Overdue Captain America: Civil War Review
May. 13th, 2016 08:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lydamorehouseGenerally, I liked it. There are a few things I think I can say about the movie 'above the cut.' as it were. Without spoiling, I want to talk about one of the fundamental differences between the movie and the comic book arc. In the comic book, like the movie, there is an event that triggers a public outcry about the unchecked destruction that superheroes cause when they come blundering into situations, do their best, but sometimes civilian lives are lost. In the comic book arc, the difference is that the destruction is caused, quite accidentally, by random "new" superheroes. That's to say, "powered" people who have no affiliation with a superhero group like the X-Men or the Avengers. As a result, part of what the public demands is a "superhero registration act" which not only requires any people with powers to offer themselves to the government, but ALSO requires long-standing superheroes to expose their secret identities as part of registration.
I think you can already see why, in the comic book version, someone from World War II might stop and say, "Uh... wait a minute... You gonna ask us all to wear stars next?" (He had other really amazing observations which really resonated with everything that was happening during the time Civil War was written, which was during the Patriot Act, which DIRECTLY commented on things happening in the US.)
In the movie (and this isn't much of a spoiler, because, in many ways the movie is actually about Bucky's past), the accords only require the superheroes to subject themselves to oversight. Now, the question is a lot more nebulous: who is in charge, what decisions do they get to make... ?
But, what's missing in the movie is Captain America being far more articulate and CLEAR about why he, specifically, finds this situation squicky. The thing that drove me absolutely buggy (later... because during the movie my only thoughts were: bam! crash! zap!) was that it was certainly all set up in the previous Captain America movies. All we would have needed is, during the scene where the gathered Avengers are looking over the accord (I do love that it's clear Captain America read EVERY PAGE) to have Cap say, "Guys, really? We're going to put our trust in a governing body... WHEN HYDRA WAS SECRETLY IN CONTROL OF S.H.I.E.L.D. FOR THE PAST FIFTY YEARS??"
MCU Captain America has a LEGIT reason not to want to sign something that gives away his decision making power to an organization he knows nothing about.
But, so. like, *I* thought of that, but it was _never_ said out loud by ANYONE in the movie.
Which to me, made Captain America seem like a war-mongering vigilante.... which is... super not Captain America.
That's not to say there weren't things I loved. Again, no spoilers, but I thought Black Panther moved EXACTLY RIGHT. I was having flashbacks to comic books I barely remember reading every time he did a jump or a four-point landing or a swipe with his vibranium claws.
Also, I loved Peter Parker/Spider-Man
Okay, a couple things I can't say without a spoiler block...
The second Easter Egg made me wonder if the MCU was going to echo that moment in the Civil War comic book arc where Iron Man makes a suit for Spider-Man.. and builds in backdoors in order to shut him down (because Tony is both smart AF and a control freak and know that Peter is likely to shift to Cap's side). Anyway, the fancy wrist thing doesn't seem like Parker Techology (tm)--it's too slick. I mean, obviously this was really just a "Hey, movie-goers, there will be a Marvel sponsored Spider-Man movie!" but I wondered if it was doing double-duty.
Speaking of screaming... I was decidedly less okay with the violence in this movie than I expected. I mean, I realize that's kind of the point. It's different when people are hitting their friends. AS IT SHOULD BE. But, when Steve slammed the shield into Tony's chest plate over and over, I literally shouted, "NO! STOP! YOU COULD KILL HIM!" because I felt like, there, once again, there should have been an "out loud" moment in the movie where someone, maybe even Steve himself should have said as soon as that chest plate started to flicker, "Oh god, Tony. I'm sorry. Your heart...." because that thing doesn't JUST power the suit, it LITERALLY KEEPS SHRAPNEL FROM TONY'S HEART
And it seemed out of character that Steve didn't seem to remember that... or worse, seem to care.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-15 03:24 pm (UTC)Not anymore. That was the medical procedure Tony had at the very end of IM3; now his heart is ticking away on its own, and the arc reactor only powers his suit.
Much agreement on how all of the most important arguments were left as subtext in the film, though. Besides Hydra having infiltrated SHIELD and the World Security Council, facts that should have been raised were:
1) One of the conflicts that the Avengers were getting blamed for--the Battle of Sokovia--was almost an extinction-level event; another--the Battle of New York--had the enslavement of all humanity as their enemies' goal; another--the Battle at the Triskelion--would have resulted in the simultaneous murder of hundreds of thousands of people (many of them key scientists and military and governmental figures, including the president of the US, and at least two of the people directly involved in the conflict: Steve and Maria Hill). When the stakes are that high and when the threat manifests so suddenly, obtaining majority approval from the UN before taking action is just not feasible.
2) The collateral damage the Avengers were responsible for in New York was significantly less than the damage that would've been caused by the nuke that the WSC fired on the city, and that the Avengers safely redirected.
3) The aspect of the Battle of Sokovia that was totally blameworthy wasn't the fault of the Avengers as a group, most of whom stood in opposition; it was the fault of Tony, who unilaterally decided to create a peacekeeping AI that the other Avengers agreed was a terrible idea (with the exception of Bruce, for reasons that I'm still baffled by).
4) A smaller point, but still significant when it comes to the issue of personal freedoms vs. institutional oversight: Ross's comment about Thor and the Hulk being like misplaced nukes was completely offbase. First, they're people, not weapons, and people who haven't been charged with a crime are allowed to do things like go away for a while and not tell anybody where they're going. Second, Thor isn't even from Earth. The idea that the Avengers--or anyone from Earth--ought to be responsible for policing the intergalactic movements of an extraterrestrial prince is both absurd and obscene.
5) Tony's decision to join Steve and Bucky in Siberia to (as they thought) take down the five other super soldiers was in direct violation of the Accords that Tony'd signed and that he'd been trying to get Steve to sign as well. Which means that Tony's principled position that the Avengers needed oversight from an outside body had the silent tagline, "and I for one intend to ignore that outside body whenever I feel like it. But I'm still going to pressure you to sign them, regardless of whether you feel comfortable similarly perjuring yourself."
So, in conclusion, yes. There were a bunch of good things about the movie (mostly named T'Challa), and it ended in a place I can live with (nobody I loved died!), and imo it was less soul-sucking than the comics Civil War event. But it was a big, dumb, fun superhero movie, when the previous Captain America films--and particularly The Winter Soldier--had been smart and coherent and both internally consistent and a perfect fit into the broader MCU oeuvre. After that, this was a really big step down.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-16 06:59 pm (UTC)Also, I didn't mean to imply motivations WEREN'T there, I just really wanted Cap's to be tiny bit more explicit -- I feel like Tony got to land all the emotional punches, particularly since got to trot out the picture of the victim and put a human face on all of the tragedy.