An opening statement, for once: I actually started putting this post together almost two weeks ago. I’ve added a few things since then, but some of these articles are fairly old at this point (old in internet time). I thought about scrapping it and moving on, but these are still some solid articles, so I figured I’d go ahead and post it in case anyone happened to miss them. I do have some newer stuff bookmarked, but I’ll try to get those out next week.
A three-fer this time, with an initial article in the LA Times suggesting that Guardians of the Galaxy is “post-plot”. Even after reading the article, I’m not entirely sure what Zeitchik means – Guardians has a plot, and it doesn’t seem to me to treat its plot substantially differently than most of the older adventure films (like Star Wars), that he cites as, well, having a plot. Todd VanDerWerff at Vox has a similar complaint to Zeitchik, wondering why Guardians felt so empty despite being so fun. He also cites Star Wars. Guys. Star Wars is not the Holy Grail of cinematic storytelling. In all the films they mention (Star Wars as well as Maltese Falcon and Raiders of the Lost Ark), the whatsit of the plot is basically a McGuffin to have a ton of fun following fun characters around. It doesn’t matter what the Falcon or the Ark is, so long as some people want it and other people want those people not to get it, which is basically the same purpose the infinity stones serve in Guardians. Max O’Connell of CriticWire has my back on this.
More important, I’m not sure we’re supposed to be able to explain it. The way the film is structured, coherence of any kind — why people are literally doing what they’re doing, or what the plausible psychological explanations are for what they’re doing — seem beside the point. This all seems to be less a question of whether “Guardians” makes sense as it is that it doesn’t much matter in the first place. The movie was built to be consumed without any holistic understanding of what’s happening or why—without any sense that one should want a clear understanding of what’s happening or why. (There is a strange, perhaps super-meta irony in the film making frequent reference to cinematic classics like “The Maltese Falcon,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and “Star Wars,” all movies in which storytelling matters very much.)
VAN DER WERFF
The film does slightly better by Quill, who gets the cassette player and the pop songs on it, as well as a mysterious, still-wrapped present, as reminders of his mother and what she meant to him. But what the film hopes will be his emotional arc — the eternal boy who finally matures and accepts responsibility — gets shuffled so far to the back of the deck that the film mostly just suggests it and invites the audience to read the arc into the text. A little ambiguity is good in any film, of course, as it invites viewers to draw their own conclusions. But ambiguity isn’t really what Guardians is going for. It’s quite clear about what it wants viewers to think. It just never makes the leap to making us feel it, outside of on a purely intellectual level.
This isn’t exactly a new idea, either. Zeitchik compares “Guardians’” supposed lack of plot to “Star Wars,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and “The Maltese Falcon,” all of which (the latter especially) operate around the same principle. “Star Wars”: bad guys want plans that could end their giant thing that can destroy planets, group of misfits gets ahold of it, join together and team up with the good guys to stop the bad guys. “Raiders”: rogue wants the same thing that the bad guys want, and with the help of different friends (and an act of God by way of the thing), he stops them. “Falcon”: guy gets killed over thing, his partner looks into it and gets involved with a woman who’s lying about her connection to both the dead guy and the bad guys who want the thing, partner goes after thing to bring bad guys to justice.