Issue #4: Alex's Reflections on Thor (2011)

This is a film of two worlds: Earth and Asgard. Completely different from the previous Iron Man movies and The Incredible Hulk, Thor tries to balance those two worlds by presenting an extended “fish-out-of-water” scenario with Thor (Chris Hemsworth) as he struggles with his banishment at the hands of Odin (Anthony Hopkins). Thor is banished due to his hubris and carelessly embroiling Asgard in a senseless war with the Frost Giants. When writing all of this, it feels a bit silly, but after watching this film for the first time in many years, it became apparent that the strength of the film is in Asgard, not Earth.

 

Kenneth Branagh, acclaimed stage actor and extensive Shakespearean veteran, directed Thor, and the extensive amount of dialogue makes that apparent. Nothing is wrong with dialogue, but Thor is characterized early on in the film (in Asgard) as a presumptuous and dangerous antagonist who fool-heartedly rushes into fights and dangerous situations. In short, he is quick to action, not words. When Thor is banished to Earth, the entire film changes. Gone is the majesty of Asgard and its glimmering city. Gone are the overly theatrical garbs that accentuate personalities. Gone is any magic that the film has. Instead, the majority of this film takes place in a desert in New Mexico. 

 

After seeing this again, I was unfortunately reminded of a movie that, upon further reflection, is eerily similar. Masters of the Universe was released in 1987 starring Dolph Lundgren as He-Man and Frank Langella as Skeletor. In that film, a group of freedom fighters from a distant and magical land (Eternia) are teleported to Earth and must find their way back. Along the way, they run into a Pre-Friends Courtney Cox who helps them find their way back to Eternia. The villain, Skeletor, also briefly visits Earth and causes havoc looking for He-Man. Eventually, all of the heroes return to Eternia and defeat Skeletor. The parallels to Thor are astounding. While there are inherent problems with Thor, it is undoubtedly a better film than Masters of the Universe. Regardless, the parallels echo one characteristic that I recognized as a child when originally seeing Masters of the Universe and when seeing Thor today as an adult. When these mythical characters leave their natural setting, they lose a bit of their effect. 

 

One major problem with Thor is that the main character is powerless for the majority of the film. People want to see Thor because the main character is powerful and can do amazing things with his hammer, Mjolnir. Those abilities are teased in an action sequence at the beginning of the film but are ultimately dismissed for nearly an hour and a half in a two-hour film. Essentially, it is a Thor movie without Thor.

I understand the need to present an origin story of sorts for Thor as not many filmgoers were aware of the character prior to the Marvel Cinematic Universe gaining popularity. However, the film truly suffers from focusing on Thor navigating a week or so on planet Earth in humorous situations and trying to establish a clumsy romance with Dr. Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). Thor is a Norse God who summons thunder to vanquish enemies and smashes evildoers with a magical hammer that only he is worthy of using. Instead, audiences are presented with a Thor who is stuck in a New Mexico desert drinking coffee, making jokes, and not using his magical hammer.

Issue #4: Sandy's Reflections on Thor (2011)

I don’t watch this film as much as others in the MCU, but I have to say that I enjoy how it is much more of a slow-burn than a “big bang” popcorn movie. The camera angles and scenery are lovely, and the quiet scenes that reflect the universal emotions of growing into your own person, wanting to be a good parent, or even experiencing sibling rivalry are, for me, a strength of the film. However, for action lovers or younger viewers, I can see how this movie would be a bit slow moving. It’s a thoughtful piece by Kenneth Branaugh who is definitely not an action movie director (which might be why he does not do any more films for the MCU).

 

Of course, my favorite aspect of the movie is Natalie Portman’s Jane Foster—a character I truly believe is misunderstood by many male viewers. I often hear that she can’t act or that her character is silly, but hey, “she’s good to look at.” If you know me, I’ve clung to this theory tightly that Jane has value in the MCU, even when others were negative. Originally, I was going to write about the different scenes that I would have loved to see as a young girl that show she is a dedicated scientist, a quirky leading lady, or a realistic portrayal of a woman who has flaws and different emotions. I could do that...but as our conversation during the film evolved naturally, I found myself examining more than just Jane—but rather how one film presents three strong, layered female characters in one film but yet they are not fully realized in the future films (yet).

 

In the film, we meet three women, all strong in different ways: Dr. Jane Foster, a scientist; Lady Sif, a warrior; and Queen Frigga, Thor’s mother. Branaugh takes his time with each of these three women, giving each of them—especially Jane—their own moments in the film. Queen Frigga is presented as a strong point/counterpoint to the King, and she has powers of her own, as it is hinted at that she can use magic (realized in the sequel). At one point, she picks up a sword to fight the King of the Frost Giants and protect her husband against the invading army. This scene is an interesting reversal of the “fridging” effect, which is when a female character in comics is brutalized or killed to motivate the male hero. For more information, you can read more about Gail Simone’s trope “Women in Refrigerators” by starting here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WomenInRefrigerators. In this scene, it’s the King who has been put “in the fridge” in a way, going into a meditative state, because it was necessary to propel our hero, Thor, to fully realize his role as future leader of Asgard. (We’ll talk about what happens to Frigga when we get to Thor: The Dark World.)

 

Second, we have Lady Sif, a childhood companion of Thor’s and one of his group of friends that includes the Warriors Three. She defends and supports Thor, and she is presented as an equal to Thor’s other Asgardian teammates—all of whom are men. She wisely distrusts Loki, and in a key battle scene, she helps to defeat the Destroyer (the large metal robot controlled by Loki). Sif has more of a role in the film than I remember; and it’s obvious that she has feelings for Thor. It’s unclear if they ever were a couple, but there is a definite set-up here for a love triangle in the future between Thor, Sif, and Jane.

 

And, last, we have Jane Foster. Again, I find her misunderstood. Branaugh showcases her as multi-faceted and very human, with quirks. She is obsessive about her research, and it is her primary passion at the beginning of the film, often over-ruling common sense as she tries to put the puzzle pieces together of the anomaly she has found (which we know as the Rainbow Bridge). She is almost comedic at times, saying the wrong things or as in my favorite scene, getting flustered. Portman has comedic chops! When Thor brings back Erik, drunk, he’s alone with her in her camper, and their close proximity as they chat makes her uneasy. She puts her cereal bowl—with remnants of milk and a spoon—along with the cereal box itself in a cabinet because she can’t concentrate. However, that doesn’t stop her OCD, and she returns, a few beats later, to put them in the sink. All of this action is quiet, a bit in the background as they discuss her research and Erik’s drunken night out with Thor. This scene reminds me of the old-school chemistry in romantic comedies like Pillow Talk with Doris Day. It’s quiet, and in the vein of Branaugh’s vision, helps to craft a character in these soft moments, not just in action scenes. 

 

However, Lady Sif has very little to do in the sequel, and then she disappears from the MCU after that, and the love triangle never happens. Queen Frigga does have a few more important moments (no spoilers), but Jane Foster isn’t perceived well, despite Natalie Portman’s acting pedigree. She’s an accomplished actress with awards who is a leading lady in all kinds of films, including other sci fi. 

 

However, if you Google “Natalie Portman” and “Thor,” chances are you will find many articles in these categories: why she doesn’t work in the MCU, why she was dropped after the sequel, how hot she is, or that she wanted out (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/08/natalie-portman-thor-done). And, unless you are new to the MCU, of course there is the huge buzz of Comic Con last year, when it was announced that she would not just return in Thor 4, but that she would become Female Thor for Love and Thunder (https://variety.com/2019/film/news/natalie-portman-thor-4-love-and-thunder-1203274705/). But what does that new label mean? That she has no value if she doesn’t have her own hammer?

 

As we await the new small screen iterations on Disney+, and the Phase 4 offerings on the movie screen, discussion on where the MCU will go with future heroes and returning favorites overflows online. Most articles talk about how forgotten characters will get a second chance, and who is at the top of the list? Jane Foster, such as ScreenRant’s “Marvel Phase 4 is Giving a Lot of Failed MCU Characters a Second Chance.” I think that “failed” is too harsh for poor Jane. But I do think it’s fair to say that the MCU has trouble with giving women arcs of their own and not as a love interest, as I point out last week with my IM2 reflections. Schaefer states, “For the most part, these characters didn't fail because they're badly-conceived; the MCU just couldn't figure out what to do with them. Jane was introduced as a driven scientist in the first Thor movie, but was reduced to serving as little more than a glorified vessel for the Ether in The Dark World. Her absence in Thor: Ragnarok was then explained with a throwaway line about her and Thor breaking up” (https://screenrant.com/marvel-mcu-phase-4-failed-characters-jane-darcy/). 

 

All I know is that I’m hopeful that Jane—the quirky, giggly, dedicated, and smart scientist—shows up in Thor: Love and Thunder—not just superpowered Female Thor Jane. She is important to show that women can be smart and funny and powerful—even without superpowers. We’ll just have to wait and see what we get. Until then, I’m still #teamjane.

Issue #4: Gian's Reflections on Thor (2011)

After finishing the first 3 Marvel films, I found that my re-watching of Thor (2011, Directed by Kenneth Branaugh) gave me fresh perspective on the film. I had remembered Thor as a very fun film. And of course, it is. Thor enters the Asgardian throne room for his coronation strutting, joking, playing, a boy who would be king. He revels in all his power. And his brashness ends up cracking the peace between Asgard and the Frost Giants. This causes Odin to strip Thor of his powers and to banish him.

 

Yet instead of seeing this as a film about Thor’s redemption, I was much more fascinated by Loki’s story this time around. Loki in the comics was always a trickster causing problems. Tom Hiddleston’s outstanding performance of the role made Loki a highly popular character. But I think that popularity really bloomed with Avengers rather than with Thor. In Thor, Loki is just a bad guy. He feels he should be the ruler of Asgard instead of his muscle-bound brother. I know when I first watched the film, I didn’t feel much sympathy for Loki. I read him as a stereotypical villain.

 

Yet rethinking the journey of the MCU, I know see how complex Loki was right from the beginning. Before the ill-fated battle on the Frost Giant’s homeworld of Jotunheim begins, Loki actually counsels Thor to stay calm:

 

“Thor, look around you. We’re outnumbered,” Loki says.

“Know your place, brother,” Thor replies gruffly.

 

Thor, hyped up for battle, of course ignores his brother and launches into a fight that threatens to start a war. Only Odin is able to bring calm back to the situation.

 

Of course, we see Loki manipulate situations as the film progresses. We learn he is a traitor who let the Frost Giants into Asgard to spoil Thor’s coronation day. We see him using the Frost Giants to steal the powerful Teserach. We also see him kill Frost Giants he is supposedly working with. It’s hard to know what Loki’s real motivations are because he is always playing games within games. And in this first film, that constant manipulation and treachery makes Loki hard to root for most of the time.

 

In fact, when Loki discovers the truth of his birth, that he is really the son of the Frost Giant Laufey and not the son of Odin, he reacts so angrily to the discovery that it’s hard to feel sympathy for him. He has been aggrieved, but his anger undercuts our feelings for him:

 

Loki: “The Casket wasn't the only thing you took from Jotunheim that day, was it?”

Odin: “No. In the aftermath of the battle I went into the temple and I found a baby. Small for a Giant's offspring, abandoned, suffering, left to die. Laufey's son.”

Loki: “Laufey's son?”

Odin: “Yes.”

Loki: “Why? You were knee-deep in Jotun blood. Why would you take me?”

Odin: “You were an innocent child.”

Loki: “No. You took me for a purpose. What was it?... TELL ME!”

Odin: “I thought we could unite our kingdoms one day. Bring about an alliance, bring about permanent peace...through you.”

Loki: “What?”

Odin: “But those plans no longer matter.”

Loki: “So I am no more than another stolen relic, locked up here until you might have use of me?”

Odin: “Why do you twist my words?”

Loki: “You could have told me what I was from the beginning! Why didn't you?”

Odin: “You're my son... I wanted only to protect you from the truth...”

Loki: “What, because I...I...I am the monster parents tell their children about at night?”

Odin: “No! No!”

Loki: “You know, it all makes sense now, why you favored Thor all these years, because no matter how much you claim to love me, you could never have a Frost Giant sitting on the throne of Asgard!”

 

Loki has the right to be angry; Odin has kept the truth of his birth from him. But he rejects Odin’s sense of compassion for the abandoned baby Loki, for the son he has raised and loved. Loki feels only the throne matters. But Odin wants him to understand that he does belong in Asgard.

 

Yet even this look into Loki’s inner being is hard to trust. We can never be totally sure what Loki’s true motivations are. He is the greatest of tricksters, and so he is constantly tricking us as film viewers. Just when we think we understand him, Loki deals another ace from up his sleeve. He tells the Frost Giants he will let them into Asgard so they can kill Odin who has fallen into the Odin-sleep. Then, at the last moment, he double crosses the Frost Giant assassins and kills them instead. He then uses the foiled assassination attempt as a justification to destroy the Frost Giant’s homeworld of Jotunheim. Loki plans to unleash the bifrost (an energy force which we see as the Rainbow bridge) to destroy the world. When Thor asks why he is doing all of this, Loki replies, “To prove to father that I am a worthy son. When he awakes, I will have saved his life, and destroyed that race of monsters.” Thor calls Loki’s plan madness and the two struggle. Thor manages to stop Loki by destroying the Rainbow bridge, cutting them off from Earth and the other worlds of the realm.

 

Near the end of their struggle, Loki says, “I never wanted the throne! I only ever wanted to be your equal!” I think re-watching Thor now, I see this as Loki’s true motivation. Marvel’s strength is redemption stories. For all the bad things Loki does, even telling Thor the awful lie that their father has died, Loki’s real problem is that he never believes he is a worthy brother to Thor. Thus, the journey Loki must take is one in which he finds his own self-worth. Rather than only being a trickster, Loki must come to understand that he is every bit the hero his brother is. He learns this over the course of many films, to make the right choices and to accept who he is. When we finally see Loki rise from villain to hero, we know, as he comes to understand, that he has as much claim to the title of Odinson as his mighty brother Thor.