated those other winter soldiers. (Because he knows that the team would just bond more if they had to fight the winter soldiers)
3) Tony watches the video, and (a) desires vengeance on Bucky, and (b) feels betrayed that Steve knew and didn't tell him. Cue epic fight.
And it does a good job of showing the sort of punch-pulling that's present in the rest of the movie: Steve just wants to deactivate Tony's suit, and Tony just wants to knock Steve down. (Too bad Steve's a little shit who keeps standing back up.) When Steve had Tony on the ground and raised his shield to strike, me (and Tony) both thought that Steve was going to deliver a killing blow. But of course not. The flaw in Zemo's plan: superheroes won't kill each other.
(Of course, they pull punches because they're friends, and because they see each other as "good people." Apparently that courtesy is not reserved for bad guys like Bucky. Going back to the previous question about superhero accountability, I'd have loved it if there was discussion about the consequences of stopping the wrong person. Why do the Avengers get to decide who the bad guys are? And what consequences are "worth it"?)
And the larger scale consequences, unfortunately given the nature of comic book movies, are temporary -- Bucky's frozen, sure, but it's pretty easy to thaw him out. Rhodey has some paralysis issues, but he's also on the mend. The Avengers are down to Tony, Rhodey, and Vision, but you know the others are just a phone call away. (And when there's a common enemy that the governments can't take care of, then it'll be suddenly okay to have unsanctioned superheroes save the day.)
Given their "enhanced" powers, can superheroes allow the personal to drive their actions? (Or: exploring the humans behind the suit: personal choice, responsibility, and vengeance)
So I feel like this was the personal version of the theme that's introduced in the Sokovia Accords. The flub-up in Lagos happened because Steve got distracted thinking about Bucky instead of stopping Rumlow, so the Accords are really about the superheroes subjecting their personal choice (and responsibility thereof) to the government, separating personal desires from public actions. Tony's desire to take responsibility for Sokovia casualties was what drove him to sign. Steve's desire to keep his personal choice was what pitted him against it.
(Ironically, Steve kept Tony in the dark about the cause of his parents' death out of a desire to protect Tony, thereby flipping their roles and taking Tony's choice of reacting to the information out of his hands.)
This whole movie is about how superheroes are flawed humans, often driven by personal needs to protect or avenge than by consideration of the public good. T'Challa going all Black Panther in order to avenge his father's death, Tony trying to kill Bucky to avenge his mother's death, Steve putting everything on the line (his friends, his reputation, his morals) just to protect Bucky. The beginning of the movie had Tony and Steve speaking eloquently about their stance re: the Sokovia Accords, but the middle of the movie have them (in the pen scene) reveal that it's personal, after all -- Tony's desire to protect Pepper vs. Steve's desire to protect Bucky.
And of course, the most successful vengeance-seeking of all: Zemo. Who manages to flush out Bucky, turn the Avengers in on themselves by eliminating the external, "for public good" threats, leaving only the personal motivations.
This theme is very well carried out, and neatly tied up at the end with T'Challa stating the thesis, which is that they must have the power/strength to let go of their vengeance.
Except that that conclusion was an answer to a question that wasn't posed. The questions that were posed at the beginning of the movie was about the Sokovia Accords and whether the Avengers could stay together. Yet the climax/resolution was about whether they could let go of their personal motives for protection/vengeance. So sometimes the movie seemed like two that were glommed together. The first half is political, the second half personal. By the time they bring up the Sokovia Accords again, it's in the stinger, almost as an afterthought.
And overall, the answers to these 3 questions were undermined by the nature of the superhero movie. After all, superheroes can't have *actual* accountability -- then there'd be no story. And of course superheroes will end up choosing to protect rather than destroy.
This whole movie could have been avoided if the Avengers had combed through the HYDRA file releases more closely -- Tony would have found out about his parents' death when he's calmer, and Steve would have found out about the trigger phrases earlier.