Whenever the next big superhero film is due out in theaters, my mom usually sends me any related newspaper articles and reviews she’s found. It’s sort of a tradition: I tell her which films are coming up, she finds the newspaper articles and sends them to me, I go see the film, and then I let her know whether the reviews were “right” or not. We also have agreed on this rule: If the critics really hated a movie, we’ll probably love it. If the critics really loved a movie, we’ll probably find it really boring and a waste of time. At least 90% of the time, our rule proves to be accurate.
Maybe that’s just us and our taste in movies, but, regardless of why our rule actually works, I’ve always been intrigued by critics’ reactions to popular films and what I find to be an often elitist pattern in critical pop culture reviews. (“Elitist”: The movie isn’t good because it subscribes to pop culture conventions and tastes, whereas “good” films exhibit greater artistic sensibility and more developed content…whatever that means!) Now, I haven’t done any in-depth research into how the average film critic reviews a movie, what criteria may be used, or whether particular critics have specialties or biases toward or against certain kinds of films based on their professional backgrounds. Today I’m just sorting through some thoughts that always run through my mind whenever I’m reading critical reviews (or any reviews) of new superhero and sci-fi films.
Essentially, I’m carrying out what we English majors call a “close reading” of a few superhero film reviews, examining the language and content of the review – keeping in mind as well the film these reviews address – to try to figure out why the different reviewers may have drawn the conclusions they did. I’m not pointing fingers or dismissing any critic’s reviews, saying “Oh, look how silly Critic X’s opinion of Film A is,” or anything like that. The three articles I’ll mention appeared in the Los Angeles Times this past April regarding Captain America: The Winter Soldier, but I mention these articles rather than others only because they are the inspiration for today’s post. (And, yes, I really like The Winter Soldier. That, too.) These articles also provide two different perspectives on the film – one positive, one not so positive – so that they serve as a good representation of what usually happens when superhero movies are reviewed.
So, here goes!
The first article, written by Gina McIntyre, appeared in the LA Times Calendar section on March 30, 2014 as the cover story. You can read the article itself here. Some things that stood out to me during my close reading (thank you, past and present English teachers/professors!):
“The movie…has received near universal praise in advance of its opening, with critics responding to its mix of intrigue, action and emotional performances.”
“Early reviews of ‘Winter Soldier’ certainly suggest that the stars – and Marvel’s team of filmmakers – have raised the bar for the comic book genre. The movie has been widely hailed as one of the best from the powerhouse studio (which has a flawless record of hit films stretching back to 2008’s ‘Iron Man’), earning praise for its mix of serious action and contemporary resonance.”
So far, so good, right? McIntyre’s response to Winter Soldier is very similar to my own. I consider Winter Soldier to be not only the best Marvel Studios film so far, but also the best superhero film of the 21st century. (If you’re interested, I consider The Avengers to be at #2.) As McIntyre notes, Winter Soldier has raised the bar for superhero films, so that it’s currently the standard to beat for all upcoming films.
What’s interesting to me about McIntyre’s article is the mention of “near universal praise” for Winter Soldier – the phrase stands out to me (more like jumps out, really) because it suggests not only Winter Soldier‘s worth as a film in more than a popular sense: it also singles Winter Soldier out from other superhero films, which rarely (if ever) in the past could expect to receive “near universal praise.” The fact that McIntyre notes Marvel Studios’ perfect box office record is important, too, as it justifies, in a sense, Winter Soldier‘s success by pointing to its origins in a highly successful studio. This film isn’t the product of a bunch of kids goofing around with their hand-held video camera; it’s the latest investment from a well organized and highly skilled professional team. So, why wouldn’t the film be a success, coming from this production background?
Obviously, since my own views on the film are so similar, I don’t have any problems accepting McIntyre’s review, either here or in the shorter article that appeared in April 3, 2014’s Calendar. (You can read a similar online article here. This isn’t the actual article that appeared in the April 3 LAT; it’s an expanded interview that matches the content but not the exact wording of the article.) If you don’t agree with McIntyre, however, the article has already offered some good reasons why her view is valid.
But what about that other Calendar review from April 3, the “not so positive” one I mentioned earlier?
Written by Kenneth Turan, this review (read it here) takes a more distanced approach, questioning the “near universal praise” bestowed on Winter Soldier and challenging whether the film really does represent the innovation in the superhero genre that a lot of people claim. Turan refers to Marvel’s “formulaic” approach to making films, introducing himself in the article as someone “suffering from Marvel fatigue.” He also describes Winter Soldier as being “saddled with the defects of its virtues.” (I admit that here, a friend and I, reading the review aloud together the week after Winter Soldier opened in theaters, burst out laughing simply because we had no idea what in the world this phrase was supposed to mean. We figured it out eventually.)
I do understand the direction Turan and like-minded critics are coming from, not that I agree with them. It’s quite common to see reviews (and scholarly books and articles, too!) of superhero and other popular genre films accusing these films of being formulaic, redundant, not creative or original enough, etc. The phrase “Marvel fatigue” by itself says a lot about Turan’s reservations about Winter Soldier and its siblings. Since 2008, Marvel Studios has produced 10 films (including Guardians of the Galaxy, due out August 1) and has about as many more in the works. (Plus, they’ve expanded the Marvel Cinematic Universe into television with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the upcoming Agent Carter.) As McIntyre notes in her March 30 article, the studio – which was newly formed when it went to work on 2008’s Iron Man – has never suffered a box office loss. Quite the opposite, in fact! Marvel has repeatedly “suffered” box office glory.
Turan’s critique is that this success comes out of Marvel’s film formula for production and creative aspects that, though hugely successful, is damaging (at least in Turan’s view) to the films’ potential for innovation and originality:
“These films are such well-oiled machines it doesn’t matter all that much who is in charge.”
“That cinematic blueprint is religiously enforced in everything, from the required cameo by comic creator Stan Lee to the involvement of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and the agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. to the requisite waves of action and surprise plot twists that don’t feel that surprising anymore.”
“What the rulers of the Marvel Cinematic Universe have done is discover and exploit a foolproof formula, one that mints money even in these uncertain times, and on one level, when you think about superhero fiascoes like ‘The Green Hornet,’ it’s hard to begrudge them that.”
This is where the “saddled with the defects of its virtues” line comes in: Turan is saying that by establishing such a successful “formula” (the “virtues”) and sticking to it, Marvel films are limiting their creative potential (the “defects” of said virtues). The films might be perfect, but they’re all the same to Turan, which counts as a point against them.
I actually don’t find any of the Marvel films produced so far to be “formulaic,” though I can guess why Turan repeatedly uses this word. Yes, the films have all the things Turan mentions: Stan Lee (isn’t “find Stan Lee” every Marvel fan’s favorite game?), Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D. (admittedly, this is kind of a big part of the Winter Soldier storyline, what with HYDRA resurfacing and everything), and lots of action (welcome to the superhero genre!). As for those unsurprising surprise plot twists, I’m not sure to what Turan is referring, and he himself doesn’t explain. If it’s the identity of the Winter Soldier, well, if you’re a Marvel fan, you already knew that going into the theater. (Or if you’re on certain parts of the Internet for any length of time, you’ll probably have found out before as well.) Personally, I was more surprised by Dr. Zola hiding in that huge underground computer (“Oh, that’s just great!” I said to myself, wanting Dr. Erskine back more than ever), and the reemergence of HYDRA – I guess I was paying so much attention to the Winter Soldier (and, yes, crying over what happened to Bucky) that I didn’t see HYDRA coming. Which was the point, right? HYDRA sends the Winter Soldier out to keep Cap busy, so they’re free to carry out their evil plans.
But all of these things that Turan mentions, perhaps aside from Stan Lee, are what I would call elements of the superhero genre, not the “Marvel formula” – action, dramatic plot twists and reversals (whether you know they’re coming or not), superheroes and supervillains (duh!), end-of-the-world scenarios, big fight scenes (don’t you dare leave out that FINAL BATTLE sequence!), etc. You’ll find all of this in pretty much any superhero film that knows what’s it doing and to which genre it belongs.
If I had to describe some set of traits as a “Marvel formula,” I’d go for Marvel’s unique sense of humor (which really can’t be formulized), their films’ way of mixing dark and light plot and emotional elements, their amazing casts and crews/creative team, and their reputation as a zero-losses studio. But none of this is really what most people would call a “formula”: put A + B in, and you get C out. There’s always a little something new and different going into each new Marvel film. This is why I never worry about whether I’ll enjoy a Marvel Studios film when I go to the theater – I know they’ll deliver on the expectations, including adding something new compared to last time, and I simply can’t wait to see what they’ve done this time.
In fact, what Marvel has done by establishing a Phase One/Phase Two/Phase Three, etc., film plan seems to be avoiding a fall into formulaic rigidity. They’re not simply churning out film after film, not thinking about what comes next. They have a plan (“Attack!” – sorry, couldn’t help myself!), and by setting up different “phases” of films, they’re setting the bar higher for themselves with each film and each phase, so they know what’s coming down the road and can figure out how to prepare for and meet viewers’ expectations.
I find it especially ironic that Turan accuses Winter Soldier, of all films, of being formulaic, since I sat through that film thinking, “Wow, this is so new for Marvel!” I wasn’t thinking about the film’s political aspects – contrary to Turan’s claims, all Marvel films have strong political aspects – but rather the creative use of the 70s spy thriller structure. (See McIntyre’s second article, the extended interview, for more about this.) That was new ground for Marvel in Winter Soldier, and right now it remains unique among 21st century superhero films.
While I obviously don’t know exactly why Turan saw a tired formula where I saw big-time originality, his remarks are not, and never were, surprising to me. (An unsurprising surprise plot twist?) From my academic experiences with film and literary criticism as well as popular reviews, not to mention that Hollywood superhero film thesis I wrote this past spring, I’ve found that being “formulaic” is a common critique leveled against a work that skeptical or cynical viewers/readers may make if they feel the work is merely another in a long line of similar, A is equivalent to B is equivalent to C items. (Or if they feel a work is simply trying to capitalize on a popular trend – remember all those vampire novels that appeared following Twilight‘s success?)
It’s a valid concern, as we certainly don’t want Hollywood or other cultural producers to think they can spew out simple-minded, semi-plagiarized products and the public will enthusiastically and unquestioningly gobble them up. I, too, get suspicious when films like No Strings Attached and Friends with Benefits, or Leap Year and Letters to Juliet, come out within six months of each other. And, yes, DC (along with many other movie studios) is still trying to set up their equivalent of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but I see no Justice League on the horizon yet! (Hurry up, DC, or it will be too late!)
Superhero films are no exception to this concern over pop culture’s potential for repetitiveness, but I do think Turan ends up being a little too hasty in his dismissal of Winter Soldier. Having done my own in-depth studies of superheroes in film and having seen almost every superhero entry Hollywood has offered since 2000, I still don’t see a definite formula underlying Marvel Studios films. They stand out from others, indeed, but not for their redundancy – rather, more than any other set of superhero films, Marvel’s has done the most to further the genre and challenge the boundaries of what superhero films can do. (Not to mention they have the most impressive set of female characters in superhero films – try finding that in the Dark Knight trilogy! Yes, I know, there are all of 3 women in the trilogy, and 2 of them are dead before the end.) I see superhero genre structure in Marvel, I see an extraordinarily developed and well planned franchise. But no “formula.” (Again, except for Stan Lee.)
I do find it interesting that one of the films Turan credits with being original and non-formulaic happens to be The Avengers, itself a Marvel Studios film. (Though Turin clearly credits Joss Whedon with that film’s success.) The other is the Dark Knight trilogy, which is extremely good – yet nowhere as ambitious as Marvel’s creation of the MCU. The trilogy also falls behind Marvel in several ways, including the presence (or lack of) and use of strong female characters.
Is Winter Soldier or any Marvel Studios film too formulaic or repetitive? At the end of the day, I truly believe that’s something each viewer must decide for themselves, since we all have different tastes and preferences. I love Marvel (LOVE Marvel!), but not everyone does. (Batman fans, I recognize your existence.) And that’s okay, but, as Turan himself concludes, “It is Marvel that really wants to control the world, and the way things are going, they have a good shot at it.” Formula or no formula, they’re doing something right!
And since I’ve basically deprived you of pretty pictures in today’s post, here you go. (My apologies for the asterisked profanity, if it offends you.)
Oh, and happy Comic Con weekend! (Hollywood has temporarily relocated itself to San Diego.)
On Monday: Netflix added season 4 of Lost Girl yesterday, so I thought, “Hey, it’s time to do a post on Bo and Kenzi!” Something delightful and full of fae is on its way…
January 17, 2015: Heroes, heroes everywhere! Here are a couple opposing opinions of superhero films and their place in 21st-century culture: first, an interview from acclaimed director Paul Thomas Anderson via CinemaBlend, and second, an interview from Birdman director Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu via Comics Alliance.
Time Lords, Superheroes, and Brave New Worlds 