The Avengers (4/5)
Well, it’s
finally here. Many of us have been
waiting for this moment for years, some for even decades. But despite the bumps along the ways, and
fears that we may never see its realization, us fans finally have what we have
wanted for so long. I’m talking, of
course, about Joss Whedon’s first time helming an existing property in a major
motion picture. As much as Whedon fans
have enjoyed his original work over the years, many of us have wondered what he
could do not only with preexisting characters but also with the backing of a
major budget and the epic panoramic screen of the multiplex. Oh, and of course the film itself happens to
be The Avengers, the most anticipated movie of the last ten
years or so. And I’m happy to report that
no one other than Whedon would have been able to pull off a film with this
scope and this huge cast of characters.
As you
might guess, this review will be Whedon centric. Plenty of people have dissected The Avengers from the point of view of
comic book fans or critics of summer blockbusters. But I would like to approach it from the perspective
of one entry within Whedon’s larger oeuvre.
I have a long history with Whedon’s work, starting in high school when I
first started watching Buffy the Vampire
Slayer on a lark. The concept of
transforming a poorly received film into an ongoing series appeared to be such
an idiotic idea that I decided to tune in order to witness some
schadenfreude. But eventually I found
myself sucked into the story of a group of teenagers struggling simultaneously
with adolescents and the supernatural, both elements of the show serving as
metaphor for the other. Not only did Buffy provide a surprisingly accurate
view of growing up, but it also dipped into narrative experimentation. Like many TV shows from the 90s, Buffy was acutely aware of genre
conventions and subverted them whenever it could. From then on I was a devoted fan of Whedon’s
work, from his spin off series Angel
to the cult classic Firefly to his
work in comic books.
And of all
the elements Whedon is most known for, the one that makes him most suited for
an Avengers film is his ability to
handle a large cast of characters without letting anyone slide into the
background. Whedon once said that he had
to add more characters to Angel
because he had such a difficult time writing for just the three principle
actors. It’s also not uncommon for
ancillary characters to become series regulars in his shows. So if anyone is capable of balancing out four
superheroes who had previously anchored their own films along with a good
helping of backup characters, it is Joss Whedon. The
Avengers combines elements from many of the previous films. The Iron
Man movies initially introduced the idea of “The Avengers Initiative,” first
in a post-credit scene from the first film and later in the sequel SHIELD and the
Avengers served as an entire subplot that nearly derailed the movie. The MacGuffin, here known as the tesseract,
was first introduced in Captain America
and has a connection to the Norse Gods that filled out the mythology of Thor.
And the main villain, Loki, is of course the adopted brother of Thor
himself. Of all the previous Marvel
movies, The Incredible Hulk is the
least essential. But with a new casting
(Mark Ruffalo replaces Edward Norton) audiences have an opportunity to become
reacquainted with the green guy.

Whedon is
able to steer the film towards the interpersonal thanks to a few tricks he
learned back in his Buffy days. In the episode, “The Yoko Factor,” the gang
captures the punk rock vampire Spike only for him to psychologically manipulate
each of Buffy’s friends in order to get them to turn on one another. The point of the episode is that these
tensions have existed for some time, and it only took a little spark for all of
the resentment between friends to ignite into hatred. Similarly, in The Avengers, Shield manages to capture Loki who then proceeds to
sew seeds of distrust among the newly formed super group. By making the tensions between the Avengers a
weakness the villain can exploit, Whedon is able to clearly illustrate these characters
for the audience while keeping the plot moving along. The story doesn’t need to stop in order for
us to get to know these characters.

In addition
to his use of repartee, Whedon’s also well known as a pop culture feminist,
which in practice means he likes to watch an attractive lady beat up guys much
bigger than herself. Here Black Widow
(played by Scarlett Johansson) serves this particular purpose. Several times throughout the film, Black
Widow uses others’ perception of her as an emotionally fragile creature in
order to, jujitsu-like, convince her enemies to spill important
information. What might be first seen as
a weakness becomes a weapon. Whedon is
clearly within the ideological confines of third-wave feminism, which seems to
maintain that women can both serve as sexual objects while simultaneously
kicking ass. And there’s some legitimate
criticism to this approach to feminism, but Whedon generally gets away with it
because he’s able to write strong, interesting female characters. We learn that Black Widow has a history with
another SHIELD agent, Hawkeye (played by Jeremy Renner and, unfortunately, not
given much of a role). And when he is
taken by Loki, Black Widow, in a role reversal, is allowed to become his
savior. Third wave feminism suits
Johansson, an actress who most directors seem unable to do anything interesting
with. Arguably, this is her best role
since Lost in Translation.

But Whedon
hasn’t lost his healthy distrust of governing bodies. Without giving too much away, in addition to
dealing with an alien invasions, the film’s heroes must also contend with the
unclear motives of SHIELD, the quasi-military/quasi-intelligence agency that
first assembled the Avengers. Not only
do members of the Avengers accuse SHIELD of attempting to create weapons of
mass destruction, but the organization also purposefully attacks a civilian
target for the “greater good.” In fact,
Whedon’s portrayal of SHIELD may have been too subversive for the U.S. military who
cited its portrayals as a reason why they refused to cooperate with the movie
by lending military equipment, an offer they regularly extend to films that
represent the armed forces in a much more “patriotic” light.

No comments:
Post a Comment