Edited 7/25 917, 949, 950, 951
If you’re looking for a Captain America whose roots drink heavily of the 1940’s, you’re in the wrong movie. If you’re looking for nostalgic entertainment of a time that’s in the vein of Indiana Jones, you’re found it.
Karina Longworth, of The Village Voice, criticizes Marvel Studios’ “Captain America: The First Avenger” primarily on the basis of being historically inaccurate.
Admittedly the character was created in the 1940’s, during World War II, though I doubt that anyone is seeing the film looking for an exact interpretation of history during the period–and let’s be clear–the film isn’t very accurate, except in broad strokes.
To approach it otherwise makes little sense because this is a film that is going to be marketed all over the world. To make a jingoistic film–no matter how accurate that would have been–is nothing short of ridiculous because the last time that I checked, the purpose of making movies is to make a profit, and to make a film in the manner that Mrs. Longworth suggests would be essentially throwing away $140 million dollars.
After all, the movie, “Captain America: The First Avenger” is based upon a comic book, which may in some ways mirror what’s going on in contemporary society, but should by no means be expected to accurately reflect that society.
Then there’s the fact that I have seen very few films, never mind comic books, of any genre that accurately reflect what’s going on in this country with the nuance and sophistication necessary to do so successfully.
Besides, I get enough of jingoism as it is. I don’t want to see movies exhibiting what I think of as a pox on the American character unless there’s a reason to do so, or there’s something to be learned.
That being said, I suspect that a more literal interpretation of “Captain America: The First Avenger” would have been an interesting one, though ironically enough, not realistic, especially from a financial perspective.
Which is the one that matters (for better or for worse).
Now on to my review.