Post-Viewing: Captain America: Civil War; how to do an ensemble movie right

Captain America: Civil War, one of the best films Marvel has put out recently has shown the competition how an ensemble film should be done. Heck, compared to its DC Comics rival, Civil War is a masterpiece; one which understands its characters while also telling a thoughtful and cohesive story. From a quality standpoint it’s the complete opposite to Batman v Superman in every way. Like it or not, the two films are going to be endlessly compared because they both go for an ensemble focus and they also share several similarities with their plots. Putting the two side by side reveals the decisions and creative choices that place Civil War miles above its biggest competitor.

 

Some of the similarities I noticed are as follows…

1.   1. A villain who pulls the strings from behind the scenes, aiming to pit the heroes against each other

Since the second film, Captain America’s major foes have mostly remained in the shadows, knowing that they cannot hope to best the superhero head on; Civil War is no exception. Helmut Zemo (Played by German Actor Daniel Bruhl) was a Sokovian who lost his family as a result of the Avengers intervention and because of this he wishes to punish the whole team by turning them against each other. Using blunt force against such a powerful team would be foolish so instead he devises a more sinister scheme. This involves obtaining knowledge and intelligence from the shadowy HYDRA organisation, a common presence in the series which has been built up since the original Captain America film. With the team already in disagreement over the US government’s intervention, it’s a case of waiting for the right moment to trigger a conflict. Zemo times this perfectly when the three main characters arrive in Siberia at the HYDRA facility. At this moment when the three of them are all together, Zemo reveals the ultimate secret of the Winter Solider project, that Stark’s parents were murdered in 1991 by Bucky who acted under the trigger words and brainwashing of a sleeper agent. Tony Stark is livid, laying into Bucky with no remorse and it’s this shocking revelation that drives an even deeper wedge between Iron Man and Captain America. In the MCU, the characters are all connected together in some way and it’s this facet that makes for compelling stories that grow and evolve. In Captain America: Civil War, Zemo is mysterious, calculating and intelligent; his motives are concise and just like with every other character in the film, we understand where he’s coming from.

In Batman v Superman, not only does the main villain suffer from a horrid performance by Jesse Eisenburg, we’re also completely baffled by his motivations. Why does Lex Luthor want to take Superman down? We really don’t know the answer at all. In the comics, Superman foils Lex’s plans constantly, creating an intense rivalry between the two that fuels Lex’s desire to best the hero. BVS’s version of the popular villain is a bratty man who hates Kryptonians for some undisclosed reason only to go right ahead and create Doomsday later on. The film likes to think it’s clever by squeezing all these plot threads into a single film; instead it’s a hackneyed series of strangely placed moments that would have been far more coherent if they had been given time to grow and develop over time.

2.    2. The introduction of new characters who haven’t had their own solo films yet

Captain America: Civil War has two major characters to introduce and it does this very well. There’s a solid build-up to Black Panther; we see T’Challa lose his father and as a diplomat, he grapples with the choice between killing Bucky to avenge his father or digging deeper to find the full story of the events that transpired. The explosion at the UN building in Vienna is a subtle hint towards the character and when he makes a thunderous entrance in a thrilling chase scene, it’s an incredibly engaging moment that gets you into the political undertones of the plot. Spider-Man is also very well done; there’s an entire scene where Tony Stark visits the young Peter Parker, discusses his powers and responsibilities before getting him on side for his debut at the airport. By doing this we’re introduced to this new version of Spider-Man, get some much desired clarity on his character and we look forward to seeing him dive into the fray with the others on screen.

Batman v Superman Dawn of Justice juggles five other characters with little success; the most notable of these is Wonder Woman and we learn nothing about her throughout the film; instead she appears every now and again to make a few cryptic statements before getting off screen to shift to another scene in the film’s jumbled plot. Because of this, her arrival at the end of the film is completely muted; a scene similar to Spider-Man where we get a full introduction to her character would have gone a long way here. Then there’s the laughable scene (or should I say blatant tease) where Wonder Woman opens an email to see all the Justice League members present and accounted for. It’s flimsy and a complete convenience that desperately sets up the Justice League with no rhyme or reason. They could have removed this scene and kept the surprise back for further development and build-up but there’s no going back now.

3.    3. The theme of questioning the destruction caused by individuals with immense power

The MCU has had three films so far where our heroes have caused massive destruction and following the opening action sequence of Civil War, there’s certainly a fair bit of apathy towards the team. One particular scene sees Tony Stark bump into a diplomat who lost her son because of him and his comrades in Avengers: Age of Ultron. The seeds are planted here for an interesting moral dilemma which ties into the later fight scenes while also pushing the plot along. About a quarter into the film it seems that the Avengers really are going to sign away their authority when The Winter Soldier (under the control of triggered instructions) sets off a bomb. It’s an explosion that sets back diplomatic efforts, but the film doesn’t drop this thread entirely; instead it intensifies the opposing viewpoints held by Rogers and Stark even more, providing more of a reason for the two sides to clash later on.

Now take a look at Batman v Superman; the opening of that film sets up a plot thread; that Superman needs to answer for the destruction he caused at the end of Man of Steel. Clark Kent himself also discusses what common people think of his exploits with Lois Lane early in the film. It’s the kind of thing we could have seen in a standalone sequel to Man of Steel and would have created an interesting dynamic in the character. We’re about to see this aspect of Superman’s character come to the forefront at a congressional hearing scene; the stage is set for an intriguing discussion and what do we get instead? The meeting explodes thanks to Lex Luthor and any development that could have been made is tossed aside and immediately forgotten about; never again does Superman have to consider or accept consequences for the destruction he causes. Apparently it’s all down to Lex Luthor’s crackpot scheme to make people hate the Man of Steel even more, but it makes no sense at all considering that Superman could simply destroy the building with his own powers alone without needing a bomb. The film simply doesn’t care about character development; instead it stands by the flawed belief that audiences want only the action and explosions, rather than a well-rounded and detailed central character.

So there you have it; my own personal view on why Marvel has nothing to worry about when it comes to crafting a cinematic universe with deep stories and characters. Things don’t seem to be going too well in the DC camp at the moment with infighting between Snyder and Warner Bros as well as trouble with standalone films; I’m hoping that they can take a few notes and possibly rethink their strategy when it comes to putting the DC Universe onto the big screen. The best film blockbusters EARN the profits they deserve by being well crafted pieces of cinema, rather than trying to force money out of audiences by desperately upping the stakes too early.