Now you done poked the bear.
I subscribed to Willems' YouTube channel over 3 years ago. Sometimes I agree with him. Sometimes I don't. I don’t think I’ve watched his stuff for over a year.
His take on the Russos would be an example of where I disagree with him.
First let’s talk about the “boringly flat” “manner” to which he refers. I presume he means their use of long static shots in conversation sequences. The use of static shots is a deliberate editing choice that can be powerful device in the right hands. It’s exemplified by director Yasujiro Ozu in the 1930’s and used by Kurosawa in films like, Kagemusha and even Seven Samurai. Unfortunately, it’s used less today than it was in the 1950’s-70’s. I believe this can be attributed to shorter attention span of today’s general public which favors more dynamic shots and rapid edits.
(Digression: In my heart I believe the trend also represents an unfortunate degeneration in cinematic literacy. I’d be willing to bet that most folks under 35 years old today would struggle to sit through a viewing of The Seven Samurai, Lawrence of Arabia or even The Good The Bad and The Ugly. Heck, some people today can’t even sit through Jaws, Blade Runner or Alien.)
The Russos use of static shots is appropriate for the MCU which is founded on characters and relationships. It’s not because they don’t understand more dynamic camera work.
Now let’s talk about the Russos action sequences which he describes as “frantically
hackneyed “.
This statement either wasn’t thought out or he understands nothing about action direction.
Firstly, let’s establish that the tired action film practice to which he referred is the staple of most Hollywood action movies today. To think that applies to any of the Russos action sequences is just dim-witted.
Action sequences are built around varying rhythms and breaks in rhythms. The construction and choreography of great action is interesting but it’s also a very involved discussion. Not all directors are “action directors.” For example, Joss Whedon, whom I adore, is wonderful with ensemble but not really what I would call an “action director”. The Russos, on the other hand, excel at action.
Take the Winter Soldier highway fight sequence:
[video]
[video]
I don’t see where this is the “same stuff” of action movies. These sequences have actual structure, rhythm and, yes, even story and character development told throughout. Make no mistake, the entire highway fight was storyboarded and executed with incredible skill, delicacy and intelligence.
The same could be said about the opening fight on the ship, Nick Fury’s car chase, and the elevator fight sequence.
Now let’s pull the Aragorn fight with Uruk Hai from LOTR, since it's a film he reveres.
[video]
Other than a few seconds of Legolas’ badass combat archery, the fight choreography and editing are bland and forgettable. Aragorn is just hacking into a horde of Uruk Hai who aren’t even attacking him most of the time. There’s no real sword choreography to speak of. He sends a bunch of them tumbling down stairs with a kick or dives onto a pack of them Errol Flynn-style. If you added a Dutch angle you’ve got 1960’s Batman biffing down a bunch of henchmen. There’s nothing original here.
The best way to describe film editing is that it’s about time. Sometimes the narrative is advanced through camera movement, sometimes through dynamic transitions and but also through actual dialogue or exposition. He's basically saying he would rather see the use of more dynamic transitions. But that’s simply a matter of personal taste. That’s as narrow-minded as saying you have a problem with Robert Altman’s M*A*S*H because he doesn’t apply Martin Scorsese’s breakneck camera work. You can’t compare them because they’re different kinds of film.
The Russos are what are known as, "actor's directors." Great actor's directors include Sidney Lumet (Dog Day Afternoon, 12 Angry Men, Serpico ...), Clint Eastwood (Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino, American Sniper ...), Sydney Pollack ...
(In contrast you also have directors like Ridley Scott or George Lucas who are so notoriously absorbed in the technical end that some actors can feel like they're being treated like props.)
The Russos make it clear, in interviews that they hold character, casting and performance above all. If one can set aside the stigma of the superhero genre it’s apparent there is a cohesive complexity and structure to performance and character of, say, RDJ as Tony Stark and his relationships with other characters (Rogers, Parker, Potts ...). An adept actor’s director can draw out superb performances from even inexperienced actors.
Just as films that are fundamentally spectacle (e.g. LOTR) can have character moments, character-driven can have moments of spectacle as well. Russo’s MCU is the latter.
I will grant that MCU visual effects aren’t always technically “cutting edge” (except for de-aging) but they tend to focus more on design which is good to often great.
I can also understand the gripe some people have about the “look” of Marvel films. Their lighting and color grading are characteristically very vivid (even when desaturated), often without much layering in the frame to suggest depth nor used to enhance dramatic effect. Sure, there are exceptions, but there is a general Marvel look. The Marvel look serves to give some connection to the look of these characters on the comic book page. This is an aesthetic choice I think serves the MCU well.
In contrast we have Snyder/DC/Warner’s dramatic “realism” which, instead, serves to distance the characters visually from comic books. To his credit, Snyder creates some stunning shots and generally has much more lush visuals than MCU.
But I don’t think that same aesthetic would be appropriate the MCU. I’m afraid a lot of the characteristic MCU intimacy would be lost. The MCU is about character and relationships over visual spectacle.
A I described in my last post, Marvel's brand of spectacle is constructed on a foundation of character (e.g. Rogers standing alone against Thanos' invasion force) and is far more emotionally effective for this viewer than the relative poster-art of the LOTR.
Based on Willems' argument the DC/Warner movies might seem more suited to his taste. He can have it.
I don't know if Willems is just exhibiting a narrow preference or if he truly doesn't appreciate the design and style of the MCU. Not to be insulting but I don't know how else to put it: Willems is either being subjectively biased or objectively ignorant.
If he's comparing IW to LOTR he might as well be making the case that Goodfellas is lacking because it doesn't possess the grandeur and spectacle of The Godfather I and II. Or that Goodfellas is visually hackneyed and "herky-jerky" compared to The Godfather. It's simply a ridiculous comparison.
(...but Goodfellas really is the better film.)
