Familism has ruined <Endgame>

- Seoyun Choi

Familism ruins the world. The benefit of a larger community can be undermined if one seeks the interests of the family above all else.

 

Familism also has ruined <Avengers: Endgame>. Of course, that doesn't mean that <Endgame> is a bad, wrecked movie. There were effective touches of humor (mainly those related to Captain America), and heart-warming moments. However, <Endgame> has left much to be desired and compelled me to reevaluate <Avengers: Infinity War> as a well-made movie. <Infinity War> had its downsides, but at least it did not contain scenes which made the movie as long and boring as <Endgame>

 

The drawbacks of <Endgame> were not serious enough to make me upset. It was barely like watching the Russo brothers (the co-directors of <Captain America: Winter Soldier>, <Captain America: Civil War>, <Avengers: Infinity War>, and <Avengers: End Game>) taking a misstep after their successful beginning until I found out about the inside stories, which made me angry. All the scenes that I thought could be removed from the movie indeed had members of the Russo family as actors. The reason why they didn't create a better movie when they surely could have was because of familism.

 

To describe the scenes that should have been cut, the article would contain too many spoilers. Only the ones that have either watched the movie already or do not get about being exposed to spoilers should read the following.

 

<Endgame> begins by showing the peaceful moments of the Hawkeye family. The audience can deduce that the scenes are taking place before Thanos snapped his fingers to eradicate half of all the lives in the universe. The movies slowly show Hawkeye's daughter who was learning archery, his wife who was preparing snacks and his sons who were chattering away happily, all turn into dust. Such scenes portrayed Hawkeye's confusion and anger, sorrow, and helplessness in a careful manner. But I thought that his griefs could have been treated briefly with dialogue or a flashback. Why would the Russo brothers allocate so much time in portraying the inner side of Hawkeye who is a less popular character when they have explained the fusion process of Dr. Banner and Hulk who is much more popular, only with dialogues?

 

The situation where half of all the lives on Earth has disappeared were expressed enough in the prequel, <Infinity War>. The scene where Hawkeye's family turned into dust was not essential for the narrative. Besides, is Hawkeye the character that people want to watch for such a long time? His fighting styles are ranged attacks and shooting arrows which lack in impact. He doesn't have a personality that throws fun jokes and the actor's appearance is not that splendid either, making the character rather boring to watch. So, I began to question the director's judgment, only to find out later that the actor who played Hawkeye's daughter was actually the director's daughter in reality. I slapped my knees. The director stretched such scenes to make his daughter shine for a longer time! Or perhaps, the director who himself is the breadwinner of one family might have overly empathized with Hawkeye, who also is a father.

 

Anyways, afterward, Iron Man returns to Earth with Captain Marvel and the Avengers execute Thanos who was sick and exhausted. And then, the movie skips in time. After five years has passed in the movie, it reveals the landscape of the city that reminds of Post Apocalypse in which people still could not overcome the shock and fear of the genocide. That would have been enough. Would it have been necessary to show Captain America leading a rehabilitation group as a device to demonstrate that people are suffering from the aftermath of the genocide with desolate hearts? The directors claim that this was to emphasize Captain America's personality that encourages people to keep moving forward even in desperate situations. However, such portrayal contradicts 'Captain America's choice' at the end of the movie. Besides, Captain America could have stated his positions in the next scene where he talks with Natasha at the center. Not surprisingly, the man who tells that he is seeing a new gay partner at the rehabilitating meeting is played by one of the Russo brothers. Without rotting necessary to the story progresses, boring, even though you have not edited the scene to highlight the contradictions of the main characters, because surely he is to stand out scene? Why would the unnecessary, boring scene still be remaining if it weren't to include the director himself in the movie? And I guess, the other brother closed his eyes on this matter? It could be regarded as another example of familism in this movie.

 

After the five years have passed, Antman returns from the quantum realm by accident and the story progresses as he starts searching for surviving Avengers members. In the process of uniting scattered Avengers members and planning a new operation, Antman meets Hulk who has become calm (and in some ways, looking like he has loose screws). He acts kind to the children who ask to take pictures together, but such kindness becomes a poison to Antman. Overall, it was a humorous scene depicting the changed character of Hulk. However, this scene was also longer than necessary. And it once again, turned out that the children who asked for photos were the Russo's bloodlines. Nobody can stop the Russos.

 

Familism has not only influenced the external making process of the movie. There are also points of criticism for the familism that is also instilled in the movie, especially for the moments where the screenwriters and production team felt too many affections for father characters and tried to represent their positions. In <Endgame>, the characters whose parental responsibilities were emphasized were Thanos, Hawkeye and Iron Man. For me, the only character whose narrative moved my heart was Iron Man (the tragedy of a hero who finally understands his father and sacrifices himself for world peace, leaving behind his daughter who loves him 3000. Other attempts to deliver the inner feelings of Thanos and Hawkeye have been unsuccessful for me.

 

Moreover, as the movie tried to forcefully convey the determinations of fathers, terribly exaggerated scenes popped out suddenly. The scene depicting Hawkeye who became a devilish killer slaughtering bad guys in Tokyo for an extended time was a typical example. Portraying the Japanese bad guy using unrealistic stereotypes and finishing him cruelly did not fit the texture of the movie nor was it necessary for the story to proceed. Was the desire to express the desolate heart of Hawkeye who had lost his family too much?

 

Showing Thanos who is suffering after sacrificing Gamora in <Infinity War> to arouse the audience's sympathy was a similar case. The scene was simply offensive to a person who is in a critical position of patriarchalism. By the way, I still do not understand why Thanos treated Gamora so specially. It was Thanos who was so strict to Nebula, the other adopted daughter, to a degree where he renovated her body and tortured her. Could someone really favor one adopted child to such scale, only because she is superior to the other one? Since eros is suspected of being inculcated in such discrimination, it is indeed gross.

 

Come to think of it, Gamora and Nebula who were abused by Thanos should have defeated him together to make a righteous ending, which also left much to be desired. Though, I could clearly perceive the movie's exceptional respect to Iron Man, who was the founding contributor of Marvel Studio. As he was treated so respectfully, his narrative could definitely move my heart. My eyes were teared up as I realized it was the end of the 11-year journey with Iron Man which was not a short time in any sense.

For the past 11 years, sharing various opinions and interpretations among the fans after a Marvel movie was released was like a festival. Fans were attracted to the world and the characters that were made by Marvel and they felt that they were part a community when they shared passionate conversations with other fascinated fans. Degradation of the movie due to the directors' self-interest was a disappointment to the community. This is the reason why I have been together for many years when the mountains will change. As a long time fan of the series, I suppose I could speak my feelings of frustration.

 

Though I have complained enough about my frustrations, I would still be remaining as a sucker who runs to the theaters whenever a Marvel movie comes out, until I get disappointed few more times, that is. As the conflict between the people who were left behind and others who came back after 5 years would be inevitable, how would Marvel illustrate such a confusing world in the future? Was it Disney's big picture to make plot holes deliberately to continue the series? How would the parallel universes that arose from the occasions of bringing back the stones appear in the next series? I am still wondering about this new world.