As a mythology, the Marvel Universe is theraputic. It's here to help us (the U.S.) process the aftermath of 9-11 and the subsequent wars we sought vengeance through. Nobody really misses the point with a group of security obsessed, tight-wearing superheroes proclaiming themselves "Avengers." What are they avenging?
In mythology, murder and destruction are taboos made sacred by the sacrifices of the protagonist: with the primary scarifice being isolation. Nolan's Batman is the only comic book character in motion who enacts this violence as ritual. He is a loner by nature and though he's rescued by sleight of hand by the end of Rises, we believe he dies alone. The Marvel Universe, however, has its lead serial Iron Man announce his identity as a mission statement. These heroes aren't going to hide, nor will they brood too much. M.U. insists on blending 1950s values of family (Guardians and Avengers, Parkers vs. the Osbornes) and sex-roles with taboo carnage and death so that none of the outcomes can be read as sacred. Instead a false family is born, a criminal family not unlike other families that practice violence in myth (like the Corleones). They are somewhat empty tales, usually ignoring the psychic role violence plays, and so they erase the sensations of collective responsibilities from audience minds. Why are they here suddenly, and why are they so successful? The films are essentially mental degaussers that absolve resposibilities for the carnage we've turned loose on the world under the guise of liberating dictatorships in the past 15 years. We are the empire, share this moniker with the other world powers. We practice warfare without sanction, kill chosen by drone. And we seem to be unaware of how this is perceived on the world-stage. And the Marvel Universe might help us to remain blind to our self image. Certainly the last Avengers was a 'world-stage' battle.
Time for new mythologies before it's too late.
Some back-up: Damien Straker's Ultron review http://www.impulsegamer.com/avengers-age-of-ultron-3d-film-review/
This groomed tomboy of a film has a conceptual framework trapped in 50s ideologies (as Guardians of the Galaxy traps itself in the 80s) coupled to a digital techo-necrophilia amped for 12 second attention spans. It flows rhythmically.
The effect is a synthetic blockbuster pooling post-modern access to primal race-war. We laugh at it through culture schlock like this, but the ethnic conflict finds its calling in cinema. One was designed here stateside during the early years of the film industry, though Birth of a Nation is a motion-picture calling-card of bad repute, countless one-reelers preceding it were laced in ethnic slant. There in 1915 Griffith (born in Kentucky where Vaughn's climax erupts) stared seriously into his crystal-ball 1860s and found a socio-political nightmare to scare audiences into the first features. Here in 2015 Vaughn cryptically evokes the 1950s merged with British winking into the present. Both netherworlds conjuring anything goes. Here cameras access the most prescient things and happenings, excitably playing sputtering guide to all that Vaughn can conduct. Sure better card tricks, but in a manner of filmmaking that does your thinking for you: a visually straight-no-chaser. Though technically brilliant, the effect is muted. Like Herbert Ross's Pennies From Heaven, which sent up musicals by going hard R and killing its hero, Vaughn takes Bond into hard R violence to make 'fun' of it gleefully. Hows about that for laughs. We need severed limbs and spraying blood to get a rise out of the crowd. Lots of gags erupt, but they're mostly loops. The wit of the Airplane movies played somber. No doubt it's strange and clever and demented the way 5-10 beers are. Here though, the hangover is forgetting the ploys, the baits, the slicing. Deciphering the plot is not part of the visual essence, the vital stuff is spoken, in the usual threats and promises. A must see for anyone interested in what might really be layered into here with the right story, techniques in search of mastery...
Big Q: Why isn't this a videogame? It would make 10x the amount it's going to make in theaters.
Masterwork pop-up, printed and bound in Cali, Columbia, 1984. Out-of-print.
The sit-com seems to descend from this key screwball comedy, a comedy of errors and manners, with switched identities and classes, with a chorus of domestics who provide the narrative mortar. Writer-on-a-fishing trip Aherne shows up looking for a phone to use and is lured into becoming the chauffeur for a daffy, wealthy family who happens to have a senator arriving for dinner. Hal Roach, whose early Our-Gang series provided filler for TV's early open scehdule, delivers a powerhouse comedy to MGM, leading to laughs, box-office and Academy Awards nominations.
Strangely, almost nothing. Both propaganda by death are desperate yet well-planned attempts to lure the West into a multi-regional war. A first and second attempt to set off WWIII, acts of provocation very similar to the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand one hundred years ago this year. The progression here is from dispersed terror group guest to an Islamic state, to claimed state-level government, however fleeting on these geographic terms, it has a source. The question becomes, why be lead into the first? And was it a feint, was the invasion of Iraq a distraction from the true targets? Fundamentalism within Saudi Arabia, Militancy from Pakistan. Strange, no? We attack a country that enforces sexual equality and religious secularism, true it is a Sunni totalitarian state (Iraq) yet so is a Sunni kingdom with oppressive laws for women and a legal definition of witchcraft that sometimes ends in a death sentence. Diplomacy increases in complexity, are the coming wars symmetric? If not, admit them, assign the internal conflict a name. The east-west divide between Saudi Arabia and pre-invasion Iraq. Something like detente or lynch-pin.
A recent incoherent op-ed by the distant architect of multiple military coups over democratically elected officials (including Pinochet over Allende), Kissinger now writes as if converted to the fantasy view of democracy of Bush 2, not the strern real politik he practiced when in office. The facts are: most world state borders of the 'developing world' are arbitrary, many designed for external colonial concerns, in the aftermath of war. To enforce most of them one needed enforcers, and that's what the West backed, not democratic or parlimentary systems. Each state, no matter its origins, needs a central bureaucratic authority. The fragmenting of power in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and now Libya caused their collapse since they lacked properly defined transitions to power. It's time to teach global realities. A bureaucracy comes before all other realities. If one is shattered, then the country may shatter. Colin Powell's mythic words to his President have come true: "If you break it, you own it."