Captain America: Civil War p2
Part of the problem with my reflections on movies is: I can point to a lot of things I dislike and if it spoils anything it is a "warning," but things I like are things I don't want to spoil so I don't get to discuss them until afterward. On that note...
The movie is unusual and impressive for a number of reasons. It isn't quite the amazing "How did they make this work so well?" that the first Avengers movie was, but it's also better in a lot of ways. On its own, the movie has a passable arc in which a villain manipulates heroes into fighting one another over a backdrop of political messiness. When you're familiar with what's gone before, though, it really blossoms because so much of who the characters are and where they stand in the movie comes from what has happened in the preceeding movies. And the most impressive part of it all to me is how much of that detail is really present in the movie for those characters.
Captain America, shining example of Lawful Good-ness, could never have passed on signing the Accords if not for events in CA: The Winter Soldier. He was working with SHIELD up until it came to light they were deeply infiltrated and manipulated by Hydra (HYDRA? Is that an acronym? Hmm...). Having seen they were about to use the very government agency he was working for to create and enforce a police state, Cap is suddenly very aware of the dangers of beauracratic oversight. And after being burned like that, he falls back all the more strongly on friends - people he personally trusts and believes in, including Bucky. So Cap ends up playing a very Chaotic role in the movie by going rogue and trying to stop the greater perceived threat.
Back in Iron Man 2, Tony Stark pretty much told the US government to screw off when they wanted to rein him in or get his tech even though he was very much trying to do good in the world - free enterprising Chaotic Good at its finest. And yet, after facing his own mortality several times, he's worried by unchecked power. He makes a clumsy attempt to make an overwatch system himself with Ultron, but fails dramatically in a way that adds to the burden of guilt he carries. Stark doesn't want someone else calling the shots for him. I think he stands behind the Accords because he's looking for some validation - some justification that he's doing the right thing. On top of that, he's probably the most aware of the political and legal repercussions of their actions, and as rich and powerful as he may be, that's pretty scary stuff. He may still be CG at his core, but he's really pushing a Lawful agenda.
And there you have you two "primary" figures, but while it would have been easy to just throw people behind one or the other of those, there's a lot more depth than I would have expected in the rest of the cast. Not perfect, but very good.
Vision is seeing things logically - examining the rise of superhuman threats and violence - and seems to determine signing the Accords is more likely to prevent problems than the alternative.
James "War Machine" Rhodes is a dedicated military man. There's not much question where he would stand, and the fact that Stark is on that side certainly helps.
Peter Parker is dazzled and brought in by Stark to assist in one particular encounter, which he does, though he probably hasn't even considered the Accords.
T'Challa "Black Panther" goes through his own arc in the movie. Initially motivated by revenge, he shows up in suit alongside the Accord-supporters, but he's entirely out to get Bucky for the supposed murder of his father.
Natasha is one of the most conflicted characters. She seems to side with Stark and Co. largely because it's inevitable. Not signing the Accords means going against the world (well, I think it was 127 nations) and she's not quite willing to take that on. And yet, Rogers is probably the one person who she trusts most deeply - to the obvious point of helping him.
The other side, admittedly, gets a little murkier. They seem more motivated by being friends than any grand vision...
Sam "Falcon" Wilson has an opinion, but it seems he side with Cap largely out of personal friendship.
Clint "Hawkeye" Barton comes back to help. Why? Uhh... presumably because Sam and Steve asked? Apparently, he feels helping them is the right thing to do, even at risk of his "retired" family life.
He even goes and drags Wanda along. She seems to be chafing under Stark placing her under effect house arrest, but instead of talking about it, she's willing to turn her powers on Vision and walk off with Clint to help. I find it... not unbelievable, but childish, and I wonder how old she is supposed to be in the movie. That seems a very "teen" move.
They also bring in Scott "Ant-Man" Lang. He doesn't talk much about his motivations, though I'm sure he wouldn't want the oversight the Accords would bring. He's also a bit star struck by Captain America, so there's that.
And then there's Bucky "The Winter Soldier" Barnes. He doesn't really have much choice - run or give up and probably be executed for a crime he didn't commit... and dozens he technically did. Largely, he's filling the role of "scared animal" that just happens to be Captain America's best friend, so the others are led around by his flailing. He doesn't express much in the way of political views, but he raises some serious questions - like "should he be held responsible for his actions while brainwashed?" He fights as if he's innocent. Cap defends him as if he's innocent. But does he actually qualify as innocent? Of the initial bombing he's wanted for, yes. But here's been the agent of so much else that it becomes more questionable. And he isn't making any move to atone, he's purely running from that past.
The movie manages to have a ridiculously minimalistic and yet super-effective villain. Zemo has no powers, relatively few resource, and doesn't even try to take on the heroes. He doesn't have Loki's grandstanding charisma or Ultron's world-ending menace. He isn't even trying to take over the world. All he does is draw attention back to Bucky in order to cause a rift among the Avengers and get them to fight one another. That's... bizarre. And kind of awesome.
Now... that's a lot to say about so many characters in a single movie. For all that to be there and conveyed pretty well is... a bit astounding.
The Sokovia Accords seem such a pivotal plot point, and yet they really aren't what the movie is about. Whether you agree with Rogers or Stark (and both have some valid arguments), neither is fully right and... that's fine. The movie works because all the characters are reacting to these situations and the reactions are entertaining to watch.
The hero vs. hero throw down at the airport feels fairly justified - but you can also tell most of them are holding back. These people are willing to fight one another for their myriad reasons, but none of them wants to kill someone else (with exception of T'Challa, anyway). Stark even recruited Parker partly because he was hoping the webbing could incapacitate people.
Tempers don't really flare until the end. After being framed for murdering one character's father, it comes out that Bucky really did kill Stark's parents. After some time to cool off, I wonder where Stark's thoughts will fall on that as it gets back to the question of brainwashing and control. Do you blame the tool or the person behind it? I'm curious to see if they answer that question down the line, though I'm sure Tony will never like Bucky.
I'm still surprised the folks are Marvel have kept this up. Some of their MCU movies have been predictable, but I don't really feel like any of them have been bad and most seem like they should be train wrecks, but still manage to come together so well.
Edit: Also, I totally saw the Empire Strikes Back reference coming - even to the point I internally debated whether or not they would be willing to reference another movie (very unusual) before deciding "It's too perfect, and I'll be disappointed if they don't have Spider-Man say it."
The movie is unusual and impressive for a number of reasons. It isn't quite the amazing "How did they make this work so well?" that the first Avengers movie was, but it's also better in a lot of ways. On its own, the movie has a passable arc in which a villain manipulates heroes into fighting one another over a backdrop of political messiness. When you're familiar with what's gone before, though, it really blossoms because so much of who the characters are and where they stand in the movie comes from what has happened in the preceeding movies. And the most impressive part of it all to me is how much of that detail is really present in the movie for those characters.
Captain America, shining example of Lawful Good-ness, could never have passed on signing the Accords if not for events in CA: The Winter Soldier. He was working with SHIELD up until it came to light they were deeply infiltrated and manipulated by Hydra (HYDRA? Is that an acronym? Hmm...). Having seen they were about to use the very government agency he was working for to create and enforce a police state, Cap is suddenly very aware of the dangers of beauracratic oversight. And after being burned like that, he falls back all the more strongly on friends - people he personally trusts and believes in, including Bucky. So Cap ends up playing a very Chaotic role in the movie by going rogue and trying to stop the greater perceived threat.
Back in Iron Man 2, Tony Stark pretty much told the US government to screw off when they wanted to rein him in or get his tech even though he was very much trying to do good in the world - free enterprising Chaotic Good at its finest. And yet, after facing his own mortality several times, he's worried by unchecked power. He makes a clumsy attempt to make an overwatch system himself with Ultron, but fails dramatically in a way that adds to the burden of guilt he carries. Stark doesn't want someone else calling the shots for him. I think he stands behind the Accords because he's looking for some validation - some justification that he's doing the right thing. On top of that, he's probably the most aware of the political and legal repercussions of their actions, and as rich and powerful as he may be, that's pretty scary stuff. He may still be CG at his core, but he's really pushing a Lawful agenda.
And there you have you two "primary" figures, but while it would have been easy to just throw people behind one or the other of those, there's a lot more depth than I would have expected in the rest of the cast. Not perfect, but very good.
Vision is seeing things logically - examining the rise of superhuman threats and violence - and seems to determine signing the Accords is more likely to prevent problems than the alternative.
James "War Machine" Rhodes is a dedicated military man. There's not much question where he would stand, and the fact that Stark is on that side certainly helps.
Peter Parker is dazzled and brought in by Stark to assist in one particular encounter, which he does, though he probably hasn't even considered the Accords.
T'Challa "Black Panther" goes through his own arc in the movie. Initially motivated by revenge, he shows up in suit alongside the Accord-supporters, but he's entirely out to get Bucky for the supposed murder of his father.
Natasha is one of the most conflicted characters. She seems to side with Stark and Co. largely because it's inevitable. Not signing the Accords means going against the world (well, I think it was 127 nations) and she's not quite willing to take that on. And yet, Rogers is probably the one person who she trusts most deeply - to the obvious point of helping him.
The other side, admittedly, gets a little murkier. They seem more motivated by being friends than any grand vision...
Sam "Falcon" Wilson has an opinion, but it seems he side with Cap largely out of personal friendship.
Clint "Hawkeye" Barton comes back to help. Why? Uhh... presumably because Sam and Steve asked? Apparently, he feels helping them is the right thing to do, even at risk of his "retired" family life.
He even goes and drags Wanda along. She seems to be chafing under Stark placing her under effect house arrest, but instead of talking about it, she's willing to turn her powers on Vision and walk off with Clint to help. I find it... not unbelievable, but childish, and I wonder how old she is supposed to be in the movie. That seems a very "teen" move.
They also bring in Scott "Ant-Man" Lang. He doesn't talk much about his motivations, though I'm sure he wouldn't want the oversight the Accords would bring. He's also a bit star struck by Captain America, so there's that.
And then there's Bucky "The Winter Soldier" Barnes. He doesn't really have much choice - run or give up and probably be executed for a crime he didn't commit... and dozens he technically did. Largely, he's filling the role of "scared animal" that just happens to be Captain America's best friend, so the others are led around by his flailing. He doesn't express much in the way of political views, but he raises some serious questions - like "should he be held responsible for his actions while brainwashed?" He fights as if he's innocent. Cap defends him as if he's innocent. But does he actually qualify as innocent? Of the initial bombing he's wanted for, yes. But here's been the agent of so much else that it becomes more questionable. And he isn't making any move to atone, he's purely running from that past.
The movie manages to have a ridiculously minimalistic and yet super-effective villain. Zemo has no powers, relatively few resource, and doesn't even try to take on the heroes. He doesn't have Loki's grandstanding charisma or Ultron's world-ending menace. He isn't even trying to take over the world. All he does is draw attention back to Bucky in order to cause a rift among the Avengers and get them to fight one another. That's... bizarre. And kind of awesome.
Now... that's a lot to say about so many characters in a single movie. For all that to be there and conveyed pretty well is... a bit astounding.
The Sokovia Accords seem such a pivotal plot point, and yet they really aren't what the movie is about. Whether you agree with Rogers or Stark (and both have some valid arguments), neither is fully right and... that's fine. The movie works because all the characters are reacting to these situations and the reactions are entertaining to watch.
The hero vs. hero throw down at the airport feels fairly justified - but you can also tell most of them are holding back. These people are willing to fight one another for their myriad reasons, but none of them wants to kill someone else (with exception of T'Challa, anyway). Stark even recruited Parker partly because he was hoping the webbing could incapacitate people.
Tempers don't really flare until the end. After being framed for murdering one character's father, it comes out that Bucky really did kill Stark's parents. After some time to cool off, I wonder where Stark's thoughts will fall on that as it gets back to the question of brainwashing and control. Do you blame the tool or the person behind it? I'm curious to see if they answer that question down the line, though I'm sure Tony will never like Bucky.
I'm still surprised the folks are Marvel have kept this up. Some of their MCU movies have been predictable, but I don't really feel like any of them have been bad and most seem like they should be train wrecks, but still manage to come together so well.
Edit: Also, I totally saw the Empire Strikes Back reference coming - even to the point I internally debated whether or not they would be willing to reference another movie (very unusual) before deciding "It's too perfect, and I'll be disappointed if they don't have Spider-Man say it."
Comments
Post a Comment