Skip to main content

The MCU and the Standards of Cinema






The MCU is now officially the biggest movie franchise of all time and they’ve completely earned every bit of their supermassive success. The greatest thing the Marvel films did lies not in their sheer cinematic spectacles but in their delicate balancing act which focused on it’s characters’ super-heroism as well as their human vulnerabilities, simultaneously humanizing these super heroes on a level that’s both relatable and heartfelt for us. This is the real key to their success—they made those fictional characters feel real and brought them closer to the audience with their individual emotional journeys, character arcs and resolutions. It’s what makes the MCU both universal and intimate, at the same time. To make us feel for it’s characters so deeply is the real success of these films and that’s what’s responsible for bringing back the audiences into the theaters for multiple viewings.



However, when viewed from a purely cinematic standpoint, it’s also not hard to see that the MCU films are some of the most risk-averse, safe and formulaic, to the point that there is now an obviously noticable thread of factory-styled-filmmaking that’s flowing through all the individual films. And even though many of their films successfully integrate a lot of elements from different genres of films, they still share some very fundamental similarities that make those borrowed elements feel only surface-level rather than anything else.



And that’s why those films feel so similar to each other, aside from the different characters and the cosmetics. Because fundamentally, they all revolve around the same axis—a structural blueprint that is more rooted in corporate franchise-building than something that resembles an original, unique and purely artistic vision. And this is what separates the MCU films from being truly great standalone ‘cinemas’ that shine on the strength of their unique artistic sensibilities rather than franchise-feeding, crowd-pleasing machinations.



A unique artistic direction that’s not afraid to be divisive is what drives the heart of films that define the benchmarks of cinema, and even well after 10 years, we’ve seen nothing of this sort from the stable of the MCU. They’ve consistently delivered films that are solidly entertaining, featuring both family-friendly-fun and heartfelt character sagas and great re-watch values, and yet, they lack the element that makes their films more than the sum of their parts and continue to strike a chord in the audience well beyond their theatrical runs. A lot of good can be attributed to the MCU films, but aside from a very few exceptions, they’ve never really felt as artistically inspired.



Take the visuals used in the MCU for example—they’ve been some of the most un-exciting among most modern film franchises. The dry, dull and dispassionate color schemes (except in Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2, obviously) feel deliberate and completely out of place (to the point that it kind of comes into conflict) with the fantasy-themed tone of the films. It’s incredibly disappointing that for such massive, multi-billion dollar franchise, their visuals feel so drab, uninspired and dare I say, cheap. They also disappointingly lack any kind of aesthetic values, which only proves that the visuals of the MCU have no vision behind them, any at all.



Even films from far lesser franchises look more vibrant, richer and aesthetically appealing than almost all the films in the MCU, where at the same time, the Marvel flicks seem to never bother using something beyond the muted and overall washed-up visuals in them.



This also shows how much these films are a product of passionate filmmaking or something more in the vein of tailor-made, heavily meddled and decided by studio executives. When you analyze most of the films in the MCU, you’ll rarely find any unique directorial vision shining through, aside from the Whedon films (cause of the whole splash-page treatment of several iconic moments) like the first Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron and the GOTG films. But the rest of them feels more like corporate-standardized products than anything that even tries to be a breath of fresh air.



And the very reason that the earlier batch of the Marvel films felt more fresh and lively than what we have now, is that over the years, they’ve mostly been operating on the same underlying structure. That’s why it seems now that there’s a ‘fading-out’ effect with these films, simply because how the core dynamics have become overused throughout the years.



But when critiquing the MCU, we also need to take a good look into their inner structure and how these films have always been fundamentally very different than other standalone, self-contained films.



The MCU is about building cinematic epics on the big-screen akin to what’s known as ‘event’ storylines in the comics. These films are always centered on an overarching plot/ saga and each of their films is essentially a stepping stone to the building of that massive epic that culminates in ensemble films. For example, every film in the MCU since 2008’s Iron Man, was connected to the ‘Infinity Saga’ that finally concluded in 2019’s Avengers Endgame. Tony’s character develepment ended in Endgame but it was building up to this point from 2008, from one of the first films in the MCU (counting the Incredible Hulk as well).



So this is how inter-connected the MCU is, and every film from the franchise operates as a continuation or farther buildup to a grand saga, they’re not unlike individual pieces on a huge jigsaw puzzle board.



This also makes the main storyline of the MCU a ‘framed narrative’ which requires very different methods of approach than what we see in almost all other films, whether they’re part of a franchise or not. And this inner structure is responsible for these films to be more about the main overarching story than the methods of storytelling that apply on creating self-contained stories, and that’s why in terms of artistic choices regarding telling a story on the screen, the MCU has no option but to opt out cause of it’s inherent characteristics that simply makes the MCU, the MCU.



This framed narrative is also why the MCU is fundamentally more about the overarching story than the storytelling and is mostly centered around the development and the journeys of their individual characters, and finally combining all of them into several epic, interconnecting sagas.



This is also why the MCU simply cannot be held and judged by the same standards that apply to the majority of films, because the MCU operates on it’s own unique cinematic standards that are simply necessary for delivering the experience that it aims for. That’s why in several aspects of filmmaking, the MCU is limited by design, in both scope and potential. But it also makes room for them to become something more in other areas which ultimately sets them apart from the core nature of any other films.



In a nutshell, the MCU has it’s own set of cinematic standards that makes them what they are, and it’s works really well for creating the epic on-screen comic book-flavored stories. In their essence, they are more similar to their source materials in terms of inner structure and execution, and it’s great cause that’s what defines them and makes them have their own identity.



However, this also makes the directorial vision aspect of these films far more limited than what we find in all other traditional films. In this case, the MCU leans more to being straight up ‘studio films’ than being uncompromised creative expressions of the artists who works to create these films. Simply cause they are bound by their nature and is limited in artistic scope by design, the MCU can’t afford to steer away much from it’s blueprint design, which is necessary for building the multi-part epic cinematic experiences that it wants to achieve.



At this point, it can be said that the MCU has really become it’s own genre (or sub-genre) and although it’s more franchise driven than what films should care to, ultimately it also results in being the series into what it is today.



But right now, the MCU also needs to introduce fresh new elements into it’s franchise wheels for things to remain as exciting as it was back several years ago. I personally feel it’s obvious that the earlier batch of MCU films (the first two phases especially), have been the peak of the decade long franchise. And sadly, even though the two-part Infinity saga was massive and overall spectacular, it didn’t make me feel as excited as The Winter Soldier did, or the first Guardians of the Galaxy.



And the reason is that the MCU has been running way too long on the same set of wheels, that’s the danger of being formulaic or resorting to a fixed mold for a long time, things tend to feel tiresome eventually. At this point, the MCU is nothing that we haven’t already seen or experienced from this franchise up to this point, in terms of structure and overall flavor. It doesn’t feel as fresh as it did back in 2012, sure it’s bigger than ever but not better, and it’s objectively true. This definitely poses a major challenge to the franchise that requires more than what it has been shown to be capable of, till now. However, their current state is also a direct result of being limited in terms of artistic scope and vision which no other series of films suffer from.



As you can see, the MCU has become like an ongoing circle whose uniqueness and strength is what end up holding it back in the long run. And it’s up to the filmmakers to get beyond that and what it really needs, is an evolution, in both it’s core structure and it’s methods of execution. However, that’s beyond the scope of this article, so this is where we stop, for now. I do hope you’re still here, just saying.



Let me know what you think about the state of MCU and whether it’s own cinematic standards are responsible for it feeling kind of stale and uninspired right now. Sound off at the comments section.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dragon Age 2 guide: Bloodlusted Forcemage

The mage has always been the most powerful class in the dragon age games----dealing devastating area of effect (AOE) spells & single target damages enough to obliterate anyone dare to cross his path...until they start paying attention to him. As soon as his enemies get to him, he's dead meat. The mage is as powerful as he/she is squishy. But all that changes with the Bloodlusted Forcemage (BF mage). Remember the mage from the opening sequence after choosing the class in DA2? The BFmage is similar to that in terms of both raw power & defense. The BFmage do not hide & do not run away at the first sign of threat and can easily go toe-toe toe with his foes alongside the warrior or tanks. It was my second playthrough as a mage when I found this build after much experimenting with the class. And yes, the Bloodlusted Forcemage completely obliterates The Arishok in Nightmare with ease & that's when I know this build really works. Vulgar display of Pow

Dragon Age 2 guide----The Shadowy Assassin

"It's a ghost, it's a one hit killer, oh no it's the Shadowy Assassin"----Lieutenant That's actually the most apt description I've found for this unbelievably powerful build, believe it or not. The Shadowy Assassin (SA) is simply an unstoppable force of nature. He moves so fast that enemies have a hard time trying to get a bead on him, annihilates weaker foes with one shot (not talking about spike damage)----even after some archers actually manage to focus on him, all they can manage to hit is a rigged decoy ready to blow into smithereens. Meanwhile the SA makes short work of them from behind, and when that Lieutenant is the only one left standing, something beautiful happens----the mage puts a winter's grasp/cone of cold on him, the SA throws something at the Lieutenant & when he thinks he's got it figured, only the cracking sound of bones getting crunched is heard----poetry in motion. The fight is over before it ever had a ch

The Best Live version of Comfortably Numb

Pink Floyd’s Comfortably Numb is undoubtedly one of the greatest pieces of music ever composed on the electric guitar. And if you’ve heard the studio version, it’s literally impossible to not get blown away by the myriads of live versions of the solo that Gilmour has played through the years (or decades). And the great thing about the live renditions is that each of them brings a distinctly characteristic feel to the solo--making all of them memorable and stand on their own, it’s almost like different takes on the original studio version. For example, the Delicate Sound of Thunder version has a darker and more tormented feel overall, there are parts of the solo where it’s unlike anything ever heard from Gilmour. This version is also the most ‘badass’ and raw version of the Comfortably Numb solo, which was how Gilmour played it during the Momentary Lapse tour in the late 80’s. And until Live in Gdansk came out, this was my favorite version of the solo. Also, Gilmour’s gu