The Blu-ray for The Avengers was released on September 25. I had hoped to have a review of it online by now but I’m having a hard time finding things to say. Yes, traditional reviewing of a Blu-ray is to merely discuss its audio/visual attributes and selection of special features, but that doesn’t interest me much.
On top of the traditional aspects of a Blu-ray review I often hope to find something more inside of multiple viewings rather than only answers as to how they decided on what shade of green the Hulk would be. Something to give me reason to watch the film again, something beyond the spectacle, which can only be discussed in so many terms.
If I was to limit the discussion to merely looking at the media, I would say writer/director Joss Whedon is a chatter box for the film’s 140-minute duration and the deleted scenes are mildly interesting — the alternate opening and ending standing out as the most interesting as they offer a different tonal approach to the final product.
Additionally, the Marvel short film “Item 47” is cute, but it doesn’t really add value, the two behind-the-scenes featurettes offer nothing ground-breaking and I didn’t bother with the “second screen” feature. Visually, the film is pristine, plastic-wrapped and commercial. The audio is actually what makes it cinematic more than anything else and it’s finally nice to watch it on a system where the bass isn’t deemed necessary to be so loud you can hardly move, or, at the very least, can be turned down.
Such are the particulars of the Blu-ray release. But once you’re through all that, what are you left with?
The weight of the film’s lengthy first half becomes harder and harder to wade through and, once you know how it’s all going to play out, the second half is far less exciting. Mind, this is a review of the Blu-ray, a purchase you would presumably make to watch the film multiple times over the next few years. Why else would you spend [amazon asin=”B0083SBJXS” text=”$24.96″]?
I understand it is my job to look at films differently than the general public. The way I look at it, my job is to make discussing films interesting and with The Avengers I’m having a hard time doing that.
Most people don’t care to find more in their films beyond surface-level angst and character development plus a selection of explosions and chase scenes. That’s fine and The Avengers is one of the better films to come out of Hollywood in a while in that sense. But beyond these surface level characteristics there isn’t much more to discuss.
The Dark Knight Rises cinematographer Wally Pfister recently sat down with the Sarasota Herald Tribune (via The Playlist) and gave The Avengers a smack across the face, commenting on the camerawork of Seamus McGarvey (We Need To Talk About Kevin) saying, “What’s really important is storytelling. None of it matters if it doesn’t support the story. I thought The Avengers was an appalling film. They’d shoot from some odd angle and I’d think, why is the camera there? Oh, I see, because they spent half a million on the set and they have to show it off. It took me completely out of the movie. I was driven bonkers by that illogical form of storytelling.”
As I just said, I most likely look at films differently than the general public, and Pfister is looking at films differently than me. To finally get closer to discussing the question in the headline, is there anything more than pure spectacle to take away from The Avengers?
Pfister may argue there’s nothing to take away from The Avengers as his cinematic eye was diverted. He may argue it isn’t even a spectacle. His is an argument I couldn’t necessarily argue against since it’s an opinion based in his own fact rather than an interpretation of the narrative so the discussion ends there. In fact, narratively, the film offers little in the way of ambiguity with the only questions left at the end are “Who was that big alien guy?” and “Is there a scene after the credits?” And if you’re really looking for something to talk about I guess you can wonder if Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) really died, but that hardly adds any layers to the film.
I understand it’s not the responsibility of every film to promote discussion. I’m sure many will want to reply to this article asking, “Can’t we just watch a film without looking for deeper meaning?” and saying, “I go to movies to be entertained!” Very well, both are fair statements, and the fault here is most likely all my own. When I requested a review copy of The Avengers I forgot to consider how little there would be to talk about.
No, all films don’t need to promote further discussion. I guess, for me, when I like a film I hope to continue to find something to say about them. In the case of The Avengers, looking at it now, I guess I hoped my second viewing, or at least Whedon’s commentary, would unearth something within the narrative rather than merely answer “How did they do that?” and have us wondering, “When will the sequel come out?” But I guess, with some films, the spectacle is all we’re left with, and perhaps that’s the point I’m getting at… With The Avengers, repeat viewings prove, the spectacle may not be enough.
