An ignorant villain-lover's guide to Marvel – Phase Two

"The sooner you're into it, the sooner you're out of it", was Mary Poppins's advice in Mary Poppins Returns when her sidekick was worried about recounting a rather long anecdote in song form. So I'll just push on with my Marvel movie overview (for the background, see previous post), where I've reached phase two. This was a rather mixed bag, and there was little to cheer villain-wise, but the general entertainment level was high enough, with a movie or two which stood out among the rest.

Iron Man 3

Third time Loki lucky? Nope, still no Loki in standalone Iron Man movies. Use this as a rule of thumb: if there is no hope of seeing Thor, then there is also no Loki.

Any other interesting villains, then? Not really. As with the other Iron Man films, the main antagonist is someone who is personally connected to Tony Stark in some way – this time around, a guy he slighted at a work function way back. It's not so much a question of the villain getting revenge, more that Stark's snub spurred him on to become successful whatever it took. That's an OK motive, but there are no real villain fireworks here. As for The Mandarin... Not having read the comics, I was in a better position to guess a twist connected with this character. Let's just say, I'm pretty sure he's not like in the comics (but Ben Kingsley has fun).

Overall impression: This is pretty much a standard Iron Man movie. If you liked the other two, you'll like this one. If you're not that much of a fan of them, there are still things to enjoy. Tony is witty, his interaction with a kid manages not to be too cloying (the boy tries to guilt-trip him into taking him along on an adventure at one time, and when Tony doesn't fall for it mumbles "it was worth a try") and it's heartwarming to see that Tony's lumpish bodyguard loves Downton Abbey because it's "classy".

Thor: The Dark World  

Loki time! Yes indeed. Loki isn't the main threat this time around: instead he's the classic villain wild card, sometimes working with Thor, sometimes against him, and all the time looking out for himself. The sibling banter is easily the most enjoyable part of the movie, and it's exciting to see which way Loki will jump.

So who is the main villain? Any good? Alas! He's a missed opportunity. A Dark Elf with a nicely sinister look played by none other than Christopher Eccleston, he has no discernible personality and no motivation besides... unleashing darkness. Because he's a Dark Elf. With a little more effort put into this character by the writers, this could have been really good. Instead, we just see flashes of what might have been from Eccleston.

Overall impression: I quite liked watching this, but I can see why it is considered to be the weakest of the Thor movies. It doesn't quite gel, and some of the humour doesn't land – I thought Jane Foster's intern Darcy was charming in the first Thor movie, but she gets on my nerves here, especially as she acquires an intern of her own, which makes no sense whatsoever. Jane's and Thor's romance is built up like a really big thing, so it's a pity there isn't any follow-through on this in later films (maybe in Endgame – I haven't watched it yet).

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

I'll not even pretend I believe Loki's in this one. So what else have we got on the villain front? The Winter Soldier isn't really a villain: he's Steve's best friend Bucky (Sebastian Stan) who has been brainwashed and frozen down, only to be thawed up at regular intervals and used as an expert assassin by Hydra. Hydra has survived Nazi Germany to become a classic evil organisation that wants to Take Over The World. That may sound tired, but it is remarkable – in this and other Marvel movies – how much loyalty Hydra inspires in its followers. Even the self-serving scientist sidekick of the first Captain America movie is shown to have been more committed than one would have thought, uploading his consciousness into old-style computers and everything, all to further Hydra's goals, which are to... erm... rule more efficiently than those democratic clowns? I don't know.

Come on! We can't just have a collective villainous entity. There must be a leader or someone who stands out! Was there? Oh yes. Now I remember. The friendly-seeming authority figure who says he wants to help Cap & Co. get to the bottom of it all. It's as standard as it sounds, even with some star quality behind the part.

Overall impression: I must be one of the very few people who prefer the first Captain America movie. But this one has good action, and likeable leads in Steve and Natasha aka Black Widow who really starts to come into her own here. Plus you really want Steve to get through to Bucky – especially if, like me, you know Sebastian Stan as the Mad Hatter from Once Upon A Time. There, as here, he is in continual need of a break.

Guardians of the Galaxy

Galaxy? So they're in space? Where Asgard is, somewhere? Loki doesn't show up, no.

All right, then... are there any other memorable villains? Again, there is wasted potential. We see glimpses of how Ronan, the main antagonist, prepares his ash-on-blue-skin look, and I oooh-ed a bit. But after that, he's more of a villain place holder, if a cool-looking one. It's a little interesting that his motive isn't gain: he believes he is fighting a righteous war against the enemies of his father and grandfather. Taken together with Hydra and later Thanos, we do get quite a lot of idea-inspired villainy in the MCU, which gives me some satisfaction. (I can't abide it when people equate good old selfishness with evil: it's not at all the same thing.) But it's not as if we ever dive deep into Ronan's psyche: he's a space terrorist, mostly. Nebula the disaffected daughter of Thanos is fun, though.

Overall impression: They've reeled us in with MCU movies that aren't that crazy compared to normal action films. Time to get a little more comic-booky: by now, even we regular viewers can take it. This isn't action as much as outlandish sci-fi. Still, somehow they get away with it all – including the talking raccoon and the living tree. The start of the film is really depressing: we see a flashback to the later leader of the gang Peter Quill's aka Star-Lord's childhood, when he loses his mother to cancer and then promptly gets kidnapped by aliens. This morose beginning pays off well when it comes to understanding Peter both in this and later movies, though. Stick with it and you'll soon get to the light-hearted part and (hopefully) have a good time. But if you generally have difficulty getting into the spirit of wacky sci-fi, this will probably not convert you.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

So I can't help noticing by the poster picture that Thor is in this one. But not Loki, I'm afraid.

Bother... So what else have we got? Who is this Ultron? He's a sophisticated artificial life form created by Tony Stark in order to protect the Earth. But something goes wrong, and he ends up believing the best way to ensure peace is to get rid of all the people.

I see, an evil robot. Fun. He is actually quite funny. He's got some of Tony's wisecracking personality, much to the irritation of both of them (Tony ironically calls him "Junior" at one point). It's not the same as a complex, human villain, true, but aside from Loki, I believe Ultron was the phase two villain I had the best time with.

Overall impression: This is pretty much what you can expect from an ensemble-Avengers movie. It's mostly action, but there are some quieter moments too, and they work well. If you liked the first Avengers movie, chances are you'll like this one, even if there is no Loki present. It also introduces some new characters, so if you want to get what's going on in later MCU films you had better not skip it.

Ant-Man

Sorry, what? Ant-Man?! Don't you want to ask about the villains in this one?

Should I bother? I mean, Ant-Man! No way are they going to make it work. Actually, they do.

All right, then. What about the villains? No Loki, but the villainous businessman (yes, it's time for one of those) is above average. He has a decent personal reason to resent his old mentor Hank Pym (a cranky inventor played by Michael Douglas) as well as a hefty profit motive, and I like his style. "They're not what they once were... they do a lot of good", he quips when it turns out Hydra is his prospective client, as if they were a mildly scandalous political party that's cleaned up its act.

Overall impression: I use the word charm a lot when it comes to the MCU and its characters, and here it is in evidence again. This is a charming heist movie, with many well-known ingredients, but served with some verve. Ex-con Scott Lang is another hero it's easy to like, nicely self-deprecating and a good father. You can skip this film and still follow what happens in the greater MCU saga, but I'm not sorry I saw it. 

An ignorant villain-lover's guide to Marvel - Phase One

All right, if you can't beat'em, join'em. As I've already touched upon, I'm not generally a fan of the superhero genre. For years and years, I've stubbornly refused to get involved with the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), which means that a lot of pop culture references in other media have passed me by. I have also had to bear, with irritating regularity, that my favourite geeky YouTube channels dedicated time not to interesting analyses and theories about Disney, Pixar, Doctor Who or Star Wars, but – Marvel. Fricking Marvel, again and again. It became really bad when the series WandaVision first aired on Disney +. I wanted some theories about Raya and the Last Dragon about then, over-analysing of the trailers and so forth, but no – it was all WandaVision, WandaVision, WandaVision. Still I didn't consider giving in and discovering what the fuss was about. Not until now.

Disney found a way to maximise the brand I couldn't resist. They announced a whole TV series about Loki. I know I've been a bit sniffy about Tom Hiddleston in The Night Manager, but that doesn't mean he isn't seriously foxy as the mischievous Asgardian. And I mean, it's Loki! I may not know much about comic books, but I know what I like mythologically. Plus, the series was hailed in some quarters as Doctor Who done right. As a villain-lover with a geeky streak, clearly I had to check this out. But I haven't yet done so, as I figured I needed to see the Marvel movies (or films, but they are American, so...) first. At least most of them. And there are... quite a lot.

The good news is, they're actually good. It didn't take long before I stopped thinking of my Marvel movie of the week plan as homework and started enjoying them. And since I'm watching them, I may as well milk them for blogging content. Get ready for the pig-ignorance of a casual viewer with next to no knowledge of the original comic book stories. At least I can give other villain-lovers some pointers. The list of Marvel movies I'm watching is the one available on Disney + in Sweden, so there will be some omissions (The Incredible Hulk and the Spiderman movies). Let's start with what the powers that be on Marvel/Disney call "phase one":

Iron Man

So is Loki in this one? Not likely – this is the origin story of Iron Man i.e. Tony Stark, not Thor. They're not going to hit us with mystical realms in space/another dimension or something and their inhabitants yet.

Any other interesting villains, then? What can I say? They're not bad. They're... functional. You understand why they do what they do. There's nothing here for a villain-lover to get very excited about, but the grounded motives of the villains match the almost-realistic feel of the movie. Of course a terrorist would want extra powerful weapons, and it makes sense that he wouldn't have a lot of comic-booky eccentric traits but simply be a very tough and intimidating guy. And I can really understand Tony Stark's business partner being none too pleased when Tony, severely shocked after a stint as a hostage, announces that Stark Industries will stop making weapons, as it's impossible to make sure that they're only used by the US. (The US using them is fine – Stark's no pacifist.) What the hey? Stark Industries are primarily arms manufacturers. How are they going to keep making money then? Clearly, judging by Tony's lifestyle, they find a way, but even now, many movies later, I don't know how.

A terrorist villain and a business villain, then, who do what's expected of them. Their names? Sorry, no idea.

Overall impression: The wisecracking, arrogant Tony Stark as played by Robert Downey Jr. is an endearingly flawed hero, and the film doesn't feel very "out there" at all. If anything, it was a bit too gritty for my taste. It's like a tough action movie where the protagonist happens to invent a super-powerful iron suit. Possibly something for Die Hard fans.

Iron Man 2

So is Loki... He's not, is he? Nope.

Any other interesting villains, then? I did think Whiplash aka the Russian guy aka Ivan Vanko had potential (at least enough for me to bother to look up the name on IMDB). He has a good motive: his father, an inventor who worked with Tony's dad Howard Stark, got exiled because of Stark and died in misery while the inventions he worked on at Stark Industries kept generating money for little Tone. It's almost refreshing that Tony doesn't feel the least bit bad about this: it's all "Well, Vanko's dad was a spy, so...". On the other hand, this leads to the theme of the hero's and villain's dad working together not being properly explored, and the potential of Whiplash, in spite of a cool performance from Mickey Rourke, remained pretty much wasted. And we never found out what the deal was with that bird.

Justin Hammer, Tony's business rival, is another villain with a grounded, believable motive. Of course he's envious of Tony Stark both on a professional level and a personal one: Tony isn't what one would call a gracious winner. But a character who's set up to be a pale copy of the hero can't pull a lot of villain weight. Hammer gets effortlessly played by Whiplash, who in many ways remains a mystery.

Overall impression: The standalone Iron Man movies aren't really my cup of tea, in spite of Robert Downey Jr.'s undeniable charm and the funny quips. As an action movie, the first one is better. On the villain front, Iron Man 2 is slightly more interesting, though.

Thor

So is Loki in this one? You bet! He's the main villain.

Wow, finally! So does he live up to the hype? I'd say yes. He's funny and clever in a so-sharp-he'll-cut-himself way which is actually slightly reminiscent of his mythological counterpart, and I love the slight and pasty look. Don't expect the Thor movies to follow Viking mythology, though, because they don't – not at all. In this story, Loki is Thor's (as it turns out adopted) brother, and is resentful of standing in his heroic but dim beefcake sibling's shadow. And then he finds out the dice were loaded against him from the start and gets really mad.

OK, promising. Any other villains around? There are some Frost Giants who make their presence felt. They and their king look satisfyingly Dark Horde-ish, but as with the other Thor movies any villain not belonging to the Odinson clan has little to do except to look mythically intimidating and occasionally destroy stuff.

Overall impression: This film is a little unexpected, as there aren't nearly as much in the way of fantasy-style shenanigans as one would have thought. (Asgard is a place in outer space somewhere, plus possibly in another dimension, but the inhabitants aren't actually gods.) For a fair space of the time Thor, who has been banished to Earth, is simply getting his bearings and confusing a team of scientists, including his love interest Jane Foster. Story-wise, it's not the most thrilling Marvel movie, but it does set up the characters of Thor and Loki nicely for future adventures. I don't usually like dim-witted beefcakes much, but Chris Hemsworth's Thor is unexpectedly charming, so I could bear his presence well.

Captain America: The First Avenger

So, is Loki in this one? That would be a no.

Any other interesting villains, then? Not on paper. The main villain is literally a mad Nazi – in fact his secret organisation Hydra (it's never "Little Butterfly", is it?), dedicated to questionable research experiments, is so extreme even the other Nazis are shaking their heads and thinking the whole thing's a bit rum. But I do like the way he's set up. He's introduced as plain Johann Schmidt, but it's clear from the start there's more to him than just scientific knowledge. He can easily shove aside a tomb stone a band of soldiers couldn't budge. He's been through some kind of terrible ordeal. There seems to be something wrong with his face. His Nazi masters call him "Red Skull" for some reason... It's a really effective bit-by-bit villain reveal. Hugo Weaving, whom I dimly remember as a standoffish elf in the Ring trilogy (it's a long time since I saw it) is a good choice to play Schmidt. Personality-wise, however, Toby Jones's self-serving scientist sidekick makes more of an impression.   

Overall impression: I didn't expect to like this movie, but I really enjoyed it! This was when Marvel prep started to be fun in earnest for me. The building up of the villain is only one example of how well-constructed the story is. As for the hero, the movie addresses all the things superhero sceptics could ask themselves – why the ridiculous name, why a special suit, what's so great with that shield anyway? – as well as making Steve Rogers a sweet-natured and surprisingly engaging hero, for all that he's a bit of a boy scout.

The Avengers

I expect Loki isn't in this one? Yes, he is. He's the main villain again.

Really? Yay! So the whole ensemble of heroes is fighting Loki? Yep, that sort of sums up the movie, to be honest.

Any other villains? Nah, an anonymous army of alien soldiers. But Loki's enough.

Overall impression: This movie is a good test, if you're considering catching up with Marvel's stuff but not quite sure if it's for you. If you enjoy it, push on. If not, then you probably won't like most of the Marvel movies to come, either. I liked the banter between the characters better than the grand action set pieces. You can just about follow what happens without having seen the others films – I'd say it's the last Marvel movie, at least the last one starring an ensemble of heroes, where you can "go in blind" – but it does help to have seen the others, because you'll be more invested. The movies have made a good job of setting the heroes up as likeable in their separate ways, and it's fun to see how they learn to work together in spite of their wildly different personalities. This isn't a deep film – it's the quintessential "popcorn movie". But it's entertaining, and there's no humourless, pompous justice warrior with a "secret identity" (the kind of superhero I really don't care for) in sight. Though there may be the odd cape.

The birth of Cosmo (as we know it): Is this really modern feminism talking?

It's been a while since I've seen Cosmopolitan in the news stands, but I remember eyeing the covers of it when I was younger and, time and time again, deciding not to buy it. Buying a woman's magazine was an act of pure self-indulgence (and still is), which would have made it natural for me to go for the most garish and unashamedly shallow of the bunch. But some particularly lurid headline would always put me off. The magazine made sex seem like a competitive sport, and the sultry glamour pusses on the cover signalled that awkward bookish girls weren't exactly Cosmopolitan's target readership. In short, I was never a Cosmo girl.

With this background, I felt torn when reading the novel Park Avenue Summer by Renée Rosen. Its focus point is the transformation of Cosmopolitan in the Sixties, from failing if respected magazine to what it still is today, at the hands of its new editor Helen Gurley Brown, author of Sex and the Single Girl. The events are seen from the point of view of a fictional character, Alice Weiss, who becomes Helen's secretary and is very loyal to her. In a novel, it's often a good wheeze to view a significant character from the sidelines like this – novels told directly from the point of view of some fascinating figure we want to know more about, even a great villain, tend to disappoint. The trick works well here too – Alice is sympathetic to Helen but doesn't always agree with her and can see her flaws. Nevertheless, we are clearly meant to root for Helen and wish her success in her endeavour.

Which is where my feeling torn comes in. On the one hand, Helen Gurley Brown did turn Cosmopolitan around from a newspaper about to fold any day to a success story. On the other, she turned a middlebrow magazine with a good reputation (which actually sounds like the kind of publication I wouldn't mind buying now and again) into a sex-obsessed rag.

As with the TV mini-series The English Game, Park Avenue Summer got me thinking about the advantages and drawbacks of a "based on actual events" drama. Julian Fellowes and his co-writers tried to frame the events described in The English Game as the triumph of the underdog – so it was a little embarrassing for them when the working-class heroes of the tale decided to switch teams because of the better pay. Rosen frames Park Avenue Summer as a tale of female empowerment, but as with Fellowes and Co., the real events don't quite gel with the narrative. On the upside, the grit in the fictional machinery makes the story told less predictable and in many ways more interesting. The downside is you're less inclined to be led where the author wants you to go. 

Helen Gurley Brown is a fascinating character, in many ways resembling an eccentric teacher: quirky, strong-willed and convinced she is fighting not just for herself but for "her girls" (the expected new readership of Cosmo). Seeing as she is based on a real person, she is allowed to do things that a fictional counterpart probably wouldn't, such as burst into tears (secretly) when she has been attacked and use feminine cooing as a way to get ahead. It's also intriguing to see that as early as 1965, when the sexual revolution hadn't even properly got underway, she apparently turned Cosmopolitan to exactly the kind of magazine I saw in the news stands as a young girl a couple of decades later. She certainly had a vision, whether you agree with it or not, and plenty of personality – and personality is what I have been wanting to see in female characters of modern fiction.

At the same time, I did find it hard to root for her, as she dismisses any too-ambitious content as "dull" and "boring", not even seeing fit to use it as filler in an issue of the magazine she's already giving up on, cutting out short stories by Norman Mailer and Tom Wolfe and instead accepting things like an article about crash diets which reads "like a child wrote it". She pushes for sexy, sultry cover girls, as she thinks women will buy the magazine in order to learn how to become more like them. And her ideas for magazine features are often cringeworthy. At one time, an internal memo from Helen to female staff asking them to share how they like their "bosoms" to be fondled during foreplay is leaked to a rival magazine which makes fun of it. Helen is furious about the betrayal and realises how bad it looks – but if you don't want your rivals to slate you for writing bosom memos, don't write bosom memos! It was all going to be a part of a feature anyway, so the reaction would have come then if not sooner – though one of the bigwigs of Hearst (owner of Cosmo) points out that they would never have greenlighted such an article. In fact, I couldn't fault the Hearst bigwigs at all for being sceptical of Helen's approach.

Alice, the fictional heroine, is pleasant enough and acts as a good foil to her boss, and parts of her story were really affecting. It is a more streamlined story than the one based on real events, though, especially where her love life is concerned. If anything surprised me about it, it's that Erik Masterson, a guy at the office (hostile to Helen) with whom she has a fling and who is clearly Mr Wrong, accepts being pushed around by her as much as he does. Their affair is supposed to be no-strings, yet she forbids him to see other women, and he accepts (though if he really keeps his promise in this regard is open for question). But is that really what's meant by no-strings? We're supposed to wonder why Alice sticks it out with Erik for so long, but I was kind of wondering why he sticks it out too.

Park Avenue Summer is what I hoped it would be when I impulse-bought it: a light read set in a glamorous work environment in New York. But as to the Cosmopolitan make-over, I remain unconvinced that it was really such a great win for the sisterhood. There was obviously a readership for the new Cosmo, and the magazine was going to fold anyway, so it feels perfectly OK that things panned out the way they did. But when it comes to the magazine's content, I can't help thinking of a song from Mean Girls: The Musical where daft hot chick Karen praises Halloween because then she can change her look and disguise herself "as someone else who isn't me but is still hot". "I can be who I want to be and se-e-e-e-xy" is the refrain. This, Karen claims, is "modern feminism talking".

I also come to think of a scene from the TV adaptation of Judith Krantz's I'll Take Manhattan. Judith Krantz actually wrote for Cosmopolitan, which adds interest (Nora Ephron was another Helen Gurley Brown hire, so yes, she had some good writers at her disposal at least). In I'll Take Manhattan, Krantz's heroine Maxi bemoans the state of the women's magazine market: the magazines are a depressing read, always extolling their readers to change in order to become slimmer, prettier etc. In contrast, Maxi aims to make her magazine one that makes women feel good about themselves the way they are.

I can't know for certain, but I have a feeling that Cosmopolitan under Helen Gurley Brown was not a magazine that made women feel good about themselves, unless they were already confident and attractive. The Cosmo girl could be who she wanted to be – as long as she was sexy.