The Avengers - Avenged

Disclaimer: This is not a Money Shot. Since the movie is still new and in theaters, it isn't possible to legally get any clips of the film. However, since I wrote almost 2000 words on the movie and have nowhere else to put it, it's going on this blog. That is all.

One would think a movie with numerous speeches about freedom, explicit reference to Weapons of Mass Destruction, manipulative government organizations withholding information, and a climactic battle that destroys a huge chunk of New York City (in Manhattan no less!) would border on heavy handed. Instead, if you read the reviews or listen to moviegoer reactions to Joss Whedon’s newest blockbuster to top all blockbusters, The Avengers, you’d find the masses calling it “exciting”, “action packed”, “fun”, “a thrill ride”, and, my personal favorite, “mindless entertainment”. It boggles my mind that a film that so proudly wears its intentions on its sleeve, that’s so obviously about the War on Terror, is being seen as nothing more than the latest easily digested, quickly forgotten, summer popcorn action flick. To quote Marge Gunderson, “Well…I just don’t understand it.”

So, in an effort to spark some discussion, open some eyes, and get a movie I can’t stop thinking about out of my head, I’m here to give an analysis of the film that hopefully shows just how unmindless (totally a made up word) the movie is. Even if no one agrees with the thoughts I put forth, I’ll feel better getting them out of my brain. I feel like I have to avenge The Avengers. I’ll take solace in knowing that the movie with the largest box office take for an opening weekend IN THE HISTORY OF MOVIES(!!!) isn’t some insipid piece of action porn from the Michael Bay school of filmmaking, but a real movie that puts forth a legitimate worldview, and has a real, worthy agenda. And with that, I promise no more flabbergasted exasperation or whining – just film analysis.

Ok, I lied. We aren’t going to analyze the film just yet, but at least I won’t be whining. Before we get into any analysis of the movie, we should briefly talk about Joss Whedon. He wrote and directed the film, and anyone who’s familiar with his previous work will tell you he’s a writer’s writer. His biggest strength is his ability to create characters you truly care about and mesh those characters with whatever ideas and statements he’s trying to get through to the audience. His work is always about something. He doesn’t just take characters through a plot and tell a story. Why anyone thought The Avengers would be any different because it had a big budget, I don’t know (shit…that probably counts as whining). Whedon’s stuck mostly to TV (the only other movie he’s directed was Serenity (2005), which was based on his cancelled TV show Firefly and mostly made to wrap that series up), which employs a much longer format that naturally allows for more character development than a 2-3 hour film. He also typically works with ensemble casts and has experience writing comic books. So, to recap, he’s an idea guy who is good with working with lots of characters and has experience in comics. I mean, could you ask for a better fit to helm The Avengers?

At this point you might be asking, “What idea is this guy working with this time? Good guys stop bad guy from taking over the world?” Well…yeah. That’s exactly the idea he’s working with. Only it isn’t the idea that a supervillain from another universe is going to take over the world by using his super powers. Ok, well, it is, but there’s this tricky little thing in works of fiction called allegory that allows what’s literally taking place throughout the entire story to stand for something else altogether. In this sense, Loki = terrorist (more specifically, power hungry terrorist meets Shakespearean Iago). In this same vein, The Avengers represent society as a whole. The movie contrasts these two concepts through the characters in the film to arrive at a very specific point – that the people within a society, through their beliefs and actions, ultimately decide what that society stands for. Those who fight for a cause bigger than themselves will always prevail over those fighting for purely selfish interests. In order for that to happen, however, the individuals that comprise said society must make it happen. As a society, we can’t be more than the sum total of all the individuals within. We make what happens happen (of course, it helps if you have an Iron Man suit to help you make things happen). How does the movie say all this? Well, now it’s time for some good old-fashioned film analysis:

Whedon is a better writer than director (which is why he’s so good on TV), so it makes sense for a lot of the film’s ideas to be told through dialogue and character interactions. However, that doesn’t mean the movie isn't without its moments of visual prowess. There are, at least, a handful of individual shots and scenes that convey the movie’s concepts visually. To start, let’s take a look at the relationship between Loki and The Avengers, since their dueling ideologies are the film’s main source of conflict.

As already mentioned, the movie contrasts these characters (and what they stand for) to make its main point. First, there’s Loki. He brings war to Earth for purely selfish reasons. He wants to get back at Thor and the rest of Asgard and wants to accumulate power while doing so. He wants to rule the world with fear, enslave the human race, and will kill whoever is in his path. It isn’t the biggest leap of faith to see him as a terrorist. He even tries to infect the minds of the people he meets to show them the advantages to his way of thinking (and quite literally does so to the minds and hearts of Hawkeye and others with his scepter). Loki’s biggest problem is someone like him can never “win” because one of two things will always happen: 1. He'll run into someone/some group fighting for the same reasons, and he’ll lose. This is pointed out to him by the old man who refuses to kneel before him in Germany: “There will always be men like you.” Captain America even references Hitler immediately afterwards when he saves the old man’s life. 2. He'll run into someone/some group fighting for a real, selfless purpose that are capable of sacrificing themselves for a higher cause, and he'll lose. The film uses the concept of conviction to make this point. A dying Agent Coulson tells Loki he’s going to lose because it’s in his nature. He lacks conviction. In Loki’s first scene, he says that he’s “burdened with glorious purpose,” but Coulson sees through it. He has no real purpose. He’s not fighting for anything that truly matters. He is a child throwing a temper tantrum because he didn’t get his way. He just wants. And what he wants is to show big brother that anything you can do, I can do better. He’s a wimp playing a wolf. No conviction, indeed. To bring the allegory full circle, what are terrorists after? Power through fear. Is that a real purpose? Does that have conviction? Coulson certainly doesn’t think so.

The Avengers, after many squabbles, become that group fighting for a tangible, selfless purpose through the very act of fighting. Obviously, they’re also the ones that defeat Loki and his army. However, more important than the group besting Loki is how they’re able to defeat him. The fights amongst the group when they first come together are hugely important. In a brilliant, excellently constructed scene, where the mind-controlled Hawkeye attacks the Helicarrier, Whedon begins making his case that attacks arise when a society is divided and individuals bicker over their own self-interest. They become blind to the world around them. As the quarrel within the Helicarrier is taking place, the movie cuts back and forth between the fighting on ship and Hawkeye setting up and launching the attack. Cutting between the Avengers arguing and Hawkeye attacking isn't exactly formally inventive, but it is effective. It's simply the correct directorial choice for what the scene is trying to accomplish. It makes the film's point by showing us, again and again, that the "bad guy" is coming as they bicker. It's a visual accentuation of the point.

Eventually, The Avengers are able to set aside their differences and work together as a team to fight Loki. Again, it isn’t just that this happens, but how. Each member of the team, as previously mentioned, has to make those choices to put the good of the cause over their own self-interest, and even safety. Captain America has to decide to go for the red lever to help out Iron Man even though he’s under fire. Thor has to decide to put his issues with Loki aside for the time being to help the team fight off Loki’s army. The Hulk has to decide to embrace "the other guy" and try to tame/control him. Iron Man has to decide he's willing to sacrifice himself and take the nuke into the portal. The movie shows this idea visually with a single, long take during the climactic battle that shows each member of the team working together and helping one another out while fighting the army. Sure, it's really cool moment, but it's more than just showy. It's the movie using it's visuals to show the team coming together, to tell the story. The pairs helping each other in the scene are even the exact pairs that are physically fighting in the Helicarrier earlier. All the pettiness has vanished, and a team has been born. In another symbolic gesture after the final battle, the film shows the “A” in Stark on the massive Stark Tower becoming The Avengers' A. Since Stark makes the biggest change from selfish to selfless in the film (and is ultimately willing to sacrifice his own life for the cause), it's fitting that the movie uses the former symbol of his massive ego to make an emphatic statement that this isn't just a group of individuals anymore.

All of this is right in line with Whedon's worldview as a self-described humanist. If The Avengers stand for society as a whole, we'll be what the individuals within it want it to be. Real power isn't making people fear you and kneel in your honor – it's a group of selfless individuals choosing to fight for a cause. The film uses the concept of sentiment to make this point. Loki sees it as humanity’s weakness, when the reality is it’s our greatest power. Having a reason, a purpose, leads to conviction.

I'm not saying this is the most profound thing in the world, or that the dichotomy between the opposing sides is that complex. Essentially, it’s a standard comic book story about a group of superheroes fighting off the latest evil threat. However, it isn't mindless. Given Whedon’s own track record and the manner in which the film presents itself, both through the writing and the filmmaking, it attempts to tackle a pretty significant subject. Whedon obviously knows the idea of fighting for the “greater good” is old-fashioned, and maybe even a little corny. The film is all the better for being self-aware enough to point this out and poke fun at itself. Again, that’s right in line with Whedon’s typical style, and it’s why his work never feels preachy or pretentious. He can humor an audience and give them characters to care about. His ideas just wash over you, and that’s something only the best writers are able to accomplish.

So, there you have it. That’s my case for The Avengers as a substantial film. Feel free to dispute every point I’ve made or tell me I’m fantastic for making them. The latter option is much preferred, but I’ll take whatever I can get.