Eternals (2021)

 "I thought we were heroes. Turns out we're the bad guys."

This is, I can't deny, the worst MCU film up until this point, and quite a disappointment. One may be tempted to blame it on the great Jack Kirby. Genius though he was, his genius had left the building, and the concept of the Eternals and Deviants was developed by him in a limited series at a point when his mojo was a thing of the past.

Other creators integrated this cuckoo into the Marvel Universe in creative ways, but a cuckoo it remains. So there we have the original sin of the concept, cool thouth the Celestials are- and the realisation of Erishem.

The effects and visuals are cool. So is the direction, in a scene to scene sense. The film looks good. It's also an intriguing and respectful treatment of the mythos, with deviants, the Uni-Mind, and characters like Sersi, Ikaris, Sprite, Makkari and Gilgamesh all well treated.The Mahd Wiri (from Bob Harras' run on Avengers?) is well handled with Thena. And the bid reveal about the Celestials' plot- to destroy all life on Earth but to do so in the aid of seeding life elsewhere- is presumsbly nicked off of a comic after my time, butb is cool.

But... it doesn't flow. Perhaps it's because the main stars are character actors who don't suit such big roles. Perhaps the script underwhelms. Perhaps it's because the second post-credits sequence has some pop star playing Starfox, although Pip the Troll is cool.

But it's probably Kirby. And this is the least good MCU film.

Lady Chatterley's Lover

"She's a servant. It's not as if she's a person."

That's how you do it. Unlike the recent The Scandalous Lady W this is a perfect example of how to do an adaptation of a classic novel in a time slot of only ninety minutes without sacrificing any thematic depth or characterisation.

A confession first, though: I've read a fair bit of D.H. Lawrence- even The Plumed Serpent- but not Lady Chatterley's Lover. It isn't known as one of his best, and it's generally better known for the 1961 obscenity trial than as an actual novel. So I'm experiencing the characters and plot here for the first time. I'm rather impressed. 

The earlier scenes, setting up Constance and Sir Clifford's relationship, his injury in the trenches and subsequent emasculation, and their gradual growing apart, are done with an admirable economy of storytelling while still making time for subtle character moments. We slip into Mellors' POV as we meet him, get to know him and see his being emotes as gatekeeper, his relationship with Constance being spiky at first. Their early scenes together are full of chicks, flowers, and other obvious fertility symbols, which is very D.H. Lawrence.

The story of their affair doesn't quite go as expected, though. Her chat with her sister is revealing; what is shocking is not that she has taken a lover- this is more or less expected in this situation, upper class mores being what they are- but that said lover is a commoner. For the characters, the controversy here is all about class, not sex. This is underlined by Sir Clifford's clumsy attempt to get a friend- the "right sort", naturally, to father a child with her, more or less confirming that privileged upper class women were more or less expected to be brood mares. Patriarchy looms largest when families have money and stuff to pass down. Feminism, too, is a class issue.

I've no idea how much has been expunged from the novel, but I was rather impressed by this.