![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cjlasky7I really liked this movie. Not as much as other people do (I'll get into why later), but what Ryan Coogler and his team get right here is so much more important than any minor flaws. This is a groundbreaking movie, a fulfillment of the promise of the Black Panther character, an event over 50 years in the making.
Let's go back to July 1966.
The Civil Rights movement is in full force. The seeds of the Black Panther Party have been planted in Oakland (but the organization has yet to break through to wider recognition). And in this climate of social upheaval, the team of Jack Kirby and Stan Lee introduce a new character in the Fantastic Four, Marvel's flagship book: the Black Panther.
The Panther (and his backstory) is a first in a number of ways. He is the first African superhero. He is not a racist, stereotypical jungle primitive, but the king of his nation, with a brilliant strategic mind to go with his superpowers. (In Fantastic Four #52, T'Challa completely schools the FF, including super genius Reed Richards.) But most important of all, the Panther's home nation of Wakanda isn't some backwater deathtrap, but the most technologically advanced nation on Earth. This is a complete reversal of how white America thought of Africa at the time (and maybe still does today, to a certain extent). Kirby and Lee brought to American comics Africans with ultra-modern tech side-by-side with ancient traditions, Africans untouched by slavery or colonialism, but still dealing with the complexities of the (mostly hostile) outside world.
(You'll note that I'm giving Kirby top billing here. Wakanda fits in with the other techno-utopias in Kirby's work, like New Genesis in his Fourth World books, so I'm thinking Jack is mostly responsible for that aspect. OTOH, T'Challa's talent as a strategist falls in line with other Stan Lee heroes.)
All the conflicts and contradictions inherent in the premise--modernism vs. tradition, isolationism vs. engagement, superhero or king--have been there from the beginning. But it's taken writers who were more fully committed to tackling those issues to bring T'Challa to the cultural forefront:
Don McGregor and his "Panther's Rage" epic in the 1970s; Christopher Priest's 1990s update; and most significantly, Ta-Nehisi Coates' revolutionary work on the book over the past ten years, all adding richness and complexity to the outline provided in the original concept, and all dealing with the biggest contradiction of the series...
Wakanda is a fantasy. An Afrofuturist dream, untouched by centuries of oppression. But we don't live in that dream. What happens when Wakanda meets the real world?
This is the conflict that Coogler's film captures so dramatically. The main villain, Killmonger, asks: if Wakanda is such an advanced society, why hasn't it helped out the oppressed black people of the world? What price has the African diaspora paid to preserve this utopia? And the film basically tells us the man has a point. His methods to rectify that injustice are extreme, but he shakes the ruling class of Wakanda out of their complacency and brings them out of isolation.
But in order to make the conflict meaningful, you have to believe in the wonder and promise of Wakanda. Coogler makes you believe. Above all else, this movie is a titanic feat of cinematic world-building--maybe even greater than something like Star Wars, because you have to convince the audience that this nation exists on Earth, here and now.
So much fuss has been made about the amazing women on the screen, but Coogler had a female army BEHIND the camera, too, helping him build the world of Wakanda. Oscar noms please, for Ruth Carter's costumes, Rachel Morrison's cinematography, and especially Hannah Beachler's production design. She made each of the key locations in Wakanda--the Throne Room, the waterfall, the Jabari mountain stronghold, the marketplace, Shuri's lab--as inviting as your living room. A staggering piece of work. (I'd say I'd love to visit Wakanda, but I could think of no greater blight on that land than tourists.)
Of course, the women in front of the camera are nothing to sneeze at, either. They are the heart of the movie, the breath of life of Wakanda, and characters you want to revisit for however many sequels Marvel wants to make: Letitia Wright's Shuri, brilliant and impish, but deadly with a one-liner; Danai Gurira's Okoye, fierce, loyal, but somehow intensely vulnerable; Lupita Nyong'o as Nakia, luminous like the movie stars of old; and Angela Bassett as Ramonda, regal and commanding as ever. They each have their roles relating to T'Challa--sister, lover, protector, mother--but they are always themselves.
Which brings us to the gentlemen.
You've probably read all the articles about Michael B. Jordan already, about the swagger he brings to Killmonger. And all of that's true. But let's talk Chadwick Boseman for a moment, because he's got the tougher job. T'Challa is a tough nut for an actor, because he doesn't have the self-righteous fury of a Killmonger to drive him forward. At the start of the movie, T'Challa is very much a proponent of the status quo: orderly succession, keep Wakanda secure, etc., etc. He talks in calm, measured tones, as if all his royal training has ground the spontaneity out of his soul. But as we move along, his worldview gets shaken up--first by Nakia, then by M'Baku (Winston Duke damn near steals this movie), and finally Killmonger--and we can see his deep anguish as he realizes the depth of his father's sins and Wakanda's culpability in helping global evil win by inaction. T'Challa was trained to be a king--he has to carefully consider every action he takes as a king, no matter how small. This may seem dull next to firebrands like Killmonger or even wiseasses like M'Baku, but that doesn't mean T'Challa doesn't feel things as deeply as these other men. Boseman successfully takes us on T'Challa's journey, and when he speaks to the UN in the end credits, we know he's got all the ramifications mapped out.
********************
At the start of this review, I promised to do some griping, and gripe I must, as much as I loved most of this movie. There is just too much dragging down Acts I and III that kept me from enjoying this wholeheartedly.
First, the climactic battle scene. For the most part, I enjoyed the open field free for all, because I just thought Coogler laughed and said, "Let's throw all of Wakanda at the screen and let 'em hash it out." Despite the utter chaos, you still had a clear sense of which tribe was fighting on which side and their specific skills. You had Shuri and Nakia in action. The Dora Milaje nearly beat Killmonger. And W'Kabi surrendered to Okoye, a moment so ripe with sadness and regret that I can't believe we didn't spend more time with these two! (Coogler reluctantly cut their best scene. It'll be on the blu-ray edition.)
But the Panther v. Panther battle was a snooze, badly paced, bad FX, and T'Challa's best verbal shot of the evening--how Killmonger has turned into his oppressors--nearly got lost in the mix. Unfortunately, Coogler couldn't completely avoid typical Marvel Act III problems.
(Also, even though I enjoyed Martin Freeman in this movie, I really didn't need to see Everett Ross in action at the end. I know Coogler wanted to solidify him as an Ally of Wakanda, but watching Ross play video game pilot just clogged up the battle scenes even more. He should have stayed comic relief.)
My first act nitpicks are trickier to explain. For the length of the movie, I had no idea why Killmonger was hanging out with Klaue. In my view, Klaue should have been dead and in the burlap sack before the first minute of the film. After a discussion with shadowkat and a summary from CBR, I finally realized that Klaue was bait to lure T'Challa to Korea, where he would either 1) die horribly or 2) screw up Klaue's capture. Either way, Killmonger shows up in Wakanda with Klaue's bloated corpse a few days later, and the lost prince is taken back with open arms....
But I'm STILL not satisfied, not completely. Killmonger left a lot to chance here. I don't think he believed T'Challa could successfully capture Klaue, and the rescue/break-out struck me as an improvisation. What if T'Challa had given Ross a polite, well-enunciated "fuck you" and took Klaue back home a few hours earlier? T'Challa would be a hero and Mr. Killmonger would be left behind in Korea with his you-know-what hanging out.
The whole thing seemed to be a way to keep Killmonger on screen while Andy Serkis played an entertaining homicidal loon. Granted, one of the great pleasures of modern genre cinema is watching Andy Serkis play endearing homicidal loons (usually in mo-cap), but none of it seemed really NECESSARY. Maybe on re-watch, it'll seem less like padding.
********************
In the end, all nitpicking aside, the movie succeeds wildly in painting a picture of a new pan-African future, and the responsibilities and pitfalls involved in fulfilling that dream. When the UN representative in the end credits scene asks what Wakanda can give the world, the obvious answer is that amazing technology. But the answer for the real world--our world--is the movie itself. A chance to teach the world from a place of mutual respect and human dignity.
Let's go back to July 1966.
The Civil Rights movement is in full force. The seeds of the Black Panther Party have been planted in Oakland (but the organization has yet to break through to wider recognition). And in this climate of social upheaval, the team of Jack Kirby and Stan Lee introduce a new character in the Fantastic Four, Marvel's flagship book: the Black Panther.
The Panther (and his backstory) is a first in a number of ways. He is the first African superhero. He is not a racist, stereotypical jungle primitive, but the king of his nation, with a brilliant strategic mind to go with his superpowers. (In Fantastic Four #52, T'Challa completely schools the FF, including super genius Reed Richards.) But most important of all, the Panther's home nation of Wakanda isn't some backwater deathtrap, but the most technologically advanced nation on Earth. This is a complete reversal of how white America thought of Africa at the time (and maybe still does today, to a certain extent). Kirby and Lee brought to American comics Africans with ultra-modern tech side-by-side with ancient traditions, Africans untouched by slavery or colonialism, but still dealing with the complexities of the (mostly hostile) outside world.
(You'll note that I'm giving Kirby top billing here. Wakanda fits in with the other techno-utopias in Kirby's work, like New Genesis in his Fourth World books, so I'm thinking Jack is mostly responsible for that aspect. OTOH, T'Challa's talent as a strategist falls in line with other Stan Lee heroes.)
All the conflicts and contradictions inherent in the premise--modernism vs. tradition, isolationism vs. engagement, superhero or king--have been there from the beginning. But it's taken writers who were more fully committed to tackling those issues to bring T'Challa to the cultural forefront:
Don McGregor and his "Panther's Rage" epic in the 1970s; Christopher Priest's 1990s update; and most significantly, Ta-Nehisi Coates' revolutionary work on the book over the past ten years, all adding richness and complexity to the outline provided in the original concept, and all dealing with the biggest contradiction of the series...
Wakanda is a fantasy. An Afrofuturist dream, untouched by centuries of oppression. But we don't live in that dream. What happens when Wakanda meets the real world?
This is the conflict that Coogler's film captures so dramatically. The main villain, Killmonger, asks: if Wakanda is such an advanced society, why hasn't it helped out the oppressed black people of the world? What price has the African diaspora paid to preserve this utopia? And the film basically tells us the man has a point. His methods to rectify that injustice are extreme, but he shakes the ruling class of Wakanda out of their complacency and brings them out of isolation.
But in order to make the conflict meaningful, you have to believe in the wonder and promise of Wakanda. Coogler makes you believe. Above all else, this movie is a titanic feat of cinematic world-building--maybe even greater than something like Star Wars, because you have to convince the audience that this nation exists on Earth, here and now.
So much fuss has been made about the amazing women on the screen, but Coogler had a female army BEHIND the camera, too, helping him build the world of Wakanda. Oscar noms please, for Ruth Carter's costumes, Rachel Morrison's cinematography, and especially Hannah Beachler's production design. She made each of the key locations in Wakanda--the Throne Room, the waterfall, the Jabari mountain stronghold, the marketplace, Shuri's lab--as inviting as your living room. A staggering piece of work. (I'd say I'd love to visit Wakanda, but I could think of no greater blight on that land than tourists.)
Of course, the women in front of the camera are nothing to sneeze at, either. They are the heart of the movie, the breath of life of Wakanda, and characters you want to revisit for however many sequels Marvel wants to make: Letitia Wright's Shuri, brilliant and impish, but deadly with a one-liner; Danai Gurira's Okoye, fierce, loyal, but somehow intensely vulnerable; Lupita Nyong'o as Nakia, luminous like the movie stars of old; and Angela Bassett as Ramonda, regal and commanding as ever. They each have their roles relating to T'Challa--sister, lover, protector, mother--but they are always themselves.
Which brings us to the gentlemen.
You've probably read all the articles about Michael B. Jordan already, about the swagger he brings to Killmonger. And all of that's true. But let's talk Chadwick Boseman for a moment, because he's got the tougher job. T'Challa is a tough nut for an actor, because he doesn't have the self-righteous fury of a Killmonger to drive him forward. At the start of the movie, T'Challa is very much a proponent of the status quo: orderly succession, keep Wakanda secure, etc., etc. He talks in calm, measured tones, as if all his royal training has ground the spontaneity out of his soul. But as we move along, his worldview gets shaken up--first by Nakia, then by M'Baku (Winston Duke damn near steals this movie), and finally Killmonger--and we can see his deep anguish as he realizes the depth of his father's sins and Wakanda's culpability in helping global evil win by inaction. T'Challa was trained to be a king--he has to carefully consider every action he takes as a king, no matter how small. This may seem dull next to firebrands like Killmonger or even wiseasses like M'Baku, but that doesn't mean T'Challa doesn't feel things as deeply as these other men. Boseman successfully takes us on T'Challa's journey, and when he speaks to the UN in the end credits, we know he's got all the ramifications mapped out.
********************
At the start of this review, I promised to do some griping, and gripe I must, as much as I loved most of this movie. There is just too much dragging down Acts I and III that kept me from enjoying this wholeheartedly.
First, the climactic battle scene. For the most part, I enjoyed the open field free for all, because I just thought Coogler laughed and said, "Let's throw all of Wakanda at the screen and let 'em hash it out." Despite the utter chaos, you still had a clear sense of which tribe was fighting on which side and their specific skills. You had Shuri and Nakia in action. The Dora Milaje nearly beat Killmonger. And W'Kabi surrendered to Okoye, a moment so ripe with sadness and regret that I can't believe we didn't spend more time with these two! (Coogler reluctantly cut their best scene. It'll be on the blu-ray edition.)
But the Panther v. Panther battle was a snooze, badly paced, bad FX, and T'Challa's best verbal shot of the evening--how Killmonger has turned into his oppressors--nearly got lost in the mix. Unfortunately, Coogler couldn't completely avoid typical Marvel Act III problems.
(Also, even though I enjoyed Martin Freeman in this movie, I really didn't need to see Everett Ross in action at the end. I know Coogler wanted to solidify him as an Ally of Wakanda, but watching Ross play video game pilot just clogged up the battle scenes even more. He should have stayed comic relief.)
My first act nitpicks are trickier to explain. For the length of the movie, I had no idea why Killmonger was hanging out with Klaue. In my view, Klaue should have been dead and in the burlap sack before the first minute of the film. After a discussion with shadowkat and a summary from CBR, I finally realized that Klaue was bait to lure T'Challa to Korea, where he would either 1) die horribly or 2) screw up Klaue's capture. Either way, Killmonger shows up in Wakanda with Klaue's bloated corpse a few days later, and the lost prince is taken back with open arms....
But I'm STILL not satisfied, not completely. Killmonger left a lot to chance here. I don't think he believed T'Challa could successfully capture Klaue, and the rescue/break-out struck me as an improvisation. What if T'Challa had given Ross a polite, well-enunciated "fuck you" and took Klaue back home a few hours earlier? T'Challa would be a hero and Mr. Killmonger would be left behind in Korea with his you-know-what hanging out.
The whole thing seemed to be a way to keep Killmonger on screen while Andy Serkis played an entertaining homicidal loon. Granted, one of the great pleasures of modern genre cinema is watching Andy Serkis play endearing homicidal loons (usually in mo-cap), but none of it seemed really NECESSARY. Maybe on re-watch, it'll seem less like padding.
********************
In the end, all nitpicking aside, the movie succeeds wildly in painting a picture of a new pan-African future, and the responsibilities and pitfalls involved in fulfilling that dream. When the UN representative in the end credits scene asks what Wakanda can give the world, the obvious answer is that amazing technology. But the answer for the real world--our world--is the movie itself. A chance to teach the world from a place of mutual respect and human dignity.
no subject
Date: 2018-02-23 02:07 am (UTC)A couple of things..
1. I've had the chance to discuss this at length with a co-worker who is a huge film buff (who is also African-American). The film buff, who'd seen it twice and told me that I should (because you catch little things you didn't on first viewing), and had adored "Get Out", said it's not that great a movie. From a film standpoint it had serious flaws. (Many of which you noted above.). And yes, I agree Logan and The Dark Knight from purely a technical or film technician standpoint are better movies. They are cleaner action wise, and plot-wise. So too, is Thor : Ragnaroak in some respects. (The Avengers, both I&II, no offense to Whedon fans, is a mess -- because Whedon sucks at action. He's better with smaller films. I've not seen Justice League -- but have a co-worker who loved it and the friend who saw Black Panther with me, loved Justice League.) This movie from an action standpoint was a bit cluttered and plot-wise could have been cleaner (you lost the plot point regarding Klaue. I got it, because it reminded me a great deal of other films I'd seen with black actors like Forrest Whitacker, Sam Jackson in the role. But I can see how you lost that plot point. It was a busy movie in places, Coogler was trying to do too many things at once -- and satisfying too many players.)
But for the genre it's in and what it managed to accomplish, I'm able to hand-wave it. Partly because I went in with low expectations. I despised the trailers -- they looked like video-games or high-tech car commercials. So was ambivalent. As a result, I got surprised. Also, it possibly helped that the most recent superhero flick I'd seen was Suicide Squad (talk about messy).
Also, the writer/director had more to say than any of the other directors/writers did. And I felt he broke new ground, and I honestly can't say that the others did that. Which was my argument to the film buff. Also, I felt it was in some respects a better and more relatable film than Get Out. (I'm admittedly more of a superhero film fan than horror fan.) All the characters here were developed, while only one in Get Out was.
He argued that the racial commentary wasn't that ground-breaking. There's a lot of it out there. And he's not wrong. BUT. Most of that commentary isn't accessible -- 90% of the public isn't going to be able to afford to see Hamilton unless we win the lottery. And most people don't go to a lot of films like Get Out, etc. The numbers tell the story. Superhero films reach a broader audience.
2. I think it's worth noting and safe to say that no Marvel film to date has had as many strong and diverse roles for women, and in particular black women as this film. I was thinking about it during the film, and I've never seen that diverse a line-up of female supporting roles. They also saved the hero.
Instead of the hero saving the women, they saved him. None of them were damsels. Also, we have strong, tough women, including the one Killmonger kisses and kills -- showing why he's doomed, he has no respect for women and none that have his back, while T-Challah has a whole team.
Keep in mind the women are the one's that bring him back to life. Who hunt him down. And who fight to save their world, and convince M'Baku to help them.
That's huge. Name one superhero film that have five women who do that? The only one that I can think of is Wonder Woman -- and well....
And name one that had more than one or two strong black women in those roles?
I can't think of any. Thor had...one woman and a villain, everyone else was male. Iron Man? One. The Avengers? Two in a team of almost ten people.
3. The theme or trope was in an odd way a flip on the Kimba's story - The Lion King. Instead of Kimba seeking justice for his father against his uncle, the would be king, Scar, we have Killmonger seeking justice against the King and his son for his father's death -- and the throne.
Also, I read this in one of the reviews and it really hit me as rather brilliant, Coogler flipped the whole Daddy Issues bit on it's head and turned it into a broader political commentary. Instead of the son wanting to live up to his father, or dealing with his father's abuse, the son is dealing with his father's choices and his legacy.
Right now, we're asking similar questions. Is the legacy the previous rules left behind worth following? Did they make the right choices? These are the questions the musical Hamilton asks. But so too does Black Panther. As my co-worker pointed out -- the comment about being isolationist, not permitting refugees in, wanting to send out weapons of mass destruction to other lands to conqueor them, because it's better to be a conquerer than conquered -- is a direct statement about the United States and how we are currently viewing the world. It's a direct comment on how other countries are as well.
It's not about honoring the father, but perhaps making different and better choices, and redeeming ourselves in the process? It also makes a huge statement about wedding past and future, not throwing out all traditions for new ways.
no subject
Date: 2018-02-23 02:43 pm (UTC)**************
Tales of sons paying for the sins of the father are universal. (Screwed up families are everywhere.) I think that's why T'Challa's struggles in the movie are so relatable. But I think the Western touchstone here is Shakespeare, with the royal court, the hotblooded pretender to the throne and the conflicted young king.
That's why I thought Daniel Kaluuya's W'Kabi would be more important here. The royal advisor and best friend who betrays his king for the usurper--this is Shakespearean gold! (And we both know Kaluuya could carry the Drama easily.)
But... It's not that kind of movie. It's a Marvel superhero movie, not a palace intrigue movie, and W'Kabi had to be pushed to the margins a bit. Just like Henry V isn't going to ditch the interpersonal drama to do a 1-hour Battle of Agincourt, Coogler wasn't going to dump the action scenes for character monologues. It's "Black Panther," not "The Historie of T'Challa the Firste."
******************
I just can't get over the abundance of great black female characters in this movie. (And there are other great female chacters in the comics that this movie didn't touch!)
Who would have thought that, when discussing powerful black women in a Marvel movie, that Angela Bassett would come up FOURTH?
no subject
Date: 2018-02-23 04:06 pm (UTC)The idea of exploring an African culture (even a fictional one), with loving attention to its complexities, is unheard of in blockbuster movies. The very act of putting Wakanda on screen is radical. It completely upends audience assumptions about Africa, and by extension, black people in general.
Agreed. Actually you made my argument better than I did...he's not a fan of the genre, so that's part of the problem. So he doesn't know that it is completely unheard of in a blockbuster film. Sure we see it in the art films, or Oscar films, or literary films -- like Hidden Figures, Get Out, 12 Years a Slave, etc. But not in genre action movies. Even Luke Cage -- just reverted to form, and re-established old tropes, as does Black Lightening. They comment on those tropes, but they don't reverse them or explore in a new way like this film did.
Tales of sons paying for the sins of the father are universal. (Screwed up families are everywhere.) I think that's why T'Challa's struggles in the movie are so relatable. But I think the Western touchstone here is Shakespeare, with the royal court, the hotblooded pretender to the throne and the conflicted young king.
True. But I felt it took it broader somehow? It just felt different than before.
I just can't get over the abundance of great black female characters in this movie. (And there are other great female chacters in the comics that this movie didn't touch!)
Who would have thought that, when discussing powerful black women in a Marvel movie, that Angela Bassett would come up FOURTH?
Exactly. It's actually why I prefer Marvel to DC, better and more varied female characters. (But that's another argument).
It's never been done in an action film, that I can think of. Although Oceans 13 is coming out soon with an all female cast. But not the same thing. Also, not all black women. Certainly not a superhero flick.
I thought about it and came up with over ten items that no one else has done that Black Panther did. It flipped the action movie verse in a way that many people aren't or don't appear to be aware of yet, but action and superhero film buffs clearly are.
no subject
Date: 2018-02-23 05:12 pm (UTC)It's too early to tell, but Black Panther has a chance to be a phenomenon similar to "Roots" in 1977: a fundamental reassessment of the black experience through popular culture.
no subject
Date: 2018-02-23 05:38 pm (UTC)I agree. Some of my co-workers don't see it, but unless you are someone who thinks in patterns, you probably won't. Not everyone thinks like we do. But I think like Roots before it -- it's popularity is going to change things. The fact that it outdid Justice League and all the other Marvel films combined -- means the studios need to rethink what movies they are making. Money talks. And this movie made a lot of movie in a short period of time. And it shocked them. It shocked the theaters -- which weren't really putting it on that many screens and treating it like a smaller movie, not expected to do as well as 50 Shades or Peter Rabbit. It wasn't even available at some places on Long Island. We were in a small packed crappy theater at AMC 25 in Manhattan on Thursday. They had to scramble at many places to add screens. They got taken by surprise. Expectations? $150 Million if they were lucky, but they didn't expect it to do as well as Deadpool. It surpassed that estimate by Friday night. They didn't think it would do as well overseas -- it exceeded their expectations.
I think this movie really took Hollywood by surprise. Keep in mind, it was released in Feb -- a typically slow movie month. Possibly to coincide with Black History month, which was smart. But again, it surpassed the box office intake of films released at Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, and Christmas. And it surpassed all the Marvel films combined in a weekend - and the entire domestic run of Justice League.
You can't ignore that, not if you are a Disney/Marvel movie executive or any executive working in Hollywood investing in movies. That tells you two things: 1) the POC audience, specifically African-American Audience is a viable and key demographic, 2) white people will see this movie. And the audience they've been catering too? Isn't the one they should be catering to any longer -- it's just not as lucrative.
no subject
Date: 2018-02-23 06:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-02-23 07:25 pm (UTC)Depends on how the movie holds up over the next four to six months. If it passes Captain America Civil War's 1.2 billion and Star Wars...that may result in some change. Greed excuse me money talks. At the end of the day, these babies care about their pocket books.