Skip to main content

"Infinity War," "Civil War," and trauma

In "Infinity War," there's a humorous bit where Thor and Star-lord compare the atrocities they've had to suffer through, where it's all played a bit light so the humour in their battling one another over who has seen more of their kin annihilated -- and thereby the more deserving of consoling for pain-suffered, by "the sought-after maiden" -- triumphs over any deep consideration of what effect that might have had on them. It's a movie mingling different tones, though, and the Tony Stark-vs.-Thanos bit is clearly not supposed to eclipse the PTSD-ravaging explored in "Avengers" and subsequent Iron Man movies for bravado-suffering, but bring it all back to mind.... Tony Stark, sparked into immediate flashback terror at the mere innocent reference to the worm-hole by an attention-seeking kid: such is what would fuel his bringing the fight to Thanos.
But in terms of how earlier traumas unsettle our adult being, it's actually Thanos himself who best reflects this in this movie, with the pain of his daughter's early-on rejection of him, never ever something he could forget, and the movie itself seems a regression from where we as a society are progressing to in terms of being able to "see" the victim rather than, say, be prompted to displace actual sight of them in preference of using them as a vehicle for projected fantasies/revenge plots of our own, from how the effects of trauma were portrayed in "Avengers: Civil War." In that movie, Stark has spent hundreds of millions designing technology which hijacks the hippocampus of the brain to clear traumatic memories, which for Tony are his last memories of his father before he dies in a car crash, where he had rejected him as of any worth AS A father (he sent his own father into a worm-hole of rejection and abandonment -- the guilt!). For him, "indelible in his hippocampus," to quote Blasey Ford, WAS ACTUALLY the pain HE CAUSED SOMEONE ELSE... a turn-around from our time, but reflecting an awareness and deep involvement in trauma that is however up to date/current.
"Avengers: Civil War" may be one of the most interesting exploration of trauma out there, even as it makes the sufferer someone who is absolutely trustworthy as far as memory of an account, but likely untrustworthy in later settings for bearing the damage in a way that makes them perennially "maybe not up to this particular murder mission," to quote fox/rabbit/Rocket, whenever "it" applies to anything that seems to address the injury. It doesn't make a fetish of trauma, make it somehow desirable for drawing sympathy to you, or as something to augment your status -- like the 3000-people-killed bit in "Infinity War" does Thor's -- but brings it into focus as something that could debilitate your whole subsequent being. The attention goes to the victim, and it seems focussed and not, it's-for-us-to-rise-beyond-our-injuries old school... and to me, that's quite new.
Trauma, the consequences of it, has been on the Marvel Universe's mind for quite some time... do you sense too some genuine interest, or just trauma as plot-mover/trope... a trivialization and making-sport of what others are trying to redeem as serious? (Interesting, too, to me is the fact that father-Thanos never laughs at Stark's pain, but offers some apparent consoling to him over it... this could almost function as a memory Stark could artificially implant in his hippocampus to help ease his sense of a lost-father who might possibly hate him for his dismissal of him... the father who would suffer through the entirety of your reaction to him; hate/love/rejection/approval -- all to be taken in and accepted by the father who even with the daughter he thinks might simply hate his guts, never abandons sincere love of her.)



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...