Black Panther is a wild and energetic African-inspired fantasy film with a hot cast of tomorrow's biggest stars and a social message that'll give you plenty to chew on for days after. I liked it, and it looks like so did everyone else. It's one of Marvel's most successful movies and it isn't even done running in theaters yet. But... In spite of all this, could it somehow be the worst superhero film ever made? What I'm talking about is the superhero genre as a whole and whether it's really the best format for the kind of film Black Panther wants to be? The Russo Brothers, who debuted the character of Black Panther in Civil War a couple years ago are quoted as saying they don't make superhero movies, they make movies with superheroes in them (paraphrase). Obviously Black Panther is a superhero and has been for some fifty years. Only the great Stan Lee could invent the first mainstream black American superhero in the sixties and name him Black Panther without any irony (he somehow bares no association with the Black Panthers of the 60s whatsoever and the coincidence is essentially ignored altogether). And white superheroes have pretty much been done to death for decades (minus the Blade trilogy) so I'm all for shaking things up, and diversity is cool etc. etc. Certainly if there is a black character deserving to join the ranks of countless other superhero films out there, Black Panther is the one to start with, just as Wonder Woman kinda deserved to be the first good female superhero film. But was it so wise to make this particular story such a superhero movie? Sure, Spider-Man for one, never shies away from fully embracing the tropes of the genre, and Superman as well would never dare to be anything else. No surprise there, for these two are the quintessential archetypes of the genre and always have been. But Iron Man was a techno-thriller. Watchmen was a dystopian social satire. Captain America (the first one) and Wonder Woman were historical war films. Winter Soldier and Civil War were political thrillers. The Thor movies and Doctor Strange were fantasy films (well, they tried to be). And the Guardians of the Galaxy movies (and new Thor Ragnarok) are screwball sci-fi comedies. Each of these films more or less captures the essence of their characters as portrayed in their most popular comic books, and none of them let's the comicbooky superheroic origins of their source material weigh down their storytelling. They chose to filter their particular take through whatever genre lens highlighted their strengths and differentiated them from the crowd. Its what comics have been doing for years. So why didn't Black Panther? Is the format of the superhero genre really the right fit for that story the way it is for Spider-Man or Superman? Instead of debating what the core of a Black Panther story should be, let's just all agree that up and comer co-writer/Director Ryan Coogler's vision in this regard is more than acceptable. In fact, it was brilliant. The story consists of two halves: two fathers, two sons, and two erroneous philosophies with room for only one solution. T'Challa is prince and heir to the throne after his father, the king, is killed. Erik Killmonger (this name is a clunky holdover from the comics, but is nonetheless the best way to identify him) is his foil, his opposite, and wants to steal the throne. T'Challa's father as king, had preserved their secret nation, with all its vast and priceless resources, through isolationism. It was in protecting that mission that he had to kill Killmonger's father years ago for treason, when he tried to share their secrets with the world's largely marginalized and oppressed populations of displaced Africans (this took place in the 90's, wisely set in the shadow of the Rodney King riots of LA). Father vs father. Son vs son. Isolation vs violent revolution. Now you tell me, does this sound like a perfect fit for a superhero genre-flick? In confronting Killmonger's agenda to weaponize all the oppressed black people of the world, T'Challa must face the reality of his nation's history of isolationism, namely that they let this diaspora occur in the first place and did nothing over the centuries to help alleviate the oppression or heal the wounds with their advanced technology and resources. In order to win the day T'Challa must find the middle path between hiding/ self-protection, and violent retribution, a middle path that means exposing his nation and its secrets to the world but in a positive and philanthropic way. Thus the film ends with him setting up essentially resource centers around the world, specifically in LA for example, in the same neighborhood where their father's confronted each other at the film's open. Killmonger dies seeing the sun set over the home nation he never got to know, realizing what his path cost him, and T'Challa likewise realizes his people can no longer choose isolation at the cost of the countless children of Africa around the world who suffer as a result of their inaction and inattention. In writing, this is called a double-revelation: the hero and the villain both learn different lessons, and it's very hard to pull off. As a metaphor, this film asks all those who identify as minorities and who feel the temptation to rise up in anger and violence to instead consider proactively helping their brothers and sister in plight even if it comes at great cost. So again, I ask, does this sound like the same kind of story as Spider-Man or Superman? Not even a little. So why did they stylize it that way? If this movie had come out in 2004, I would understand. In those days Spider-Man was killing it in the box office and the superhero genre was just beginning to boom. Films such as Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Punisher, Hulk, and probably others which owed their essence to such various genres as noir, horror, and crime, were all being squeezed through the superhero genre sausage grinder. Lousy CGI fight scenes and sloppy storytelling were twisted to fit origin stories, power-testing montages, forlorn romances and melodramatic self-sacrifices to confront the villain. Everyone in Hollywood seemed to know the formula but not when to use it. But in the years since Christopher Nolan brought us the Dark Knight trilogy with its sophisticated realism and Marvel's Cinematic Universe began exploring other story structures, Black Panther feels downright backwards. It's 2018 for crying out loud! The last Wolverine movie was a western. Ant-Man was a heist film. The new Thor was a buddy-comedy. Deadpool was a... weird movie. There's no reason that Black Panther should've been shoehorned into a quaint, superficial and bland superhero formula film. How do glowing purple lights and a CGI bubble of "kinetic energy" enhance the themes of revenge or family or heritage? How is gratuitous violence and one-on-one fisticuffs while falling down an endless pit the solution to stopping Killmonger's revolutionary agenda? And why giant rhinos? Why?!
And this is where Black Panther, as ambitious as it was in its themes and storytelling, allowed its own genre to overwhelm and squash it. It should've been a superhero film in name only, not in style or aesthetic. It is a film at odds with itself. It's choices of flamboyant action spectacle conflict with the inherent reality of the central struggle. For a young African American kid growing up in LA, nothing could be more palpable than having to choose between rising in anger or running away in fear and then choosing instead a middle path to help those in need at a cost to yourself. Running off the walls in a car chase sequence or riding on a CGI rhinoceros doesn't really factor in. The story would've been far better served with a more serious and grounded Michael Mann style of filmmaking, or even David Fincher or Alfonso Cuaron, (Mann, for example, was a major influence on the style of The Dark Knight). This is most disappointing because Coogler's work on Fruitvale Station and Creed both demonstrated a casual knack for capturing real-life in all its drama, tragedy and inspiration. It's not like he doesn't know what he's doing, he's extremely competent and he deserves credit even here for the way he wove his complex and convicting themes so organically into a mainstream big-budget tentpole production and still earned millions at the box office. On the other hand, it's unfair to blame the Marvel movie machine which churns out 2-3 films per year, because few of those films are even half as cheesy and superhero-y as this one. It's not like they had any reason to force him to be so cheesy. He could've filtered this exact same Black Panther story through the genre lens of a James Bond style film (in fact he does exactly that for about one scene) or an Indiana Jones style film. He could've used as an aesthetic template something akin to Godfather, or Conan the Barbarian, or Bladerunner. All very different, I'll admit, none of them would've resulted into the nonsensical, over-the-top bombast of the quote-unquote "superhero" genre which so frequently dragged down the current film. It's your decision whether you like this movie in spite of it's flawed choice of style and aesthetic, or whether you like it because of those things (ie. whether you are an adult or only 12 years old). Luckily, no one has to choose whether to like it in the first place. The cast is great. The acting is great. The soundtrack is really great. The worldbuilding and stage production are beautiful and intricate and absorbing. Even some of the fight scenes sans-costumes are quite good. It's well written with a story that weaves its tough and timely themes through its characters' dramatic choices until their conflicting ideologies come head to head with tragic yet hopeful consequences. I really wanted to love this movie more. If only they hadn't chosen such an incongruent and cartoony version of the superhero genre through which to present it, I believe it could've stood the test of time to rest beside The Dark Knight in the annals of cinema history. As it stands, Blank Panther will be huge for a few months, sure, but then disappear into the muck of the myriad of other Marvel movies coming out all the time except for that one forever distinguishing factor: it's the one with the black guy. Too bad, really. If you have a reasonably high tolerance for superhero films, I think you should definitely still check it out anyway, for what it brings to the table in terms of compelling social commentary, meaningful themes and perfectly plotted character drama. If not, that's fine, too. Just go read the comics instead. They're less comicbooky! Overall: 4 out of 5 Stars
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Captain's Blog
|