So I went and saw Captain America: Civil War last weekend. I was mildly worried, based on the trailers I had seen for the film, but also very excited because I had heard some excellent reviews of the film. And while Civil War is by no means a perfect film, it is an excellent movie and well worth the price of an admission ticket (and perhaps multiple viewings). As this post is both a review and a breakdown of the film, there will be spoilers in certain sections, however, I will complete the review first for those of you who have not yet seen the film, and you can come back for the breakdown.
Going into the film, I was concerned because the trailers seemed to imply that Captain America was taking his stance against Tony Stark, and driving the Avengers into Civil War because of his friendship and affection for Bucky Barnes, the Winter Soldier. I discussed in my last blog how such a motivation would not be consistent with Captain America as a character, and would likely ruin the film if it was attempted. It turns out that the writers for Marvel were as clever as I had hoped they would be, and while Steve and Bucky’s friendship is a significant part of the film, it does not serve as the main impetus to the Civil War. Because of this, all the characters are able to remain consistent to they ways in which they have already been developed in the MCU, which resulted in an excellent film and a thorough enjoyable story.
The trigger for the events of Civil War is an incident at the beginning of the film in which one of the Avengers is unable to stop (or maybe causes) a bomb that explodes in a building of civilians, a catastrophe that results in the death of a large number of people and international recriminations. The fallout from the event includes the Serkovia Accords, a legislative document stating that the Avengers must be answerable to an international governing body (the U.N.). Those who sign the accords will only conduct those assignments that the U.N. deems acceptable, and will not interfere in situations that they U.N. does not send them to. Those heroes that do not sign the accords must retire and not interfere, regardless of the situation.
Tony Stark is immediately behind the idea of the Accords, recognizing the Avenger’s need for accountability and supervision. Captain America is hesitant to sign because he recognizes the danger for abuse of such a system. Each of the Avengers and new characters has take sides based on their principles, personal attachments, or limited perspective of the events. The plot is complicated by external forces that seem to be manipulating events for their own reasons, forcing the Avengers into greater conflicts and demolishing the friendships between the characters.
If you are a fan of the Marvel Universe, this is a great film for you. The characters that you know and love are all at their best; shifting easily from serious philosophical contemplation to that quick humor that Marvel is known for and back to serious without breaking stride. Although a couple of the action scenes appear a bit unfinished (potentially a downside of the film also being shot for 3D), for the most part the action scenes are exquisitely done. The major conflicts between the two sides of the Civil War are breathtaking to watch, balancing the large number of onscreen characters and the wide range of powers and abilities on display with ease.
For those who are considering checking out the Marvel Universe for the first time, I think this is also a pretty good starting place. The film is everything Marvel does well; balancing lots of characters, lots of backstory, lots of different motivations, while remaining heartfelt, entertaining, and exciting. There are a couple of characters who won’t make sense without seeing their stand alone movies (Ant Man comes across a bit overly enthusiastic without the background of his stand alone movie, and Black Widow’s performance is a bit bland without the context of Avengers, Winter Soldier, and Age of Ultron). But all in all, this is an excellent film, and while knowing the backstory for everything that is happening is fun, it is not a prerequisite for viewing.
Now to the analysis (and the SPOILERS!).
One of the problems for the film is the rather vague way in which the Zerkovia Accords are presented. The audience (and Avengers) are shown a 200+ page document that is about to be approved by the U.N., and told that they have to sign it or lose their jobs. While we assume the Avengers actually read the thing, we as the audience are never given more information about what it contains that what I said above; that the U.N. would be in charge of the Avengers, would send them to certain missions, and keep them away from others, and anyone who does superhero work without signing will be imprisoned as a vigilante. While this provides (barely) enough motivation to the characters for why they are acting, it is overly simplified seems a bit thin. While I don’t need a breakdown of all 200+ pages of the Accords, it would be nice to know what some of the restrictions are, the methods Tony Stark thinks are necessary and Captain America thinks are punitive, and what side bars or deals were made behind the counter to get all the nations to sign. It is a mistake in the world building. I don’t just want to be told, “Captain America thinks this is a bad idea” or “Tony Stark sees this as important,” I want to know what is so bad that Captain America will not compromise on it, or so good that Tony Stark would drive the Avengers to war. There were opportunities, conversations between characters where the writers could have included more specific information about the Accords without bogging down the plot or slowing the action. It seemed more lazy writing than anything that the film was so vague about the content of the Serkovia Accords.
While I would have liked more information about the Accords, the information that was given, along with the understanding we have of the characters from previous Marvel movies created some really interesting motivations and elopements in the Civil War. What made the film so good was the fact that both sides had some really good points. Both sides are acting from a perceived moral high-ground, and both believe that the other is well intentioned but shortsighted in their positions. Each character has their own, unique perspective on why they have chosen their side, and each one of both right and wrong, which makes for an interesting comparison.
Tony Stark is both the hero and the villain of the story. Iron Man is a very interesting character because, of all the Avengers, he is the hero that most needs the Accords. Take a quick look at the villains Iron Man has faced in the MCU; every single villain he has fought against (with the exception of Loki in The Avengers) has been a villain of his own creation. His pride, his selfishness, his past thoughtlessness, his ambition, have all created the monsters against which he has pitted himself. For Tony Stark, the Accords represent the accountability that he needs to have, a way of protecting the world from himself. And he is not wrong: the superheroes must be accountable for their actions, otherwise what differentiates them from the villains against which they fight? Captain America may not be calling for the whole world to kneel to him (like Loki did), but he is certainly cavalier about violating the sovereign borders of nations in order to chase down (an individual he perceives as) a threat. Cap sets himself above the laws of nations, and if he chooses to abuse those laws, he is powerful enough that there is no way those nations could defend themselves. Tony Stark is not wrong in demanding some form of international accountability for the Avengers, particularly in the light of his own history, and the events of Age of Ultron.
Captain America is not wrong either. He is a man of unquestionable morality, who has fought against truly evil opponents for decades. For him, the actions of the individual are more trustworthy than those of any government or institution. A person can be talked and reasoned with, redeemed; an institution can only be corrupted. Captain America has seen S.H.I.E.L.D., even when it was “benevolent” meddling in alien technology to build super-weapons. He has seen the fall of the organization he trusted, when it turned out that S.H.I.E.L.D. was in fact HYDRA. He has seen an intelligence created to serve and help the human race sour and turn against its creator. He has also seen the goodness of individuals; Black Widow willingly shining a light on her past activities to bring down HYDRA, technicians choosing to stand against HYDRA when it meant they would sacrifice their lives to do so, the Winter Soldier, despite extensive conditioning, risking his own life to save Cap’s, and fighting against his programing to again become a decent person. In Captain America’s experience, people are more trustworthy than organizations, and those who have the ability to act to help people should be expected to do so, not to have to run to an inefficient, likely corrupt agency for approval before action can be taken. Cap expresses legitimate concerns with the Serkovia Accords. Who is to make the determination that the superheroes should or should not interfere in a situation? Is there anyone who will be less likely to be corrupt, less likely to have an ulterior motive than the Avengers? The very process of needing to get permission before responding to a threat destroys the ability of the Avengers respond immediately to cataclysmic threats, or take appropriate action quickly, with potentially world ending consequences. Even in the course of the movie, Tony Stark is forced to act outside the jurisdiction of the Accords when he joined Captain America and Winter Soldier to destroy potential HYDRA weaponized agents in Siberia. Captain America recognizes that the Avengers as a unit need to be outside and above the partisan bickering, the political machinations, and the bureaucratic red tape of a governing agency.
Each of the other characters brings new dynamics to the two sides of the war. Iron Patriot has a greater support for the accords than even Tony Stark, presenting the ideal of a soldier who is answerable to the will of the people, and motivates his actions accordingly. In contrast, Falcon demonstrates the loyalty of a soldier to his leaders, following Cap despite his own misgivings, and choosing his side based on his trust in the man who leads the Avengers. Black Widow is a stabilizing voice for Tony Stark, and tries to bridge the gap between the two sides, recognizing the dangers of the Accords, but also the inevitability of their eventual acceptance, and trying to mitigate the damage that they do. Hawkeye is often the voice of the audience; calling out Tony Stark for his decision to betray his friends in order to accomplish his goals. The Vision and Scarlet Witch are two sides of the same coin, representing the enormous power that gifted individuals posses, and the danger they present. Scarlet Witch is already fearful of her power, but the fear that others demonstrate towards her with the Accords forces her to accept herself for who she is and embrace her potential. In stark contrast, the Vision is initially very self assured. He believes utterly in the righteousness of his own actions, and believes (somewhat naively) that others will share that understanding. It is only when he is shown to be flawed, and a danger to others that this confidence is shattered, leaving him broken and filled with self doubt. This will be a very interesting aspect of the character to see developed in future films, and I am looking forward to seeing the Vision learn humility over the next few stories. As I mentioned at the beginning, Paul Rudd’s performance as Ant Man comes across a little overly enthusiastic (he spends a good five minutes fingerling over getting to meet Captain America), but overall it provides a very nice counterpoint to the mostly serious nature of the film, and to the addition of Spiderman.
The newer characters were also compelling and interesting to watch. Spiderman was very well done; the enthusiasm that seems a bit immature in Ant Man is perfectly suited to the young high school hero who finds himself caught up in the massive events. He hits a perfect balance of humor and talent, and the performance leaves the audience wanting more. Most interesting of the new additions, however, is Black Panther. I will admit that going into the film, I was mostly indifferent to Black Panther’s involvement. However, despite the large number of characters the film has to balance, it does an excellent job introducing viewers to the character; providing enough information to keep us interested and not confused, while simultaneously leaving enough mystery to bring us back for a future solo movie. His motivations are well developed, his character is given a chance to grow over the course of the film, and he fits will with the old characters and the new (I would be remiss if I did not add that his fighting style in the film is gorgeous, and creates a very nice contrast to the established characters).
What was so amazing about Captain America: Civil War was the way in which the film balanced so many different elements so well. With such a large ensemble there was the danger of certain characters falling to the wayside. This was the difficulty in the first Avengers, in which Black Widow and Hawkeye were not developed significantly enough to be compelling. Civil War manages to give each character their chance to shine; to be entirely themselves, dealing with their own choices, demons, and history as they choose sides in the battle. It balances the serious, philosophical questions of the film with the levity that has made the Marvel films so brilliant in the past, and it does not take the easy route of reducing any of the various arguments of the characters to straw men or cliches. The action sequences are brilliantly done, the pacing is excellent, and the story is well told. One of the best Marvel movies to date; a well balanced, complicated, interesting story that pits earth’s mightiest heroes against each other on an epic scale.
