GUNN, James, Dir., Guardians of the Galaxy, Marvel Studios,
2014.
This
film has been out for awhile and you’d think I’d have gotten around to it by
now. In fact, it’s not really horror, so I feel absolved about taking my time
overall; however, there are other issues which this movie raises and they’ve been
niggling away in the background for so long that I feel I have to put them into
words just so that I can get some rest.
(Another
reason is that some friends of mine have decided that GotG is the best thing since sliced bread, and, in deference to
them, I’ve tried many times to give it a break. Unfortunately, I just can’t get
there.)
Admittedly,
this film would have been a tough gig. All the other Marvel titles that have
emerged over the last few years have a slick, updated feel to them, like
they’ve at last been allowed to shed the ‘you know: for kids!’ label that’s
been holding them back until now. Guardians
of the Galaxy has always been a kids’ book, despite being infused with the sort
of gravitas that Jack Kirby brought
to the table in the form of such characters as Thanos and The Collector, and
despite their being dragged into other bestselling titles such as the X-Men. The writers obviously decided
therefore to ditch everything except the ‘70s start date - which informed the
music and little else – and start again from the ground up. Each time I watch
this film (and it’s been a few times now) there are a handful of jarring things
that leap out at me and make me wince.
The
first thing that sticks in my craw is the language. There are several word
constructions in use at the moment which really gripe my cookies and this film
hits all of them, with the result that I was grinding my teeth as the mayhem
ensued. The first occurs in the character establishment phase on the “Abandoned
Planet Morag” when our hero “Star Lord” (more mundanely known as Peter Quill)
escapes after having secured the Orb (the McGuffin of the piece). Climbing out
of the lower deck of his starcraft is Quill’s ‘companion’ Bereet,
discombobulated by all the sudden fancy-flying. Quill forgets her name
(sheesh!) and then says “Look, I’m not gonna lie to you: I forgot you’re here.”
Grrr! Yes, ‘you’re’ is a valid contraction of ‘you were’ as much as it is the
standard diminutive of ‘you are’. But, when you say one and mean the other, you
have a problem with tense and this can confuse the audience. Am I alone in
thinking that clarity should be the first order of business when making a
special effects extravaganza?
And
Star Lord’s verbal gaffs don’t stop there. He also starts sentences with the
word ‘So’, which has become the latest in a range of verbal tics to replace ‘Um’.
“So I was walking the dog the other day...’; “So I was saying to Larry this
morning...”; “So I thought I’d start my sentence this way to appear as though
we were already having a conversation...’ It’s annoying as all git out; there
should be a law. And then there’s “...that good of a...” Boy, don’t get me
started! Let’s take an example: “I’m not that good of a pilot”. See that ‘of’
in there? It’s unnecessary. Also, it sounds stupid. Just stop it.
Now,
loaded down with all of this knuckle-dragger ‘English’, Peter Quill starts to
talk in anachronisms. At one point, Gamora mentions that his spaceship, the Milano (where did that come from?), is “filthy”. Following this, Quill tells Rocket
that with a black light, the inside of his spaceship looks like a Jackson
Pollock painting. This is just gross, and Rocket reacts accordingly. I’ve
discussed this gag with other viewers and most of them let this comment slide
right by without getting it: I’m guessing it made it to the final cut of the
film because most censors didn’t get it either (or were pretty sure that no-one
else watching the film would get it and be offended by it). Now, it’s
disgusting to realise that, with CSI lighting, the place you’re in is bedecked
with 26 year’s worth of nocturnal emissions; it’s worse to realise that Quill
is not embarrassed by the fact that Gamora can see this noxious coating; but it’s worse to have him crow about it
by making a joke referencing a Twentieth Century artist, about whom as a child
abducted from earth at the age of 9, he would know absolutely nothing. Ask any
9-year-old who Jackson Pollock is - see what happens. And to have Rocket – an alien – get the joke? That noise you hear is the overly-stretched
credibility of this scene irrevocably snapping.
At
another point, Quill questions Gamora about the orb and compares it to several
other cinematic McGuffins, thus creating a moment of hilarious (!)
self-reference. The “shiny blue suitcase” line he drops is a nod to Pulp Fiction: if he was abducted from
Earth in 1988, I’m pretty sure he would have missed that movie, unless alien
renegades are savvy about pirating intellectual property from Earth’s Internet.
(Which they may be, but without stating this fact in the context of the film at
some point, it just looks sloppy.)
“Why
not take a chill pill?” you might say; “It’s just a fun film – why so serious?”
Well, that’s true - for the most part this film is fun; but it’s also
sloppily-written. Working out that Pulp
Fiction post-dates the crucial 1988 date in the movie’s timeline by means
of a simple check of the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), takes less time to
determine than it takes to type “Pulp
Fiction post-dates the crucial 1988 date in the movie’s timeline by means
of a simple check of the Internet Movie Database (IMDb)”. It’s just not that
hard. It is as easy in fact, as making sure that, in the opening sequence on
“Abandoned Planet Morag” when you show Star Lord using a reptilian rat-thing as
a microphone, you don’t intercut shots of him without the critter in his hand amongst those of him avec beastie. Oh, you stuffed that up
too? So sad.
All
I’m saying is, film-making should involve some level of concentration.
Anachronistic references and anomalies stand out like a glitter-coated turd in
a bunch of roses. And frankly, after three instalments of The Hobbit, I’m more than a little tired of slipshod, lacklustre,
movie-making.
Let’s
move on to characterisation. Within our group of heroes, only three of them are
portrayed by actual real people. The two that aren’t – Rocket and Groot – are
the best performers. Zoe Saldana and Dave Bautista (Gamora and Drax the
Destroyer, respectively) are weighed down with latex and body-paint and so
start off on the back foot – pushing a characterisation through kilos of
plastic is always a courageous process and not always successful (we can’t all
be Hellboy). They do a heroic job though and, for the most part, it works. I
say “for the most part” because here too, sloppy writing defines them and
saddles them with some crappy penalties. At one point Drax calls Gamora a
“green whore”, and I’m completely confused as to why he should choose this
term. We’ve been set up to believe that Drax’s people are utterly literal, but
up until this point in the action (and I’ve checked), Gamora has given Drax no
reason to think that she’s a sex-worker, so why this pejorative term? I haven’t
had my ‘objectification of women’ bell rung for awhile now and it was frankly disconcerting to find this film doing it. There's another Drax inconsistency at the end when Quill asks him to give a crap...but possibly other reasons stopped the director from following through with this.
I
was also kind of wondering when these two would start living up to the hype.
According to the exposition, they are supposed to be bad-ass fighters of wide
repute: Gamora is a “living weapon”; Drax is “the Destroyer”. Their on-screen
efforts were altogether ho-hum. Not bad, per
se; just not very special. When you get right down to it, the Guardians are
a pretty bog-standard superhero team: a leader, a technician, a healer, a
sneaky fighter and a brick. They all have a speciality so it’s easy, as a
scriptwriter, to play to their strengths for some hero moments, and then to play to
their weaknesses, thus revealing their human sides. In this film, Peter Quill (is
he Errol Flynn? Or Mike Myers from Wayne’s
World? Just pick one, people!) is a poor leader, Gamora is not as good an
assassin as her sister Nebula, and Drax gets beaten up. A lot. I kept wondering
what Jim Lee of W.I.L.D.C.A.T.S. fame
would have done with this crew...
The
patchiness and lack of focus runs right the way through the whole film which,
on the face of it, is spectacular to look at. Frankly, if I had spent so much
time building these special effects, I would have demanded a better script to
underpin them. There were some nice touches – the Xandarian star motif which
shows up throughout the film; John C. Reilly’s character (“it’s okay to have a
code name; it’s not that weird”); the soundtrack – but the rest was just fuzzy.
Who exactly can pick up an Infinity Stone? Why weren’t the Guardians all just
vapourised by it at the end? The answer is in there, but it’s buried; discussed
in passing; blink and you’ll miss it. Like I said above, surely in a film like
this, clarity is your first piece of business.
In
the final analysis, watch this movie for the Laurel and Hardy comedic stylings
of Rocket and Groot; boogie along in your seat to the funky soundtrack; but
turn your brain off otherwise. Given that this comics title was pitched at kids
back in the ‘70s, they’ve done a tremendous amount of work to make it appeal to
adults in the 21st Century. Just not particularly grown-up adults.
And,
to add insult to injury, after the credits they threaten us with Howard the
Duck! Santayana said, “those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it”.
Marvel! Have you learned nothing?!
Two-and-half
tentacled horrors.