— By Teucer
Overall, “Avengers: Endgame” was not disappointing. The most important aspects of the moviegoer experience were fulfilled. Moviegoers did not feel they wasted their money and were entertained. There were plenty of funny lines and situations and the acting was good, with the exception of stone-faced actress Brie Larsen as Captain Marvel (Captain Lesbian?), who seemed to only be able to realistically act the part of a pompous ass, which she did well, but she was mostly mercifully absent from the movie. There were some amazing big fight scenes and the CGI portrayal of characters keeps getting better. Nowadays, the Incredible Hulk actually looks like actor Mark Ruffalo. The story arc was nicely completed from all the movies, and the characters’ lives were “resolved” in fitting ways. Those were the good parts of the movie.
Now, as for the bad parts, this was yet another Disney stab at murdering America and Western Civilization along the lines of “Star Wars: The Last Jedi”, albeit done much better and not so grating. There was absolutely NOTHING positive to say or like about “The Last Jedi”. It was an anti-male, hate-filled propaganda piece that was about as interesting and subtle as anything the USSR produced in the early 1970s. The propaganda in “The Last Jedi” was laid on so thick one could not actually find a movie under it.
In contrast, “Avengers: Endgame” was done much better and was reminiscent of the pro-Communist films that Hollywood produced in the 1950s. Those films made a very gentle soft-sell that the audience could have easily ignored if it wanted to and could have enjoyed the film anyway. The movie was hardly subtle, my 12-year-old son recognized every propaganda element, but it certainly was not as artlessly done as in “The Last Jedi”.
The “woke” philosophical and ideological subtext that Disney was selling in both “The Last Jedi” and “Avengers: Endgame” is simply “white man step down, go away, thank you very much for the civilization you have created for us, but it is now time for you to step aside”. This may be exactly the sales pitch that Communist China is paying Hollywood to make to western audiences, as a part of Mao Tse Tung’s 100-year marathon to overtake the west.
SPOILER ALERT:
The purpose of the movie appears to be to demonstrate all of the acceptable ways for straight, white men to “go away” and leave things in the hands of women, other races, other ethnicities, and other sexual orientations.
A straight, white man with blond hair played by Chris Hemsworth, Thor abdicates his throne as king of Asgard and turns it over to a lesbian, black woman, which is how Disney portrays Valkyrie. She is not a spiteful, hate-filled character, who is grasping to be in charge. Rather, she is a generous, loyal heroic figure so it does make sense within the context of the movie.
It is only when one views the movie in “meta” terms that its non-movie purpose to push “The Agenda” is grating. The movie shows that white men do not have to actually die. They can still be free to just drop out. It is akin to the new political sales pitch to “woke” white men to stay home on election day, cast no votes, and hand over the keys to the kingdom to women and other races.
In “Avengers: Endgame”, Thor’s abdication then makes him feel free to go back to being a beer-swilling, video game addict. He can just hang with his “bros” on the “Guardians of the Galaxy” spaceship and enjoy his withdrawal from any active role in the world.
Tony Stark as Iron Man, played by Robert Downie, Jr., dies a heroic death, leaving his armored wife and their daughter as heirs to his responsibilities. The movie treats his demise as a sad, but well-earned rest from duty. The reason his daughter is emphasized because it again serves “The Agenda”. For Tony Stark to have had a son to inherit his mantle, just like his father before him, would have gone against “The Agenda” and continued white males in power. Disney could not have that so Tony Stark had to have a daughter.
Steve Rogers as Captain America, played by Chris Evans, goes back in time to the past and opts to stay there and to age out so that, in the present, he has lived his life and is an old man. The subtext is that Rogers recognizes that his time is in the past and that he needs to leave the future to others, specifically, Black Falcon (now called just “Falcon”). He hands his shield to Falcon and passes the torch. Again, Falcon is a great character, portrayed as a genuine American hero, loyal, brave, humble, and a very worthy successor in the context of the movie.
It is only in the “meta” analysis where we see that, once again for the white man Captain America, “The Agenda” controls. The sub-context message for the straight, white guy of traditional America is his need to recognize that his time is in the past, not in the present, and that he should just age and die gracefully. Leaving a black man in charge and leaving him his property is awfully reminiscent of the “reparations” movement which demands of white America to compensate African-Americans for the historical sins of slavery and discrimination.
Hawkeye, portrayed by Jeremy Renner, is reunited with his family which is restored to life. He returns to living a rural life, abandons any leadership or heroic role, stays out of the way of the important people, and minds his own affairs as a humble farmer in a rural area. Again, this is another version of Thor’s retreat from leadership and into comfortable obscurity. This is the best of what Disney’s sophisticated urbanites think of white people in “Flyover Country” in the South and in the Midwest.
The only straight, white men left on the scene are the insecure, socially compliant millennial Spiderman, played by Tom Holland, and the ex-felon, comic relief guy Ant-Man, played by Paul Rudd. Dr. Strange, the non-christian eastern mystic, portrayed by the openly homosexual actor Benedict Cumberbatch, is still there. The fate of these three fits the story well and leaves space for future stories, but also complies with “The Agenda” and its sub-subtext propaganda, if anybody managed to still pay attention to it, amidst all the giant explosions, collapsing building, crashing spaceships, and crackling energy beams.
It is Black Panther, portrayed by Chadwick Boseman, who comes to the rescue with his army of Rousseau-ian noble savages. Again, without “meta”analysis, Black Panther is a totally worthy hero and is exactly the right kind of guy to show up with the cavalry in time to save the day. It works well for the story, but also serves the greater propaganda of “The Agenda”.
The reason that this movie is so much better than the execrable smear of feces on the “Star Wars” franchise that was “The Last Jedi” is that, while Disney pushes the same “Agenda” in both movies, at least Disney was respectful of both the story and the characters in “Avengers: Endgame”.
“The Last Jedi” was actually just an attack on all males. In what appeared to be an unthinking, visceral reaction to Donald Trump and his presidency, the movie seemed compelled to show every single male in the movie as someone who needed to be violently shouldered aside in favor of the female-dominated Resistance (of Hillary Clinton). Every man was condemned as either reckless (Poe Dameron), a coward and would-be deserter (Finn), a bitter, recluse slob (Luke Skywalker), or a pitiless villain (Kylo Ren and the British-accented officers of the First Order).
In contrast, “Avengers: Endgame” treats its characters with respect and dignity and acknowledges their accomplishments, heroism, and personal greatness. The torch is passed to great characters who are also very worthy and admirable, so it makes sense and is emotionally satisfying. It is not the savage attack of “The Last Jedi”, but a gentle hand guiding the retired executive out the door of his mandatory retirement party.
For the moviegoers who are unconscious of “The Agenda”, “Avengers: Endgame” is a really good movie. For those aware of “The Agenda”, the propaganda lacing the film is a distraction from what could have been a really good movie.