Issue 8: Sandy's Reflections on Thor: The Dark World (2013)

I honestly think I suffer from bad placement with these films. Ha! Back-to-back with Iron Man 3, I feel that The Dark World suffered from extreme disappointment in the glowing love that had been showered upon the MCU. Regarded by most as the worst entry in not just the Thor franchise, but also the MCU, I’d like to take a moment to once again defend my love of a misunderstood film.

I started doing research on the movie, and Natalie Portman, to find where this dislike of Jane Foster (once again, I have to defend my joy in Jane as a character), and I realized that I’m just tired of doing so. Why does everyone else dislike her? Or Natalie Portman’s portrayal?

 

Here’s a quick recap of where we were…”In the MCU, Jane Foster has doctorates of her own. Responsible for the Foster Theory and widely regarded as one of the world's most brilliant astrophysicists, she combines scientific discipline — she was in the running for a Nobel Prize — with a risk-taking adventurous spirit. Although fiercely independent, she was more than a little miffed to find out that after she and Thor connected in his first solo outing, he come back to Earth in The Avengers and didn't even bother to get in contact with her, as witnessed in a scene in Thor: The Dark World.”

 

Thor [Worried.]: "Where were you? Heimdall cannot see you."

 

Jane [Frustrated]: "I was right here where you left me. I was waiting, and then I was crying, and then I went out looking for you. [GETTING ANGRIER.] You said you were coming back."

 

Thor: "I know. I know, but the Bifrost was destroyed. The Nine Realms erupted into chaos. Wars were raging; marauders were pillaging. I had to put an end to the slaughter."

 

Jane [Calmer]: "As excuses go, it's not terrible. But I saw you on TV. You were in New York!"

 

Thor: "Jane, I fought to protect you from the dangers of my world, but I was wrong. I was a fool. But I believe that fate brought us together."

 

(https://www.looper.com/162039/heres-why-natalie-portman-decided-to-return-to-the-mcu/)

 

I have already written a blog entry (see #4) about Jane, so I don’t want to re-write the same one. I think that doing this project has helped me to “cook” ideas longer, or differently, now than when I simply watched—or re-watched—on my own. I realize now that I did much more prep prior to Iron Man 3 or Thor or Thor: The Dark World because I knew already that I was going to spend my time defending why I like these films. When I saw that I had four tabs open on “Natalie Portman” and “The Dark World” prior to watching the movie, I knew, going in, what to expect. And, honestly, now I realize why I like Jane.

 

She’s not Peggy Carter, a woman ahead of her time, making her way in a man’s world.

 

She’s not Pepper Potts, one part love interest, and one part business-woman powerhouse who can rock a meeting as well as an action sequence.

 

She’s not Black Widow, a super-spy with kick-ass skills who can best even superheroes or aliens in battle.

 

As she is built in the MCU, Jane is “vastly different from her comics counterpart” (Sarah Jane, 2019). In her first appearance in issue #84 of Journey into Mystery, Jane was originally a nurse for Dr. Donald Blake (there’s a nod to this in the first Thor film, when Jane gives Thor a shirt from her ex who's name was Don Blake): “Jane is in love with Dr. Blake, but they keep their true feelings secret, much like the relationships between DC’s Lois Lane and Superman” (https://www.looper.com/162039/heres-why-natalie-portman-decided-to-return-to-the-mcu/).

Jane was built, then, to be a parallel to the very popular Lois Lane for the competing MCU: A human woman in love with a god-like superhero. But the MCU didn’t stick with this story. 

 

So, let’s add another one to my list: She’s not Lois Lane, either.

 

Instead, they made Jane a character who, as further developed in Thor: The Dark World, has emotions. She has left the U.S. to go to England to follow a lead on Thor’s whereabouts (and the next step in her research). She goes out on a date to get “back in the game,” but she obviously isn’t into it (one of my favorite comedic moments in the film), and she shows anger over Thor’s perceived abandonment of her in the time between films. She’s also delightful with her “Holy shit! We have to do that again,” when she’s swooning over being transported to Asgard. She finally feels included—whether that is through discussing science with an Asgardian doctor or bonding with Thor's mother.

 

So who is Jane, then? If I wanted Pepper or Lois or Peggy or Black Widow…I could watch another film. I could enjoy other characters. But I don’t always want these characters. Sometimes…I just want to see the scientist who stutters when she’s talking with a god. Or who puts the cereal bowl in the cupboard because she’s flustered to be so close to her crush. Or who manages, in rubber rain boots, to use science to help Thor save the day. She’s not suave or super sexy or defined with kick-ass skills. She’s a bit geeky and unsure and flawed. So who is Jane Foster? And why do I like her?

 

Jane is me: The normal, flawed viewer who sometimes wants to curl up on the couch and see a version herself on the screen, quirks and all. 

 

So bring on the negativity about this film and my girl Jane. I bet I can find some rain boots in my closet!

Issue 8: Alex's Reflections on Thor: The Dark World (2013)

It is interesting to note that what I consider to be the weakest two movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe are back-to-back in chronological order. As was stated in my previous review, Iron Man 3 supremely botched a classic villain (The Mandarin) and toyed with Tony Stark’s character. But Thor: The Dark World may lay claim to being the weakest Marvel Cinematic Universe movie. 

Visually, the film is well done. The colors are strong, the sequences are visually coherent, and the effects are adequate. However, this film falters in its insistence on pushing the Thor and Dr. Jane Foster romance through a plot involving a Dark Elf named Malekith (Christopher Eccleston). My apologies to my fellow reviewers, but the Thor/Jane Foster romance feels incredibly forced. There are subtle hints at a possible love triangle throughout the film with Lady Sif (Jaimie Alexander), but knowing how these movies progress, that story is quickly shelved. And for that matter, so is Jane Foster’s Story. Thor: The Dark World marks the end of Jane Foster’s impact in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Looking into the history before I completed this review, the reason for her departure is cited as “creative differences” (Hedash, 2019). Portman reportedly only agreed to the sequel because Patty Jenkins (the director of Wonder Woman) was originally hired. But the studio replaced Jenkins with Alan Taylor, and apparently the replacement of Jenkins displeased Portman.

 

I bring all of this up because a major shift in the Thor franchise occurs here, and it is centered around Portman’s character of Jane Foster. It is unfair of me to make assumptions about what happened with Natalie Portman’s situation with Marvel during the making of this film because I simply do not know the details. However, I can say that as a viewer of the film, I can see this issue having an impact in the movie itself. What is especially odd is the end credits scene where Thor comes back to see Jane. It is as if the film makers are telling the audience, “See, we’re not done with Jane’s character yet. Right? Are we done? Maybe. Who knows…” The reality is Marvel was done with Jane Foster until the recent Thor: Love and Thunder was announced where Natalie Portman is supposed to play Thor.

 

If you were to watch all of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in one long binge watch, Thor: The Dark World would be the snack break. This is the movie you could skip. Yes, portions of it are referenced in Avengers: Endgame, but a simple explanation from a buddy would suffice in filling out the details:

Friend 1: “So yeah, Natalie Portman has this red stuff in her that turned out to be an Infinity Stone. And then you never see her again.”

Friend 2: “Oh, ok. Do I need to know anything else?”

Friend 3: “Nah. That’s it.”

And that, Charlie Brown, is the true meaning of Thor: The Dark World.

Reference

Hedash, K., (2019). Why Natalie Portman originally left the Thor movies.

 

 

Issue 8: Gian's Reflections on Thor: The Dark World (2013)

As I stated in an earlier blog post, I was not a big Loki fan when the early Marvel films were coming out. And though many people came to love Loki (played so perfectly by Tom Hiddleston), I found myself holding back. But watching the Marvel movies again, I have grown more and more fond of Loki’s character. And so I was very moved by Loki’s growth and development in Thor: The Dark World (2013). 

Which led to an interesting argument with my good friend, Alex. Alex feels that Loki remains evil, and he should be judged by his actions. In Thor, Loki tried to kill the all the Frost Giants. He also tried to strand to his brother on earth, caused who knows how much torment by making his brother think their father was dead, and committed treason against his home world of Asgard. When he landed on earth in The Avengers, Loki killed lots of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents and mind controlled several others. He committed those acts as he pursued his goal to conquer all of humankind with a plan of unleashing an army of alien Chitauri onto the earth, destroying a lot of New York City in the process.

 

As Alex pointed out to me, that’s a lot of bad stuff: Loki deserves punishment, not our sympathy. It’s pretty hard to argue with that line of reasoning, but I’m going to try anyway. Because Loki’s story is about redemption, and I’d like to think that, no matter how far we fall, we always have a chance at redeeming ourselves.

 

Of course, I know some people do horrible, unforgivable things. That’s true. But whether or not we can forgive them for those acts, redemption is always about the individual trying to forgive themselves. I also take a small consolation in thinking that the Loki in Avengers was written too darkly for his true nature. I prefer Loki from The Avengers comic who didn’t kill anyone, but instead shouted “Bah! I’ll destroy you all!”: A daunting but hollow threat.

 

 

Of course, when Marvel brought it’s superheroes to the silver screen, they realized that an ethical code like not killing was hard to maintain in a more real looking world. So not only do Marvel’s villains kill, but so do Cap and Iron Man and the rest. Marvel has left the white-washed world of the Comics Code Authority far behind.

 

 

So while I admit, there are some challenges to feeling sympathy for Loki, I think it’s useful to recall the following scene from Thor: The Dark World. Loki has been sentenced to life in an Asgardian prison for his attempt to conquer earth. While he is there, Asgard is attacked by Dark Eleves who have come to steal the Aether (one of the Infinity Stones known as the Reality Stone). The Aether has been accidentally trapped inside Jane Foster (played by Natalie Portman who does great when the writers give her character anything worth doing!). To protect both Jane and the Aether, Queen Frigga (in a fine performance by Rene Russo) fights with the Dark Elves and is killed during the combat. Thor (embodied by Chris Hemsworth) goes nearly mad from the loss. Loki appears too angry to care, but then we learn the truth about his own suffering from his mother’s death. As Thor approaches the cell, Loki says:

 

Loki: “Thor. After all this time, and now you come to visit me. Why? Have you come to gloat? To mock?”

Thor: “Loki, enough. No more illusions.”

[Loki had been standing, sneering at Thor. But Loki closes his eyes, and the illusion fades away to reveal Loki slumped against the back wall of his cell. The chairs and tables in his cell have been smashed and broken. Loki is barefoot and his left foot has a long, bloody cut on it.]

Loki: “Now you see me, brother.”

[Thor walks up near the wall of the cell.]

Loki: “Did she suffer?”

Thor: “I did not come here to share our grief. Instead I offer you the chance of a far richer sacrament.”

Loki: “Go on.”

Thor: “I know you seek vengeance as much as I do. You help me escape Asgard, and I will grant it to you. Vengeance. And afterwards this cell.”

[Loki laughs bitterly.]

Loki: “You must be truly desperate to come to me for help. What makes you think you can trust me?”

Thor: “I don’t. Mother did. But you should know that when we fought each other in the past, I did so with glimmer of hope that my brother was still in there somewhere. That glimmer of hope no longer exists to protect you. You betray me, and I will kill you.

Loki [with a smile]: “Hmm. When do we start?”

 

The closes ups of Loki’s face show us how broken and lost he is from his mother’s death. When Thor offers him a chance at vengeance, of course he takes it. But he is simply trading anger for grief. Loki doesn’t care about living and thinks he has no reason to live. He has done too much evil, and the one person who truly loved him, his mother, is gone. Thor’s speech also makes it seem that he has given up on his brother.

 

Perhaps Loki deserves having everyone give up on him. And yet, how many of us have made huge mistakes? I think the reason audiences took to Loki as a character is not that we want to excuse his crimes. Instead, we can see ourselves in Loki: Flawed, crushed, sad, lost. A person does not have to commit major crimes (and I certainly hope none of our readers do!) to feel alone and guilty for any number of sins. How many people are haunted by their mistakes and bad choices? There’s a little bit of Loki in all of us: The trickster, the rebel, the child who believes they are loved less, the person who never got the glory they deserved.

 

And as we see Loki for what he truly is, not an evil demi-god or monster, but a flawed “human,” he begins to win us over. Well, maybe not my friend Alex, but me and a lot of other viewers. Loki does become a kind of cool anti-hero. And he is so charming and handsome, of course. But it is his grief and his failures and his struggles that make us root for him.

 

Loki has a brother that cares about him. A father who loves him in spite of Loki’s flaws. If Loki could let down his guard just a little, he could find the acceptance and love he needs far more than any king’s crown. But Loki can’t see his own faults. As his mother tells him, “You’re always so perceptive, about everyone but yourself.” Loki thinks everyone is against him and that he knows what’s best. He is wrong on both counts. His pride always gets in his way. He would rather mock people or act cynical or sulk in indignant outrage at the wrongs done to him, than swallow his pride and try to do better. “It’s not fair,” Loki always seems to be saying. How many times have I found myself saying that? And what about you?

 

As the film goes along, the two brothers end up fighting side-by-side. The key for both Loki and Thor is their brotherly bond. Like all brothers, they both love and hate each other, always struggling to outdo each other, even in grief:

 

Thor: “You had her tricks, but I had her trust!”

Loki: “Trust? Was that her last expression, trust? While you let her die?”

Thor: “What good were you in your cell?”

Loki: “Who put me there? WHO PUT ME THERE?”

Thor: “YOU KNOW DAMN WELL WHO! YOU KNOW DAMN WELL!”

[Thor shoves Loki against a wall of their Viking winged airship, then lets him go.]

Thor: “She wouldn’t want us to fight.”

Loki: “Well, she wouldn’t exactly be shocked.”

Thor [smiles]: “I wish I could trust you.”

[As Thor turns away, Loki whispers,]

Loki: “Trust my rage.”

 

Loki’s rage is his way of protecting himself against all of his hurt and loss. But anger can only protect us for so long. We have to get past the anger. We have to let go of that anger and trust again, open ourselves up to the potential of being hurt again. The trust and the risk go hand in hand with the connection and the love.

 

Loki has to learn this. He has to learn trust, and he has to learn to be trustworthy. He has to find honor and earn the respect of his brother. He has to become better than he was. Which is what we want, too, to be better than who we have been when we have made mistakes. Which is why, despite all his flaws, so many of us end up rooting for Loki to find redemption. His redemption is a hope for our own.

Issue 7: Sandy’s Reflections: Iron Man 3 (2013)

I knew going into this film that I was going to have an uphill battle. I know that this film is divisive—to say the least. I had all my arguments ready when we watched the movie together on Zoom, and I knew Alex was over it before the Marvel opening credits rolled. Ha. I was originally going to write about Pepper Potts’ evolution, and the fact that this film passes the Bechdel Test well with two strong female characters. However, my ideas shifted as I contemplated why I truly love this film, and there’s more than one reason that I think makes this film a strong entry in the MCU.

 

Let’s start with my ideas about Pepper Potts and Maya Hansen as strong female characters. The Bechdel Test was invented in 1985 by Alison Bechdel in her comic strip called The Rule. The test’s premise is simple: How does a female character function in a film? To pass the test, a film must have more than one woman in a major role; further, the women must have a conversation, and a plot, that extends beyond the male characters. Simply put, they need to talk about something, anything, other than a man. Sadly, many films do not pass the test. A simple graphic from Harvard’s research blog presents a clear and easy visual that you can use for any film (https://researchblog.duke.edu/2017/08/04/sizing-up-hollywoods-gender-gap/). For more information, you can also visit https://bechdeltest.com to see The Bechdel Test Movie List for over 8,000 films that viewers have rated for TBT.

 

Pepper Potts is crafted in this film as the CEO of Stark Industries, as per the events of IM2. She is in charge of Tony’s company, and she doesn’t consult him regarding Aldrich Killian’s plans for Extremis—and she has numerous scenes where Tony Stark isn’t even present. To pass the test, though, IM3 uses Maya Hansen’s scientist well, building her character in layers throughout the film, and introducing her as a common trope for conflict: The ex-girlfriend. However, Pepper doesn’t fall for that, and that’s where the trope remains; much like my review of Natasha and Pepper’s interactions in IM2, Pepper doesn’t get jealous of another woman, and they share several scenes where they discuss their commonalities, mainly the stressors of being ambitious career women. Maya’s character is layered interestingly, starting as ex, then seemingly as someone who can help Tony uncover Killian’s nefarious plan, and then last as a desperate scientist who chose the wrong path to follow with her genius. And, just as she grows, so does Pepper—who has more than one scene where she wields Iron Man’s armor. (I was rooting for her alter-ego Rescue to appear at some point, and this film gives us a glimpse of Pepper in a suit!) To read more on my ideas about Pepper as a strong comic-and-film character, you can check out my chapter “The Power of Potts and Pens” in my book Comic Connections: Reflecting on Women in Popular Culture. (Shameless plug—all of my books are on Amazon!) Ha.

 

However, there are other reasons I love this film. What I truly think works well is Tony’s evolution. He is committed to Pepper fully, and he is trying to step outside of his own self-absorbed bubble to move forward as a better man, a better partner, and interestingly—a better gift-giver. Follow me here…in the original Iron Man, Pepper and Tony share a dance, and he comments on her gorgeous dress: 

Tony: "Miss Potts -- can I have five minutes? You look...you look like should always wear that dress."

Pepper: "Thanks. It was a birthday present--from you."

Tony: "I have great taste." 

So in the first film, Tony doesn’t buy her a present; his money was used by Pepper to buy something extravagant that she probably wouldn’t buy herself for a Stark event. He notices the dress, but he didn’t put any energy into buying it. 

 

As a result of that film, and the first half of Iron Man 2, Tony attempts to apologize for his over-the-top behavior by buying Pepper some strawberries from a road-side stand to complement his apology: 

 

Pepper: "Did you bring me strawberries? Did you know that there’s only one thing on Earth that I’m allergic to?"

Tony: "Allergic to strawberries. This is progress, Pepper! I knew there was a correlation…"

Tony grows in IM3 even more, and he plans a gift for Pepper for Christmas at the start of the film: A giant bunny. He’s impatient for her to notice the gift, as it is probably one of the first gifts he ever tried to plan and give. This bunny is adorably wrong in many ways: It won’t fit in the door, it’s too large and unwieldy, and it’s humorously for the wrong holiday. So this bunny comes up multiple times in the movie, from him hesitantly asking if she liked it to complaining about why she didn’t—it’s obvious that he doesn’t understand yet why she doesn’t—and his feelings are hurt at her dismissal of the gift. 

 

By the end of IM3, Tony has come full circle with gift-giving. Pepper has tried to explain to him that his obsessive working, his many, many armor designs, and his tweaking of various IM suits is coming between them, calling them his distractions. Once the conflict has been resolved, the plot returns to this idea of gift-giving in two ways. First, Tony gives Pepper the gift she really did want: That he heard her and was healing.

 

Tony: "That’s what I do. I fix stuff."

 

Pepper: "And all your distractions?"

 

Tony: "I’m going to shave them down a little bit." TAPPING HIS EAR: "Jarvis, hey."

 

Jarvis: "Will there be anything else?"

 

Tony: "You know what to do."

 

Jarvis: "The Clean Slate Protocol, Sir?"

 

Tony: "Screw it…it’s Christmas. Yes." MORE FORCEFULLY: "Yes." HUGGING PEPPER, HOPEFUL: "Do you like it?"

 

Pepper, ELATED: "It’ll do."

This resolution to the Bunny-gift misfire shows that Tony has grown in many ways, working to overcome his PTSD from the events of The Avengers, and learning how to be a better partner for Pepper. In the closing montage, Tony gifts Pepper with yet another gift: A gorgeous necklace, with the stones in his signature Iron Man red. But what makes this gift even more special? The chain is made up of shrapnel that had been preventing him from living fully--maybe both metaphorically and physically. Tony is now ready to move forward, past his demons, past his prior behavior, past his fear of dying. Instead, he can now embrace living--a gift for both Pepper and himself.

So, all in all, I think this film is a solid entry—great, even—in the MCU despite all of the complaints about the Mandarin. For me, as a viewer, I think there’s so much here to like and enjoy. I guess that I just want Iron Man 3 to be a gift to viewers…who may have to watch it again to appreciate the contents of the package.

Issue 7: Alex's Reflections on Iron Man 3 (2013)

The debacle of this film is the Mandarin. Before even re-watching Iron Man 3, I remembered the utter misuse of a classic Marvel villain who is often considered to be Iron Man’s arch-nemesis. Ben Kingsley, at first, plays the villain as he ought to be played: Brutal, callous, and horrifyingly devoid of morality. The film is even built around Tony Stark’s fear and abnormal reaction to The Mandarin which includes challenging the terrorist by giving him his home address. As a villain, the Mandarin put Tony Stark off his proverbial game. 

 

Further into the film, The Mandarin hijacks the television airwaves in the United States. While holding a hostage and threatening to kill him, The Mandarin instructs the President of the United States to call him in order to save the hostage’s life. The President does so, but The Mandarin kills the hostage on live television anyway. This is a nasty villain who needs to be defeated. Then came the reveal…

 

After Tony Stark finds The Mandarin, the villain turns out to be nothing but a bumbling Keith Richards rip-off complete with stereotypical drug and alcohol abuse. This film built up a great villain, contextualized the majority of the story around his presence, and then discarded him to reveal that the true villain was Aldrich Killian played by Guy Pearce…that one guy from Memento and The Time Machine. My main question is this: Why? Why waste one of the premiere Marvel villains? Looking back the entirety of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, there are two villains who have any lasting impact: Loki and Thanos. Loki even eventually turns into the cool anti-hero, so there is really just one villain in Marvel that pushes the mythology in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The thesis here is that The Mandarin could have been a villain with staying power, but instead they have him drinking Budweisers while watching daytime soccer matches. What a waste of a character.  

 

My colleague loves this film, and her explanation of how it is a growth story about Tony Stark and his maturing relationship with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) is compelling. While watching this, Sandy made excellent points throughout including how Tony’s gift-giving matured and how he admitted his obsession with his Iron Man suits. However, even that final scene with Tony destroying all of his suits in order to show his commitment to Pepper was confusing to me. All of the films that featured Tony Stark to this point in the Marvel Cinematic Universe built up Tony’s identity as it related to being Iron Man. Hell, even the famous final and celebrated line from the first film is, “The truth is, I am Iron Man.” After Iron Man 3, he is not because…I actually cannot understand that narrative choice and trying to make sense of it is fruitless. And to support this point, the Iron Man suit is back in his next appearance in Avengers: Age of Ultron. The narrative choices for Tony Stark are done away with right away in the very next movie. Maybe he shouldn’t have destroyed all of those suits.

Issue #7: Gian's Reflections on Iron Man 3 (2013)

Iron Man 3

7/12/20

 

“Am I going to be ok?” Pepper Potts asks Tony Stark near the end of Iron Man 3 (2013). “No,” replies Tony. “You’re in a relationship with me. You’re never gonna be ok.”

 

I have to admit, I really disliked Iron Man 3 when I first saw it. I didn’t like what they did to the Mandarin and I didn’t like Tony blowing up his armor. But now, watching it again several years later, I think I finally can see why my friend Sandy loves this film so much and how I misread it. In my earlier blog entries, I’ve talked about Tony’s search for redemption. This film, though, shifts the focus from Tony on his own to Tony in his relationship with Pepper. The relationship was there before, but here it defines Tony. This film is not just about Tony figuring out how to be a good person, it’s also about Tony figuring out how to be a good partner with Pepper.

 

Ironically, by the time of Iron Man 3 Tony has learned to be a better person. In Avengers he risked his own life to close the worm hole the Chitauri were using to launch their invasion of earth. He wasn’t motivated by ego, he was motivated to save New York City and the rest of earth’s people. But that selfless act has left Tony suffering with PTSD. He becomes obsessed with working and making new Iron Man suits. He works day after day around the clock. When he becomes so obsessed with working that he can’t stop to greet Pepper after her day at work, he sends an empty Iron Man suit to the living room to pretend he’s there. Pepper isn’t fooled, and so she walks down to his laboratory and confronts Tony. Then he admits, 

 

Tony: “I love you. I’m lucky. But, honey, I can’t sleep. You go to bed. I come down here. I do what I know. I tinker. Threat is imminent and I have to protect the one thing I can’t live without. That’s you. And my suits, they’re unh,”

 

Pepper: “Machines.”

 

Tony: “They’re part of me.

 

Pepper: “A distraction.”

 

Tony: “Maybe.”

 

This is Tony opening up. And it’s a crucial scene. Pepper’s anger vanishes when she realizes the truth. She puts her arms around Tony. Yet it’s only a moment and we know he hasn’t let her in far enough. Pepper is essential to Tony. He always rushes to save her. But he still sees her as apart from him. His work, his Iron Man suits, those he sees as parts of himself, essential. But he has not brought Pepper all the way in. He didn’t turn to her first for help. He couldn’t admit he needed her. He knows he’s troubled from the alien invasion, he knows he’s on the verge of freaking out. Yet he can’t ask his lover for help. He’s in a relationship with Pepper, but he isn’t trying to build and improve that relationship the way he does with his suits. He doesn’t turn to Pepper when he needs help the most. He’s good with machines, not with people. It’s the people he has to learn to deal with.

 

The film handles this in various ways. Tony continues to not want to touch things. He has a phobia where he’s afraid to have people hand him anything. It seems odd in the films, but, in the coronavirus era, it doesn’t seem so crazy.

 

We also get Tony’s challenge of trying to buy Pepper the right Christmas gift. Here he fails spectacularly, buying her a gigantic stuffed bunny that no one would ever want. Tony thinks bigger is better, but Pepper doesn’t want an external gift. She wants Tony to prove he loves her, that he wants her to be at the center of his life. Although the bunny gift is funny in its absurdity, showing that Tony is still far too self-absorbed to be able to imagine the kind of gift Pepper might really want, is inability to open up to her about his problems is far more significant.

 

So Iron Man 3 director Shane Black brings in another character, a kid (as he is mostly referred to) named Harley Keener (played by Ty Simpkins), to help Tony learn some more about actually connecting with people. Tony meets Harley when his suit runs out of power and crashes in Tennessee. The suit has actually guided him to a site he was investigating to figure out the Mandarin’s plot. Tony has several nice scenes with the kid. When I first saw it, I thought Marvel was just trying to be cute to get a few laughs. But it’s clearly more important than that.

 

At one point, the kid tells Tony that his dad left. Tony, who has anger issues with his own father, replies cruelly, “Which happens, Dad’s leave. No need to be a pussy about it.” Unable to actually connect meaningfully, Tony resorts to black humor. It doesn’t work when dealing with a child of course. But the kid helps save Tony during a fight, and eventually Tony admits, “You did good, kid.” Tony still mocks the idea that he and the kid are connected and that he needs the kid, but of course he does.

 

I think the first time what bothered me the most about the movie was that they kept taking Tony out of the suit. I wanted to see Iron Man, not just Robert Downey, Jr. I was dismissive at the time thinking it was just an actor wanting more screen time. But like Tony, I'll try to grow from my mistakes and admit that I needed the help of my good friend Sandy to see what Iron Man 3 was really trying to show us: Tony had to get out of his suit. The truth is, Tony was hiding in the Iron Man armor. He wasn’t just afraid of the Chitauri, he was afraid of being human, of connecting with Harley or Pepper. Being Iron Man was easy, but being Tony Stark was hard. In the end Tony figured out that the suits weren’t really him, and so he blew them up (another thing I hated!!!). But as precious as the suits are, they are only machines as Pepper points out. Tony had to let them go so he could really move toward Pepper and the family he was meant to have with her. And, of course, we know he can always build another suit of armor.

Issue #6: Sandy's Reflections on Marvel's The Avengers (2012)

First, I want to start with one line: The Avengers is, to me, an almost perfect movie. It has heart, and it has everything I love about Joss Whedon’s work. Much like Firefly or Buffy, Whedon can craft a sci-fi realm that is both spectacular and believable, with characters you care about. He can balance multiple characters well, giving each a moment in the sun, and he can craft some of the best lines ever, such as Pepper and Tony’s opening discussion about their newly designed, clean-energy Stark Tower in Manhattan: 

TONY: Give yourself some credit, please. Stark Tower is your baby. Give yourself -- twelve percent of the credit.

 

PEPPER: Twelve percent?

 

TONY: An argument can be made for fifteen.

 

PEPPER: Twelve percent? For my baby?

 

TONY: Well, I did do all the heavy lifting. Literally, I lifted the heavy things. And sorry, but the security snafu? That was on you.

 

PEPPER: Oooooh.

 

TONY: My private elevator --

 

PEPPER: You mean OUR elevator?

 

TONY, CONTINUING, UNFAZED: -- was teeming with sweaty workmen. I'm going to pay for that comment about percentages in some subtle way later, aren't I?

 

PEPPER: Not going to be that subtle.

 

TONY: I'll tell you what. Next building's going to say 'Potts' on the tower.

 

PEPPER, SMILING: On the lease.

 

This exchange is one of my favorites because it shows that Pepper, despite being a normal, non-powered human in a superhuman world, can stand up for herself. She is confident enough of—and proud of—her own contributions to Stark Technologies to want proper credit and recognition. Also, it’s just a great scene that crackles with their on-screen chemistry.

 

So, I believe this film allows even characters that are supporting players to have a moment to shine and grow, and it really is a fun and enjoyable film. It also felt very Whedon-esque to me as a long-time Whedon fan (who can quote Buffy at any moment that might need a good one-liner, or who still says “Shiny!” when something happens that is wonderful, or who has a cat named River).

 

But there is one moment that I have increasing issues with, one line that I dislike: Loki’s cutting remark to Black Widow where he calls her a “mewling quim.” I admit that I was so in love with this film the first time (or the first 20 times) I watched it that I just blew over the line, knowing it was an insult to upset her. I was not concerned at all, and it didn’t detract from my enjoyment of that scene as a whole (I love that she was playing him all along to find out his plan) or the film in general.

 

However, now, post-Justice League fiasco, I have to hold this line to the same mirror that I do the horribly written scene between Martha Kent and Lois Lane. Mourning their loss of Clark Kent (spoiler: Superman dies in Batman v Superman, the previous film), they are having coffee and sharing stories to supposedly cheer each other up. Martha recounts Clark’s pride in Lois’s journalistic skills and says, mistakenly, that Lois “was the thirstiest young woman he had ever met.” After an awkward beat, Martha realizes her mistake and quickly changes it to “hungriest.”

 

The Justice League scene doesn’t just bother me a little—it bothers me quite a bit. And, looking back, I don’t like “mewling quim” either. Joss Whedon can write women very, very well, and other scenes in The Avengers crackle with his view of women as capable, intelligent, and even powerful. Andrew Dyce writes in the article “Which Justice League Lines are Definitely Whedon?” that the “thirsty” scene “may be the area where Whedon's writing has come under the most scrutiny and criticism, and in all honesty, it's easy to see why. The idea of sexualizing any of the women in Man of Steel or Batman v Superman seems odd in hindsight” (https://screenrant.com/justice-league-movie-joss-whedon-jokes-lines/).

 

So, let’s tie this all together, bringing it back to The Avengers. Doing a bit of legwork for this post, I actually found that many other writers in the Twitterverse and bloggers online had something to say about this one mark on the greatness that is one of the best comic book films. Here is a snippet from Cleolinda on LiveJournal, post-Avengers that captures my own thoughts well:

 

I know more about vulgarity through the ages than I probably should, and I immediately recognized the word "quim." My jaw literally dropped, in the literal sense of literally, when I heard it. I mean, not onto the floor or anything, but it genuinely dropped a good inch or so. In less fancy English, Loki called her a "whining c---," a gendered insult in American usage that even I don't like to write out, and I curse a good bit. My understanding is that the word quim dates back to the early 1600s, meaning the female genitalia; in the Victorian era, it meant the female genitalia and/or the fluids therein as well. It is largely British usage, not American. (Supposedly it's not even English slang these days, just Welsh. Brits can confirm or deny this.) Which is, I'm pretty sure, the reason the word was used by the filmmakers and allowed by the MPAA: they didn't expect a whole lot of people to understand it. The American equivalent never would have made it in, particularly because it's pretty much the last expletive in American culture that's genuinely taboo. Coyly archaic or not, "mewling quim" was a really unpleasant thing to say, in a matching tone of voice that gets the spirit across if not the precise meaning, in an otherwise all-demographics PG-13 family-friendly superhero epic, and I don't understand why it was necessary.

So I was surprised when I saw this in Joss Whedon's letter to his fans:

RDA: What do you feel is the greatest achievement of "the Avoiders"?

JW: Getting "mewling quim" out there to the masses. Also, Hulk.  (https://cleolinda.livejournal.com/1022287.html)

 

The blogger analyzed over 400 comments early on after the release of the film, many on both sides of the issue (Loki's insult either didn’t bother them or it did). Many of those who didn’t like it, she concluded, were Thor fans who thought it was not in line with Loki’s character. Most everyone agreed that it has no connection to the comic source material. And why was Whedon proud of that line? That he could get away with a synonym for the c-word in a comic book film? This sounds awful and adolescent just thinking it.

 

I would like to hold Whedon to a higher standard, and I still love his work. But this one line makes me uncomfortable, and knowing that he throws in another unnecessary quip in Justice League makes me sad that one of my favorite auteurs seems to write women well but yet doesn’t see how these unneeded lines undercut the good work that he does crafting wonderful female characters. 

 

Joss, do better. Because I know you can.

Issue #6: Alex's Reflections on Marvel's The Avengers (2012)

When this film is historically contextualized to its release date, the plot of the film revolves around a literal box. This box (called Tesseract or Cosmic Cube) has magical properties that yield immeasurable power, but it is still a box. It is strikingly similar to the Allspark Cube in Transformers (2007), a film which also culminates in a city-wide battle. If one can ignore the fact that the Tesseract is part of the Infinity Stones which will come into play years later, The Avengers’ first foray into the major public consciousness is fighting over a box.

 

I will admit it is a bit cavalier to generalize the maguffin in this film as merely a box, but it serves the point that this film acts as an All-Star Game. In sports, the All-Star Game has the best players from each league or conference faceoff in an exhibition game. That is what Avengers feels like: a film that is an All-Star Game. Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, The Incredible Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye (no idea why he’s in this) defend the world from Loki’s attempt to conquer all of humanity with the help of the Tesseract and the Chitauri (a race of aliens). The culminating battle in the heart of New York City is well done, and having seen it in its entirety for the first time in years, it was a refreshing and entertaining action scene.

 

However, the All-Star Game analogy still holds true despite the quality of the action sequences. When Nick Fury speaks with the captured Loki, Loki asks Fury, “How desperate are you? That you call upon such lost creatures to defend you?” The heroes in Avengers are, indeed, lost, and the entire narrative arc of the film gives them a purpose to strive toward together. This cause feels artificial, though. For all intents and purposes, the Avengers are thrown together simply to push a larger narrative arc forward. This film is necessary for future events in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it feels like an exhibition.

 

The brevity of this reflection is conspicuous, but as I told my fellow reviewers this week, I had a difficult time thinking of something to say about The Avengers. The other films in this series before The Avengers may not have been as good, but there was a lot to deconstruct. With The Avengers, it feels like the 2002 Major League Baseball All Star Game…which ended in a tie.

Issue #6: Gian's Reflections on Marvel's The Avengers (2012)

There had never been a movie like Marvel’s The Avengers when it premiered in 2012. A big budget film, A-list actors, a big-time director in Joss Whedon, and a full team of superpowered heroes in costumes. Watching it a decade later, it still remains a great movie. It’s exciting, funny, and fast-paced. But I have to admit that the big battles feel a lot longer than they did in the theatre the first time around. What holds my attention the most in later viewings of The Avengers is the small, quiet scenes among the characters.

 

I found myself especially drawn to the exchange between Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) and Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner). Barton had been put under Loki’s control, and forced to kill a lot of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents. After Natasha smacks Clint’s head against a metal railing, what she jokingly refers to as “cognitive recalibration,” he slowly comes back to himself. Highly troubled by what he did under Loki’s mind control, Clint asks:

 

Clint: “Tasha, how many agents did I…?”

Natasha: “Don’t. Don’t do that to yourself, Clint. This is Loki. This is monsters and magic and nothing we were ever trained for.”

Clint: “Loki, he got away?”

Natasha: “Yeah. Don’t suppose you know where?”

Clint: [Shakes his head] “Didn’t need to know. Didn’t ask. He’s gonna make his play soon though. Today.”

Natasha: “We gotta stop him.”

Clint: “Yeah? Who’s ‘we’?”

Natasha: [Shrugs] “I don’t know. Whoever’s left.”

Clint: “Well, I…if I put an arrow through Loki’s eye socket, I’d sleep better, I suppose.”

Natasha: “Now you sound like you.”

Clint: “But you don’t. You’re a spy, not a soldier. Now you want to wade into a war. Why? What did Loki do to you?”

Natasha: “He didn’t, I just…”

Clint: “Natasha.”

Natasha: “I’ve been compromised. I got red in my ledger. I’d like to wipe it out.”

 

It’s easy to think that Hawkeye and the Black Widow are out of place on this Avengers team. Neither has real superpowers. And, as Clint says, they’re spies, not soldiers. But it’s their humanity that makes them important. They help us see the world of the Avengers through human eyes.

 

Granted, neither Clint nor Natasha is just an ordinary person, but they also don’t have magic or high-tech armor or super soldier serum. Yes, they both can fight extremely well. And Hawkeye rarely misses his mark. But mostly, it’s their grace under pressure that makes them heroes. They don’t buckle under extremely trying circumstances.

 

In fact, when we first see Natasha in the film, she is tied to a chair, a beautiful damsel in distress being beaten by members of the Russian military. She looks helpless, but a few moments later she frees herself and quickly knocks out the soldiers. Best of all, as she walks out of the interrogation hanger, she grabs her high heeled shoes, emphasizing both her elegant style and her fighting prowess.

 

Hawkeye is also extremely cool under pressure. When Loki (Tom Hiddleston) arrives on earth and begins attacking S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, Clint saves Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) by knocking him out of the way of a blast from Loki’s magical Scepter. Clint then watches Loki kill multiple S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, but he remains undaunted. He staggers to his feet and tries to shoot Loki at close range. Loki blocks the attempt, then says Clint has heart as he touches Clint with the Scepter which houses the Mind Stone. Clint’s blue eyes momentarily turn liquid black, and we watch in horror as he loses himself and becomes Loki’s mind-controlled slave. We literally see through Clint’s black eyes the danger any human would be in from the power-hungry Asgardian. Clint is a hardened fighter, but he shows that ordinary humans appear to be no match for demi-gods.

 

And not long after we see Clint’s moment of human frailty, we see another such moment with the Black Widow. Even though Natasha Romanoff seems to have ice in her veins, she can be rattled. After Loki’s attack of the S.H.I.E.L.D. base, we find Natasha in Calcutta where she has been sent by S.H.I.E.L.D. to bring in Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo). At first, she is the icy cool Black Widow. She talks to Banner calmly, soothingly, flashing her dazzling smile. She tells Bruce that S.H.I.E.L.D. needs his help and that they want him to come in. When Banner says, “What if I say no?” Natasha smiles and says, “I’ll persuade you.” Then she shows Bruce a picture of the Tesseract Loki has stolen and explains that they need Banner to find the cube’s gamma signature in order retrieve it and prevent a global catastrophe. But when Bruce screams “STOP LYING TO ME!” at her, Natasha panics and grabs a gun she has hidden under the table where she is sitting. Bruce tells her to put the gun down so the Hulk doesn’t make a mess and we hear the thudding of Natasha’s heart. She’s scared, having gone from spy-in-control to facing the specter of the world’s most powerful monster.

 

It’s an important moment. As capable as the Black Widow is, she’s no match for the Hulk. She’s out of her depth, and she knows it. And the scene helps emphasize that we are treading in a world of Marvels. Natasha is our link to these unearthly beings. We see the heroes through her eyes. And, like, Clint, she sees with human eyes. But where Clint loses control due to the power of the Mind Stone, Natasha holds her own.

 

Which is of course why it was such a big disappointment that a Black Widow movie didn’t follow soon after The Avengers was released. I know people have complained about this before, but I’m going to say it again: How can anyone watch The Avengers and not see that Natasha Romanoff could carry her own film. She literally dominates every scene she’s in. She’s a great fighter, smolders on screen, and her back story is full of hardship, mystery, and intrigue. What was Marvel afraid of, that a Black Widow film would be too successful and they would have to pay Scarlett as much as her male counterparts?

 

Or what about giving us a Hawkeye and The Black Widow movie, if Marvel was so worried about having a female-led picture. After all, Hawkeye first appeared to fight Iron Man when the Black Widow recruited him back in Tales of Suspense #57. Renner and Johansson are great on screen together, so the pairing would have been fantastic.

 

But we didn’t get either of those films. Instead Marvel waited until Wonder Woman became a monster hit (maybe they were feeling sorry for D.C.?), and then they managed to schedule Black Widow for release during the pandemic (ok, that one really wasn’t their fault!). With no one able to go to the movies, we’ll never know how successful Black Widow might have been under normal circumstances. Not to mention that the film was already going to be hampered by being a prequel story since it wasn’t filmed in time to be part of the main MCU chronology.

 

But so it goes. We still get the Black Widow in all her glory in The Avengers. She even faces off with Loki, who despite being locked in a glass cage, seems menacingly dangerous. It’s human against Asgardian, but Natasha is undaunted by Loki’s threatening presence. Instead, she asks Loki to spare Clint’s life.

 

“Is this love, Agent Romanoff?” Loki says with a grin.

 

“Love is for children,” replies Natasha. “I owe him a debt.”

 

Here’s hoping that The Black Widow movie honors the debt Marvel has to this fabulous heroine. Natasha Romanoff deserves a great film. And if Clint Barton makes a cameo appearance somewhere in the film, that will be just fine too.