WHY THOR RAGNARÖK IS A GOOD FILM
I was having a chat with my friend Nelly and Cornelia, when Cornelia took an Avengers pencil case out of her bag. When I saw it I asked them whether they watched the last Thor film that was released recently. Nelly told me that she hadn’t watched it yet, but Celia didn’t answer me right away. It seemed like I had given her a piece of bad news. Cornelia is indeed a big comics fan, and she replied that she thinks that Marvel Studios have ‘Suicide Squad-ized’ the Thor saga.
She meant to say that this latest film has an 80’s inspired aesthetic and his more humorous than the last two films because of current trends and the success of recent action comedy films such as “Suicide Squad” and “Deadpool”. She prefers darker films such as “Watchmen”, which she thinks feature “real” superheroes. To make matters worse, she is a huge fan of Thor and in her opinion this film turned one of the sternest and most authoritative heroes of Marvel’s universe into a ‘dickhead’. She finally went on to say that if this film didn’t deal with Thor it would have probably been a good film”.
I acknowledge that Cornelia has a point here. The 80’s inspired posters may be magnificent but it seems to me that this is quite an inappropriate style for Thor’s universe. It is obvious how inappropriate it is to liken an eternal deity to a specific era. Moreover this idea wasn’t very developed in my opinion. There is a scene with a ‘Space Mountain’-like set _the one in which Thor is summoned by the master of Sakaar _ and two two other scenes with ‘Immigrant Song’ by Led Zeppelin playing background _although this a 70’s song and not an 80’s song_and that’s it. I also acknowledge that I found Thor to be quite dumb in this film as well.
HOWEVER, THE QUALITY OF AN ADAPTATION DOESN’T DEPEND ON IT’S FIDELITY TO THE ORIGINAL WORK ONLY. This is why I had such a passionate argument with Cornelia and I will now try to convince you of my argument as well. I didn’t introduce my argumentation by a question. I wrote a declarative sentence in capital letters instead on purpose. I don’t believe that the more similar an adaptation is in comparison to the original, the better it is. I know that is totally wrong.
On one hand I will talk about adaptations in general, and on the other hand I’m going to be talking about ‘Thor Ragnarök’ more especially.
First and foremost, adaptations which are quite similar to the original work they’re based on, aren’t necessarily good. I would go as far as to say that they are unsurprisingly bad. Let’s take for example the Japanese live action film adaptation of ‘Death Note’ released in 2006. I’m a big fan of ‘Death Note’, and yet I felt like I was attending a bad cosplay contest when watching this film. Almost everything is exactly like in the manga, but in a lower quality.
More generally, such adaptations carry no ambitions, but to satisfy fans. These kind of films can be successful and praised by the fans in question, but they are hardly good or even interesting. Besides, Cornelia complained that Thor’s universe has been softened up in order to be more mainstream. I personally think that turning mature work into a family-friendly film can be a good thing. Comics such as “Men In Black” and “The Mask” are indeed particularly dark in comparison to their adaptation. In these cases, modifications were made in the adaptation to enable a larger public to discover a work that they would have never known otherwise. For example, children who watched “The Mask” back in the 90’s must be all grown up now, and thus, can read the original work without being traumatised. However, if the film “The Mask” was as dark as the comics, it is most likely that most of these children wouldn’t have known either the film or the comics.
Finally, I think, we must asses the quality of an adaptation like we would for a ‘regular’ film; so, in this case, not taking into consideration the fidelity to the original work on which it’s based.
Now that I have debunked a host of myths regarding adaptations, let’s go back to our main subject: the latest Thor film released recently.
Thor fans like Cornelia have complained that the ‘classic’ Thor has been destroyed. Yes he has been, but only in order to make way for a “better, stronger (and faster)” Thor. His famous Mjöllnir was indeed smashed into pieces within the first minutes of the film. Spectators and Thor himself couldn’t but wonder what he would do without this fearsome and powerful weapon of his. I also thought that he would make someone fix it. However, Odin asked her son if he was “the god of hammers”. I thought it was a funny punchline at first, but in retrospect, I realised that what Odin said was really wise. The whole film indeed lays the stress on the fact that Thor isn’t ‘a superhero with a magical hammer’ but rather the god of thunder! There are indeed plenty of scenes in which other characters call Thor the ‘lord of thunder’ or something similar, but each time, he has to correct them and say again and again that he is the ‘GOD of thunder’. In this film, his divine nature is particularly emphasized. And thus, he can be almighty with or without the Mjöllnir. There are indeed two scenes in which ‘Immigrant Song’ by Led Zeppelin is playing in the background. Both are epic scenes in which Thor defeats all his enemies one by one. However, in one scene he has the Mjöllnir, and in the second (at the end of the film) his Mjöllnir is missing.
Another source of disagreement between people who liked the film and those who didn’t is humour. Thor is indeed particularly funny because of his clumsiness. However, the scenes featuring Heimdall were always serious. He is indeed the character who remind us that Asgard is in danger.
In retrospect, we indeed realise that this film isn’t funny as it seems. In fact, this film deals with the descent of a fallen king. Firstly, he has lost his attributes. No more Mjöllnir and golden hair.
Secondly, in retrospect, we realise that he technically lost the fight against Hela. He defeated her because he summoned Surtur. This decision may have helped Thor and his people, but it caused the dreaded Rganarök, which resulted in the destruction of Asgard. Thus, thirdly, he literally lost his kingdom.
Despite that, Thor knew how to overcome. In other words, he’s a king arisen from the ashes. I indeed think that his new haircut isn’t a matter of style only. I acknowledge that he got his hair cut just because a creepy old man wanted him to do so. However in many societies such as the Japanese, people cut their hair when they contemplate a fresh start in their life. Although it wasn’t desired in Thor’s case, this haircut symbolised the fresh start he was taking with his people since Asgard and the ‘classic’ Thor disappeared. Secondly, in the very last scene of the film, Thor is represented with majesty. We can indeed see him him sitting on a chair, which may be made out of PVC and faux leather, but in fact represents his throne. His majesty is emphasized by the fact that he’s surrounded by his companions and all his people.
In a nutshell, people who think that the ‘classic’ Thor has been destroyed in this film are right. But it wasn’t a bad thing. Thor may appear less serious, less authoritative and less magnificent then the good old Thor, but in fact, the divine nature of Thor has never been emphasized to such lenghts.
areudirty
dededos
annaxmalina
germansingergirl
