Last chance. If you're looking to avoid spoilers, back out now.
Let me start with the aspect I praised most in that first review: this movie had meaningful stakes. Characters truly had to reckon with grief and loss. And even though the story was about "fixing" the ending of Infinity War, it didn't "undo" it. The emotion consequences of what happened remained. Some characters who died in Infinity War stayed dead. Sure, the MCU might at some later point use comic book gymnastics to resurrect them. (For example: there's now seemingly a splinter reality in which Loki escaped after the events of the first Avengers.) But it's pretty definitive that we've seen at least some of these actors playing some of these characters for the last time. And this gives Endgame a lot of its heft.
The grief built into Endgame is also about more than just the audience relationship with the characters. The five year time jump was a key piece of this, and a brilliant choice. It really allowed the movie to show how the events of Infinity War changed everything. And, in another brilliant choice, the consequences were far-reaching, beyond just the main characters. The group therapy scene was an important one, underscoring that the world was filled with stories of people dealing with loss. (About 3.5 billion stories, really.)
At the end of it all, the five years were not erased, and that allows room to imagine a lot of heart-breaking stories. What about people who lost a spouse, got remarried in the intervening five years, and then got that spouse back? What about people who couldn't emotionally survive their loss and chose suicide; what would their returning loved ones now endure? What about children whose relationships with siblings and friends are now permanently altered by five years of not aging? That therapy scene opens up the space to imagine these options -- whether the MCU specifically depicts them or not.
Also, importantly, that scene focused on the first openly gay character ever depicted in a Marvel movie. No, not a hero, and no, not a main character -- so this was not the moment for LGBT representation in the way Black Panther or Captain Marvel were for other marginalized groups. And yet, this minor, nameless character served a key role in lending this movie its emotional weight. He made it feel real. Plus, quite strategically I think, the character to interact with this openly gay man? Steve Rogers, Captain America -- unassailable paragon of what is moral and virtuous, and who actually comes from a far less open-minded, less tolerant time. Cap demonstrates by his behavior in this scene that it's completely normal to be gay. Lest you believe that this message has already been widely circulated, look again. Not widely enough.
Beside having stakes and emotional depth, this movie endeared itself to me in another major way. It's a heist movie! I love heist movies! They even called it a heist -- a time heist! Time travel is, of course, a thorny element to include in a story. It can easily drag your plot down with complexity and/or illogic. Endgame handled things deftly by keeping the rules fairly simple, stating them up front, and then sticking with them. The most important of those rules: even with time travel, not every problem was going to be fixable.
Time travel served another important function here: nostalgia. The MCU will go on, but some characters will not. Time travel was a perfect device to trip down memory lane with them one last time. And the device was used thoughtfully. They could have hopped around to tons of earlier films, giving great fan service... while delivering an experience both overly dense and emotionally hollow. Instead, they picked just a few moments -- and used them mostly to give us new scenes that we hadn't witnessed before.
They used time travel for drama; Thor got to have a meaningful interaction with his mother, and Tony Stark with his father. They used time travel for humor; Steve Rogers got to fight himself, and Bruce Banner felt shame over being forced to act like his old self. They used time travel to deliver numerous cameo re-appearances you might never have expected to see in this movie. Some (like Rene Russo, Tony Slattery, Hayley Atwell, and Tilda Swinton) were quite effective. Others weren't as impactful (like the CG homunculus masquerading as Michael Douglas). But overall, the trip down memory lane overall was well-earned and well-executed.
As for the characters of Tony Stark and Steve Rogers, the movie could scarcely have been more perfect. The one element that perhaps could have used a little more screen time was their reconciliation with each other after the events of Civil War. But their individual finales were pitch perfect. Tony Stark completed a character journey from being the most selfish character in the MCU to being the most selfless one. Steve Rogers was able to both save the day and live the life he missed out on. A wonderful, bittersweet combination.
All of that is what I loved about Avengers: Endgame. I did, however, give it an A-. So if that's the "A," what's the "minus?"
First, the treatment of Thor wasn't the best. Certainly, Chris Hemsworth gives great comic relief; he's hilarious. But Thor's grief in this story was the greatest among all the characters. Because he didn't "go for the head" the first time, he blamed himself for all the death Thanos caused. In a movie that otherwise treats grief so seriously, Thor's was reduced to a punchline: he got fat and looks like Lebowski now. Endgame even undermined the more personal stakes for Thor; after Infinity War suggested by omission that everyone he knew had died, we discover a whole colony of Asgardians living on Earth. (Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Thor: Ragnarok wasn't rendered totally irrelevant. I'm just protesting the narrative whiplash of these two Avengers films.)
I was also of two minds about the movie's treatment of Black Widow -- her ending in particular. On the one hand, Natasha has been a character dealing with deep self-loathing throughout the franchise. Self-sacrifice is totally in keeping for that, and a reasonable ending for her. On the other hand, Age of Ultron misstepped in tying her self-loathing to her inability to have children (a reductive narrative decision that was rightfully criticized). This movie steers into that. It's not just that Natasha sacrifices herself here "for a man" (arguably a simplification, but also arguably a valid point). It's that she sacrifices herself so that someone else can have kids. I think the death should have been Hawkeye's... though likely I'm in the minority of audience members who would have felt impacted by that. Perhaps the core problem here is that of the original six Avengers, only one was female. Killing her off, no matter how logical for the character, is tough to square with 2019 MCU, trying to prove its feminist bona fides. (And almost trying to apologize for the Black Widow choice with the stagey lineup of women during the final fight.)
About that final fight. It was, I acknowledge, absolutely necessary. The big action movie had to culminate in a big action sequence. And yes, every last one of the MCU's dozens and dozens of characters needed to have their "moment" within it. And yet, the scope got a little bit away from them at times. It was a really chaotic battle, set in a bombed-out wasteland where all the landscape looked the same. It wasn't always clear which characters were where, or where anything was happening in relation to anything else. Some concepts, like "keep the gauntlet away from Thanos," were simple. Others were quite muddy.
But overall, these various quibbles didn't detract too much for me from the otherwise excellent whole. As I noted in my spoiler-free review, I believe Avengers: Endgame might be the best film of the MCU. (Time will tell.) While there are many movies in the franchise I don't anticipate ever watching again, it's easy to imagine rewatching this one, and maybe loving it even more.
No comments:
Post a Comment