Following the relative disappointment of Iron Man 2, I quite enjoyed Marvel’s next outing, Thor. I liked Kenneth Branagh’s take on the iconic superhero and Chris Hemsworth’s performance well enough, but I found myself fixated on Tom Hiddleston as his nuanced portrayal of Loki stole the show. Hiddleston is an extensively trained English actor, attending Cambridge and the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. He’s already appeared in films from Steven Spielberg, Woody Allen, and Terrence Davies, and next month he reprises the role of Loki in The Avengers.
Superhero movies have a tendency to be viewed as simply brainless popcorn fare, with little recognition given to the truly great works of art (The Dark Knight was famously overlooked for a Best Picture Oscar nomination many thought was in the bag). Hiddleston has taken it upon himself to write an extremely effective editorial in defense of the superhero genre as a reflection on humanity. Hit the jump for more.
Hiddleston penned the editorial for The Guardian, in which he begins by pointing out how many legendary actors have shined in so-called superhero movies. From Jack Nicholson to Heath Ledger, “some of the greatest actors have turned superheroes into serious business.” Hiddleston points out that, through mythology, superhero movies shed light on humanity itself:
“Superhero films offer a shared, faithless, modern mythology, through which these truths can be explored. In our increasingly secular society, with so many disparate gods and different faiths, superhero films present a unique canvas upon which our shared hopes, dreams and apocalyptic nightmares can be projected and played out.”
Hiddleston continues by drawing parallels with ancient cultures:
“Ancient societies had anthropomorphic gods: a huge pantheon expanding into centuries of dynastic drama; fathers and sons, martyred heroes, star-crossed lovers, the deaths of kings – stories that taught us of the danger of hubris and the primacy of humility. It’s the everyday stuff of every man’s life, and we love it. It sounds cliched, but superheroes can be lonely, vain, arrogant and proud. Often they overcome these human frailties for the greater good. The possibility of redemption is right around the corner, but we have to earn it.”
As a prime example of how superheroes can reflect issues that we face day-to-day on a larger canvas, Hiddleston cites a familiar character:
“The Hulk is the perfect metaphor for our fear of anger; its destructive consequences, its consuming fire. There’s not a soul on this earth who hasn’t wanted to ‘Hulk smash’ something in their lives. And when the heat of rage cools, all that we are left with is shame and regret. Bruce Banner, the Hulk’s humble alter ego, is as appalled by his anger as we are.”
Hiddleston goes on to cite the most famous characters in comic book lore:
“That other superhero Bruce – Wayne – is the superhero-Hamlet: a brooding soul, misunderstood, alone, for ever condemned to avenge the unjust murder of his parents. Captain America is a poster boy for martial heroism in military combat: the natural leader, the war hero. Spider-Man is the eternal adolescent – Peter Parker’s arachnid counterpart is an embodiment of his best-kept secret – his independent thought and power.”
I was a big fan of Hiddleston before this editorial, and I’m an even bigger fan now. He’s a tremendous talent and could certainly turn his back on superhero films to strictly stick to dramatic or indie fare, but it’s refreshing to see him embrace the genre so wholeheartedly and to defend it so passionately. Now if he wasn’t so damned evil…
Creator Ryan Murphy Reveals Details on AMERICAN HORROR STORY Season 3; Jessica Lange, Sarah Paulson, and Evan Peters to Return
First Trailer and Poster for RED 2 Starring Bruce Willis, Helen Mirren and John Malkovich
16 New Images from A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD Featuring Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney and Yuliya Snigir
Watch: How THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY Should Have Ended
First Trailer for SPRING BREAKERS Starring Vanessa Hudgens, Selena Gomez, and James Franco
Honestly, I don’t understand all the negative online reaction to Iron Man 2. We saw it in the theatre 3 times. Loved it. We even took my mom on Mother’s Day (it was one of those theatres that serve food and such). She’s definitely not a superhero movie type, but even she loved it. We enjoyed it much more than Thor (which we felt was convoluted and filled with plot holes). I understand everyone has their own opinions, I respect that more than most; as I refuse to read reviews due to my belief that everyone should go into a movie with an open mind and form their own opinions. But, I just felt the need to defend Iron Man 2. My wife and I enjoyed it tremendously and know a lot of others who did, too. So, it may be a disappointment to you; but, Thor was the disappointment for us.
My mom loved it too… and now she cant wait to see the Avengers in 3D on the 27th!!! heheehhe
I agree I liked it also not as much as the first but I enjoyed it. Thor was good to me as well but as far as all Marvel films go I like it the least even though I am a fan of the character. The problem with most film reviews to me is the people giving the review tend to be a bit jaded a not realy fans of the genre of the film they are reviewing. It’s kinda hard to give a fair critique of a film if it’s not something you would pluck down money to go and see on your own because you have no interest in it. I can’t give an unbiased opinion of a Gangster flick if I don’t respond well to violent content. Some critics give every movie the “Citizen Kane” review without taking into account what this movie is, who it is most likely to attract, and how well it is executed in it’s endeavor to please it’s target audience. It’s almost as if some critics are telling us in their review what our collective opinion should be about the movie. I for one only read reviews to get a sense if the movie itself appeals to me or if my expectations are going to be somewhat met.
I feel the same way. I believe every movie should be judged on its own merits (and, one should keep an open mind when evaluating those merits). Playing the comparison game is a losing battle. Every film is it’s own unique entity. And, every film can mean something different to each viewer. I think trying to put blanket statements over a film and projecting one’s preconceived notions onto a film is missing the whole fun of the viewing experience. Critics do seem extremely jaded a lot of the time. They can also seem like they don’t even enjoy films at all. That’s the reason I avoid them. I’m perfectly capable of making up my own mind about what I like and don’t like.
In all fairness, there were a lot of problems with Iron Man 2. I could go on for a long time about them. Thor was a lot better so we will have to agree to disagree on that.
I have thoroughly enjoyed all the Marvel produced superhero films. Iron Man 2 seems to have suffered from “not what I was hoping for” syndrome from my conversations with people who didn’t like it. A few friends of mine even called it “boring” and “having no action”. But to each their own. I guess in reverse, I got what I wanted out of it; more rock star irresponsible behavior out of Stark with explosions. The daddy issue plot element didn’t move me, but it was incidental to what I’m looking for in a super hero movie.
I was really pleased with Thor. That’s the movie I was most worried about–would have been really easy for them to come with a really silly tone. But Branagh pulled it off.
Can’t wait for Avengers. I want to see multiple superheroes kicking ass.
The whole conflict of Iron Man 2 was poorly defined. Mickey Rourke seemed neutered the whole time–locked up in a lab under the thumb of an incompetent and talking to his stupid bird. That’s not how we want to see our super villains. The biggest action set piece was Iron Man fighting mindless drones who nobody cared died. Another huge action scene was Stark fighting his friend, which was played for laughs with nothing at risk. I could go on and on. The whole movie felt like it was just treading water until the next movie when something big would happen. They had such a fantastic setup coming out of Iron Man 1, and they squandered it.
I understand the motivations of Vanko; and, the conflict between he and Stark is very clear to me. Vanko never seemed under the thumb of anyone, he simply used who he needed to use to his own ends. But, that’s part of what I love about movies. They can mean different things to different people. I got the movie. You didn’t. My opinion isn’t any more valid than yours. I really understood what the movie was going for and enjoyed it, my wife and friends really dig the movie too. We’ll throw it on on a lazy Saturday and have a blast. I wish I could change everyone’s opinion of the movie, so they could enjoy it as much as we do. But, I can’t. I can take solace in the fact that I know there are a lot of other fans of the movie, such as myself.
I don’t get it too. I thought it was as good or better than IM1. In any case, I’m not gonna complain being a part of Tony Stark’s world for as long as I can. With casting this perfect, it could be close to drivel and I’ll still watch it.
Iron Man 2 was not as bad as everybody thought. It was a bit convoluted, yes and forcing the Avengers story into the plot line did not necessary make it better, but there were many cool scenes in the movie like the senate scene, all the Pepper/Tony scenes, The Nic Fury/Tony scenes and many many more. The movie was a bit more edgy than the first, which I liked.
Perhaps Matt Goldberg should read this.
this
All over his face.
*sigh* this guy is AWESOME!! love his vocabulary, he makes me smarter by making me look for the words in the dictionary. Its amazing how a charming and lovely man to act so evil and menacing. I wish every man were like him. ^_^
Iron Man 2 is good movie in its own problem is that people compares it with the original.
Thor is also good movie enjoyable one Tom did his part convincingly but it was Chris that made movie enjoyable and interesting.
Correction:
The Dark Knight was famously overlooked for a Best Picture Oscar nomination many *fanboys* thought was in the bag.
The rest of us were quite aware it didn’t deserve it.
And these did? Really?
Slumdog Millionaire
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Reader
Have you actually seen any of those films?
I don’t think all of them deserve an Oscar but Milk was quite outstanding for Penn’s performance and the execution of the subject matter and Slumdog Millionaire was a great feel good movie that did what it said on the tin. You can’t knock that.
The Dark Knight is one of my most watched movies but I wouldn’t defend it by pointing a finger, particularly in the direction of movies so different they are incomparable. Credit where credit’s due, we all have different taste too.
Deserving?
Slumdog Millionaire – As much as TDK, if not more
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – No
Frost/Nixon – More than TDK
Milk – More than TDK
The Reader – More than TDK
Those may not be your kinds of film, I don’t know what is so I won’t pass judgment, but TDK is nowhere near an excellent film. So many people seem unable to separate their fascination with Ledger’s performance and death from the rest of the feature which has serious pacing issues in its last act, plotholes left and right, and far too many quick fixes to get Character A to spot B just so a little twist in the plot can work. Nevermind that the cleverness of it all is undone by the Joker’s own insistence that he’s not the type to make a plan despite how extensively prescient he’d have to be to think 5 steps ahead to get the Hong Kong accountant out of Gotham central. I mean, come on. Either your villain thrives in chaos, or he’s a criminal mastermind who can enact a plan and predict every single person’s move long before it happens. Choose one.
I thought Iron Man 2 WAS great in comparison to the first film. It followed the themes from the first film beautifully. How would the world react to a billionaire playboy who reveals himself to be his own private army. What happens to a man who paints a target on his back, like that. The enemies that rise up, not only in the military, but also personally and professionally. Sam Rockwell kills it as Justin Hammer and Mickey Rourke elevates what could’ve been just a dumb brute into a complex and driven psychopath (that you can empathesize with). There are a lot of great touches to the film that I feel a lot of critics simply overlooked because ‘it’s not the movie they would’ve made’.
I’m also a fan of Iron Man 2. LOTS of character stuff going on, coupled with some great action. One of my favourite parts of the movie was the scene where Hammer was having dinner in the hanger with Vanko after having liberated him. As they are talking you can see that the palms of Hammer’s hands are orange from the rub-on tan he uses. Such a great touch. Most people wouldn’t even think to include something like that, yet it adds so much.
Thor worked for me as well. I think his learning to be humble could have been stretched out a little longer, instead of happening over just a few days, but that’s a nitpick. I found the film to be very grand. Hemsworth was great. Loved Hiddleston and Hopkins. Their acting alone elevated the picture.
Indeed. That scene between Hammer & Vanko is one of the ones I had in mind when writing all of this. Personally, I found a lot of the character moments in IM2 to be quite genius (Vanko and his bird come to mind). I feel like it’s one of those movies whose reputations will grow over time.
Hey I’ve always wondered about that dark hands thing. But after reading your post I kinda get how it fits with Hammer’s character/personality.
Both Iron Man 2 and Thor sucked big time
Both were awful let’s be real and hold artists accountable and to a higher standard
His agent told him to do this for promo.
So funny that a defense is needed for something as entertaining as the “Superhero genre”..
Of course, I AM an AVID gamer, where superheroes (and villians) are full-heartedly accepted..
As a gamer, I see this defense is well-written and effective, but I wonder if it will have an effect on the audience it’s intended for..
In my experience, those who lack the creative mindset to enjoy, or even accept, entertainment such as the “Superhero genre” find arguments in their defense too..much haha
A good effort on Hiddleston’s part, but I feel as if he’s talking to a brick wall, so to speak..
You should post the whole article rather than clips from it. You’re not giving it the full effect, otherwise.
Kinda true. I didn’t even really understand it going from Bruce Wayne to Captain America.
Chitwood, I have to say, one my favorite posts here.
Hiddleston gave the sound bytes, but this was really well done.
I still want to make a dick joke to bring this down to pseduo-Internet standards, but I just can’t pull one out. Wait… there it is!
Seriously, great post. This is why I frequent Collider.
Anyone with a domain and WordPress can churn out silly bullshit. I like to think, this is my kind of silly bullshit, so to speak.
I just can’t end this without sounding like a dick.
I did it again!
Nah, much love.
The basic problem with Iron Man 2 is that it was trying to be two different movies,because it seemed to me that it was trying too hard to connect with both the mainstream audience as well as the comic book crowd. The general consensus for why Iron Man 1 was so well received was that nerds and the mainstream audience liked it just as much as the other. So it ended up blowing its expectations out of the water,and making a ton of money because everyone was like,”hey you can watch this movie even if you dont like comic books or superhero movies!” So there was a lot of pressure on Iron Man 2 to recreate that magic, a common problem with sequels to movies that werent expected to be an enormous hit in the first place(Hangover 2, Im looking at you). So they tried too hard with parts of the story being like a comic book(long portions of the story where things arent really happening,but theres lots of dialogue and personal discoveries that move along the story in terms of character development),and then tried too hard with the action segments(they had to make the action scenes bigger and louder than the first one). Another complaint was that you saw every good part in the preview. So in a nutshell, Iron Man 2 wasnt necessarily a horrible movie,but it fell victim to Hollywood’s Sequel Greed. They just see the potential for huge piles of cash,and then dont allow the creative control that made the first film an unexpected hit in the first place.So while there was plenty to enjoy throughout the film(Whiplash cutting his racecar in half was awesome,regardless of that i saw it 1000 times in previews) it just had too many things that are very easy to point to as flaws. Add to that that Iron Man 1 had almost no flaws,and the movie looks even worse by comparison.
Why is everyone talking about Iron Man 2? This is article is about the wonderful essay Tom Hiddleston wrote for The Guardian. Read it. Talk about it. Forget about Iron Man 2 for a few minutes.
Funny how many TDK fans have never seen both Godfather films.
Iron man 2 far better than Iron man 1.
People have got so caught up in the ‘Iron man 1′ can’t do wrong hype that they can’t see that it was average at best. Iron man 1 can’t take repeat viewings. Iron man 2 can. Far more enjoyable.
Thor was the best yet.
Captain America the worst by far. Loki was fantastic, looking forward to more of him in The Avengers.
I don’t understand the Captain America dislike as well. It was really well done I thought and captured the essence of the character and the era, except maybe the Evans pre serum bobble head.
Bucky Barnes could have been better but other than that it was very entertaining!
Honestly I’m watching all my childhood fantasies play out on screen. I can’t complain at all.
Ok except for Transformers!!
Gonna watch it on the 26th April in the UK a whole week before the US which is unexpectedly COOL!!!
Me too!! Cant bloody wait! 26th at 8pm I was tempted to book the afternoon off work to go to the 1.30pm showing but that may be a tad far! :S
I, too, remain puzzled that “Iron Man 2″ seems constantly to receive negative criticism. I enjoyed it for a variety of reasons but, of course, primarily for Downey’s portrayal. His manic, logorrheic depiction is genius and not in some superficial, buzzword interpretation.
Insofar as Hiddleston and his Ciceronian eloquence, I agree with those who have remarked on this aspect of his talent. And I was profoundly impressed with his Loki: not some leering, scenery-chewing villain, but a personality conflicted in ways that viewers could comprehend. “Thor” was handled such that it surpassed what anyone expected and that was largely in part to the two pincipals who seemed perfect foils for one another.
Can’t wait for “Avengers” to see the next phase. Two sets of tickets–midnight and IMAX, and, I expect, we’ll see it multiple times.
Additionally, speaking of handling difficult animation-to-live action, “Captain America” was astonishingly well done. I had no idea what to expect, thought ” War stuff, ho-hum,” and it turned out to be what I would consider one of the better superhero movies I’ve seen.
Superhero movies don’t require defending, really: they fill a cultural, and personal, place in individuals who think beyond the quotidian.