Skip to main content

Iron Man vs. Captain America


Note:  this is a reply to Maria Aspan's discussion of the four key things that worked about the Avengers (at movieline.com).
Re:   The Avengers doesn't try to give equal time to each of the heroes; it might as well be called Iron Man 2.5.  Thor is there to swing his hammer and drop off the villain from his movie, Hawkeye gets brainwashed before we even know him, and Captain America fades into Tony Stark's straight man.  And you know what?  Those are good things.  The movie's already over two hours.  And by choosing a few Avengers to focus on, Whedon made me more invested in what happened to Stark and Black Widow and the Hulk during the course of the movie.
Stephanie Zacharek, you'll note, saw it different.  She argued that Iron Man's pronouncement, his "self-important wisecracks, begin to wear a rut in the movie" -- that he wore on us, leaving the hero who all along didn't try to hard -- Captain America -- as the stand-out Avenger.  She said it was the hero who remained most human that you remember; and it is true that the ground fight involving the least powerful Avengers -- Hawk Eye, Captain America, Black Widow -- left together enough human precariousness and human uplift to make them seem for a moment the human core and the rest as external battle armaments.  I wrote awhile ago, in a comment that may, alas, have gotten lost in the woods, that we might see in this film a transitioning away from the super-hero types we've gotten used to wanting to associate with -- the wise-cracking Wolverine or Iron Man types -- towards actually wanting the patriotic, the square, the straight-man types redeemed for our appreciation, even our identification.  I thought the old preference would have to be allayed, played to, to make the transition possible while keeping our self-respect.  I think we're all still more here with Iron Man than we are with Captain America, as you argue, but that comment in the film about America actually being in the mood for old school, and the scene where Captain America garners the respect of the police force, began to clear a path, I think, for Captain America to more take over in the next film -- with his perhaps even being accorded a knock-out win in an argument with Stark, with average intelligence but solid virtue stearing wit and snark clear to the side.  How this will happen while engaging an inter-galactic villain, I don't know, but I still expect to see it.
A final note on this:  there was a sense when Iron Man brandied wits and, well, brandy with Loki, of these two actually being co-sympathetic, fundamentally akin -- with both being conniving, smart-as-sin, full-of-themselves court wits, who'll ultimately need to oblige themselves to more straight-laced kings.  You're right -- Iron Man's sacrifice didn't register (note:  I'm referring here to another of Aspan's comments; specifically that she "believed in Coulson's death much more than the movie ever made [her] believe that Iron Man would actually have to sacrifice himself to save Manhattan); and, we noted, it was the best that he had.  Penny is going to need to absolve him, and perhaps with this, absorb him -- already she wasn't seeming so second-fiddle; instead as if already reeling in the stray dog wanting his being reigned in.   

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…