Showing posts with label marvel cinematic universe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marvel cinematic universe. Show all posts

Steven Soderbergh on the MCU

Film  Steven Soderbergh sidesteps a landmine with all the grace you'd expect from him at Variety.  My guess is if MARVEL offered him something, the Richard Lester fan in him would probably take a second look:

There’s an interesting article in the New Yorker that argues that the Marvel Cinematic Universe ate the movie business. Do you agree?

If that’s true, it’s not really relevant to me. The bottom line is people go see what they want to go to see. I’ve got to figure out how to integrate that reality into how I work. I have two choices. I either find something that I love and that has enough in it to potentially attract an audience at a scale that would make the prospect worthwhile to a studio, or I stick to a medium in which those concerns aren’t primary like television or streaming. I’ve got two movie projects that I’m preparing that I’m very excited about that have enough in them to justify coming out theatrically in a normal wide release and not as an arthouse film.

Whenever this question comes up, rather than asking if the MCU has been the death of cinema, the more interesting question would be if the director/actor/whoever would consider making a film if the right project came along. 

Dear god, I'm glad Soderbergh's retirement didn't stick.  He continues to be one of those directors who can make films which say important things and are also great genre pieces.  Hopefully he'll take a crack at the western soon.  

Incidentally The New Yorker piece is more even handed than the title or the interviewer above suggests: its an in-depth history of the studio with plenty nuggets about the Sony deal.  I had no idea that the third Garfield film was going to be a desperate time travel adventure featuring dinosaurs.

Also, there's no point blaming a studio which turns out two-four films a year for "ruining cinema" as though the audience is a sheep like mass.  Hollywood has had its own hand in this by producing so many average films which strain for mass appeal to the extent they don't appeal to anyone.

We Need To Talk About Jennifer Walters.

TV  Just briefly and spoilers for the first two episodes of She-Hulk: Attorney at Law on Disney+.  Here's a picture of Tatiana Maslany on one of the few occasions when she's categorically not playing a Leda clone to provide a gap for you glance away if necessary.

Still here?  Ok, like said this is just brief.  One of the side effects of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's everything's connected ethic is that the merest hint of a storyline leads to endless content across YouTube and news sites with theories, theories, theories, paragraphs and hours worth of near identical clickbait.

Here we are again with the Shulky series.  As soon as the Sakaar spaceship buzzed in during the first episode, the YouTube content creators burst into action collectively suggesting the series is setting up a Planet Hulk film, blah-la-la-la, even though Disney still do not have the distribution rights to solo Hulk movie projects.

Well, here's my theory.  The Planet Hulk storyline or something like it will happen.  But it'll be in the background.  Jen will phone Bruce or vice versa now and then and we'll receive glimpses of some epic storyline but it'll just remain as that, tantalising glimpses.

Since Jen's decided she doesn't want to be a superhero or at least an Avenger, we'll finally see what life's like for those who make that choice and like the Buffy episode The Zeppo, in which Xander dodged fighting in an apocalypse, she'll be defending low level hoodlums while Bruce is fighting to save Sakaar (or whatever).

Of course, if we don't see Planet Hulk or some such, there'll be the usual effluent from disappointed "fans" about how their imaginary expectations haven't been met which means this whole series has been a failure and the MCU is over.  But the key to the survival of the franchise is to slow down now and then.  Look around.

Across The Omniverse Revisited.

Film  Back in January, just after the release if Spider-Man's No Way Home, I wrote a theory of how to rationalise how fictional multiverses work and how they're interconnected.  After seeing Doctor Strange's Multiverse of Madness and Everything Everywhere All At Once and thinking about the back and forth between Ms Marvel star Iman Vellani and Kevin Feige about the designation Earth-616 (which is now being used for both the comics and cinematic universe), I've realised, rather like this sentence, I've over complicated things.

As in that previous post, I still think that there's a nested system at play.  That there's an omniverse which contains multiverses which then contain universes (or realities).  The mistake I made was in essentially creating two tiers of multiverses, in suggesting that MARVEL is its own multiverse which contains multiverses which I was calling universes and basing the mechanics on IP rather than media and so forth.  Using a similar structure and some of the same text, here's how it should actually be rationalised:

Omniverse.

An infinite collection of all stories ever.  As the Marvel article lists,  "not only Marvel Comics, but also DC Comics, Image, Dark Horse, Wildstorm, Archie, Harvey, Shueisha, Boom Studios, Rebellion, Dynamite, IDW, Graphic India, Derby Pop, Vertigo, Oni Press, Udon, Valiant, and every universe ever mentioned or seen".  Basically, this is everything.  Every film, tv show, comic, advert, every piece of fiction ever created.

Multiverse.

A single discrete multiverse within one of those stories.  In other words, the comics DC multiverse, CWverse, whatever's happening with DC's cinematic stories, alongside the Marvel Comics, the various animated series and crucially the MCU not to mention us.  If the many-worlds theory is true and there's an infinite number of them it stands to reason that somewhere out there, these fictional universe are actually happening.  Doesn't it?

The reason Iman and Kevin are at odds is because the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe gave the MCU a designation of Earth-199999 to make it distinct from the main comics universe, Earth-616 and so on also sitting alongside it (there's a big long list of them here).  But if you ignore the whim of whoever wrote that back in late 2008 in the afterglow of Iron Man's success, it makes more sense to say that the comics multiverse and the film multiverse are two different realities that run alongside each other.

The beauty of this is that it also means that all of these different multiverses can have their own localised rules about how they exist as multiverses, they can all contradict one another.  So if the MCU has one way of working out why the prime universe is 616 and the comics have another, that's ok.  Just as its fine that DC comics oscillates between having an infinite number of universes and fifty or so.  

But they can also connect (see the two Flashes meeting in the CW's Crisis) and from the point of view of the characters or even the writer in such a way that it feels like they're in the same multiverse from their point of view, even if they're quite separate.  So the Doctor doesn't exist within the comics universe, he just travelled there to drop off Death's Head before returning to the Whoniverse, which itself has its own multiverse.

Did the universes in Doctor Strange 2 exist before Loki in the MCU?  I honestly don't know.  If He Who Remains is to be believed, there was a multiverse which was then destroyed to make way for the sacred timeline, but the events of Loki have repeated the cycle.  In which case, once Sylvie killed He Who Remains, it's as though the multiverse has always existed and no one knows any different, Watchers and all.  Phew.

The other possibility is that the sacred timeline is a con-job.  That there was always a multiverse and that all He Who Remains was trying to do was stop off-shoots from the Earth-616 timeline for some reason or other.  So Earth-838 was always out there, as well as all the universes featured in the What If? animated series.  But I don't think we've been given enough information either way.  Yet.

Universes.

One of the universes within a multiverse.

Although confusingly a lot of those multiverses are also referred to as "universes" which is why I tied myself up in knots last time.  It should really be the Marvel Cinematic Multiverse, MCM, but its a bit late now.

My University Year.

Film For this blog's fifth year I was back at university, studying an MA in Screen Studies at Manchester Uni. In the years following, part of me has always thought that this has been wasted, but more recently perhaps because of the internalising which has been needed to cope with anxiety, I've come to feel better about it. Considering my origins, it was a personal Everest in which I managed to do something which the much younger version of me could only have dreamed of, attending a red brick university, even if it was for just one year. What do you do when you've achieved your life's ambition? Carry on. 

 Fifteen years later, much of what I learnt at university is still in here somewhere and everything I've forgotten is in easy reach on a bookshelf or at my fingertips. Everything you need to know about why a film doesn't work is in film books as is why those projects which have a reputation for their mediocrity are far more interesting than they first appear. If anything I just became more aware of the issues surrounding the business of film and the effect it's supposed to have on the audience.  If only Black Widow had been released after Captain America: Civil War instead of now.

Throughout the years since, various essays and parts of my uni work have found their way onto this blog in various forms (ahem).  The only reason the following hasn't been hastily posted in desperation before is because it isn't very good.  The module it was written for, with its psychoanalytical approach to gender and sexuality in contemporary French cinema was a struggle for me, as is revealed in the following, which gave me one of my lowest marks of the course, 60%.  There some good writing in here but its structurally stolid and I don't compare and contrast the two films nearly enough.

To what extent do When The Cat’s Away and Amélie conform to the nostalgic view of femininity?

In the opening scene of When The Cat’s Away (1996), Chloe, a young woman who shares a flat in Paris, is attempting, by telephone, to find someone to look after her cat, Gris-Gris, whilst she goes on a much needed holiday.  She entrusts the feline with local cat lover, Madame Renee.  When she returns from the break, the old lady admits that Gris-Gris has been lost.  With her help, Chloe engages the local community in looking for the cat; during the course of the film she learns to engage with this community for the first time and concurrently she looks for a partner.  

Amélie (2001) tells the story of a café waitress who has grown up in a world of fantasies, because of a childhood spent alone with her parents.  She too lives her life outside the community until one day she finds a small boy’s box of childhood keepsakes under a floorboard.  She decides to return it to the rightfully surprised owner, and in doing so discovers a new way to engage with others - by creating small miracles in their lives.  Her altruism leads her to meet Nino, a porn shop worker whom she finds shares the same interest in displacement activities, and is forced to confront her loneliness because she has fallen in love with him.

Both films are about confronting isolation – from the wider community and one’s own sexuality.  But there is a separate concern in the representation of the femininity of Chloe and Amélie and how that compares to the traditional model within film and in mainstream French cinema in particular.  This essay will examine the extent to which When The Cat’s Away and Amélie conform to the standard conventions of femininity in film, considering whether Chloe and Amélie are simply portrayed as a passive spectacle or an active protagonist defined by their femininity.

Before examining femininity as a description of the visual spectacle, it is important to investigate a woman’s function within the narrative and how to some extent her ability to keep her feminine gender identification is dependent upon how active the character is.  Effectively, if she remains passive – an aspiration or object of desire, her femininity is considered to be stronger than if she makes an activite contribution to the plot.  In most classic film narratives, the female is stereotyped within one of two roles.  She will either be a pure woman (marriage material), or the fallen women (the mistress) and in both of these cases, it is the male attitude that codifies them despite their passivity within the story.  

This function is encoded within male Oedipal trajectory, used to describe the movement of a male character through the narrative of a film.  As Susan Hayward explains, the male trajectory merges the psychoanalytical theories contained in Freud’s Oedipal complex with elements of Lacan’s theory of the mirror phase in the development of human sexuality.  In essence this trajectory imagines a scenario in which the mother will hold her male child who has bonded to her up to a mirror.  He perceives the difference between himself and his mother as a form of castration – she lacks a penis.  Even though he is still unified with her, he begins to identify instead with his father, partly because of their biological similarity but also because it allows ‘lawful access’ to his mother whom is now also in the position to objectify - and so he falls into his expected gender role (Hayward, 2006: 262).  Relating this to the male protagonist within a film, this signifies that their story will be one in which they must resolve a crisis so that they can move into a place of social stability and at the same time confirming the status of the woman in his life as a passive object (Hayward, 2006: 262).  

Part of the women’s function within this narrative model is as spectacle, both for the male characters inside the film and for the spectator within the audience.  Laura Mulvey explains that ‘in their traditional exhibitionist role, women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness’ (Mulvey, 1989: 19).  Mulvey uses the term ‘scopophilia’ - based on Freud’s phrase ‘scopic drive’ (Hayward, 2006: 318) to identify the process in which an audience member views a female character through the look of the central protagonist, ‘the pleasure in using another person as an object of sexual simulation’ (Mulvey, 1989: 18).  A division of labour within the film is proposed in which the ‘pleasure in looking has been split between the active/male and passive/female’ -- the female character strengthens the active position of the male protagonist because he is able to objectify her through his gaze and therefore pacify her importance to the story.

The extent to which these conventions are reflected in mainstream French cinema finds its roots in the 1920s.  A falling birth rate in the country led to the introduction of laws outlawing abortion and the distribution of contraception.  As a result womanhood became interlocked with motherhood and films indirectly presented a pro-family message, often by portraying in a negative light single mothers giving birth outside of wedlock (Rollet, 1998: 126).  The impression developed that the choice for a woman was either to become maternal and domesticated or selfishly seek a career.  By the late 1930s, government initiatives were attempting to keep women in the home with the enticement of benefits, and propaganda was presented directly or indirectly through magazines and surveys celebrating motherhood (Rollet, 1998: 126).

By the 1950, domestic melodrama had increased in popularity (Rollet, 1998: 127).   These are films in which a female character has narrative agency within the plot, conforming to a female Oedipal trajectory.  Here, to return to the previous analogy, a girl apparently keeps her bond with the mother and her desire, but lacking the penis she is drawn to the father because of something Freudians describe as ‘penis envy’ – and he is able to provide her with something her mother cannot, in the form of a child.  Feminist Lacanians dispute this theory and suggest that the girl is obliged to turn from the mother anyway in order to join the social order.  In actuality, that she must return to the position of the male subjectivity and that to withhold this position would lead to punishment – either through being marginalised or through death (Hayward, 2006: 263).

In film narrative terms, this means that even when there is a strong female at the centre of the action, in the dénouement she must place herself in the position of classic male subjectivity and become their partner or face isolation from the community.  Mulvey explains, ‘woman is no longer signifier of sexuality (function ‘marriage’) […] now the female presence as centre allows the story to be actually, overtly, about sexuality; it becomes a melodrama’ (Mulvey, 1989: 35) or as E. Ann Kaplin paraphrases, ‘about a woman’s difficulty in finding a stable sexual identity’ (Kaplin, 1989: 17).  Women were being persuaded that happiness will only come to those who give up work and autonomy, with love being denied to those who want to continue with their career (Rollet, 1998: 127).

In later decades, mainstream French cinema sought to disrupt these traditional principals of femininity.  In 1968, after the student riots, the importance of women’s rights were emphasised on the political agenda and before the end of the following decade the role of women in society was redefined (Rollet, 1998: 129).  A primary example of this change in attitudes would appear to be New New Wave Cinema, of which Dina Sherzer characterizes When The Cat’s Away as an example.  The New New Wave evokes the concerns of society in contemporary France, particularly issues which have developed since the 1980s, including such social problems as unemployment, racism and class differences.  As Sherzer describes the women in this genre ‘are not punished for their sexually free behaviour and there are no ambiguities concerning sexual freedom.  […] Furthermore, women’s sexuality is not coded as having a dangerous power leading men to destruction’ (Sherzer, 2001: 229).  Women are presented in a realistic way ‘active, energetic, assertive and either strong or gaining strength […] with their questions, their problems, their hopes, their strengths and their weaknesses  (Sherzer, 2001: 230-231).  

The impression that the opening few scenes of When The Cat’s Away are evoking is that of Chloe as an unspectacular figure so that logically she can have narrative agency.  On the first occasion that the audience see Chloe at work, they are able to compare her to female characters her own age for the first time and a contrast is provided between her gender-neutral image and those surrounding her.  In the first shot, in which she is shown applying make-up to the face of a model, Chloe’s hair is tied back and she does not appear to be wearing much make-up other than foundation.  She is attired in a white t-shirt and dark green dress covering her whole form and must stand on a couch to reach the face of the model.  In stunning contrast, her client has long blonde hair around her shoulders and is covered in the make-up that Chloe is applying, her pink dress revealing a bust.  In the cutaway to the reverse shot, as Chloe steps away, she disappears into the edge of the frame as the model is fussed over by her colleagues.  The effect makes Chloe seem very small and unimportant and particularly unfeminine.  

The basic plot of the film is very slight, perhaps because of its original inception as a short film.  The first indication that Chloe is as interested in finding a man as her cat, happens during an evening scene when she is disturbed by Michel’s lovemaking.  As she stands in her apartment looking out through the window towards Bel Canto’s studio, watching him paint, the sound of a cat, perhaps Gris-Gris, can be heard in the background.  The English title of When The Cat’s Away is a mistranslation of the French title for the film, Chacun Cherche Son Chat, which in reality to suggest a double meaning, ‘La chatte, in French, is a euphemism for female sexual parts, so by extension, in the film, if he old ladies are looking for Gris Gris, the young people are looking for sexual partners’ (Shezer, 2001: 236).  The non-diegetic sound of the cat juxtaposed with Chloe’s surreptitious viewing of Bel Canto subtly indicates to the audience were her dreams really lie.

Chloe is convinced that she requires a change of image to find herself a partner by her work colleagues and friends.  In becoming a passive object of spectacle, manipulating who she is on the surface, Chloe performs the kind of masquerade that Mary Ann Doane describes, ‘womanliness’ as ‘a mask which can be worn or removed’ (Doane, 1991: 766).  In this film, the process is subverted because it is Michel, Chloe’s gay flatmate who presents his opinions on the clothes she must wear to attract her opposite sex.  Elizabeth Ezra explains that ‘Michel can speak the gendered language of fashion better than Chloe because he has come to terms with the ‘feminine’ side of his nature in a way which Chloe has not’ (Ezra, 1999: 217).  

If the film was following the rules of the female Oedipal trajectory, Chloe would indeed find someone on her night out because she has become the passive object, but the results are disastrous.  She attracts the look of the man she would later discover to be the drummer, the man whose noise has been annoying her and the rest of the community and holds out a cigarette.  He approaches and gives her a light but before she can make contact, he is nudged out of the way by a gigolo.  Outside, she is manhandled by a group of drunk, aggressive men who attempt to drag her into a car which leads her to being walked home by the barperson Blanche whom she is propositioned by.  To make matters worse the moment is viewed by the gigolo who uses it to re-affirm his heterosexuality, the implication being that to decline his attentions, Chloe must be a lesbian.  In not presenting an image of who she really is, she fails to attract the attention she is really seeking.

Generally within the film, the camera work necessarily draws the viewer away from looking on Chloe and the other women objectively.  As Sherver explains the New New Wave director’s camera is not voyeuristic or harsh, and does not aggressively display the female body’ (Sherzer, 2001: 231).  There are, however,  moments in When The Cat’s Away that follow the conventions of the gaze, particularly when the ‘pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female’ (Mulvey, 1989: 19).  In the scene set at the photographic studio referenced above, a photographer fawns over the model, for example, and she is presented in long shot, displaying the contours of her body.  When Chloe has later been invited up to the drummer’s apartment, he sits playing his instrument watching her.  She’s wearing a light dress and he keeps his eyes fixed on her smiling.  The repeated juxtaposition of shots is of his face in close up and her in long shot nearly squirming on a couch.  This is one of the few occasions in the film when Chloe is viewed from point of view of a different character but because she cannot hold his look, she effectively deflects his gaze.

Ultimately Chloe’s desires are actually fulfilled through an increase in her confidence and actively taking control of her fate.  Although the coupling turns sour, it is Chloe who approaches the drummer outside the record shop and asks for a light.  She finally meets Bel Canto by offering to help him move out and their attraction develops because they are communicating.  His painting implies the reason she is  falling for him – it is very simplistic, in broad strokes and just presents her outline.  As Ezra indicates, ‘the implication is that he sees the ‘essential’ Chloe, and his opinion of her does not change according to what she is wearing’ (Ezra, 1999: 217).

The end of the film is ambiguous.  Lucy Mazdon and Elizabeth Ezra interpret the musical accompaniment in different ways, and each opinion has some bearing on how closely the film conforms to the conventions regarding femininity discussed in the opening paragraphs of this essay.  In the closing moments of the film, as Chloe says goodbye to Bel Canto, the community gathered in a café for his leaving party sing the chanson, ‘Paris is a woman’ which then gives way non-diegetically to Portishead’s track Glory Box.  For Mazdon, this indicates that Chloe ‘does finally belong to the quattier in which she was previously so isolated’ (Mazdon, 2001: 104), but remains alone because Bel Canto is but one possible future.  

Ezra, conversely, agrees that Chloe has entered the community, but notes that as the chanson reaches a crescendo, the words ‘mais reviennent toujours’ (always come back) can be heard as Bel Canto walks towards his moving van; ‘we know that although he is moving to the suburbs, he and Chloe will maintain their relationship’ (Ezra, 1999: 221).  Certainly Ezra’s is a closer textual reading and a happier conclusion for the romantics in the cinema audience.  It also appears more logical given Chloe’s final run through the streets, her jumper falling from her shoulders, wind in her hair.  Under Mazon’s reading this would simply be her happy response to finally joining the local community.  But it is important to note Portishead’s lyrics: ‘Give me a reason to love you.  Give me a reason to be a woman’.  For all of the film’s radicalism this indicates that in allowing herself to enjoy Bel Canto’s subjectivity, she can finally be considered a woman.  Exactly the circumstances summarised by Hayward, ‘to fulfil her Oedipal trajectory and enter into the social order of things, the female child must confirm male subjectivity’ (Hayward, 2006: 263).

Amélie is an example of the cinema-du-luc, a type of French cinema that emphasises the cinematography and editing of a film as well as narrative.  The film contains some extremely lustrous cinematography that emphasises the colours red and green, both of which appear in almost every shot, emphasising the film’s themes of passion and life.  Both colours appear in the clothes that Amélie, who is coded as feminine even though the character does not appear as a traditional object of desire.  

For most of the film, Amélie’s clothes seem just slightly too big for her form, her large boots ‘which happen to be fashionable […] also make her look like a child’ (Vincendeau, 2001: 25).  On the one occasion that she is shown in her underwear although she is applying perfume, her appearance in the frame is from the side and front in mid-shot in fill-light and the audience’s attention is drawn more to the sound and vision of the news story rather than to Amélie who only becomes the focus of the scene again when she drops the bottle top.  

The character is allowed to keep her virtue because she not shown to be sexually active.  She is someone who understands sex and but simply has no interest in it.  On the single occasion the audience see the character in the midst of the act, it is shot from above, at one remove, her partner grunting and growling as he is gaining the pleasure she cannot.  Her expression is of bemusement and the voiceover (here presented in the translated subtitle) explains ‘Amélie doesn’t have a boyfriend.  She tried it once or twice but the results were a let-down’.  Later, in a shot of the character standing on a rooftop looking out at the expanse of Paris, the audience is advised that ‘Time has changed nothing.  Amélie still takes refuge in solitude.  She amuses herself with silly questions about the world below, such as “How many couple are having an orgasm now?”’  Amélie has a generally comic attitude to sex and its implications.    As Michelle Scatton-Tessier explains ‘penises are plastic, wrapped in boxes and kept in view behind the counter.  Young women leisurely serve coffee and dance in a backroom peep show.  Orgasms are serialised’  (Scatton-Tessier, 2004: 203).  

Amélie is never presented as being the subject of the gaze.  She actively withholds her image from Nino – appearing in disguise, both when she returns his book to him viewed through the touristscope or in the passport photographs she uses to pass messages.  She engages in a series of ‘strategems’ designed to turn her into a focus of his mythologizing.  The reason for her subterfuge are not clear but appear to be tied into a fear of the implications of breaking what has apparently become a self imposed isolation.  It is important to notice that in the sections of the film which present Nino’s enquiry,  Amélie’s immediate presence drops from the narrative and her game is presented from the point of view of Nino – she becomes a mysterious figure to him and her actions are not explained.

There is a tension at play with the character of Nino Quincampoix, since the structure of the plot requires him to assume narrative agency at these certain points whilst still allowing Amélie to remain the central character.  This tension is increased because of the casting of Mathieu Kassovit, who is traditionally connected with tough guy roles, something director Jean-Pierre Jeunet indicates on the director’s commentary for the British dvd release of the film:  ‘Sometimes Mathieu looks so sweet, so charming it’s very funny for me because like a director he does some very tough films with violence.’ 

Nino’s characterisation is essentially designed to make him acceptable to the audience as a romantic interest for Amélie and allow her to retain her own narrative agency elsewhere in the film – and this is achieved by making them appear as equals.  In a flashback sequence which introduces his difficult childhood, it is revealed that they lived ‘five miles apart.  One dreamed of having a sister, the other a brother to spend all their time with’.  He is the brother she never had.  Her attraction to Nino is never presented in sexual terms, more that of a teenager with a crush.  Although he works in a porn shop there is little indication that he finds any connection with his surroundings; indeed later when he is attempting to asks the half-naked, dancing, Samantha to mind the shop whilst he goes to another of his possible meetings with Amélie, when he looks through the glass she doesn’t look on her as anything other than a work colleague – he’s uninterested and the only vision the audience has of her is uncomfortably from the front in the point of view of the punter.  It is a spectacular image, but not one that Nino can engage with.

The character is also much less threatening because he is coded with the same asexuality as Amélie and to a degree she domineers him.  When she meets Nino for the first time it is on a train platform.  He is sprawled on the floor attempting to fish what we soon discover to be discarded photographs from underneath a photo-me booth with a ruler.  When he looks up his expression is of a naughty schoolboy.  Essentially when Nino is in Amélie’s presence he is not the dominant male and indeed allows her to continue the role of the ‘fantasy mother figure’ (Vincendeau, 2001: 25).  When she finally meets him, face to face she reaches up and stops him from speaking, and she pulls him through the door.  She kisses him not on the lips – but on the cheek, the neck, the eye, and then she shows him where to kiss her.  After intercourse, as they lay together, his head is on her chest and she strokes his hair as a mother might comfort a baby.

Rick Clifton Moore, is unconvinced, by the finale of Amélie, in which the heroine breaks through her isolationism and allows Nino into her life.  He believes the film to be a much darker and bleaker work than is generally agreed.  He argues that Amélie is a ‘borderline sociopath’ and that the good will Amélie has created amongst the other characters does not mean that she too has or will change: ‘Suddenly we are expected to believe that she has secured a happiness that will last’ (Moore, 2006 :16).  Moore questions their future happiness because the couple do not converse on screen when they finally meet; that the similarities of the shot of Nino dozing on Amélie’s chest after consummating, with the earlier scene when the girl is with a different man prove that the character’s long term happiness with Nino is far from assured.  Wrapping this reading within the context of the classic Hollywood model, because Amélie has offered herself up to Nino she has become coded as the fallen woman, and oblivion awaits.

The film been criticised for being illogical, with this ending following the narrative conventions of a romance more closely that the rest of the film would indicate as being possible.  The events make more sense in relation to the active/passive dichotomy and like, When The Cat’s Away, the female Oedipal trajectory.  As has already been established, Amélie is presented as a virginal character finding little enjoyment in boyfriends and sex, meaning that under the traditional model she will be able to find someone by the end of the film.  But the glass man, speaking through her television set, presents Amélie with the same choice offered to other strong female characters within the trajectory and which Chloe apparently accepts without question, to come to her senses and let Nino into her life or face marginalising herself (‘If you let this chance pass, eventually, your heart will become as dry and brittle as my skeleton’).

The classical view of femininity in relation to film is that women are an object of visual spectacle, passive and whose place within the story is codified in relation to the male’s narrative trajectory.  Cinema which features women at the centre of the story – in melodrama for example, the expected outcome is that they will fall in line and become the object of male subjectivity or become isolated from the community.  The presentation of women within French cinema has been tied into the state’s expectation and requirements that women must be seen as an icon of marriage and womanhood, with independence and a career to be discouraged. 

Although When The Cat’s Away would on the surface appear to subvert these expectations because of the loose plotting and experimental mise-en- scène, at the conclusion Chloe only finds happiness, becomes part of the community and finds a partner when she allows herself to enjoy and be comfortable in male subjectivity.  Amélie, equally, despite initially describing the story of someone who values her freedom from sexuality and relationships, shifts its concerns closer to a more traditional view of femininity because of the need for a happy ending.  Amélie comes to understand that her happiness is based on her compatibility and ability to engage with Nino, because in the end she does not want to remain alone.
 
Bibliography

Clifton Moore, Rick.  2006.  Ambivalence to Technology in Jeunet’s Le Fableux Destin d’Amélie Poulain.  In.  Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society.  26: 1.  February.

Doane, Mary Anne.  1991.  Film and the Masquerade: Theorising the Female Spectator.  In.  Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen (ed).  1999.  Film theory and criticism : introductory readings.  5th ed.  Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ezra, Elizabeth.  1999.  Cats in the ‘Hood: the Unspeakable Truth about Chacun Cherche son chat (Klapisch, 1996).  In.  Phil Powrie (ed).  French Cinema in the 1990s: Continuity and Difference.  Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hayward, Susan.  2006.  Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts: Second Edition.  Routledge, Oxon.

Kaplin, E. Ann.  1989.  Introduction: From Plato’s Cave to Freud’s Screen.  In.  E. Ann Kaplin (ed).  Psychoanalysis and Cinema.  Routledge, Oxon.

Mazdon, Lucy.  2001. Space, Place and Community in Chacun Cherche Son Chat.  In.  Lucy Mazdon (ed).  France on Film: Reflections on Popular French Cinema.  Wallflower, London.

Mulvey, Laura.  1989.  Visual and Other Pleasures.  Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Rollet, Brigitte.  1998.  Coline Serreau.  Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Rollet, Brigitte.  2001.  Deforming Femininity: Catherine Breillat’s Romance. In.  Lucy Mazdon (ed).  France on Film: Reflections on Popular French Cinema.  Wallflower, London.

Scatton-Tessier, Michelle.  2004.  Le Petisme: flirting with the sordid in Le Fabuleux Deston d’Amélie Poulain.  In.  Studies in French Cinema.  4: 3.  

Scherzer, Dina.  2001.  Gender and Sexuality in New New Wave Cinema.  In.  Alex Hughes and James S. Williams (ed).  Gender and French Cinema.  Berg, Oxford.

Vincendeau, Ginette.  2001.  Café Society.  In.  Sight and Sound.  11: 8.  August.

Filmography

When The Cat’s Away.  1996.  Production:  Canal +, France 2 Cinéma, Vertigo.  91 mins.  Directed by Cédric Klapisch.

Amélie.  2001.  Production : Claudie Ossard Productions, ,Union Générale Cinématographique, Victoires Productions, Tapioca Films, France 3 Cinéma, MMC Independent GmbH, Sofica Sofinergie 5, Filmstiftung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Canal+.  122 mins (129 mins in France).  Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet.

We Need To Talk About Loki Laufeyson.

TV The new entry in the television anti-chamber of the MARVEL cinematic universe began yesterday and at least in the first episode it's everything I hoped it would be, essentially a Gallifrey episode of Doctor Who in which the titular trickster is caught up in the bloody minded, rigid philosophy of a God-like species keeping watch on the timeline.  What is Owen Wilson's Mobius but in charge of a kind of Celestial Intervention Agency?   What are the security people if not a Prydonian guard?

But I'm not here to discuss the similarities between the series, and here we're heading into spoiler filled waters so if you're in any way squeamish, turn your ferry around and head back to port.  Or go and watch Loki then come back.  Seriously, this is one of those occasions when Lucy Mangan doesn't know what she's talking about and that headline (which she presumably didn't write but nevertheless) is a disgrace!


Isn't it good?  Isn't the Butterscotch Stallion just the perfect foil to Hiddleston's wall bouncing and basically having this post-Incident Loki copying most of us during one of the various lockdowns and rewatch the MARVEL films in chronological order in order to get up to speed character-wise just wonderful as well as heart-breaking?  As every nerd with a NordVPN sponsorship has pointed out, that key moment from the trailer was just a flashback to a prank shows we do not know what's coming next.

Except, do we?  The title Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness exists and there's plenty of evidence from other corners of the MCU that by the end of this series that there will be more than this one "sacred" timeline and that what we're watching here is the creation of that realm so rich with possibility.  But how will this happen when this all powerful agency exists, protecting the timeline from intervention since the beginning of time it seems.

Here's my theory.  Loki's going to herald the multiverse.  More than that, the figure glimpsed at the end of the episode isn't just a Loki, it's the Loki who we've been following in this episode.  At a certain point he realises that these super-beings have no right at all to dictate how time and reality work just to save their own skin and so he hatches a plan, or more's to the point follows the plan he's already watching evolve.

So it's this Loki who's travelling through time, toppling soldiers in order to steal the glowy boxes on the assumption that with enough of them he'll be able to destroy the Time Variance Authority and set the multiverse back on track, including realities were he lived, Frida lived, he's king of Midgard and all manner of other outcomes.  From a certain point of view the Time-Keepers could be viewed as incredibly fascistic, destroying variants because they don't fit their plan.

One point of confusion I've seen is how there can be one sacred timeline when we've already seen other realities already in the MCU, notably in the obviously canonical Agents of SHIELD but also during Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 as Stan Lee describes some of his adventures to multiple Watchers, each presumably keeping track of their own reality or timeline.  How can these realms exist if there's a sacred timeline?

Well, because there was a single sacred timeline until there wasn't.  Even taking into account that the TVA themselves can time travel, or at least manifest themselves in any time period which I don't suppose is the same thing, Loki is pulled from the timeline in 2012, which means that Loki is set before the alternate reality episodes of SHIELD and Guardians of the Galaxy, not to mention whatever the results of the time travel in Runaways was (and yes that's canonical too).  

Once Loki's topples the TVA, they're replaced by the Watchers, presumably an infinite number of them, observing the timelines and only intervening in the most dire of cosmic circumstances.  Which means the What If? series isn't going to be just some fun anthology show, but a key part of the overall narrative going forward, demonstrating that there isn't one correct timeline but numerous possibilities.  Perhaps Jordan Peele's voice will cameo as a "live action" Watcher in Loki.

I appreciate to some extent all of this is me trying to make fetch happen again, after it turned out the Evan Peters Quicksilver was just some guy and so there isn't yet some grand plan to co-opt MARVEL movie and TV content past and present into the MCU and explain the mechanics of the Sonyverse.  But it'll be fun to look back at this blog post in five episodes time and see how wrong I was again anyway.

Black Widow is not dead.

Film At this point I remain convinced that in the post credit sequence of the Black Widow, Natasha Romanov is going to wake up at the bottom of the cliff on Vormir wondering how the fuck she's going to get home. I don't see how any other conclusion to that film could be anything other than a downer, especially if its a hit and they're turning it into a trilogy. 

Fortunately for those of us still under the dark shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic and sheltering at home, Disney have announced that it'll be getting a Mulan-style day and date release in July 2021 on Disney+ so that those of us who don't want to return to cinemas (assuming they're open!) can enjoy whilst sat in our own lumpy chair. 

I've long been an advocate of day and date releases, giving us audience members the choice of watching films without having to hike out to a drafty auditorium and deal with people who're treating that space as their lounge. Paying £10 to listen to someone masticate through a box of popcorn before walking just before the credits role is not fun. 

As the pandemic recedes, presumably studios will return to the theatrical model but perhaps with a slightly more relaxed attitude to how it effects the bottom line to release things for home simultaneously. Cinema chains too, who've traditionally owned release windows and such, will be in a slightly weaker position now that they know that to an extent, the studios don't need them as much. 

Back in 2016, Sean "Napster" Parker was pitching "The Screening Room", a DRM heaving special streaming box so consumers could watch films day and date for $50 a pop with revenues flowing back to cinemas, which many of us rolled our eyes at because we already had a pretty decent streaming box already.  Seems like the pandemic has forced studios to realise the same thing.

Immediately, as with Mulan, critics and fans were moaning about Disney+ charging extra for Black Widow as though its some great scheme to steal money out from under people.  I saw one goober indicate that he wouldn't be paying "because it's just a prequel and she's dead already anyway". 

But Disney isn't a charity. They're well within their rights to charge extra for Black Widow and not just throw it up on Disney+ as part of the subscription especially in territories were the cinemas, which would have been its traditional home, are closed.  Including advertising, Disney have sunk at least $300m into this thing and a cut of the subscriptions won't be enough to cover that.

Without the pandemic it would have been in cinemas a year ago and we'd all have it on shiny-disc. They waited a year in the hopes of protecting it as a theatrical experience but that hasn't worked out so they doing the next best thing and charging cinema rates.

Of course, the fairer option would be the Wonder Woman 1984 route of making it available on all the pay-per-stream services outside the Disney+ cordon and give subscribers a discount, but again they don't need to.  The MCU is a big enough brand that people will most certainly come.

Not to mention the old lobster pricing rule. Around a decade ago there was a glut of lobster available to restaurants and very cheap prices. But they kept the prices the same as they were when there was a smaller overhead in order to protect their status as a luxury item. 

I can understand why studios spending hundreds of millions of pounds on films don't want them to become essentially valueless and part of a content farm, as so much of the new material on Netflix has become, mostly uploaded without much hype unless there's some awards potential.

Just to add that I know they are putting some things like Nomadland on the service, but such things have a limited box office spotential by comparison and aren't four quadrant releases and are perfect drivers for the Star section of the service.  Although that is admittedly one film I would have gone to the cinema for.

Five Things I Liked About The Wandavision finale.

 TV  It's been a while since I've been this excited about seeing an episode of television, but after eight simple weeks of build up, with so many question to be answered about the show, you bet I was sat in front of my television at 8am this morning waiting for the Disney+ upload.  Any-hoo I have some thoughts, so let's fulfil the promise of the title of this blog post.  Spoilers, obviously.

(1)  No Huge Cameo

After weeks of speculation based on some veiled comments in publicity videos, neither Doctor Strange, Mr Fantastic or Magneto wandered in at the last moment to distract us from the big emotional arc of the show.  The appearance of Luke Skywalker at the close of business in The Mandalorian had already been baked into the storyline, whereas a surprise cameo in Wandavision, an even bigger boss than Agatha, perhaps Hayward being revealed to Mephisto in disguise, was not on the agenda here.  He was just some human tool.  Instead, quite rightly, the climax focused on the characters who we'd become attached to over the previous eight episodes, that it truly was Agatha All Along.  

(2)  The Triumph of Intellect and Romance Over Brute Force And Cynicism

Although both Wanda and Vision enjoyed the MCU trope of fighting a mirror enemy who shares their powers, lots of flying in the sky and throwing magic or lasers at one another they both ultimately won their respective competitions by outthinking their opponents, Wanda using the same technique Agatha employed initially to kerb her powers and Vision and White Vision having a meeting of minds which resulted in the latter rekindling his memories of being the former B-4.  The source for the title for this paragraph in case you're wondering.

(3)  Symmetry 

I've already seen criticism which suggests that the show simply becomes another action action fighty fighty thing from its humbler origins, especially from those who liked the earlier funny ones.  But the show actually has a very symmetrical structure, the opening episode filmed completely on a sound stage in front of a studio audience in academy ratio, the finale with all of the tools of big budget filmmaking in a scope setting, a production decision which itself comments on the development of the television as a whole.  

(4)  Evan Peters

Absolutely amazing.  After weeks and weeks of speculation in YouTube videos, on social media, on here, it's revealed the production team have just been fucking with us and that Evan Peters isn't playing the alt.Quicksilver from the FoX-Men but just some random bozo with a euphemistic surname who like everyone else in town has had his identity replaced.  As I've said previously, the MCU is going to want to do its own spin on mutants as and when and acknowledging the existence of the cast from the other franchise would simply draw away from an endeavour which will already be a source of comparisons.  Can you imagine the actor who's going to play Wolverine next?  Damn.

(5)  Consequences

The show acknowledges that although Wanda has somewhat come to terms with the tragedies in her own life and become stronger because of it, she herself has brought pain to others.  Even though Wanda is clearly the protagonist of his series, unlike most of the MCU's heroes, she now finds herself in the ambiguous place of having destroyed even more lives, albeit psychologically.  So although she's allowed to walk away at the end much as she did after Lagos, it's more because she's too powerful to contain at this point having absorbed Agatha's gifts too.  Much like the rest of the MCU  actions have consequences and there are no reset buttons or easy outs.  

I've found a use for motion flow on modern televisions.

TV There's nothing much to this post except to note that a whole new level of verisimilitude can be gained when rewatching the earlier audience-based episodes of Wandavision by ignoring Tom Cruise's advice (and mine usually) and turning on the Motion Flow or Smoothing feature on your modern television and letting it interpolate extra frames making it look like the video tape such shows would originally have been recorded on. Oh and turn down sharpness to zero if you can for added smudginess.

This does of course fall apart when the outside world intrudes and the episodes cross cut between the two formats, not to mention that with so many shows from those earlier periods being remastered for HD anyway due to the way they were shot, your mileage on this may differ anyway.  Perhaps if the show ever reaches a physical format, Disney might make it available on limited edition VHS, with the widescreen scenes panned and scanned or open matt for old times sake.

We Need To Talk About Wanda Maximoff. Spoilers.

Film Sort of. Maybe? The reveal at the end of this week's Wandavision was trending on the Twitter within a few hours and there are already hundreds of blog posts and Youtube videos on the topic. But, goddamit I haven't been this excited since the last big thing which happened in a vertical multimedia conglomerate franchise and sometimes you just have to get your ideas on monitor (no not that one) even if they're tired and unoriginal. You will not see anything interesting here. This might as well be a large space created by some line space html or whatever bloated mess this new editing system on Blogger uses to create gaps in text.  

Spoilers.  Obviously.

As you might expect its about that appearance of Evan Peters as Pietro.  Some of the more mainstream areas of the media are already suggesting that we're seeing the first appearance of the X-Men in the MCU with the implication that they're sticking with the same casting as the Fox films after all and blah blah blah even though it's been pretty well established that when and if the X-Men turn up in the MCU they'll be recast and presumably recharacterised to more tonally fit what that actually means.  Because why would you not?  Why should Kevin Feige and pals be stuck with whoever Matthew Vaughn or Bryan Singer have chosen?

Here's my theory.  Thanks to Disney gobbling up Fox, Disney+ now carries a whole bunch of MARVEL films not set in the MCU including both Fantastic Four and X-Men.  Click on the MARVEL logo and there they are now listed as "Marvel Legacy Movies".  Some casuals might not necessarily know that there's much of a difference between the franchises, but there they are, they exist and in their own way part of MARVEL cinematic history, for better or worse along with whatever Sony and New Line Cinema (now owned by Warners) have made (not to mention the various TV shows).

They could just leave that content out there but again, when the MCU does produce their own version they have to be special in their own way.  One of the problems with both Sony and Fox's approach is in their persistence to recast and reboot, there's been diminishing returns.  In a better structured version of that the X-Men franchise, Days of Future Past would have been the final word, but instead we were given two lesser sequels which couldn't measure up to that masterpiece (especially in its extended form) which only went on to do more damage to the integrity of the franchise.

Instead, with what we've heard about in relation to Spider-Man: Something Something Home and the next Doctor Strange film's title I think Phase Four across media is going to be about establishing these other franchises as part of a multiverse, of making them "count" and Peter Maximoff from the X-Men universe is only going to be the first of numerous cameos and visits to these other worlds which means, much as is the case in the Whoniverse, everything happened.  All of it.  Every adaptation of a MARVEL property from Japanese Spider-Man to The Incredible Hulk.

Yes, yes, Into The Spider-Verse is a great movie and so was the comic it was based on which did pretty much the same thing as I'm proposing and I'm aware of the "why bother?" attitude.  But the philosophy of the MCU is that everything is connected and this whole business feels in keeping with that.  On a business level it's a win-win.  However much Peter is developed in Wandavision, it's a way of pushing viewers towards films they might not previously have thought about catching up on (although I assume the crossover audience between these different franchises has to be pretty big).

Unless all of this is wishful thinking and Aaron Taylor-Johnson hasn't replaced Evan Peters by the end of the next episode, a mistake having been corrected.  Or he simply gets popped away again for being anomalous.  But it doesn't feel like you'd cast Evan Peters and he would agree to do the role if there wasn't some other great narrative afoot.  The pace and presentation of the reveal doesn't stack up.  When a comic book ends with a page size reverse shot of its hero entirely surprised by someone standing on their doorstep, that someone is always of substantive import, not often ignored or side-lined in the following issue.

Something which is also probably irrelevant but I can't stop thinking about is how similarly structured Wandavision and the latterday X-verse films are.  Just as WandaVision's sitcom diegesis is seemingly skipping through the decades from day to day, the X-verse film starting with First Class are each set in a different decade even though its characters barely age.  Despite having been born in the 1950s, Peter Maximoff looks much the same as he does in Days of Future Past as Dark Phoenix, set about twenty years later.  It's handwaved off as something to do with the mutant gene but what if it was as a result of the hex energy seeping into the other reality?

All of which is the paraphernalia of gossamer thin fan theorism but the central point to all of this is that for those of us wondering how the MCU was going to work post Endgame, we can see that we're heading into a series of stories potentially just as ambitious as the first three phases if not more so.  At a certain point this evening, I was so hyped up about this, I began to consider if it might include other Disney properties, if the Doctor Strange film will feature appearances from the Star Wars or live action fairy tale franchises, Stephen doing battle with a Mandalorian or Maleficent.  God, I love this stuff.  More please.

[Updated after episode six]   Gah, now I don't know.  Maybe?  Between Tom Holland saying that neither Toby Maguire or Andrew Garfield are in Spider-Man 3 and the suggestion that Evan Peters is playing a zombie version of the MCU character so his whole casting might actually nothing more than a reference to recasting in sitcoms I'm starting to doubt the whole premise of this blogpost.  

So either something completely wacky is going to happen in the next couple of episodes, or we're heading for something akin to Russell T Davies's time on Doctor Who when we'd all be thinking of some incredibly intricate and complex reason for a thing and it actually turns out to be much, much simpler.

Nevertheless, this doesn't discount the idea that Steve Strange won't turn up at the end of episode eight and on seeing Even Peters and knowing that he's from another reality (with the added bonus of Bandersnatch Cummerbund saying words like "mutant" and "X-Men") realising that something has gone terribly wrong with the multiverse leading into the next Doctor Strange film.

Just an added thought.  The final moments of the introductory film of each MARVEL phases has presented the greater theme of the rest of the phase: Iron Man closed with the start to the formation of the Avengers.  The multiple suits at the close of Iron Man 3 prefigured Ultron's army.  Captain America: Civil War ended with Steve's phone shaped olive branch and they only defeated Thanos when they worked together.

[Updated after the finale]  Huh, huh, huh, huh, she said boner.

Far Away, So Close. From Home.

Film Seeing Apollo 11 at FACT's Picturehouse on Monday was a bit of debacle. The aircon had  broken down in screens one and two, their answer which being to install giant industrial fans at the front of the auditorium which hammered away all the way through the adverts. As you can imagine I couldn't settle and as my anxiety began to coalesce in my stomach about having to endure the noise during a film which was surely going to have periods of silence, I left the screen and approached a staff member. 

I explained to him it sounded like a jet engine, which it did. He informed me that the room would be like an oven so they would not be turning it off and the best he could offer was a refund. Which I took, of course.

I tried sitting back down and relaxing, the thing kept hammering away, not apparently bothering anyone else, but of course I'm me and considered leaving and watching the screening at the Odeon an hour later. As the noise continued in the background of the trailers, I decided that's what I'd do.

But as I was heading up the stairs to the exit, the staff person entered and sheepishly walked to the front of the screen and turned the fan off, his manager standing at the top, leaning against the back chairs.

"My manager's agreed to turn the fan off during the film ..." the staff member said to me as he passed by.

So I stayed and went back to the box office on my way out to pay again, despite having spent much of the first half of the film with all of this rolling about the insides of my brain and the picture looking like it wasn't being projected properly because the masking curtains as they explained were broken too.  Plus as ever the fire exit sign blurted light across the bottom left hand side of the screen, giving space a light green hue.  If only they'd used a less transparent design for this important safety feature.

After this mess I decided, after many years of seeing the MCU at FACT, that I'd brave the World of Cine at Speke instead for Spider-Man: Far From Home. I knew what I was signing up for and sure enough there were screaming children (which I couldn't begrudge due to them all being dressed in Spider-man pyjamas) and half the audience walking in front of the screen to get to the toilet. One bloke was gone for at least ten minutes during one of the key exposition scenes. God knows if he could follow the plot once he returned, assuming he was bothered with it anyway.

Short review: It's as entertaining as most second tier MCU films, essentially Eurotrip with superheroes, embracing that film's stereotypical approach to nationalities and featuring very well known British television actors of the "Who's in it from Doctor Who?" persuasion. Incidentally this isn't a spoiler, but that is incredibly distracting. Soon as you see them, you'll be waiting for them to have a much larger role because of who they are and it doesn't happen. Which is a kind of spoiler I suppose but not as much as some of the howlers I've seen in professional reviews.

By why am I here? In the run up to the release of SM:FFH, I posted twice on the topic, with trailer speculation and considering the infrastructural implications of Endgame post-Thanos. Let's revisit those. SPOILERS FROM THE START. To give you some space to look away, here's a photo of Daisy Ridley making an o-face while holding a large photograph of the big Tesco on Hanover Street in Liverpool, which has nothing to do with SM:FFH but is very funny.



You can see the rest of this completely mad video here.  She's a treasure.

Trailer speculation.

This is was not Nick Fucking Fury. Not Nick Fucking Fury at all. So everything we assumed about Mysterio turned out to be exactly as we expected with everything he said taken at face value by not too bright the Skrulls from Captain Marvel pretending to be Fury and Hill. So the entire rest of that post is sadly redundant. There's some speculation about whether every chronological appearance we've seen of Fury and Hill from Captain Marvel onwards is actually the Skrulls, but I think that's a stretch. Given the easter eggs dropped throughout the dialogue, alt.Nick and alt.Maria seem only to have been replaced for this adventure. Which makes you wonder where the real version of the latter is.  Living her best life elsewhere, hopefully.

The infrastructural implications of Endgame post-Thanos.

Or post "blip" as it's called now, which is handy.  Here are each of the old sub-headings in turn.

Birthdates

Inconclusive.  All the vacation preparations from the trailer have been cut (and will apparently turn up as their own thing on the blu-ray), including the passport moment.  The drinking scene on the airplane implies that the kids don't have updated IDs and that it's up to them to keep within the spirit of the law - see also Peter in the bar with Quentin. 

Assets and housing

As the trailer suggested, a lot of the people who returned after the blip found themselves displaced from their apartments including Aunt May (who we now have confirmation was blipped along with Peter so at least she didn't have to deal with the grief of him having gone for five years).  As I speculated, despite being alive again, they're completely fucked and apparently in the deleted scenes, there were shots of Peter having to sell a whole lot of his stuff in order to afford the trip (which explains why his room is so empty in the moments we do see him there).

Relationships

Since this is a teen film there's not much on this, apart from the teacher explaining that his wife had pretended to blip so she could run off with another fella.  That's something which hadn't occurred to me, people taking advantage of the situation.  

Not related at all but what about prisoners?  Presumably the blip time isn't included in the sentence, so despite having been brought back to life, they'll still have to see out the rest of their sentence.  Imagine the jolity when they reappear in their old cells, now occupied by new convicts.

Premierships

Nothing much at all that I remember.

Technology and the Arts

The Earth-199999 was already technologically more advanced than Earth-1218 (Mysterio getting the designations wrong is an early indicator to viewers that he's full of shit) but it does seem to have moved on again in some respects, like the giant video screen on the building in New York (and they couldn't really have anyone else play that character in the mid-credits sequence could they!?!) but less so in others.  The kids seems to be clinging to slightly lower-fi technology like wired earphones and phone designs which don't seem to have moved on much.

Factionalism

From the looks of things, the MCU is largely going to move on after this, otherwise the opening ten minutes of every film with characters affected by the blip will be about wrestling with the implications which could get samey.

Not that we actually know what the next films in the series are going to be for the first time in years.  We know there's going to be something next year but it could be anything.  Something to do with Black Widow is shooting but I haven't seen reports of much else apart from vague announcements.  Isn't it fun?  Role on Comic-Con.

Is this why The Inhumans film didn't happen?



Film Despite its nearly eight million views, this is the first time I've seen the MCU's Phase Three announcement from back in 2014. At the time, I remember shuddering that the second Avengers film wasn't going to be released until I was in my mid-forties. Fortunately, I made it and now anticipate the upcoming Phase Four announcement.

It's worth noticing how dates and elements changed in the meantime.  The Sony deal led to everything moving down the schedule to make way for Spider-Man: Homecoming and the relative success of Ant-Man the insertion of a sequel.  But the big anomaly is The Inhumans film, which was quietly cancelled, to re-emerge as a frustratingly average television mini-series.

Why?  One of MARVEL's strengths has been to see what the audience responds to and monopolise on that, making course corrections when necessary.  Thor: Ragnarok was in part a result of the relatively poor critical reception for The Dark World (even if it still did well at the box office).  More Black Panther material was apparently filmed for Infinity War because it did quite well.

I think this video captures the moment The Inhumans as a film was cancelled.  As every other title card emerges on the screen, this audience, made up of comic book experts, go absolutely batshit crazy to the point that the mic on the camera phone sneakily recording it is completely blown out and unlistenable.

When The Inhumans is announced?  Crickets.  Well, not quite.  There's still some cheering but its markedly more muted than for the rest of the announcements and when Kevin Feige returns to the stage afterwards, he sounds slightly defensive as he attempts to justify the selection to a crowd which clearly hasn't reacted in the way he'd hoped.

Was this enough?  Did the reaction of fans at this event cause the hesitation?  Maybe?  As I've suggested elsewhere, reaction to franchises tend to be fan led, and if fandom wasn't in general that fussed about seeing The Inhumans at the cinema, then there was the potential for this to be a difficult sell which was justifiable considering the size of the budget.

But there's also the possibility that as pre-production began on the AIWE doulogy, the idea of having a large population of incredibly powerful beings, even at half strength post-click, was difficult to insert into an already busy couple of films.  Perhaps there's a version of Endgame floating around with Medusa or Nahrees joining the time travelers.

Instead we got the tv series which despite the budgetary input from IMAX couldn't afford to animate Medusa's hair in every episode so had it shaved off and left Lockjaw off-screen with about the same level of nuance as K9 in Season 18 of Doctor Who.  About the only good thing which came out of the series was cancellation because it meant Anson Mount was free to play Pike on Discovery.

We Need To Talk About [spoiler] [spoiler] [spoiler].

Film Here we are then at the season finale of the MARVEL Cinematic Universe Season One and after watching it on the same day as that episode of Game of Thrones, I was pretty worn out for at least twenty-four hours.  Avengers: Endgame is a strident classic of its genre is something which should go without saying. As close as we have yet to the film equivalent of an event comic upon which the events in separate "franchises" will surely follow, it's also an incredibly "important" moment for those of us who've become emotionally invested in this universe and characters.

Try as I might, there are some things I've been cogitating about in the week since and although I'm sure you've read some of the following elsewhere (assuming you've seen this behemoth and not a masochist who likes to know everything about a film before you see the film because you don't like surprises) so apologies for the repetition.  Meanwhile, not having written anything length on a keyboard for weeks, I'm finding it surprisingly hard to get my bearings around the Querty.  So apologies for any typos and the like.  I'll try to catch them all.

Here is a necessary block for stuff for anyone who wants to look away.



That should do it.

Still here?  Right then, I'd like to talk about logistics, specifically in relation to those missing five years.

As is established by the climax of Endgame, unlike some of us might have assumed due to the presence of time travel, satisfyingly the Infinity Gauntlet (TM) isn't used to reset the timeline.  Everything which happened, happened.  Stark doesn't have to make the decision to sacrifice the existence of his own child in order to save the timeline, none of that mishegoss.  As he says himself, he wouldn't proceed with the plan unless the timeline remains intact and everyone seems fine with that, especially the audience who now won't have rewatch Infinite War knowing that it's about to be retconned out of existence in the next film.

Endgame creates its own rules about time travel even to the point of having its characters discuss all the usual permutations from films before being told it's all guff, that Back To The Future is bullshit.  Of course it stings that out of all the programmes and films mentioned, even Quantum Leap, that Doctor Who finds itself shunned despite the film featuring an actual companion actress in a starring role.  But disregarding the notion of paradoxes frees the story from any obligations change the future somehow or offer the chance of a universal do-over.  Whatever happens, happens, and there's no changing it.

Some have become quite confused about all of this, but everything is explained in the rooftop conversation between Banner and The Ancient One.  That removing the stones from the timeline won't bust open reality so long as they're returned to their relevant points, to do otherwise would create a separate reality or some such.  Ok, I'll have to watch it again, but the reasoning seemed sound on first consumption and explains why in the final moments, Steve takes Mjölnir with him as well as the stones.  Something plenty of filmmakers forget is that its ok to create your own set of rules for a sci-fi or fantasy concept so long as you follow them yourself.

Anyway, as a result, by the close of Endgame, we realise that when Brulk clicks half the population of the galaxy back into existence, from their perspective its as though they never left and that they're entering a world were the other half are now five years older than them having reached 2023 the slow way by living through it.  Never mind that this is a superhero film franchise, that's a hugely interesting and faintly dystopian concept by itself, large enough to sustain its own film, let alone a television series.  It's essentially a rapture film in which the great one decides to send everyone back after five years because it didn't go as planned.

How does a planet, let alone a universe deal with billions of people who they thought were gone for good suddenly turning up again?  After the emotional realisation that your loved ones aren't dead, you're then left with the problem of what to do with them all.  There are all sorts of logistical and legal matters to attend to.  One does not simply disappear from existence for five years and then return assuming that you'll be able to carry on with your life as though nothing has happened.  Five years is a long time, even in a world in the grasp of collective grief.  For example:

Birthdates

You now have half a planet which is physically and mentally five years younger than the other half but who still have their originally birthdate.  Which means that people who're physically thirteen years old are now eligible to vote, watch In The Realm of the Sense and join the army, not to mention the mess it makes of retirement ages.

The state would have two options.

Either they'd have to redo all of the paperwork to give eligibility ratings depending on whether someone was clicked out or existence or not.  So some kind of mark on the voter rolls in polling stations and a BBFC classification would be 18-certificate (23-certificate for [insert euphemism for those who disappeared for five years]).

Or more radically artificially revise the birthdates of everyone who disappeared.  In the trailer for Spider-Man: Far From Home, when Peter presents his passport, it doesn't have a date of birth on it, no doubt to hide the Endgame spoiler.  Perhaps when that shot's in the actual film, we'll see that Peter's DOB has changed to suggest he was born five years later than he actually was.

On the one hand, it means that everyone embraces a collective lie that at least on paper, there are people who lived on the planet five years longer than their date of birth says they did.  But on the other it saves on an awful lot more paperwork than having to just create new documents.

Assets and housing

Judging by the tone of the opening hour of the film, everyone who disappeared has been pronounced dead, which means that wills will have gone into motion and assuming the heirs also still exist, their assets will have been passed down and either sold off or kept.

The less well off, especially those who were renting will have had houses taken back by landlords and all of the other stuff which happens when someone dies without anyone to take care of their affairs.  Houses cleared of possessions, that sort of thing.

Not to mention everything happening at banks in relation to savings and investments etc.

After the initial shock, society moves on.  Governments make new laws to deal with the aftermath.

Then all of these people snap back into existence and everything they owned is gone.  Their house isn't there any more, either demolished, left empty and sold or rented to someone else.  Their assets have been seized and there isn't yet a legal framework in place for them to get it back.

Not to mention a job.  Apart from in some government departments, vacancies are not kept open for five years.

Perhaps that's were some of the people in the homeless shelter in the Spider-man trailer come from.

A lot of people'll be as lucky as Ant-Man and be able to walk back into their own life, albeit with suddenly having a teenage daughter to deal with.  But the rest might not have a life to return to.

Despite being alive again, they're completely fucked.

Relationships

You pop back into existence and discover that your wife or husband or partner has moved on with their life, perhaps even remarried.  Within perceptual moments you've gone from having a loving home to becoming the outsider no longer legally married, perhaps with a whole new family living in your house.

Or what if you're in a relationship with someone who lost a loved one to Thanos and that loved one suddenly turns up and you realise that your partner was making do.  How does that make you feel?

Also what if you were a young child when your parents went and you've been adopted?  Obviously you should go back to your own parents, but as we know, in custody cases it isn't also that simple.  If its a couple who are now poor, the court may decide the child is better off with the adopted parents.

Nuts.  Again, there's tons of dramatic mileage in this sequence of events on its own.

Premierships

Thinking about that final shot of T'Challa triumphantly returning to Wakanda: did his premiership not pass to a successor?  At all?  Did they wait around just in case?  The implication is that M'Baku or whoever has stepped aside now that the real King is back but will every country on the planet be as accepting of the new status quo?  Political change will have presumably come within those five years and there's bound to be wars and other controversies ensuing when powerful people attempt to retake thrones and dispatch boxes they assumed were rightfully theres.

Technology and the Arts

Just to give this lip service.  Half the planet return to find computers technologically better than they were and there are five years worth of television and film to catch up on.  Even if half the casts have disappeared, you can bet the Tommy Westphall universe is still going strong.  Will you still be able to even play your dvds (assuming they haven't gone to landfill).

Factionalism

Then there are the numpties who want to treat the returnees as second class citizens, who believe that the world was a better place post Thanos and feel like having them come back is the worst.  Not to mention those who thought it really was the rapture and have now been proved wrong.

Sigh, just sigh.

A Complaint Letter To Picturehouse Cinemas.

Film The following tells much of the story. What I didn't include, in order to stay on topic, was the appalling sound quality. Only the speakers behind the screen seemed to be in use and often muffled.
Hello,

This afternoon I saw the lunchtime (12:45pm) showing of The Antman and the Wasp at your Picturehouse at FACT. After the adverts, the film began to start and began projecting in 'scope across the middle of the 1.85:1 screen which had already been set up for the adverts, looking pretty much as it does on a home television with black bars across the top and bottom of the screen. Initially I thought this was an affectation and that, rather like Galaxy Quest for example, once the film started the image would increase to fill the screen.

It did not. The whole film played this way. At this stage I didn't know that the director had chosen to make the film in 'scope - the first film was in 1.85:1, so I thought perhaps matt blinds had been left on the projector and the image was being cropped - so I began considering whether to miss some of the film and run out and report it which was at the back of my mind through almost the whole film, whether I was seeing the whole image, guaging if the tops of heads were cropped. Once you have a thought like that it just *lingers*. So that rather took my out of the film.

​Checking afterwards, the IMDb revealed that it was indeed made in 2.39:1 so it had been projected incorrectly. I was a bit cross to be honest. Projecting in this way also meant that the emergency exit sign which is right next to the screen reflected across the surface screwing up the blacks in the image making some scenes look especially difficult to watch. It's less noticable when the screen has an image across the whole thing, but in this instance again, it was really, yes, distracting and damaging enough that it looked better when the house lights were up over the credits.

I spoke to the cinema manager and she explained that it was a fault with the projector which they've been reporting to you at head office for over eighteen months - something to do with the lense not being able to interpret the DCPs they're being sent properly. So that's eighteen months of people like me having to pay full price to watch films with inferior picture to quality, which is quite frankly rubbish, especially for a company which used to put cinema and the quality of how cinema is presented above all other concerns.


The manager said that its got to the point were they're now asking customers to email their complaints to head office because they're not getting any help directly. This should not be the case. I should not have to send this email. You should be listening to your cinema managers and providing whatever help they need to offer the best product to their customers. MARVEL films are my special treat and your inaction on this issue all but ruined this one.

Take care,

Stuart.
Update! 7/9/2018 I've had a reply:
Dear Stuart

Thank you for your email and your feedback. We appreciate all feedback as it helps us know how to improve the customer experience.

I am sorry to hear you didn't enjoy your visit. The issue with the projection has been unfortunately a problem for the FACT Liverpool site for about 8 weeks, instead of 18 months as you may have misheard. They are working with the temporary solutions they have, and are understandably keen to get back to the correct projections, as are we all. We are organising the parts and engineering required, and we appreciate your patience while these works are underway.

Kind regards,

[Some person]
Picturehouse Customer Care Team Leader
I've since been back in touch with Picturehouse at FACT - apparently it could have been 18 weeks [shrug emoji]. The relevant parts have finally arrived from the US and they should be installed shortly. Stand down everyone, stand down.

"I like to remember things like that."

Film Gen of Deek has a really good interview with Thanos/Cable/Dubya/Goonies actor Josh Brolin. It covers failure and how to fight to stay grounded when your life is a wonderland. He's immensely self aware:
"Going back to that beginner's mind again, if there’s more people when you leave your hotel sitting there wanting your autograph, it’s really good to me to know that there are fans out there for sure, and then there are people out there who make money off autographs. I like to remember things like that. That they may not care about you or your performance, they care about how much money they can get for your signature. That’s always a nice reality check."
Brolin is the perfect example of a journeyman character actor who suddenly finds himself in two of the biggest films of the Summer back to back.

Here's why you should buy the 3D version of Infinity War even if you don't like 3D.



Film Find above the trailer for Avengers: Infinity War but showing the comparison between the regular and IMAX presentations. Turns out, A:IW was shot entirely in digital IMAX so the film I saw yesterday was cropped across the top and bottom, which will account for why, just sometimes, the shots were incredibly busy.

IMAX's YouTube channel has a dozen or so videos celebrating the fact and you might also notice that it's not the first to include IMAX scenes. Most of the recent installments have mixed the two aspect ratios so that IMAX visitors have a slightly more epic experience.

What's less known is that those IMAX versions are available for the home on the 3D releases.  Although the standard 2D releases have the regular versions with cropping were necessary, the 3D disc always contains the IMAX version with the shifting between regular and IMAX shots.  Doctor Strange has about three different ratios.

The list seems to be:

Guardians of the Galaxy
Captain America: Civil War
Doctor Strange
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
Thor: Ragnarok
Black Panther

Of course, you do need to have a 3D blu-ray player and 3D television to see any of this and they're both being phased out.  But you don't have to watch it in 3D.  On my television at least you can turn off the 3D and watch the film without and although you obviously don't get the scale, you can at least see all of the available visual information.

My guess is the 3D release of A:IW will also contain the IMAX version with the full image - unless they decide that's also going to be the 2D version as well if you want to see the whole film, that's the version you're going to have to purchase.

We Need To Talk About Thanos.



Film It's been a while since the last "We Need To Talk About [insert MARVEL related character who has nothing to do with the Lynne Ramsey film] but with the MCU equivalent of The Three Doctors having had the biggest opening weekend of all time and actually visited a cinema myself to see the thing and had some thoughts, here we are: some commentary on Avengers: Infinity War to add to the digital fatberg already clogging up the atlantic's transcommunication cable.

None of the following is original.  But after knocking out that bland review of a Ken Burns documentary yesterday, I'm in the mood to write again which hasn't been the case for the past few weeks.  A whole visit to London and other business have passed and all I've really wanted to do was double bill some films and catch up on a mountain of television.  But if nothing else, the first half of the MCU's two part series finale has made me want to sit in front of a keyboard, so thanks Kevin Feige et al.

The following will of course include many spoilers, so do not under any circumstances read any further if you haven't seen the film - which is essentially unreviewable so this isn't going to be that.  I've already tried watching a couple of the kinds of YouTube reviewers who utilise their dvd collection as the backdrop pointlessly offering a spoiler-free review as though their core audience isn't going to be going to see the film anyway.  Just warn up front then say what you like.  It's OK.

(1)  The film is unreviewable

Reviews of the film for general audiences have been amazingly bobbins in places.  I'm not going to single out any in particular, you've seen them, but the gist is that A:IW doesn't work as a stand alone film because none of the main characters are properly introduced and nothing is explained which means that the emotional beats have no resonance and there aren't any stakes.  Oh and that's half a story which makes it insubstantial.

Let's all say this in unison (!).  It's an installment in probably the biggest film franchise of all time, in which anyone going to the cinema to see it will have enjoyed its antecedents a couple if not a dozen times.  Seeing A:IW as your first MARVEL film is like sitting down for the finale of a television season and hoping that everything which has happened that season will be explained to you.  If this kind of film isn't your sort of thing, this isn't going to change your mind.  It's not supposed to.

It's refreshing to have a film like this which doesn't pander.  Pandering is why we've had to watch Batman's parents killed or the destruction of Krypton over and over again.  If you can't appreciate that the film is ignoring character exposition on purpose rather than through omission, I don't know what you're expecting.  But I also honestly don't understand why someone couldn't enjoy this on some level, unless they're determined not to even before they enter the cinema.

(2)  Structure

The big question beforehand was how the Russo brothers would be able to balance the various elements, all of those characters and contain them within this running time.  Captain America: Civil War demonstrated their nimbleness in achieving that balance whilst simultaneously delivering something which is a valid finale to Cap's trilogy and sewing up some hanging questions from the Iron Man series so I wasn't that concerned.  But how would they achieve the balance between the mix of tones?

The clever solution is to make Thanos an antagonistic protagonist.  Without the necessary close reading (remind me with the blu-ray is released) my guess is that all of the key turning points in the story happen at various stages in Thanos's quest, probably in finding each of the different stones and that in those terms, since Thanos achieves his goal, the film's plot technically resolves itself.  Half the population of the universe disappears, a notion he views as heroic, and he's able to retire just as he wished having made some necessary sacrifices.

The mix of tones works surprisingly well.  I saw one review which suggested that some of heroes act "out of character" because they've been brought in from the work of other creatives but I didn't detect that at all.  James Gunn is particularly listed as an executive producer and apparently he did write all of the Guardian's dialogue.  Due to the familial connection this does function as part of the wider Guardians story more than any of the other characters.

But my understanding is all of the other key creatives were consulted too, probably because they'd have to deal with the fallout in their own films.  The Wakanda scenes are very much within Ryan Cooglar's vision and however much of a downer the climax of Ragnarok is now, this Thor has his DNA in Taika Waititi's effort rather than anything which happened in the earlier films.  The rest of the heroes have already had multiple creatives but the Russos still acknowledge their debt to how Joss Whedon conceived some of the characters, especially Banner.

(3)  Unfortunate Events

Due to his non-appearance in the publicity my assumption was that Hawkeye would buy it in the opening scene.  Little did I expect they'd actually murder one of the franchise's most popular assets despite it being the classic move when you want to show how high the stakes are.  That said, god bless Hiddleston for showing up for all of the publicity as though Loki was going to have a major role in the film rather than a cameo.

My feelings about Gamora are a bit more complex.  Despite the blood splatter, like everyone who's dusted at the climax, I don't believe she'll stay dead.  Damseling and fridging her as a way of utilising some of Quill's toxic masculinity to kibosh the otherwise excellent plan to beat Thanos feels discordant within everything else the franchise has been doing over the years.  Such things have mostly been avoided.  If it happens here, it has to be for a reason.

Plus I can't imagine what Guardians 3 looks like without her - again it isn't typical for anything that happens in an Avengers film, like killing a major character, to have much of an effect on one of the satellite trilogies.  She will be resurrected.  Either because Quill steals the Gauntlet for himself or because reality and time become much more fluid in the sequel.  Like The Key To Time, the Infinity Gauntlet isn't just going to sit on Thanos's mantlepiece.

(4)  Effects on the wider MCU

Although some other franchises have demonstrated that global events would not necessarily have the consequences you might expect within a shared universe (Torchwood's Miracle Day) (eyeroll.gif) it's inconceivable, unless they whole thing is erased from history in the sequel, to envisage half the population of the Earth disappearing not to be reflected in the various other corners of the 'verse in some way, albeit through wry asides.

Agents of SHIELD has already said that they will be referencing Infinity War, but their time travel storyline was no doubt conceived to explain why they wouldn't be involved in the events of the film up front even if the film franchise itself doesn't seem to care either way.  E4's broadcasts are a bit behind but given that the Earth is supposed to be a rocky husk in the future anyway, it'll be interesting to see how the tv show itself manages to justify The Avengers not being involved in that.

The film doesn't turn events global until the end. Before then, barring the skirming in New York, most of the key action happens off world or behind the cloaking device in Wakanda.  The Defenders, Runaways, Cloak and Dagger, Inhumans et al wouldn't necessarily even be aware of the war being fought.  They do now and you can bet that even though I know the film/TV divide makes it impossible, I wish they'd have cameos in the sequel.

(5)  What's going to be in the sequel then?

Hawkeye, Antman and the Wasp and Captain Marvel for starters.  They were all either seen on set (both films were shot together) or mentioned as having been there and it'll be important to have some flesh blood in the sequel.  All of the original core Avengers survive at the close of business: Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Cap and Black Widow.  They're getting the band back together, oh yes.

A percentage of the film no doubt be about the consequences of this, the MCU's contribution to the "rapture" genre.  Despite having the time stone, the characters aren't wiped from chronological existence.  Everyone remembers who they were and that loss.  Perhaps we'll see Tony turn up at Aunt May's door to commiserate.  There will be tears.

What's the goal?  To retrieve the Infinity Glove so they can put right what once went wrong.  In other words, it'll be the inverse of this film with Thanos properly as the antagonist again defending his achievement.  But I'm hoping for something weirder involving multiple realities, featuring cameos that look forward to whatever new characters the MCU's considering.

BUT this would also be an excellent, if unlikely, opportunity to merge the MCU and the X-verse in a similar way to how the recent Secret Wars absorbed the the Ultimates universe into 616.  Who wouldn't want the post-credits sequence to be Deadpool being chased into the Avengers campus by Wolverine or some such.  You have to imagine Jackman would return for that.