“Marvel, The Way Out is Through”

The first time I saw Iron Man 2 I saw a Marvel film with an inherent desire to be taken seriously by those in a certain class of filmmaking and the very vague and general perception of what a critic looks for in “high art”. The longing was apparent from the jump when reports surfaced that Iron Man 2 director Jon Favreau and Co were going to adapt the “Demon in the Bottle” series from the books. The idea was mostly nixed and there was a righteous and some unrighteous reasons for that, but the effort in and of istelf is indicative to try and get serious and the more buzzy words; “darker” or “grittier” which are directly linked in an indirect sort of way to our generalized misunderstandings about what is expected of singular directors. By the time I actually watched it it was clear. This divide is the divide of most of the films coming out of the MCU ; to lean into their own identity, or try and be “respected” while appeasing the wide assortment of people that enjoy their movies. Marvel's desire is the desire of many studios and streaming platforms ( Netflix, I'm looking at you ) to be everything to everybody. I'm using the word “respect” very broadly, but I really just mean it to be an umbrella under which concepts, terms, and traditions like “prestige”, “high art”, “Oscars”, Peer love from the canonical autuers and so forth gather under. In that sphere you have certain ideas that signal, signify, and relay the general ideas of prestigious filmmaking. You know, that oft imagined kind that gets you Oscar nods, and festivals in your name, and frequent homages in other people's films. The motivation and/or causation for the desire differs from person to person, studio to studio and is a whole nother story, I aim to identify one, but there are many and my point here is to identify it as an issue that punctuates the issues Marvel is having today and what Marvel should do to get what they want, the summation of which is “The way out..is through”.

The opening scenes of each of the first two Iron Man's reek of aspirational elevation. The first film opens with little dressing. It's shot very straightforward with jovial humor and a surprise. It's emotional quality is strong but not heavy and is based in tension and some anxiety, some confusion, but not the sadness, pain, and theatricality so prevelant in the sequel. The second is much of the latter and it's more ostentatious. Wide shots, and slow ponderous panning signify this is the comic book version of “elevated horror”. It's signals the difference in the films tonality as well. A turn from the fun, but stern characterization of Iron Man with some emotional punch, to heavy on the political and serious, with some fun of course. Problem is the tension between what Favreau wanted, what he might be able to execute, and what Marvel wants is clear. Favreau's venture into exploring his alcoholism was turned into a problem with the tech that keeps Tony's heart going, and only one scene with heavy alchohol use was explicitly shown because having him be an alcoholic would've affected….Toy Sales. Barely any dialogue mentioning his usage is featured and what is is clumsy and awkward and the same treatment is given to its political thrust. Ivan Vanko’s ( A hammy Mickey Rourke) interogaion of the truth of Tony's legacy is mostly left to a few sharp tongued words, and nothing in the movie confirms its veracity even a little. It wants so bad to remain fun it stifles any decision that in any way would cement the self seriousness it strives for. It's important to note that Iron Man and Christopher Nolan's “The Dark Knight” came out the same year and the effect the ubiquitous popularity the latter had on the industry and by proximity the former's sequel - can't be ignored. Marvel would course correct to some degree, but the push to be taken seriously would continue in the choices made from directors like Kenneth Branaugh to eventually straight up media blitzes to try and secure Oscar recognition. An inferiority complex agitated by the noticeable difference in treatment of genre films and directors fuels the fires of a somewhat complex issue in that Marvel is right to feel that genre films are unfairly treated as inherently less than, but that Marvel has rarely been invested in actually making them, because of their formulaic insistence on being megazord crowd pleasers, something genre filmmakers and films cannot be obsessed with. The John Carpenters, David Cronenberg's, George Romero's Gordon Parks, Ana Lily Amanpours, Miike Takashi's, Brian De Palma's, Dario Argento's, Kathryn Bigelow's, Seijun Suzuki's, Walter Hill's and so on in the history of genre wanted to make money of course, and they wanted people to like their films, but how much they wanted or needed their films to be major box office and whom they were aiming for is vastly different from Marvel's needs and wants which is understandable on some level. It is also necessary to mention that those films and filmmakers are well regarded but also noticeably left off “Best” lists, as are many of their films. When story, race or gender ( both of maker and subject ) is not playing a role then its also and sometimes combined that the aesthetics lack the sensibilities audiences and especially the governing bodies and gatekeepers of “Prestige” associate with the concepts around prestige like autuerism. This is I believe a motivating factor behind the silly idea to try and rename horror movies “Elevated” not the awards, but the respect, the want to move these films out of genre ghettos and into the same neighborhoods as the Coppola's and Fords, Scorsese's and Hawks. Where maybe “Halloween” and “The Thing”, “Shaft” and “The Learning Tree”, “Scanners”, “The Fly” and Videodrome”, “Predator” and “Die Hard” are counted amongst the greatest films if not necessarilyby number than by being able to move in and outside the vacuums of the genre so that you don't have to add the genre as a precursor to the “greatest” like “Die Hard is the greatest ACTION film of all time.

The problem of it is though, that Marvel makes tentpoles which can be genre films ( Spielberg for instance has been doing it for years ) but in the current environment is extremely difficult to do or be allowed to do. Then they further discombobulate themselves by hiring genre filmmakers and cuffing their instincts so that while they may snatch a few genre lovers and a few of those who think a movie has to be X or Y to be an important or vital piece of filmmaking, they get no truly passionate fighters save for their core audience of comic book geeks. The others may love the movies but recognize for the most part that they are neither genre films, Oscar material, or genre films that are Oscar material. If you hire Sam Raimi to do a Dr. Strange movie and then hinder greatly his true personality, then his core audience instantly recognizes the mediocrity and tepidness in the movie instantly, and the gatekeepers.. well even when you reach the heights of various aspects of filmmaking quality in genre ( Hereditary, The Dark Knight, Terminator 2 ) you're still not guaranteed of getting into those circles…The way out is through. As times have started to change in this regard, as more and more folks stand up for genre films and for a more inclusive idea of what qualifies as important or great filmmaking, the few examples of genre films that have made it into that place that Kevin Feige and some of the other talent at or working for Marvel want to be in so bad, provide some insight as to how it can be done and the Marvel films that have done it do too. The Lord of the Rings films may be the most resonant example we have to date.

Huge in scale and scope, Jackson's penchant for a strong attention to detail and a sincere sense of love for the material shown through in the detail and in the love expressed in the actual characters. Genre filmmaking simplified could be said to be about obsession with certain ideas, subjects, people and style. With Peter Jackson its our ability to love through the most fantastical opposition, be it death, or the ultimate evil, or greed in King Kong, the fantasy is meant to be a stand in for size and size meant to show the power of our bonds. That size is also part of his style as well as a warmth that shows up everywhere from his chosen cinematographers to dialogue and blocking. With John Carpenter, its dissidents and evil, and the idea that least of society be it Snake Pliskin, or “Nada” (Roddy Piper) in “They Live” shall be the first when things get hot. These are boiled in his style which is extremely subtle which, a subtlety which aids the creation of a paranoid and anxiety ridden environment in all his films punctuated by the very sound of his movies. These are the type of filmmakers wherever they may exist that Marvel needs to go after, the movies they should try and make. Prestige and the honorifics around it are very hard to receive not in any sense of inherency, but because it's mostly about perception and Marvel has an incredible uphill battle against them because a they are already have a set perception about them, A; Due to the combination of the formula and the house style. B. Because the regularly exhibited phenomenon amongst social groups as it pertains to forced hierarchies is that the harder you try to belong the more the group you're seeking to belong to seems to want to create distance. The way out is through.

Marvel has always split its audience. The folks that love comic books on one side the folks that love movies on the other. It's a bit of an over simplification but it serves the purpose of my argument here. Out of 28 films to date in the MCU only two have worked on anywhere near that goal of being Oscar nominated; “Black Panther” and “Captain America: Winter Soldier”. While the latter is very highly regarded in that specific conceit relative to MCU films, it still didn't get didn't get a nod in any other category but special effects. Meanwhile the films that have aligned these two groups while maintaining being well regarded films in the MCU it could be argued are the films that got the closest to being genre films. “Thor: Ragnarok” is arguably the closest of all films to being a straight up genre movie. Not only does it display certain elements of a buddy action film but more importantly it is the Marvel film which arguably most allowed its directors personality into the blood and bones of its creation. The other films that have an argument are James Gunn's “Guardians of the Galaxy” movies but even with Gunn's films I would argue that there is a sense of the reigns being tugged a little bit . Whatever the issues with these films and their problematic directors are ( a lack of congruency in style, Marvel's need to set up the next film ) I actually don't think they at all overwhelm their personality. Ragnarok, Two Guardians of the Galaxy movies, Doctor Strange, “Captain America: The First Avenger” all of these movies have in common not only a pretty damn good to all world reception when they came out but even more importantly they have enjoyed a deep and rich post life in the minds of comic book lovers and film lovers alike. Even with “Doctor Strange part 2 it could be said that the disappointment with that movie lies in the fact that they didn't let Sam Raimi put all ten of his horror genre toes down into that movie. All of this..All of this to suggest that maybe the way for Marvel to get that Oscar attention they so desire or at least that recognition they so desire, is not to keep hiring directors from indie films in the broadest of sense, regardless of whether or not they actually have any sort of love, any sort of obsession, any sort of desire to make these kind of films on their own, but to to hire folks for compatability to the house, to the characters, and to the genre that
may best represent them. They need less Chloe Zhao's - who is an extremely talented filmmaker but one who so very clearly did not have a true vested interest in these films - and more Ana Lily Amirpour who at least showed an influence from genre and comics in her sensational debut “A Girl Walks Home at Night”. Zhao's efforts in “The Eternals eschewed its extremely weird elements for things more grounded in the ethereal functionality and romanticism of her work. She may have had an idea for what she could do with this particular film, but you can feel that distance, that coldness. It's also not by hiring cutesy indie directors like Jon Watts or Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck, The former who has made some extremely profitable “Spider-man” movies but also extremely forgettable ones to anyone who isn't raging about the appearance of the three Spidermans. These people may be able to work with you and on a certain spectrum of varying possibilities, and they may do well in spots, but the consistency and that deep affinity that lasts comes from being able to see the compatibility between the director’s vision and style, and the medium of comic books and their characters. What those folks do is so clearly incompatible with Marvel's house style that inevitably one gets swallowed by the other and that's usually the personality of those directors. Never mind that with Fleck and Boden it could be argued that their previous movies didn't have a connecting vibrancy of personality in the first place. No, just hiring those directors who are indie ( and frankly maybe easier to control ) because their movies earn them entree into the sphere of prestige is not the answer, the answer is to acknowledge who Marvel is and which category of American filmmaking you most closely resemble and that is without a doubt genre films. Each one of these things even just by the identity and personality of the character lend themselves over to a different genre. In a generalized sense Thor seems to have found a comfortable fit in comedy, Dr Strange is clearly more horror than anything, Guardians of the Galaxy is very specifically a team up movie, think Predator ( By the way Shane Black was a much better fit for a GOG movie than Iron Man, just putting that out there ) and if Marvel dived into them, they could keep the overall sense of connection while not losing not only the personality of these directors, but the personality of each of these characters and what makes them different. The movies previously named have done that to some varying extent. Each one of them has come the closest to escaping that sense of one style for everything, one personality for everyone, and so stood out to inform the audience as thoughtful, fun, and intelligent as to why those particular heroes matter, the only thing that has kept them in my opinion from what Marvel may see or want is that they didn't get to go all the way. It is Marvel's restraint from being what best suits them that is holding them back from the kind of glory they seek. As it is these awards ceremonies are pompous and blind and because of it and its long term effects are now desperate themselves to latch on to some kind of relevance in a time where their main audience is becoming increasingly dispirited, and their casual audience no longer cares or finds them that interesting. They're in a very vulnerable state right now and reaching for that relevance, so IF ..IF it will ever happen, now IS the perfect time to start investing into who you are. To start paying attention to the way that those genre directors are starting to now be treated. The growing narrative amongst cinephiles who are now of varying ages that all were coming of age as children, or critics, honors profusely directors like David Cronenberg. John Carpenter is credited as a major influence amongst new directors, and Gordon Parks is recieving the Criterion treatment. Those still living and working are now enjoying the best of both worlds; they can make movies like “A History of Violence” and “Eastern Promises” that still reflect their personality and chosen themes and garner prestigious attention and respect and still makes movies that go all the way into their bag like “Crimes of the Future”. All of these filmmakers and films got to where Marvel and Feige want to be by acknowledging fully whom they are and living in it, bathing in it, because consciously or not they understood that concept that thus far has escaped Marvel..The Way out is through.