Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Some scattered thoughts (spoilers)
I am really wiped out and I had an unexpectedly hard time parsing the movie because the action:characterization ratio wasn't what I expected, and because the character focus went in a really different direction. There was a lot less Winter Soldier than I expected in a movie named after him. (There was also a lot more Falcon than I expected, and I am so not complaining.)
selenak is spot-on when she remarks that it would have been more accurate to name the movie Captain America: SHIELD.
I am liking the movie more as I think about it, and I suspect I will like it more once I watch it again with adjusted expectations. But I'm working out what I think by writing it down, and I'm not feeling committed to any particular interpretation yet.
Some interesting reviews:
oyceter: [T]he movies keep alllmooooost getting into how SHIELD and SHIELD's methods really aren't the best way to operate, but then swerve away at the last minute by creating an even more evil organization and thus validating our heroes in the end. (link)
selenak: [T]he point made here isn't that bad guys shouldn't have that power, but that no one should have. The big, big twist of this film - the revelation that SHIELD has been infiltrated by Hydra from practically the get go, manufacturing both crisis and solutions through the decades and that way taking more and more power - is a Marvelverse event, yes, but it's also a razorsharp comment on post 9/11 politics until the present day.... Captain America II doesn't let Steve Rogers and friends save the day via deactivating the evil weapons du jour, which is what I had expected, but lets Steve Rogers insist to Fury that SHIELD, as a whole, has to go. It's as hardcore a rejection as I can imagine of the "just a few bad apples" mantra we in real life have been hearing about a great deal of organizations whenever some news about their awful practices made it into the headlines. And the film goes through with this. It differentiates between individuals - Natasha, Fury, Maria Hill as well as new character Sharon Carter/Agent 13 and an unnamed guy who is the star of my favourite moment in the film, more about that in a second - who are sympathetic and have positive goals - and the fact that the organization per se has been so thoroughly corrupted that you can't keep it going by just expelling a few bad guys. (link)
My take is a lot closer to Oyce's than Selena's. SHIELD is basically the CIA, and the CIA did not need to be infiltrated by Nazi agents to decide to manufacture international crises in order to increase American power. Attributing this corruption to HYDRA infiltration and not to SHIELD's basic mission statement is pulling the punch.*
(*ObComicsReference: Jonathan Hickman's Secret Warriors actually retcons the entire history of SHIELD in the Marvel universe as a shell for HYDRA from the very beginning -- SHIELD isn't infilitrated by HYDRA, it's manipulated by HYDRA as a front. Then Hickman's SHIELD retcons SHIELD into an organization that's been shaping human history from the beginning of time, because comics. Sadly, I cannot recommend either of these series, because they are boring. Also, SHIELD takes place over the entire course of human history and features approximately 5,000 white men, 3 men of color, and 2 women, both of whom turn out to be aliens.)
But I do like how the triangle of Alexander Pierce, Nick Fury, and Steve Rogers complicates things. The three men are linked in a variety of ways:
Other stuff:
Peggy breaks my heart.
Steve's stunned reaction to Bucky also.
I love Bucky unknowingly echoing Steve: Baseball cap, museum exhibit of his past.
The SHIELD Captain America is still visually distinguished from the standard SHIELD outfit; SHIELD uses Captain America as a symbol, same as he ever was. The movie ditches the SHIELD catsuits (THANK YOU) for more ordinary uniforms: business suits, commando uniforms. Steve puts on the old uniform: not just the uniform Bucky knew, but the uniform Steve designed himself.
I seem to be in the minority in being glad that there isn't a Natasha/Bucky romance in the backstory. Surprised! But glad. I love them together in the comics, but even in the comics, that relationship tended to subsume Natasha in Bucky's narrative. And here she has her own narrative that comes out of who she is and what she's done, not out of whom she's in love with.
I can't tell whether we are supposed to assume Natasha really was born in 1984 (which makes no sense with the KGB history) or whether we should take the "Do you know what it is to be unmade?" conversation in The Avengers as a hint at the Red Room/supersoldier/memory-wipe origins it seemed to be.
I have no idea what job Maria Hill could possibly be applying for at Stark Industries.
Given the existence of Stark Tower and the Triskelion, clearly one of the major differences between the Marvel universe and our own is how quickly you can get skyscrapers built.
cups brewed at DW
I am really wiped out and I had an unexpectedly hard time parsing the movie because the action:characterization ratio wasn't what I expected, and because the character focus went in a really different direction. There was a lot less Winter Soldier than I expected in a movie named after him. (There was also a lot more Falcon than I expected, and I am so not complaining.)
selenak is spot-on when she remarks that it would have been more accurate to name the movie Captain America: SHIELD.
I am liking the movie more as I think about it, and I suspect I will like it more once I watch it again with adjusted expectations. But I'm working out what I think by writing it down, and I'm not feeling committed to any particular interpretation yet.
Some interesting reviews:
oyceter: [T]he movies keep alllmooooost getting into how SHIELD and SHIELD's methods really aren't the best way to operate, but then swerve away at the last minute by creating an even more evil organization and thus validating our heroes in the end. (link)
selenak: [T]he point made here isn't that bad guys shouldn't have that power, but that no one should have. The big, big twist of this film - the revelation that SHIELD has been infiltrated by Hydra from practically the get go, manufacturing both crisis and solutions through the decades and that way taking more and more power - is a Marvelverse event, yes, but it's also a razorsharp comment on post 9/11 politics until the present day.... Captain America II doesn't let Steve Rogers and friends save the day via deactivating the evil weapons du jour, which is what I had expected, but lets Steve Rogers insist to Fury that SHIELD, as a whole, has to go. It's as hardcore a rejection as I can imagine of the "just a few bad apples" mantra we in real life have been hearing about a great deal of organizations whenever some news about their awful practices made it into the headlines. And the film goes through with this. It differentiates between individuals - Natasha, Fury, Maria Hill as well as new character Sharon Carter/Agent 13 and an unnamed guy who is the star of my favourite moment in the film, more about that in a second - who are sympathetic and have positive goals - and the fact that the organization per se has been so thoroughly corrupted that you can't keep it going by just expelling a few bad guys. (link)
My take is a lot closer to Oyce's than Selena's. SHIELD is basically the CIA, and the CIA did not need to be infiltrated by Nazi agents to decide to manufacture international crises in order to increase American power. Attributing this corruption to HYDRA infiltration and not to SHIELD's basic mission statement is pulling the punch.*
(*ObComicsReference: Jonathan Hickman's Secret Warriors actually retcons the entire history of SHIELD in the Marvel universe as a shell for HYDRA from the very beginning -- SHIELD isn't infilitrated by HYDRA, it's manipulated by HYDRA as a front. Then Hickman's SHIELD retcons SHIELD into an organization that's been shaping human history from the beginning of time, because comics. Sadly, I cannot recommend either of these series, because they are boring. Also, SHIELD takes place over the entire course of human history and features approximately 5,000 white men, 3 men of color, and 2 women, both of whom turn out to be aliens.)
But I do like how the triangle of Alexander Pierce, Nick Fury, and Steve Rogers complicates things. The three men are linked in a variety of ways:
- Here is where I admit that I have not actually seen any of the spy thrillers starring Robert Redford that clearly influenced CA:TWS. I know them only by cultural osmosis. Here's what cultural osmosis tells me: Robert Redford played the heroes, the guys who were determined to uncover the truth of government conspiracies, the guys who argued for greater transparency and against American military expansion. Basically, Robert Redford played Steve Rogers. Steve Rogers is Alexander Pierce's past, and Alexander Pierce is potentially Steve Rogers' future.
They are physically mirrored in multiple scenes; most significantly, they are both posed against walls of glass, looking out at Washington, D.C. It doesn't hurt that Redford and Chris Evans look alike. It is not accidental that they both fit the mold of all-American Hollywood handsome.
- The third man we see dramatically posed looking out at Washington through a wall of glass is, of course, Nick Fury. And Nick Fury mirrors/is mirrored by both Steve and Pierce. Pierce promoted Fury because Fury disobeyed orders to carry out a rescue mission, which is exactly how Steve Rogers got promoted from chorus girl to superhero. Fury is in favor of "taking out threats before they even happen," which is exactly what Pierce's plan is. Fury bugged Steve's apartment and went to Steve for help.
Honestly? I was a little disappointed in Fury in The Avengers. In interviews, Joss Whedon said he'd wanted to make Fury shadier, more ambivalent. And I wanted a Fury way shadier than what we got. I wanted the Fury Captain America 2 provides; the most unscrupulous man Alexander Pierce ever met.
It's true that Avengers Fury is plenty unscrupulous. I'm just not sure that the film thinks he's as bad as I do. And the film seems to argue that his methods are justified because his heart is pure. Aside from my skepticism about the idea of pure hearts in general -- if anyone in the world has a pure heart, it is not the director of the CIA.
- Nick Fury tells the story of his grandfather the elevator operator to justify the use of drones helicarriers. Except his grandfather is a member of an oppressed class responding to threats that have actually been made, and Fury is representing a superpower taking pre-emptive action against weaker powers (vulnerable people).
- I imprinted on movie Steve and he is still my favorite Steve Rogers. It is really interesting to see how the movies adapt the comics characters and how the characterization changes. But what makes Steve Rogers in all continuities, I think, is his faith in ordinary goodness. It is hard to describe without making it sound rigid or hokey. He is not actually naive enough to think that people always act from altruism, and he does not actually trust indiscriminately; in CA2, he clearly expresses reservations not just about SHIELD's agenda, but about Pierce, Fury, and Natasha personally. What he trusts in is that, at any time, people can make the decision to do the right thing. To be their best selves.
This is why one of my very favorite Steve moments in The Avengers is when he meets Bruce Banner. "Dr. Banner. I've heard good things about your work." "Is that all you've heard?" "That's all I care about." And it is. And that trust as creates a reciprocal trust. In the science lab, Bruce responds when Steve asks for his opinion; he responds to the respect he's offered. (Though there's also hero worship; Bruce is incredulous that Captain America is on a watch list.)
So I love that Steve asks for help from the bulk of SHIELD agents. He's just a kid from Brooklyn. Any kid from Brooklyn could do what he does. Because what's important about what he does is what he decides, not that he's super-strong.
This is a long-winded way of getting at the inevitable Dark Knight comparison. The scene on the ferry where ordinary people are willing to die rather than kill other people gets me so hard; and it's why the ending got me just as much, but in the other direction. Because, in the end, Bruce Wayne decides that people in general cannot be trusted with the truth; that it is acceptable to lie to the public. And the movie in no way problematizes this decision.
That ending isn't the only reason I've never watched the third Batman movie, but it's sure up there.
So, even though Steve's speech was about as long as the rest of his dialogue put together, I do love that that speech exists, and that ultimately the narrative argues for simply telling the public the truth and trusting in people's capacity to act rightly. It's not just about valuing liberty over (false) security; it's about optimism as a form of heroism.
I mean, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is still a superhero movie and the underlying narrative is still exceptionalist in many ways (and, ugh, that speech from Natasha echoing Fury at the end of Avengers). But where the Iron Man movies, for example, clearly value teamwork but still usually endorse Tony Stark's conviction that he can make decisions for the rest of humanity, Captain America 2 does follow through on the idea that decisions for the people should be made by the people. When that terrified tech guy refuses to obey Crossbones' order to launch because of "Captain's orders," he doesn't mean that he's trusting the authority of Captain America over the authority of SHIELD; he means that (like Steve) he's choosing which orders to follow based on what he believes to be right.
I love that terrified tech guy. I love that he is visibly terrified. It's realistic, but it's also thematic: He's afraid, but he still chooses freedom, not fear.
Other stuff:
cups brewed at DW