Posts Tagged ‘Joe and Anthony Russo’

As a blanket disclaimer, let’s just agree that SPOILERS may and probably will show up. This isn’t an extensive review, but in order to talk about what I’m about to talk about (English is Fun!) I need the rest of the movie available for referencing.

 

Consider that your warning!

captain-america-civil-war-181827

First of all a big, and I mean HUGE, thank you to the Russo Brothers, Kevin Feige, and Marvel Studios for the superhero palate cleanser that is Captain America: Civil War. The third installment in the Captain America branch of Marvel solo films, it also qualifies as an Avengers movie with only Thor and Hulk missing to complete the set. Make no mistake, though, the story heavily leans on Cap (Chris Evans) but he’s got the best of frenemies in Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr) as the two fight a war of ideology that quickly snowballs into an Avenger-on-Avenger showdown, with one or two shocking revelations, that have very real repercussions for the characters in the aftermath.

Plot-wise, Civil War earns its title because of Tony and Steve’s disagreement over the Sokovia Accords – a law that would make the Avengers an arm of the United Nations as a means of putting the group of super-powered heroes in check after a mission goes south. Tony, still reeling from lingering feelings of guilt since his first foray as Iron Man in 2008 and a more recent condemnation post-Age of Ultron, thinks the Accords are necessary. Putting limitations on where the Avengers go would “theoretically” reduce collateral damage, thus saving lives and preventing disastrous events like New York and Sokovia. The reality of the situation is clear to Tony: Who are the Avengers accountable to in the wake of their cataclysmic battles? How many lives have they ruined after their supposed victories?

Steve, however. sees the Accords as a means of shifting the burden of responsibility. Instead of the Avengers holding themselves accountable, they’d be at the beck and call of a governing body with its own agenda. Additionally, the Avengers would be stripped of their own freedom to choose where to go and who to help. The reality of the situation is clear to Steve: How many lives will be lost if the Avengers have their hands tied? How can they put their trust in the United Nations to make the right call? Suffice it to say when the Winter Soldier, aka “Bucky” Barnes (Sebastian Stan), is brought back into the fray, under mysterious circumstances, it tests the limits of Steve and Tony’s convictions as well as their friendship.

pensThe pivotal moment of the movie, however, isn’t the thoroughly entertaining fight that occurs between the two “warring” sides of the Avengers. No, that belongs to a small, quiet scene right in the middle of the film. After an extensive chase through Bucharest in pursuit of the Winter Soldier, Bucky is finally brought in for bombing the UN and killing several foreign dignitaries including King T’Chaka of Wakanda. The damage, however, has been done to the city as well as Steve’s faith. Believing his brain-washed friend to be innocent of the accusations in Geneva, Steve can’t deny that his best friend is dangerous. In his efforts to get Cap on his side and see reason, Tony makes a play of nostalgia by bringing along an old WWII artifact – the pens Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt used to sign the Atlantic Charter in 1941. His father just happened to have them because Howard Stark.

Through Tony’s lens, the Atlantic Charter was an eventual step towards the formation of the United Nations – countries with differing opinions still working together for the sake of the global community. Through Steve’s lens, it pushed America closer to war – a show of good faith that played its part in the attack on Pearl Harbor only four months after the document was signed. The significance of the scene isn’t just in the different yet valid concerns of both Tony and Steve, but the fact that they’re discussing how adding one’s signature to a document can steer the course of history. The most meaningful display of power in Civil War isn’t in the fists of its heroes (though they get plenty of licks in), but in the mundane action of signing.

Tony’s play almost works. The pens, talking about his father, and revealing his relationship with Pepper is on the rocks all seem to push Steve towards signing. Tony even guarantees Bucky will get the help he needs, but in his enthusiasm for things finally going his way he goes a step too far and mentions that Wanda, aka Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), is being kept at the Avengers compound for her own “safety.” And suddenly WWII and the pen Steve holds takes on another meaning: internment. Roosevelt signed many significant documents during his presidency. One of which, Executive Order 9066, approved the internment of people of Japanese descent. Some suggest it was signed out of fear and paranoia, only two civilwarmonths after Pearl Harbor, while others suggest it was for the “protection” of Japanese citizens in danger of retaliation by white Americans, but it’s still a piece of history that we look back on with regret. Time and distance haven’t changed the harsh reality of what the American government did, all under the blanket of benevolence: We thought we were doing the right thing. We thought we were doing what’s best for everyone.

When Cap gives the pen back, it carries the weight of history and the consequences of a signature.

Advertisements

If bending to the will of North Korea wasn’t bad enough, it looks like Sony also likes bending over backwards to appease the male movie-going audience of crybabies who see an all-women cast for the Ghostbusters reboot as a threat to the time-honored tradition of busting ghosts. Clearly the lady-folk donning unlicensed nuclear accelerators is most unorthodox and ghostbusters-castcannot be tolerated by polite society.

As reported by Deadline, Sony has given the greenlight for director/writer/producer Ivan Reitman and actor/writer Dan Aykroyd to form a subsidiary production company, Ghostcorps, that will focus explicitly on developing Ghostbusters related properties and merchandising. First on the docket is another Ghostbusters movie slated to immediately follow director Paul Feig’s (Bridesmaids) 2016 reboot staring Kristin Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, and Kate McKinnon. This sequel (?) already has Joe and Anthony Russo (Captain America: The Winter Solider) on board to direct following their first-look deal with Sony as well as Drew Pearce (Iron Man 3, Mission: Impossible 5) tapped to write the script and Channing Tatum on board to produce and, most likely, star per the pitch uncovered during the Sony hack.

Reitman further explained how the films will kick off the new Ghostbusters franchise to Deadline:

Paul Feig’s film will be the first version of that, shooting in June to come out in July, 2016. He’s got four of the funniest women in the world, and there will be other surprises to come. The second film has a wonderful idea that builds on that. Drew will start writing and the hope is to be ready for the Russo Brothers’ next window next summer to shoot, with the movie coming out the following hear. It’s just the beginning of what I hope will be a lot of wonderful movies.

Ghostbuster-Lady-ThumbThe key to comedy is (pause for effect) timing. So it’s really mind-boggling that Reitman and Aykroyd, two people known primarily for their comedic ventures, would have the inability to understand how poorly timed their deal with Sony truly is. Look, I’m all for expanding the Ghostbusters world. The premise is solid regardless of the cast, but I’m not the only one who sees how suspicious it is that Ghostcorps was announced in conjunction with the film following the all-women cast. World building is important to a burgeoning franchise, especially one with a 30-year gap, but this announcement feels exclusionary to Feig’s Ghostbusters. It also reeks of panic in response to the vocal minority of dudes who took to social media with their complaints about the reboot and the female leads while the tiniest violin played in the background. Not helping is the fact that Reitman and Aykroyd’s involvement lends greater legitimacy to the film starring Tatum and puts the movie-going audience in the position of creating a gendered dichotomy between the films. The kicker being that Feig’s Ghostbusters will most likely be referenced in the news as the all-female Ghostbusters while the Russo Brothers film will just be referred to as The Ghostbusters because Hollywood is stuck in the male-as-default mentality.a886df9e392dba27a9dd27225c748b56

Seriously, I wouldn’t be opposed to a Channing Tatum, and possibly Chris Pratt, starring followup if the studio had either announced Ghostcorps along with Feig’s reboot or waited until maybe the film was further along in production before throwing another one into the mix. It sends a message that the studio lacks confidence in Feig’s film and it’s disappointing that, as it stands, Wiig, McCarthy, Jones, and McKinnon won’t get to just be The Ghostbusters. It’s always going to come with the caveat of the female Ghostbusters despite the fact that women hold the same love and nostalgia for the original movies as men. Women cosplay as Ghostbusters, read the comics, and watch the cartoons, but you know what women haven’t really had in regards to busting ghosts? Representation on film. That’s what it all comes down to. Sure, a team of men and women would be great in future films, but having a full team of women in an action/horror/comedy sends another message about who can lead a film, the openness of multiple genres, and the strength of thoughtful world building.

Like I said: