Thor - The Powerless Hero
A retrospective of the superhero films of the 'Marvel Cinematic Universe'. Based on articles by Matt Goldblatt in Collider Magazine, April 2015.
'Iron Man 2' had barely stumbled across the finish line, but hadn't let Marvel go down. Instead, the then-still-young studio managed to take an important step toward their cinematic universe, the so-called 'Marvel Cinematic Universe' (MCU).With 'Thor,' a film that was both cautious and ambitious, Marvel demanded a lot from viewers for the first time. Even in 2011, over a decade after the first X-Men movie (dir: Bryan Singer), there was still (justified) resentment on the part of audiences towards the superhero movie genre.Marvel was under a lot of pressure, especially with their new superhero. The studio had to find a way to integrate this new hero, who was fundamentally different from the previously introduced characters, into the slowly thriving Marvel film universe.The heavy freight train called 'Avengers' had already been set in motion - and 'Thor' had to prove that his world was compatible with that of 'Iron Man' and the 'Hulk'.
The unusual subject stemmed from the fact that 'Thor' is a being from outer space with magical powers. He comes from another Galaxy (or 'realm' as it is called in the movie) and he is a god from Norse mythology. 'Thor' couldn't be more different from any other superhero - yet he had to be believably in the same universe as a man who wears super-powered armor.Both characters are extraordinary in their appearance, but wherever the adventure takes him, Tony Stark is and remains just a man going through the traditional origin story of a hero who somehow acquires extraordinary powers and henceforth uses them for good. (Whereby Tony Stark still wrestles with the great responsibility that great power brings).
The basis of the character of 'Thor' (Chris Hemsworth) is the same as that of the bon vivant Tony Stark. But where Tony Stark's cockiness provides the impetus to become a better man, 'Thor' must learn humility.Contrary to the construct of the superhero, 'Thor' must first lose his powers in order to value them and learn what it means to act heroically. This is a huge leap in development for a character who, at the beginning of the film, invades a foreign land and slaughters its inhabitants for insulting him of his eighth.
On the surface, it seems that the strange, operatic world of Asgard is the film's most difficult challenge. But Asgard is where 'Thor' feels most authentic. This comes as little surprise, as the film's director, Kenneth Branagh is experienced at directing Shakespearean and costume dramas.You have to admire the visual power of Asgard and its interweaving of fantasy with a hint of science fiction. Odin's (Anthony Hopkins) palace looks like the pipework of a giant organ, and the film doesn't hesitate when it adds an equally oversized pair of horns to Loki's (Tom Hiddleston) helmet.'Thor's' costumes and set don't shy away from the camp of the comic book template. This fearless referencing of his (comic) origins should become a Marvel trademark. The studio and filmmakers worked hard to find an aesthetic way to ground the fantastic in reality and not get bogged down in explaining minor details.
The Marvel studio also knew where to make concessions. Some of the terms from the original 'Thor' comics, such as the 'Rainbow Bridge', were retitled. The rainbow-colored bridge was now called 'Bifröst' - which is an adequate term since it was borrowed from Norse mythology - a more elevated wording for what would have otherwise sounded more like the 'Lucky Bear' series. But some terms remained, too. When given such an apt term as frost giants, the film uses it, rather than 'citizens of Jötunheim' (which would make these giants seem more human - and the film certainly doesn't want to let that happen, as that would cast Thor's invasion of a sovereign state in an even more sinister light).
One of the biggest challenges 'Thor' had to face from a narrative perspective was to find a connection between magic and science, between fantasy and science fiction.If 'Thor' is a magical being, then anything is possible for him and he can overcome any challenge. 'Thor' manages to ground its protagonist's powers and master them with explanations like, "magic is science we don't yet understand" and that 'Thor' comes from a place "where magic and science are one and the same".By shooting to establish that 'Thor' comes from a more evolved, alien race, the film cleverly manages to relabel its mythological characters. In doing so, the film makes the background of the characters much more understandable to the audience. Marvel wasn't sure if the audience would be willing to accept 'alien gods', but they were sure that the audience would accept 'science'.
A much bigger challenge than explaining the background of Asgard to the audience was the question of who to cast as the protagonist 'Thor'. Besides 'The Incredible Hulk' as an inglorious exception to the rule, Marvel has never miscast any of its superheroes. And 'Thor' is no exception. As soon as you experience 'Thor' during his coronation ceremony in Asgard, it becomes clear that Chris Hemsworth is the right casting for the role. 'Thor' is as cocky as Tony Stark, but instead of manic smugness, 'Thor' has arrogance of youth. He holds the hammer Mjolnir, worthy of a god, as if it were just a toy. The scenery is reminiscent of the Stark Expo from 'Iron Man 2', only it is set in another galaxy. And when the protagonist also speaks of the common good, it's clear that in the heart of the character of 'Thor' there is only room for 'Thor' himself at this point.
It is a task of Herculean dimensions to sell the common fan of 'Thor' comics a dumb protagonist who starts the movie by desperately wanting to kill some aliens (also, or precisely because these aliens are ice giants). Generally, as a recipient, you want to side with the protagonist. If this protagonist is endowed with human weaknesses, so much the better. But characters like 'Iron Man' and 'Thor' are not Davids being bullied by a Goliath. They are unsympathetic characters with questionable morals. The mimes who slip into their roles are what make these characters likable.
Before he landed the lead role in 'Thor', Chris Hemsworth was a dark horse. He had previously made only a brief appearance as James T. Kirk's father in Star Trek (2009) and had tested his craft in the established Australian soap opera 'Home and Away'. A soap that has also spawned stars like Heath Ledger, Isla Fisher, Guy Pearce, Jason Clarke and Naomi Watts, to name a few.There are plenty of muscle-bound, good-looking actors in the world of film. However, Chris Hemsworth's interpretation of the character of 'Thor' shows the difference between an actor with charisma and one who is just good looking. The viewer must be ready to accept 'Thor' as a god and as a man, and Hemsworth succeeds in both with flying colors.
If you look at the test shots of Tom Hiddleston, in which he offers himself for the role of 'Thor', this seems bizarre in retrospect. Not only because it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role of 'Thor' other than Hemsworth, but especially because it's hard to imagine anyone other than Hiddleston in the role of Loki.Like his film partner Hemsworth, Hiddleston was almost entirely unknown to American audiences. (Unless, perhaps, they have received Kenneth Branagh's version of 'Wallander').None of the antagonists of the Marvel film universe has yet left a more lasting impression on audiences than the character of 'Loki'.
While any other Marvel villain just craves 'power', Loki's motivation is clearly rooted in his jealousy and inner pain. The character's active actions are turned down a bit, but this makes him a much more interesting character. There is a tragic element to Loki's story arc. He remains an almost sympathetic character in the film, even though his actions put the stamp of Judas on him, which was also given to the character of Obadiah Stane in 'Iron Man'.Hiddleston puts all the pain of the character into his performance. When he engages 'Thor' in a fistfight at the end of the film (the only form of climax in the film's third act that Marvel apparently could have imagined to set up the conflict between the two characters in 'Avengers'), he does so with tears in his eyes.When Loki finally plunges into the abyss, he acts of his own free will.
The task 'Thor' had to accomplish as a film was to provide a foundation for its protagonist. Plot and style were secondary.Only four points had to be checked off for the path to the 'Avengers':
The audience must learn about and accept the world of Asgard.
A good cast must be found for 'Thor'.
A good cast for 'Loki' must be found.
The tasks and mechanisms of S.H.I.E.L.D. must be worked out.
That's all. That is list of tasks that Kenneth Branagh had to fulfill as the director of the film. It is to his credit that the realization of these points fit into the narrative as organic parts of the whole.
You have to admire that 'Thor' is a counterproductive superhero. (And even to a greater degree than 'The Incredible Hulk' is, with its fear of turning into the 'Hulk'). The movie 'Thor' is the mirror image of 'Iron Man'. Not only because its protagonist must first learn humility, but also because his hero's superpowers are initially taken away. 'Thor' transforms from a demigod who can easily take on a host of frost giants to a mortal who can easily be incapacitated by cars or narcotics.The image of the 'humbled' hero is certainly not a new one, but it is certainly a novelty as part of the origin story of a superhero. This image makes 'Thor' a 'fish-out-of-water' plot that relies entirely on Hemsworth's successful interpretation of his protagonist.The theme of the plot is ultimately the question: what makes a hero? And the answer is, (as with most of the films in the Marvel cinematic universe) to willingly accept death for the good of others. "Whoever holds this hammer, provided he is worthy, shall possess the power of Thor." If 'worthiness' is defined by the willpower of self-sacrifice, then Iron Man, Captain America and all Guardians of the Galaxy should be worthy of wielding the hammer Mjolnir (the Marvel cinematic universe is taking its time with the definitive answer to this question until the second part of the Avengers).
'Thor' is a perfectly acceptable film that checks off all of its major points, but it's also a sloppily constructed and poorly made film. Marvel still hadn't defined how to capture the signature Marvel look of the comics in its films at this point. Branagh overloaded the visual language of 'Thor' in the same inadequate way that Ang Lee had previously done with 'Hulk', in that Branagh misunderstood how to translate the visual language of a comic book to the medium of film through camera work and editing.
In a comic book, you have a closed, two-dimensional space to tell a story. There is no music, or long takes. The visual language of film and comics are similar, but they are not identical. The trick is to find a way to link the two visual styles.Branagh attempt was based on constantly and arbitrarily using weird, expressionistic camera angles.As I said, at that time there were no Marvel 'house rules' for visual style.So far, only 'Iron Man,' 'The Incredible Hulk' and 'Iron Man 2' existed as possible templates - and 'Thor' clearly needed its own style if the characters from Asgard were to walk the Earth believably.But instead of trusting his characters and their actors, Branagh constantly added his distracting visual style to the production. Combined with the digital effects, this makes the film look unintentionally cheap (Although it must be admitted that Marvel Studios were also real penny pinchers at this point).Watching Loki, Sif (Jamie Alexander) and their battle buddies act in front of the 'green screen' looks so fake, as if cheap back projection technology from the 80s was used in the shots.
Already at the beginning the film has problems to find the right balance. It begins In medias res with a 'cold open' that then transitions into an explanatory prologue. This is followed by the first big action sequence, in which the protagonist visits an alien planet and slaughters its inhabitants. The Frost Giants are not exactly pleasant contemporaries - and that's what their whole characterization is limited to: they are nameless troublemakers and so they deserve to be killed. This is to make the recipient aware of Thor's incredible powers and less of the dilemma about his amoral action of starting an unjustified war with a sovereign nation.However, the one-dimensionality of Thor's adversaries makes it difficult to comprehend his offense and the subsequent punishment in its scope.
The punishment results in the superhero in this superhero movie losing his superpowers for most of the film. Only the scenes of the first act in Asgard show the protagonist in full possession of his powers. From then on, he is helplessly stuck in earthly New Mexico. It's a fitting setting, since as an alien superhero he fits well into the cinematic topos of Roswell and Area 51. (But it also doesn't take much imagination to think that the location was also chosen by Marvel for tax-saving reasons.)So the film's ingredients are an emasculated protagonist, an antagonist who basically has no real superpowers, and an underdeveloped romance.'Thor' and Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) have a love affair that won't last long. They have a few good dates, each learning from the other's world, which benefits the audience more than it represents a close relationship between the two characters.
The integration of S.H.I.E.L.D. works much better in this film than it did in 'Iron Man 2' though, and Agent Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg) is fleshed out into a complete character. But Marvel overplays its hand when it then tries to squeeze the character of 'Hawkeye' (Jeremy Renner) into the plot.You can tell that Renner had no contact with the other actors on set (His scenes were inserted in reshoots). His job was to stand on an observation deck, pull a bow from his quiver and inform that he's a guy who can follow orders, but also likes to risk a sassy lip in the process.Hawkeye is in 'Thor' what Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) was in 'Iron Man 2'. A living billboard that reads, "Coming soon to your movie theater: the 'Avengers'!"
Apart from the problematic camera work and the inserted cameo of 'Hawkeye', the weaknesses of the film are less disturbing in retrospective. (Similarly with 'Iron Man 2' - in retrospect, the plot brackets that were opened in 'Iron Man 2' are closed by 'The Avengers' and thus completed. Even the annoying character of Senator Stern (Garry Shandling) is given a new dimension in 'Captain America - The Winter Soldier'). To praise a film for its elements that support a meta-narrative independent of its plot casts this film in a less than pleasant light. But the meta-narrative is what drives the plot of 'Thor' and is its greatest strength.And if you have to watch a superhero movie in which the superhero is stripped of his powers, then that hero should be portrayed by Chris Hemsworth. And if you look even a sliver into the world of Asgard in this movie, you want to see Loki there. Thor doesn't give audiences everything they need to make a good movie, but it gives audiences enough of what they want to see and the MCU everything it needs.
Marvel's next film went well beyond a grade of Sufficient. It was a standalone, very well made film that cemented Marvel Studios' now finally found style with a superhero who was a hero through and through.
Nächster Film: Captain America - The First Avenger
Vorheriger Film: Iron Man 2