Cinema Assembled or: Why I Saw The Avengers Four Times In One Week - Written By Zach Frances

Four. That's the amount of times I saw The Avengers in a single week and I wasn't alone. 2012's The Avengers redefined the summer blockbuster. It was a mega-hit. The Avengers was a meteoric phenomenon. But why was it so successful? Better yet, why are superhero movies in such high demand? Or the question I really want to explore: Why did I see The Avengers four times in one week? I have never done that that with a movie before. What was it about The Avengers that got so many people into the theater and kept them coming back?

I know perfectly well why I saw it two out the four times that I did: I am a world class comic book geek. Captain America, in particular, is a character I've been following since childhood, and although Marvel Comics handles him in some extremely dumbass ways, I would follow Cap anywhere. But why? Well, superhero comics are modern mythology. Where there was once Zeus, Hercules, and Dionysus, there is now Superman, Batman, and The Avengers. The parallels between modern day superheroes and ancient myth are numerous.

One of the most interesting parallels was made popular by comic book historian Michael Uslan:

"The room looked like the Justice League of America secret sanctum, and I’ll never forget the dean looking at me from the end of the table and saying, “So you’re the fellow who wants to teach a course on funny books at my university?” I launched into my thesis and he let me talk for two or three minutes before cutting me off. “Come on, Michael! Comic books as mythology and folklore? Art? And literature? Give me a break! Comic books are cheap entertainment for children – nothing more, nothing less." So I said to him “Can I ask you two questions?” He said, “Ask me anything you’d like.” I said, “Are you familiar with the story of Moses? Can you summarize very briefly the story of Moses?” He looked at me like I was crazy and replied, “Well, I don’t know what game you’re playing here, but I’ll play it with you. The children of Israel were being persecuted, their first born sons were being slain. A Hebrew couple put their infant son in a wicker basket and sent him down the River Nile where he was discovered by an Egyptian family and raised as their own son. When he grew up and learned of his heritage, he became a hero to his people because …” And I said “Stop. That’s great. You said before that you read Superman comics?” “Yeah,” he said, “I always read them as a kid.” I asked, “Do you know the origin of Superman?” and he replied, “The planet Krypton was about to blow up and a scientist and his wife placed their infant son in a little rocket ship and sent him to Earth where he was discovered by the Kents who raised him as their own son. And then when he grew up …” He stopped, stared at me for an eternity, and said, “Mr Uslan, your course is accredited.” I became the first college professor of comic books!"

It is my belief that people need mythology and that people need the world to be mythologized in order to make sense of it. Each and every time I dive into a comic book I am transported to 'a stronger, loving world'... Did you catch that? Tell me what I'm referencing in the comments section and I'll do my best to figure out a prize to give you. But just like how comic books transport me to an incredible and fantastic universe, superhero movies do the same thing.

The Avengers may just be the best entertainment this side of the millennium. But still, why was The Avengers such a colossal success? Of course there is the obvious: Taking a group of superheroes, popular in their own right and fresh off their own titular films, and cramming them into one movie is bound to draw some spectators, but that doesn't explain why those films were so successful in the first place. Let's look at things from a social perspective: The world is in a tough spot and has been for a while. Americans, in particular, are feeling more depressed by the day as they continue to be driven to bedlam by a broken and abhorrent political system. The world is bigger now than ever before. Now more than ever humanity's plight appears all the more frivolous. Now I'm not saying that the world needs a superhero, although I do in my heart of hearts believe that to be the case, I would never disrespect anyone's hardship by implying that what they need is a super-man in a super-suit with super-righteous super-goals inspiring them to pursue super-deeds. What the world needs far more than a superhero is a break. The Avengers gave us a two and a half hour block where we were free to forget about our problems. What I'm saying is that everyone needs to escape from something, I believe that to be part of the human condition. For me The Avengers is far more than easy escapism, the subject material being a great interest of mine, but I recognize that The Avengers supplied me with exactly that: Escapism. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with escapist cinema, in fact I believe that is the way movies ought to be.

As far as the film itself is concerned there is very little that is technically innovative or revolutionary about it and that's perfectly acceptable. It wouldn't have been the kind of experience that is was had it pretended to me anything other than pure fun. A few rotten apples use this to justify why The Avengers failed as a truly great movie, and some even go so far as to say that The Avengers is actually a harmful film that dumbs-down an already disassociated audience with watered-down heroics. I disagree on both fronts and would even add that these naysayers are not only a deluded and miserable lot but that they also fail to understand the most important and consistent tenet of the cinema: Entertainment. Film started off with peepshow pioneers who gave the poor folk of the world ten seconds of joy, and that same basic practice has since expanded and evolved into The Avengers: Cinema Fulfilled. No, The Avengers does not fail in any conceivable way, in fact it is monumentally, monstrously successful in every way it tries to be. The Avengers is much more than a movie, its an experience. The Avengers gave us epic battles, a considerable amount of character development for a film of its type, amazing special effects, a rag-tag team of superhero underdogs, Sam Jackson with an eye patch, and a hot chick with seemingly deadly strands of hair. Those who say they hate the film, I am also convinced, must hate all of these things.

So, no, the movie is not revolutionary in the high-brow sense of the word, but let's be realistic with the current state of the so-called Arthouse: It hasn't actually been revolutionary since the 1970s. The Avengers actually does break new ground in the superhero genre by proving that an interconnected comic book universe can be translated into a cinematic one in a coherent and fluid fashion. What Marvel has done here is unprecedented and of the wholly remarkable variety. Not since Star Wars has a series of films been so beloved and so closely followed by such a loyal and possessive fleet of fans. This is not a film of underlying themes, but it can still be argued that several heady concepts are communicated within the film, but more than anything else it is a film with an unprecedented ability to entertain its viewer. The Avengers has reestablished the summer blockbuster as more than a mere spectacle, but as an important cinematic world event.

Captain America, Thor, The Hulk, and Iron Man are a few of Marvel's best loved characters, several of them are longstanding flagship titles of the comic book company. They are all given the treatment they deserve here so as to make sure that neither the hero nor his fans are treated as second class. It is the same delicate treatment the heroes had received previously in their own films independent of The Avengers. Captain America: The First Avenger remains my favorite of the pre-Avenger films. I found Captain America: The First Avenger to be one of the most warm-hearted and genuinely pleasant movies I had seen in a very long time. I stated earlier how much Cap means to me as a comic book character and I was so glad to see the film communicate some of the reasons why I love him so much. The First Avenger was a gift I was proud to call my own. I found it to be the definition of pure and innocent cinema. It reminded me of the Indiana Jones series, and other films of that nature, just as the comics do. The First Avenger has an unprecedented rewatchability factor. It is fairly faithful and spiritually intact. It is a glorious and heart warming film. I found this movie version of Cap to be almost just as inspiring as his comic book origins, and although it is a playful film, its not afraid to get intensely intimate and shamelessly patriotic. Yeah. The First Avenger actually makes me feel patriotic, I think that may be one of the reasons I love the Cap so much in the first place. The film romanticizes many things that don't seem to exist anymore, patriotism is one of those things, so's honor, sacrifice, bravery, and devotion. Also I must add that I found Hugo Weaving's turn as The Red Skull, my absolute favorite comic book villain of all time, to be an inspired one. I thought that he gave the best performance of the series. But everything about The First Avenger is pitch-perfect and refreshing, most of all it brings a smile to my face and makes me feel good, and that's something only the best movies can do.

Kenneth Branagh was not an obvious choice when it came to hiring a director who was capable of bringing Marvel's Mighty Thor to life but he sure turned in a wonderful effort. Thor was a very good film and must have been much more difficult to pull off compared to the rest of The Avengers team who were either completely grounded in reality or were at least acquainted with it. Thor was absolute fantasy and Thor was an absolute triumph.

The Incredible Hulk was the weakest link of the series. Edward Norton proved to have been a misguided choice for the tortured Bruce Banner and the rest of the cast seemed totally uninterested in what they were doing. Still. One runt does little to spoil the litter.

2008's Iron Man was the film that allowed all of this to take place. Being the flagship title of Marvel's cinematic universe an entire generation sought refuge in the company of Tony Stark. Iron Man caught on with an audience in a way that only Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, and Peter Parker had been able to do previously. No comic book character has benefited more from being adapted for film than Iron Man, who had never been as huge a comic book character when compared to the monster success he has become since he has been on film. Never being a massively popular publication to begin with, the character has since received the star treatment from Marvel and his books are quickly becoming better and better. I believe that Actor Robert Downey Jr. and director Jon Favreau are solely responsible for Iron Man's new-found popularity. It is my belief that people actually like Robert Downey Jr. more than they really like Iron Man, but that's debatable. The first Iron Man movie was great, with Jeff Bridges giving a dastardly delicious performance as the villainous Iron Monger, while Iron Man 2 suffered by 'pumping up the volume' and felt much more like a lead-in to The Avengers than a proper continuation of Tony's story. Also, I must include that Scarlett Johansson was god-fucking-awful in Iron Man 2. How she was even tolerable in The Avengers is something I attribute to director Joss Whedon's many talents. I mean, I know she looked good and I know that's what she was there for, but she continues to have the emotional depth and comic book believability of a dead horse.

These films seem to have done the impossible: Tap directly into what makes movie-goers happy and concoct a tried and true formula for it. Yes, these films are formulaic but rarely do they really feel that way. And what's the big deal if The Avengers does follow a formula if its a structure that works? Its not meant to challenge its audience, its out to involve them in the drama. Think about it, its easy to stuff your film with lofty idealism and conceptual labyrinths, but its much harder a task to make your film soulful. And that's something that all of The Avengers films have in common: Heart and Soul. The film is also likable, faithful, and has been unbelievably capable in providing true joy to so many people, young and old, and dare I say inspire them to be that much happier in their own lives. The Avengers equipped its viewer with the necessary tools needed to be wowed. And wow the world it did.

Just as a side-note: Three cheers for Tom Hiddleston who really gave The Avengers everything he had as the villainous Loki. He was not only consistently and believably threatening and wicked, he was charismatic enough to carry the entire conflict of the film on his shoulders. If The Avengers was not supposed to be a film of great performances Tom Hiddleston obviously didn't get the memo. He was extremely good here and I applaud the work he did by making Loki just as iconic as the superhero team that had been assembled to eliminate him. Bravo!

The Avengers is now one of the all-time essentials and it is a film that is very deserving of that title. It was a monster hit because it was given to a world in a social climate that desperately needed something fantastic to happen to them. It was a film that was tailor-made for every single person who paid to see it. Those who refuse it must refuse a lot of spectacular things in their life because the sole goal of The Avengers was to entertain YOU and only YOU. Marvel and Co. personally invited you to take a rest in their world, and to those that took advantage of Marvel's hospitality were handsomely rewarded and fiercely entertained. I wish to thank Marvel for putting so much faith in their books, so much faith in the fans, and so much care in putting out a product of such high quality. Marvel Studios have proved that not only is it great time to be a comic book fan but its a great time to be a movie-goer. I wish more companies were like Marvel for as a fan I have never been treated so kindly. Marvel is a company that is very rare in this world: They care about their fan-base and go out of their way to cater to them every chance they can get. The Avengers is a great movie and I just can't wait for round two!

Until then...

-Z. Frances

Drive (2011) - Written By Zach Frances

Believe it. Drive is the best film to come along in a very long time. Not since Pulp Fiction has there been a more passionate love letter to the Cinema. Drive is one of my favorite movies of the sound era and it gives me hope... Cinema may not be completely dead after all.

Ryan Gosling stars as the Driver in yet another performance that has helped to cement him as one of Hollywood's top actors. Nicolas Winding Refn directs him with ease. With Drive, Refn has proven himself as one the premier directors of his generation. Drive, along with his previous films like Bronson and the Pusher trilogy, is not necessarily a reinvention of modern cinema, but more or less a reinterpretation of the days of Cinema past. Refn is startlingly good, so good I get goosebumps just from watching his scenes take time and build up. Finally the likes of Scorsese and Cronenberg can take it easy, and Tarantino and the Coens can step aside to make way for the next great talent in film direction: Nicolas Winding Refn.

Drive takes its lead from, quite possibly, the coolest film ever made. Jean-Pierre Melville's 1967 magnum opus Le Samourai.

Refn's creation, the character of the Driver, is cut from the same cloth as Le Samourai's Jef Costello.  The characters share several likenesses, the least important of which being a mysterious and sordid past. The most important likeness being the almost ritualistic way both characters carry out the tasks assigned to them, the lonely lives in which they traverse through a disconnected and oblivious habitat, the trust that doesn't come easy but when it does it is given to a pretty girl who seals both of their fates, and most interestingly, the eyes. Ryan Gosling must have studied Alain Delon's performance as they both seem to communicate most of the plot-points with their eyes and only their eyes. The Driver's real name could easily have been Jef Costello as far as I'm concerned. This is also telling of how many different ways the same film can be so influential to extremely different ends. This polarity is best explored by the movies Drive and John Woo's 1989 The Killer. Both films are flamboyantly open about the debt each owes to the influence of Le Samourai. Where Drive is almost an arthouse action film, the Killer is the exact opposite of that. But influence on either film is unmistakable, Le Samourai wrote the book, and Refn has memorized each and every passage. Yes, it doesn't just stop with Gosling's performance, Drive owes a great deal to Le Samourai in almost every single department. The pacing Refn embraces is classic Melville, the way he tells the story is almost formulaic of a Melville crime picture. Drive, in essence, is an American action film with 60s French sensibilities. People may seem to give Drive too much credit in the originality department, where much of the credit is Melville-deserved. But I don't hold anything against Drive for being almost a reinterpretation Le Samourai. I see Drive for what it was always meant to be, the warmest and most sincere thank you letter to classic Cinema ever filmed. Refn does no hiding when it comes to the Melville influence, its there staring you right in the face. Bravo, Drive, Bravo! Melville would be proud. 

What is most unique about Drive is the fact that the film is just as much a salute to the French New Wave of the sixties as it is a reimagining of the mainstream American cinema of the eighties. Surprisingly enough, in a film that boasts a very large and formidable Arthouse following, 1986's Cobra, 1985's To Live And Die In L.A., and several other nods to 80s cinema is almost interchangeable with the 60s influence. Where the 60s influence may be much more subtle and much more consistent throughout, the 80s influence is mostly on the surface. The 80s influence in Drive is of the strictly superficial variety, which is both faithful and respectful of the 80s films and techniques certain areas of the film are modeled after. Neon pink title card, synthesizer soundtrack, mood changes, the poster art, and the occasional trademark 80s lighting. Although a caricature like Marion 'Cobra' Cobretti can in fact be found on the surface of the character of the Driver, that is only the surface, it is not the actual substance of the character. The substance of the character is Le Samourai's Jef Costello. Its almost as if the movie's true colors are of the Melville variety, but it masquerades itself as something much more accessible. Drive pretends to be an 80s American action film. But Drive is so much than that, as any semi-educated cinefile will tell you, Drive is film that wears several different masks. Its true identity is that of Melville. And I can't think of a better frame of mind than that.

Cast-wise, yes, Albert Brooks steals the show. The character Brooks plays is also one of the only non-french influences on the film. Bernie Ross is wholly American, and that is why he is such a vicious character. Bernie Ross is an 80s action villain, and he is pitted against a 60s character study. The clash is almost inevitable, but the mutual respect is the most rewarding aspect of their relationship. Same can be said about fans of the Arthouse and of the Mainstream. There is a mutual respect there, although all too often these sects of film fans and filmmakers will clash, they are nothing without the other. That said, in theory the rift between Bernie Ross and the Driver can be symbolic of several different things: Mainstream vs Arthouse, Excess vs Conservation, Action vs Meditation, European sensibilities vs American know-how, but most daringly it represents the Death Of Modern Cinema. All the greats are killing each other. Film cannot survive in a climate of servitude to the past. Mainstream wounds the Arthouse, the Arthouse fights back. Both the Mainstream and the Arthouse refuses to let go of their history, therefore they are doomed to tell the same stories over and over again, and cut the other's throat when necessary. The current state of filmmaking is in a very sad state of affairs as of late, Drive is a film that pits over-used caricatures, genres, and eras, popular of modern visual storytelling, against each other, until once everything is done, destroyed, and wounded. All you are the left with are the end credits, and the promise of a stripped down and re-imagined future in filmmaking.

Overall, Drive is a perfect film. If you haven't seen it, I recommend that you do so immediately. If you have seen it, I don't care if you liked it or not, WATCH IT AGAIN. This film is trying to communicate the world to you, open up and listen.

 And be on the look out for the next Gosling-Refn team-up with Only God Forgives! My most highly anticipated movie event of 2013!

As a huge fan of both Drive and Bronson, Only God Forgives sounds incredible. All of the released stills are looking great, the plot sounds insane, and Refn and Gosling just may be the new De Niro and Scorsese. Don't quote me on that, but if they keep the quality film-making up, who knows?