Skip to main content

Bite of the Black Widow


It’s been two years since the last Marvel movie came out and it’s actually been a nice, needed break. Avengers: Endgame was such an event and such a “series finale” kind of movie that it made sense for the franchise to be put on pause for a bit. Of course that wasn’t the plan. The wheel was supposed to keep turning business as usual but COVID got in the way.That necessary break for the Marvel Cinematic Universe was forced on them. But now it’s over. Marvel’s been putting out shows on Disney+ that have varied wildly in quality and Black Widow now marks their return to theatres.
Directed by Cate Shortland, Black Widow is a bit of an odd beast -a film many would say is long overdue, about the only female member of the original Avengers. It’s especially overdue now that the character has died, this film essentially being a post-mortem on someone whose story within this larger universe is over (though the movie makes pretty clear she’s got a successor). Scarlett Johansson has been pushing for this movie as long as the fans and it only took her character being fridged in the biggest film of all time for her to finally get it.
On some level, Black Widow is at a disadvantage owing to this.  As far as the greater Marvel franchise is concerned, little of this movie will pay dividends down the road: a rare largely standalone side-adventure for their canon, which isn’t preferable for a company that wants every installment to feel like an essential piece of a larger story. Black Widow is absolutely inessential, but as a movie over an episode of the MCU saga, that is actually one of its’ strengths. Barring a bookend device with William Hurt to connect dots and a series of references to Natasha Romanoff’s superhero friends, the film is surprisingly divorced from the trappings of the greater Marvel continuity -something especially fascinating given how up to this point the Black Widow character has been defined by her relations to other more prominent characters and institutions. She is an Agent of SHIELD, a sidekick to Captain America, an Avenger, a one-time love interest to the Hulk -but she hasn’t existed on her own terms, has had little identity outside of these associations.
Black Widow is not terribly subtle on this point. At a couple junctures when asked about her friends, she directly asserts her independence, that she’s going it on her own, pursuing a personal enterprise in her native Russia. The script can’t help bringing up the Avengers every so often, reiterating her place in that collective, but Scarlett Johansson fights against it as she attempts to make the argument she can hold her own centering a movie as this character. Unfortunately for her though, she is frequently upstaged by the consistently incredible Florence Pugh, brought into the Marvel fold to play Natasha’s younger sister and clear inheritor of the Black Widow mantle, Yelena Belova. Pugh’s performance is perhaps the movies’ greatest asset -she carries just about every significant emotional beat, inhabits authentically the complexity of her characters’ history, makes good on the humour of otherwise unfunny lines, and probably has the best Russian accent of all these non-Russian actors. She’s got fine chemistry with Johansson too, as the pair of surrogate siblings reunited for the first time since childhood to take down the Red Room, a secretive Russian organization that grooms abducted young girls into elite assassins, of which they are both victims. To make things easier for them and for the plot, this whole system is entirely consolidated in one individual -a Soviet-era Bond villain called Dreykov played Ray Winstone.
The elite spy genre is what the movie is most vividly trying to evoke. And it perhaps fits that mold better than other Marvel movies claiming to embody different genres, if for no other reason than the fact that Black Widow is the first Marvel movie fronted by a character with no superhuman capabilities or super-powered suit –in fact the origin of her special skills is rooted in abuse and conditioning. The exploitation of young girls is a theme exceptionally heavy for a Marvel film and Black Widow acknowledging such a thing is rather bold. Yet this subject matter rarely goes beyond the abstract or the moral aesthetic of the piece. Even something as invasive and disturbing as a pheromone lock Dreykov has installed in every one of his “widows” functions purely as plot device –a cheap element of tension only. Earlier there is a scene confirming that widows are subjected to involuntary hysterectomies that is played as a joke, and an instance of animal abuse by an otherwise “good” character that goes unquestioned. What Dreykov has done to these girls for decades is never interrogated substantively, any underlying trauma Natasha or Yelena is carrying (hinted at in Age of Ultron) is not considered. Black Widow wants to give the impression that it takes this topic seriously, that it is a feminist text about the liberation of women from abusive power structures -but it’s incapable of doing so authentically because of that need to fit in the superhero movie framework. It strives for valuable commentary, but also needs the megalomaniacal villain with the army of highly-trained foot-soldiers. It wants to lend agency and pathos to poor, experiment-victim Olga Kurylenko, but also emphasize her android-like aspect and badass fighting style. An equilibrium can be reached but Black Widow sadly doesn’t meet it.
A choice was clearly made for this movies’ primary focus between exploring the depths of the Red Room and a theme of family for Natasha, and the latter is what won out. The movie opens on Natasha and Yelena as children living an ordinary existence in rural Ohio with two parent figures, a lifestyle that is revealed to have been an elaborate three-year ruse in one of the films’ more successful beats. But the lasting impact of this period carries over and is quite engaging. Even though Natasha and Yelena have no blood connection to each other, ‘father’ Alexei (formerly the Soviet knock-off of Captain America) played by David Harbour, or ‘mother’ Melina played by Rachel Weisz, they can’t so easily shed their relationship as a family unit. The movie digs into this complex with considerably more comfort and emotional resonance, in part because Pugh and Harbour play it so well (Weisz sadly is underwhelming). The pair of them share one of the other highlight scenes of the movie in which they bond over their time together and sing “American Pie” (the other notable needle-drop of the film is a ghastly grim rendition of “Smells Like Teen Spirit” over the opening credits).
Johansson doesn’t get moments that hit in the same way; often she even feels detached despite driving the action. There’s a character introduced played by O-T Fagbenle with whom she has an apparent history, but it’s not much touched on. Little of her personal life is. Natasha is played with just the same determination and stealth and core values as in the other MCU projects (Johanssons’ performance is decent as its’ always been), but it’s unfortunate a movie meant to be about her can’t expand on any of that –especially seeing as it is presumably the last bow of the character. Her action scenes and her rapport with Yelena are where she’s strongest, but it still leaves something to be desired in a swansong.
I wouldn’t say I disliked Black Widow but I wasn’t particularly enthralled by it. Like just about every Marvel movie, it’s got its’ moments and I respect certainly the greater ambition than was expected for this film, even if it wasn’t ultimately realized. The family dynamics at its’ heart are a saving grace of sorts, and Pugh and Harbour make the film worth your time. But it’s severely limited in how it can tackle its’ worthier subject, making its’ failings therein starker; and limiting for the very character it’s meant to hone in on –giving her a better exit than Endgame did, but not a terribly meaningful one. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more