CAPTAIN MARVEL, AND A RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE DUMBER CRITICISMS

CAPTAIN MARVEL, AND A RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE DUMBER CRITICISMS

 A quick note: this is not a review of Captain Marvel. For the record, I held off reading any reviews until I’d seen the film (which I quite liked.) As I slogged through a litany of mixed to negative pieces on the film, I took note of some recurring comments. NB: I’m leaving aside any issues outside of the film itself.

·          “It’s another standard origin story.”

 This one is curious to me. Looking back at Marvel’s Phase One and Phase Two origin movies, they follow this template: a person with no powers but some semblance of an extraordinary personality is given either powers (Captain America, Doctor Strange, The Incredible Hulk) or a suit (Iron Man, Ant-Man), with which they struggle at first and then use to defeat the Big Bad who seeks to conquer the nation or the world. (Thor is a notable exception in that he begins with powers and then loses them, only to earn them back for Act 3. Black Panther also follows this template.)

Conversely, Captain Marvel’s acquisition of power happens only in flashback, and arguably is only tangential to the main action of the story. Thematically, her struggle is to twofold: 1) to realize that her powers (represented by internal fire and frequently conflated with her ‘emotions’) were not granted to her by an external authority but are intrinsic to her being; and 2) that her powers are not a liability to be harnessed, as her Kree mentor would have her believe, but an asset that is beyond external control. 

·         “It’s not as good as Wonder Woman/Black Panther.”

 These three movies are very different movies attempting to accomplish three different things. Let’s put aside for a moment the notion that when we make this comparison, we are pitting the three main ‘minority’ films against one another. (As Tina Fey stated in Bossypants, the idea that women are in competition with one another is wrongminded.)

Wonder Woman tells a ‘fish out of water’ story. She’s coming from a world where her powers are celebrated, and where she is encouraged to simply focus them. The error of her original world is that the world of men is not to be trusted. In that sense, a better comparison – if you absolutely have to make one – would be with The Little Mermaid.

Black Panther tells a ‘redemption of a king’ story. He’s coming from a world of privilege, and he sees himself as carrying on a noble tradition. The error of his original world is in its insularity and its privilege. In that sense, a better comparison – if you absolutely have to make one – would be with Rocky III.

Captain Marvel is a rite of passage story. She’s coming from a militaristic world that has more in common with the Roman Empire in its dominate and conquest mentality than it does with Wakanda or Themyscira. The error of her original world is in their deception and subjugation. In that sense, a better comparison – if you absolutely have to make one – would be with L.A. Confidential.

So which is better – L.A. Confidential, Rocky III, or The Little Mermaid? The answer is that the idea of comparing these movies is, at best, ridiculous. They’re all trying to do different things. The fact that Wonder Woman, Black Panther, and Captain Marvel all fit under the broad and increasingly expansive genre of superhero films doesn’t give it any more credence. 

·         “Brie Larson’s performance was wooden.”

I’m always curious what most people mean when they say that so-and-so is a good actor or a bad actor. I taught theater in colleges for a decade, and this was something about which I regularly challenged my non-major students. How do you define a good or a bad performance? Keep in mind – I’m not saying there aren’t good or bad performances. I’m simply asking, what are your criteria for judging an actor’s performance?

Take this into account: think about what the general public means when they refer to someone (Jared Leto, Christian Bale, Jim Carrey in some films) as a ‘method actor.’ Usually this is a reference to physical changes that an actor will make to his or her body for a role, and/or the stories on set of an actor ‘remaining in character’ for the duration of the shoot. Whether these are truly useful ways of ensuring a good performance is a side issue. (I’d argue, especially after Leto’s Suicide Squad performance, that this is more a publicity stunt than anything else. I didn’t think he was bad – but the lengths of his off-camera endeavors did perceptibly little to enhance the screen performance.)

And yet this has very little to do with Stanislavsky, or Adler, or Meisner, or Strasberg. Stanislavsky’s so-called ‘method’ was a reaction to the kind of presentational acting that had dominated the stage since the Renaissance and before, and sought to encourage a more naturalistic style. The method boiled down to this: 1) determine the character’s essential action in a scene; 2) determine the ‘as if,’ in which an actor used his or her own experiences to find a similar instance in their own lives from which they could draw upon in performance, and; 3) use this kind of research to be present on stage and pursue that essential action.

Like with academic and psychological terminology, we in the general public tend to co-opt certain terms and then use them to mean whatever we want them to mean.

So what does this have to do with Brie Larson’s performance in Captain Marvel? Well – what do you mean by wooden? What, in the character as it exists on the page, requires that she give a visible, presentational, wide-ranging emotional performance? Carol Danvers, the character that exists on the page, is well-established as a fighter both before and after her abduction by the Kree. Moreover, she is a personality that was drawn to the military, and who made the sort of sacrifices one must make to rise in the military ranks. Her friendships and her heroes were both in that military system. We see that her father (at least in the one instance where we meet him) discouraged her from taking on ‘manly’ endeavors. The script gives us no hint of a romantic life anywhere. And then post Kree abduction, she remains in a Spartan lifestyle by necessity, and is literally cut off from her previous life.

Put these things together – to play Carol Danvers as an emotionally stoic person is not simply an appropriate choice. It is a strong choice. The script gives no reason to play her as emotionally volatile as Thor or Tony Stark, nor as heart-driven as Steve Rogers. This is a different character with different requirements, and excellent precedents. 

·         “She didn’t have an arc.”

Let’s put aside for a moment that there are successful movies, even within the Marvel Cinematic Universe, with arcs so faint they are nearly straight lines. (Steve’s arc in Captain America :The First Avenger, is to remain the same inner person despite a massive change in environment.)

Put simply, Carol Danvers has an obvious arc. To use John Truby’s terms, the character moves from slavery to freedom. She also moves from ignorance to knowledge. Does she have a weakness? Yes – she’s a victim of a hierarchical system which seeks to stifle her inner fire, and she’s also been both misled and even brainwashed by the Kree. Does she have a need? Yes – to recognize that her powers are not a liability granted to her from outside, but an intrinsic asset for which she alone is responsible. Does she have a desire? Yes – to get to Dr. Lawson’s laboratory before the bad guys do. (She also has an emotional desire, which is to discover who she was before her Kree abduction.) Does she have a plan? Yes – to investigate the available leads, to track down those who can help her, to fend off the Skrulls, etc.) Is there a battle? Yes – once she’s discovered her true enemy, she fights off an invasion of Earth and saves the Skrull people. Is there a self-realization? Yes – in her battle against the Supreme Intelligence we see that she realizes her powers are her own, not a gift to be taken away. Is there a new equilibrium? Yes – she fights not as a cog in an army, but as a solo hero.

This is the very definition of a character arc. 

·         “It just didn’t do it for me.”

Go to any unfavorable YouTube review of this film (or any other film), and you will hear some variation of this sentence. It is well-past time to retire this sentence in criticism, as it is completely and utterly meaningless.

Put simply, if you can’t elucidate why a movie succeeds or fails to engage you, then … well, you’re not a critic. You’re just somebody with an opinion. Granted, you’re entitled to that opinion. I don’t write this essay to convince you that you have to like Captain Marvel, nor do I make any assumptions about why you don’t like the movie. For instance, there are some filmmaking criticisms that can certainly be leveled against the movie, as there are with just about any movie. (The poorly-lit third act comes to mind.)

But for God’s sake – if you’re going to put your opinion out there, do a little more work. Criticism isn’t simply stating your opinion about a movie. It’s seeking to understand the argument the movie makes, how well it makes it, how valuable that argument is, how that argument fits into a larger context, and a thousand more things. It requires real knowledge of how movies are made and how stories are told. That requires not just reading, but applied practical knowledge over time.

One last metaphor, and then I’ll shut up: wine. Anybody can go into a restaurant and order a glass of wine, and then make a judgment about whether or not they like it. Nobody claims that that opinion is wrong. But to believe that that opinion belongs on the same page and is equivalent to the opinion of a trained sommelier, who can attest to the quality of a wine, who can identify its characteristics right down to a blind identification of its origin – that’s nonsense. There’s a reason why nobody makes that claim. Moreover, that sommelier might have the opinion that the wine is of great quality, but not to their own personal tastes. Those are two separate evaluations.

Put simply: unless you are able to speak concisely about the elements of production for a film, whether it be a superhero movie or an arthouse piece coming from a film school in Uruguay, your YouTube ‘review’ doesn’t need to be 25+ minutes. Just press record, say “I didn’t like it,” and then press stop.