A review of Captain America: Civil War and my updated thoughts on Spider-Man joining the MCU

A couple of months back, I wrote a post explaining why I didn't think Spider-Man should be included in Captain America: Civil War. Simply put, I didn’t believe that justice could be done by including him as a secondary character in a larger story.

Having seen Civil War, I have been proved wrong.

"Avengers: Civil War"

Titling the film Captain America: Civil War is a little bit of a misnomer. Really it should have been called Avengers: Civil War. But I imagine Disney simply didn’t want to draw attention away from the upcoming Infinity War films. Besides, what would a cinematic portrayal of the Avengers be without Chris Hemsworth’s Thor or Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk?

This is, perhaps, the most mature film to have emerged from this series. Rather than dealing with cosmic entities and alien invasions, Civil War attempts to present a realistic approach to governments dealing with super powered beings. At the same time, the film does not become trapped by the seriousness of this premise. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has always effectively balanced realism, plot, and entertainment without being bogged down in any of them, and Captain America: Civil War is no exception.

The movie has some major plot holes, and in many places one can clearly see characters being guided by the writers’ omnipotent hands. Some of the action scenes are over the top, and I find it hard to believe that Iron Man’s armour only would only begin to show damage when it provides the most dramatic effect. Martin Freeman’s American accent is about as believable Tom Cruise playing a Nazi colonel.

I refuse to take Falcon seriously as a member of the Avengers.

Yet, despite the number of things one could say was wrong with this movie, it does something very right. As with all of the MCU’s films to date, the undeniable problems with Captain America: Civil War are eclipsed by some intangibly endearing quality. Unlike many comic book adaptations that attempt to transcend the genre, Civil War succeeds because it firmly embraces the best aspects of its source material. In its aesthetics, its narrative, and its action, Captain America: Civil War thrives as a comic book movie.

Civil War’s combination of entertainment value, quality casting, and pure heart allows – no, demands – that the viewer simply forget its problems and embrace its better aspects. In its ability to do this while tackling mature and realistic themes, Civil War is arguably the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s best film yet.

Also, there’s an undeniable pleasure to watching our favourite superheroes duke it out.

But what about Spider-Man?

As some of you may recall from my previous post, I was rather skeptical about whether Civil War could do justice to Spider-Man’s MCU introduction. Among so many top notch characters, how could the directors accurately capture the heart of what makes the character so uniquely endearing?

Apparently the Russo brothers understood these concerns, as the film seemed to consciously address them. The choice to cast Tom Holland as a high school Peter Parker, true to the original source material, was an effective method of distinguishing his portrayal from those before him. This Spider-Man’s age is very apparent in his actions and his dialogue. Though his screen time is short, the banter he engages in with other characters is incredibly amusing, one of the film’s most endearing aspects.

The choice to make Spider-Man so distinctly innocent, a kid who’s stumbled into this world of super powers and epic battles, gives him a huge degree of relatability, which has always been Spider-Man’s best quality. As an admirer of the Avengers, just as the viewer is, this Spider-Man finds himself thrust into the middle of battles he is only just beginning to understand, forced to engage in combat with people he admires.

The best depictions of Spider-Man embrace the character’s coming of age story, and I’m willing to say that this seems like no exception. Skipping the origin story did little to hinder his introduction – though I’d like to see the loss of his uncle dealt with in the upcoming standalone film – and Tom Holland provides a unique performance to distinguish him from previous portrayals. Visually and stylistically, the character fits into the tone already establish by the MCU.

I really love the paternal relationship introduced between Peter Parker and Tony Stark. The two actors have some great chemistry, and I think there’s some great potential here. I’d love to see many more “I’ll call Aunt May” jokes.

At the same time, this dynamic lends another layer of thematic significance to the film. As I noted, Spider-Man is young and impressionable, a teenager struggling to come to terms with his new identity. Tony Stark, arguably, takes advantage of this, as Captain America notes during the film when Spider-Man insists that he “has to impress Mr. Stark.” Tony Stark uses the young Parker’s admiration to compel him into a fight where he has no real stakes. This situation poses some questions about the morality of manipulation, an added layer of significance to a film that already questions the extent that one should go to do what is right.

Overall, I was highly impressed with Captain America: Civil War. The film’s ability to handle mature themes without losing entertainment value gives it a rare place among the ranks of comic book movies. Spider-Man’s introduction exceeded my highest expectations, and I’m really looking forward to seeing his follow up movie, as well as that of Black Panther.

Some of the action sequences are predictably over the top, and there are a few big plot holes, yet the film embraces its comic book heritage in a manner that one can’t help but like. Arguably, this is the MCU’s best film yet.

I’ve never liked arbitrary numerical ratings, yet I know that many people do.

8/10

Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton and why I’m not “Feeling the Bern”

I’m not an American, yet I believe we should all have a vested interest in the upcoming presidential election. As the political, economic, and cultural hub of the western world, what happens in the United States directly affects what happens throughout the rest of the world.

When I tell people I’m not a supporter of Bernie Sanders, the reactions range from “That old guy? I saw a post on Reddit about him” to “How could you?! You’re a disgrace to the very nature of liberalism!”

Basically, most Canadians either don’t care about the presidential election, or they actively support Bernie Sanders. This is, admittedly, better than supporting Donald Trump, though a small part of me is surprised that there aren’t more Harperites proclaiming their admiration for Trump or Ted Cruz. Seriously. In terms of ideology, their policies aren’t all that different. They only vary in extremes.

I digress. “Why?” people always cry as I tell them I don’t think Bernie Sanders would be an effective president. “He wants to bring free education, put all those Wall Street crooks in jail: he’s going to change things! What’s not to love?”

Americans are understandably wary of Hillary Clinton, given her representation of the political establishment they feel no longer serves them. Bernie Sanders is noble in his quest to reform this establishment and, in a perfect world, he’d make a great president. Ideologically, I certainly align with him as much as Clinton, and I always admire a revolutionary.

Why, then, would a Sanders nomination be a disaster?

Sanders backers like to point out that he has held office far longer than Hillary Clinton in terms of years, which is certainly true. But the positions they held were quite different from one another. Sanders has slowly made his way up the ladder, starting out as mayor of Burlington and eventually making his way to the Senate. Over the last two decades, Hillary Clinton has made a career distinct from her husband. She’s been a Senator and has worked in the White House both as First Lady and as Secretary of State.

Ostensibly, the difference between their careers isn’t too drastic. But if one reads between the lines, the gaps begin to widen. Sanders has spent the better part of four decades championing the poor and working hard to fight the “establishment.” Yet his political record actually shows very little to distinguish him from the average left wing politician. Much of his career has been based on rhetoric, as he has continually marketed himself as a unique entity unaligned with either of the major parties. He continues to use this tactic in his presidential campaign, basing it largely on rousing speeches of his self-styled “socialism.”

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a pragmatist. Where Bernie schmoozes and impassions his voters, Clinton works within the system to bring about effective change. As First Lady and as Secretary of State, she has built working relationships with many world leaders ranging from Angela Merkel to Dilma Rousseff. She’s a tireless feminist and has pushed for women’s rights the world over. She has the name, the reputation, and the skillset to be an effective president on the world stage as well as in Washington.

Is she a natural on camera? No. Her smile sometimes reminds me of a china doll. But is she a practical and effective politician? Yes.

“She’s a member of the establishment,” Bernie lovers say. “She’s everything that people are frustrated with.”

Yes, Hillary Clinton is very much a part of the Democratic establishment. She’s been a member of the party for a long time, and is a name people like to jump to when discussing politicians who fail to serve their interests.

But is this really the case? As I said, Clinton is a pragmatist. She works incrementally with an end goal in mind. It’s all well and good for Bernie Sanders to repeat the same mantra for forty years, but such sweeping statements rarely bring about the permanent change they call for, least of all in an environment as inhospitable as the American politics.

Rhetoric needs to be backed by practicality. Once the desire for change is infused into the public consciousness, practical and realistic leaders are needed to make ideas become realities. In doing this even the most effective politicians can struggle.

Look at Barack Obama. Hopes were high in the wake of his 2008 inauguration, as were his approval ratings. Over the next year or two, both plummeted and are only now beginning to rise again.

Despite being a smart politician, Obama was elected for what he represented. He was the first African American to win the presidency, he was going to fix the problems of the Bush era, and he promised to end the wars in the Middle-East. Since 2009, he helped America weather the Great Recession and has repaired much of the diplomatic damage done by George Bush. In addition, he’s pushed for gun control unlike any of his predecessors, laying the groundwork for someone else to finish the job (though notably not Bernie Sanders). By all reasonable measures, Obama has been a relatively successful president.

Despite this, he continues to face criticism. Why? Because his actual term in office did not live up to the hype of his campaign. The sad reality is that idealism very rarely brings about long term changes, particularly in the court of public opinion. While American liberals are “feeling the Bern” now, it’s hardly likely that their blind passion will continue when faced with day to day politics. As much as we’d like to think otherwise, a President Sanders will inevitably face the same fate as President Obama.

“So what?” people say. “Bernie stands for something bigger than one election.”

Really?

To be sure, his campaign started out that way. A year ago, I could almost feel the Bern tickling at my political inclinations simply for hearing a refreshingly different voice. I could almost begin to believe that Bernie Sanders cared more about his ideals than winning an election. Here was a politician who cared about the issues under discussion rather than the politics of a single campaign.

Sadly, though Bernie supporters continue to insist otherwise, he has not been able to maintain this level of integrity. I don’t blame him. Politics is a nasty business, and it’s easy to resort to attack campaigns when the going gets tough. But what does this say about the kind of president he would be, if he can’t even uphold his main selling point throughout the primary season? If his issue oriented idealism can’t even make it through the road to candidacy, how could he ever hope to maintain it in office?

Nobody is denying that this election has shaken up the routine of American politics. For better or for worse, Bernie Sanders has ignited a fire in many hearts, and the need for change has blasted its way into the public consciousness. Now that the fire is lit, it is time for a seasoned and intelligent pragmatist to use the system for the good of those who are, justifiably, frustrated.

What continues to amaze me is the number of women who are so adamantly against Hillary Clinton. People seem to forget how revolutionary it would be to have a female president. If people want rhetoric, here it is: in a world that continues to be incredibly male dominated, putting a woman in the oval office would be an unprecedented step towards true gender equality.

I have to admire Clinton for largely avoiding this kind of rhetoric. If anyone has “stuck to the issues” in this campaign, it’s been her.

As always, thanks for reading J

Game of Thrones season six and the fate of THAT character

Well, now I’ve finally caught up… it’s time to talk about Game of Thrones! Warning, this review will contain spoilers for season five of the television show, as well as book five in A Song of Ice and Fire, so if you haven’t gotten there yet, don’t read on! There will also be a section with spoilers for the first two episodes of season six, but I’ll flag it before we get there.

The debate over Jon Snow’s fate has raged for months now, as anyone who has been in contact with social media over the past few months knows. Furious arguments have been made for both sides, with Kit Harrington’s haircut and presence on set being used as supposed proof of his still being alive. Generally, I fell into the “dead is dead” camp, to echo D.B. Weiss’ words in the wake of the tragic onscreen death, despite the fact that I am certain he is alive in the books..

I came to this conclusion after a lot of thought, expending far more mental energy than one ought to expend on a fictional character in a fictional world. I knew the death was coming, yet my initial reaction was certainly one of heartbroken denial (why, Ollie, why???); however, I came to revise that prediction after a little bit of back and forth. While Kit Harrington’s presence on set and his refusal to cut a haircut he purportedly hates are certainly compelling evidence, I simply couldn’t bring myself to believe he was still alive.

Fuck you, Ollie.

 Perhaps this was just the pessimist in me. But with the actor and the show runners insisting so fervently to the contrary, how could the character be alive? With all the anticipation of the season, no manner of bringing Jon back to life could possibly live up to the hype. Furthermore, the show is beginning to branch out farther and farther on its own. This season consists entirely of new material that did not originate with George R.R. Martin’s novels. Showrunners David Benieoff and D.B. Weiss have big shoes to fill on this front. Given the relative certainty of Jon’s return, in one form or another, in the novels, killing him permanently on-screen seemed like the best way to boldly distinguish their adaptation as a unique entity.

I was open to the possibility of my being wrong, but expecting to be proved right. As far as I could tell, this was the smartest direction for the show to take.

Sunday night, we found out the truth…

SPOILERS AHEAD. STOP NOW IF YOU DON’T WANT TO READ THEM!!!!!

Seriously, stop reading.

Now.

Look, I’ll even leave you a massive gap in the page.

What happens from now on is your own doing.

Apparently I was wrong, and I’m not sure how I feel about it. Certainly, I leapt for joy like everyone else as Kit Harrington took that frantic gasp and became more than just an on-set cadaver. Yet I had very good reasons for believing he would remain dead, and thought it would be the best thing, artistically, for the show, despite the pain.

I let out an exclamation of joy, just like everyone else.
But was this really a good idea?

To the credit of the writers, they seeded the idea of resurrection as far back as season three with Thoros of Myr’s resurrection of Beric Dondarrion. That Melisandre witnesses this, not to mention continued references to her otherworldly powers, mean that the eventual manner of Jon’s resurrection is not out of place in the show.

My worry is that just because they can do something does not mean they should. On some levels, this decision feels like a bit of a cop out. As I said, Jon’s death would have been an effective way for the show to distinguish itself from the books moving forwards. I think they might have missed an excellent opportunity, and I can’t help but wonder if, perhaps, they simply capitulated to common demand. The show’s writers had an opportunity to include the ultimate red herring while enforcing the brutality of their world.

That said, I do think the manner in which the resurrection was handled was pretty good. I can’t wait to see where they go with Jon, how the process changes him. How will he wrestle back control of the Night’s Watch and fight off the impending march of the White Walkers? People have often complained that Jon is not an interesting character, too close to the archetypal fantasy hero. While I have to agree with this, I have never thought it a bad thing. It is grounding for the viewer to have a character who is intrinsically good in a world with so much ambiguity. Jon’s coming of age story is relatable, and he provides someone we can constantly root for even as Tyrion, Arya, and Daenerys dabble in shades of grey.

Also he has great hair.

Basically, the writer inside me says the showrunners made a mistake while the fanboy inside me is crying tears of joy.

As for the rest of the season, I’m interested to see where Melisandre goes from here. What effects do all these events have on her? If Arya’s storyline stays true to the books, it’s sure to be a fun one. Where will Sansa go from here? Whose head will Robert Strong crush next? Can the writers salvage the Dornish clusterfuck they’ve set in motion?

I’m excited to see where this season goes. Do I think that reviving Jon Snow was the best decision? No. Do I think the writers can pull it off? I hope so. I’ll be sure to share some more of my thoughts as the season progresses, so stay tuned!

As always, thanks for reading J