Thor: Marvel Does Shakespeare and I’m down with it
I don’t know why the sequel ever went into the hands of a different director (Alan Taylor, I will find you for what you did to the franchise), but the first Thor stands out in my mind as one of the best origin stories in the MCU. There’s a reason when so many people ask me if I like certain films with comic book superheroes that I say “that’s not so and so.” I might be saying that it's not Spiderman, Thor, Batman, etc. Because if you only take names, powers and abilities and material traits–it’s not the character. Kenneth Branagh’s, Thor, did justice to comics and classic characters while taking its own unique approach.
True to Comics:
The character development and plotline from the 2009 film is very close to the 1960s comic book story. In the comics, Odin decides to teach Thor humility and casts him onto earth with no powers or abilities. Loki is his adopted brother and is always plotting against him. Classical Thor was written to be a very powerful (and eventually virtuous) character who’s in love with a human woman, Jane Foster.
The Style of the Film:
When I first saw Thor it took me a minute to process that Kenneth Branahg (who was in Othello and Much Ado About Nothing) was directing the film. It also took me a minute to see what affect directors have on the style and overall tone of the film. The relationships, stakes, and decisions characters make in the Thor film run similar to the motivations and actions in a Shakespearean play.
There are two brothers: the blood son (Thor) and the adopted son (Loki). The adopted son has always strived for paternal approval and equality to the biological child. It becomes an obsession for him to the point of hating his own brother.
Thor is the protagonist but for most of the film he is similar to a Shakespearean tragic hero because he makes a series of mistakes it takes him ¾ of the film to learn his lesson. Most of Shakespeare’s protagonists (Othello, Hamlet, King Lear) make a series of grievous mistakes before they have a rude awakening and actually answer the call to action. Thor begins the film as an arrogant boy searching for war and glory with no respect for the title he has, and has to be humbled before becoming the hero the story needs.
Tom Hiddleston described Loki as a “nastier version of King Lear’s Edmund” (the villain from the play). He also strove to look “lean and hungry” like Cassius is described in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.
Kenneth Branagh described his take on the film as a Norse comic book twist on Shakespeare’s Henry V.
The film has humor, but it isn’t excessive. The characters on earth (Jane Foster, Darcy, etc.) act like real people and aren’t continuously filling their lines with bad jokes or forced levity. When characters start talking like the ones in Guardians of the Galaxy 2, I get pulled from the film because the dialogue is so forced. More than super powers, Norse gods, or any supernatural thing, what removes me from a film is human beings not acting the way they normally would. When Jane hits Thor with the car she’s freaked out and screaming hoping she didn’t kill him. She doesn’t shrug and say, “oh well, I guess I hit him with a car.” The recent MCU has gone way over the top to make every line out of a character’s mouth funny and failed miserably because no one likes it when writers try too hard.
The Characters Struggles and Relationships:
Part of good writing is to create interesting and sympathetic characters, and then put them in situations where they endure hardships or have harsh choices to make. Modern Marvel films haven’t done this very well. We don’t see situations where brother is set against brother, father against son, and worlds are in peril amidst the personal turmoil. Showy action sequences and super powers only intrigue when there are human struggles going on amidst them. Recently, Marvel seems to have made money off the glam and the name, not the characters. Consider the complex perspectives and motivations of characters in the film:
Loki hates/loves Thor. Loki believes Thor has what is rightfully his: the throne, the father’s preference, the friends and the admiration of Asgard. We both sympathize with and dislike Loki because his reasons for feeling that way are slightly justified. Loki couldn’t have the throne because he’s a frost giant and adopted (something he had no say in). Thor is a spoiled brat at the beginning of the film yet he has the people’s admiration and, seemingly, his father’s approval. Loki has his mother’s love but he needs approval from his father to feel valued. In the beginning Sif says, “He’s always been jealous of, Thor.” Yet we’ve seen Loki’s dislike isn’t entirely unfounded, however, he takes it all the way to the point of seeking to destroy his own brother.
Thor begins the film proud and spoiled, but he’s never wicked. There’s a distinct difference between being a spoiled child and being a cruel one. Thor doesn’t have it in him to wish Loki harm or to plot evil against anyone. In the beginning of the film, we were bothered with Thor (because he leads his friends to potential death and disrespects his father) and we empathize with Loki, because he’s clearly in his brother’s shadow. By the second half of the film our sympathy has flipped because, when pushed, Thor is humbled. And when given the chance, Loki seeks to stab his brother in the back. Thor’s lack of guile is proven in the fact he never once suspects Loki would do anything to hurt him. The thought never occurs to him (despite the many red flags).
Odin is a character in a heartbreaking position because he truly loves both his sons but is unable to alter their nature. Odin hates casting out Thor at the beginning of the film; he takes no pleasure in it. But it shows that he has no real preference between his sons. He loves Loki despite all of his betrayal but is forced to view him as a villain by the end of the film.
Frey (Odin’s wife) is unable to prevent Thor’s banishment or her adopted son Loki from feeling unloved even though she’s done her best.
The most complex relationship going on in the modern MCU is Peter Parker claiming he knew Spiderman so he could get a girl’s number and take her to Homecoming. I have an article on why I hate that movie but it’s another story. What I’m getting at is the personal interior struggles of characters. Recent films have little to nothing going on with the characters. Homecoming is just one example of a film that has no deep character struggles or motivations. But it’s a great example to compare the original 2002 Spiderman with Homecoming 2017.
In 2002 Spiderman, Peter Parker is in love with a girl, who gets in a relationship with his best friend Harry, who is the son of the Green Goblin, who tries to kill Spiderman. Peter has to kill the Goblin (and in doing so the father of his best friend), and can’t tell anyone because it would ruin the image of Norman Osborne forever. Those are extremely high and personal stakes all around.
In Homecoming 2017, Peter is trying to get a date with a girl by claiming he knows Spiderman, and then he has to stop her father (Vulture) from stealing equipment from Stark. The stakes are incredibly low because he’s not in love with the girl he’s dating, we don’t find out her father is the villain till the end of the film, and most of the film had nothing going on but Peter trying to get a date and be a normal kid.
The key thing here is, having something going on within the characters lives and then making the plot move or develop those struggles and raise the stakes. These struggles are key to being invested in a plot line because they force the viewer to think of the consequences. Whether its Spiderman losing his best friend, Thor losing his brother, or even Captain America betraying Iron Man’s trust (we’ll talk about that later in Civil War)—we have to be invested in the struggles and choices the characters are faced with. That makes the outcome more potent whether its tragic or joyous in its conclusion.
Watching the Protagonist grow and change:
Thor spends a good ¾ of the film with the arrogance that he’s worthy to wield the hammer even after his last words with his father. It takes a lengthy sequence of Thor fighting Shield agents before he reaches Mjolnir, and then he has to be humbled in front of everyone finally realizing he isn’t good enough. It’s a humbling experience that shows only when you hit your lowest point. Thor changes as a character and goes from point A to point B in the movie. Every good character should change and the viewer should be able to see them developing (whether negatively or positively) in the story.
Thor begins the film arrogantly and nearly leads all his friends to their deaths.
In the middle portion of the film Thor still believes all that’s needed is for him to get a hold of the hammer and then he’ll have all his power back.
When Thor cannot get his hammer and is brought to his knees humbled, he faces more debasement in the fact that his brother appears only to lie to him and say he’s not wanted home. At this point Thor has truly become more mature and selfless because he doesn’t argue with his brother or demand to be released.
Even after Loki’s treachery Thor attempts to reason with him when he attacks earth. Thor has made a true change at this point because he asks Loki to kill him and leave the mortals in peace.
For a compelling story we have to see the beats or ticks that make your character slowly changing into whoever it is they truly are. In harsh circumstances we can see them being made into a hero or a villain but the moments that revealed them as one or the other should be clear.
Owning what you are: The movie deserves more appreciation than it gets for many reasons. Partially because it was the last serious Thor film we got (I have mixed feelings at best about the sequel). And to some degree because it was one of the last marvel films allowed to take itself seriously to some degree. That alone is key. If you don’t take yourself seriously as a film, a book, a story etc. than no one else will. One of the keys to good art is how well you own it. I heard a reviewer say of this film something to the affect of “despite this movie being really silly with the costumes and everything, there’s some really good acting and themes in here…” I agree there’s a lot of good stuff there but I fail to see what makes it “silly.” The costumes? The super powers? In original Shakespeare plays men played women (because ladies couldn’t be on stage) so Juliet was a skinny boy in a dress faking a high pitched voice. It’s theater. Accept the unrealism and the glam about it and move on. As long as the content is good and the characters live their role I can be sold on it. What do I mean by this?
When Buffy Summers goes to fight Faith (who was her friend) to the death for poisoning the man she loves, both women are wearing leather, boots and makeup. No one really care about that or laughing about it being silly (I guarantee you when the episodes aired they were too shocked, sad or conflicted to be paying attention to the clothes) because the actresses are selling it. We the viewers care about the characters and neither one of them is taking the situation lightly so why should we?
When a group of children are arguing in a junk yard in Hawkins Indiana over a small girl in a blonde wig with super powers like a bunch of angsty adults, the audience is invested because the characters are. We know in real life children don’t have a lot of control over much and not the best decision making skills, but in the show the writers have spent time building up the characters to get us invested. That way when the dramatic scenes happen we forget about the super powers and the unrealism and get pulled into the emptions being emitted.
Any good marvel movie does it the same way. It’s not about the costumes, the powers or the glamor—it’s about the characters deeply invested in their roles and therefore making the audience take it seriously. Poke a joke once in a while, it’s fine. A movie or show that takes itself too seriously can come off as pretentious (like Vampire Diaries). Overall takeaway, Thor does a good balance of dark and light while staying true to the characters in a unique and intriguing way. I’ll spoil a secret and let you know I’m less excited to review the sequel….oh boy.
-Jubilee