The Filmgoer's Diary 2018/19

AQUAMAN I 2018 I Film Discussion

In many ways, Aquaman is the most depressing film the DCEU has put out thus far. This is not because it's a bad movie by any means. As a matter of fact, Aquaman is so inoffensively middle-of-the-road that you can't really get mad at it if you don't like it, nor do you feel right congratulating the film for not sucking. For me, the movie falls squarely in the not-sucking but not all too interesting category, which some might rightfully see as a step forward for the DCEU. After all, Aquaman is a pretty good movie. It's just not that interesting. And I think we could use this film as a case to ponder how a film could be simultaneously good and mediocre.

Aquaman ticks the boxes of what makes a half-decent superhero film. It falls short of Wonder Woman's infinitely more memorable film but falls in the same category. The best of the DCEU films – just these two really – take a step back from attempting to take a big leap ahead of Marvel and simply make a coming-of-age story for its hero. It is debatable, whether or not Aquaman is coming of age though, and this is the greatest disappointment of the film. Aquaman's journey is literally becoming the hero. There's a line in the trailer that goes like this: Aquaman is told "Atlantis has always had a king. But now it needs something more." But what could be greater than a king, asked the suddenly gullible Arthur Curry. Well, a hero. The character arc of Aquaman is becoming the hero by saving Atlantis. His ghost (the thing in his past holding him back) is the fact that he is a half-breed and the sense of guilt that comes from it. In that, we the audience knows how the film is going to progress. Arthur Curry needs to realize that there is a great internal power that lays within him. And when he discovers that, he will defeat his ghost. He will become a hero. This is done very competently yet so predictably.

When a hero's journey is about becoming the hero, there's usually an extra dimension to it. Diana's journey in Wonder Woman involves her realizing that the world is not as innocent as she might've seen it. The movie hinted that Diana would be taught that morality is more subjective than she's been taught (if only it explored more of that theme, it could've been the great leap the DCEU had been craving for). One movie that bears a lot of similarity to Aquaman is this year's Black Panther. This film also adds another dimension to the growth of its main character. In Black Panther, T'challa faces a villain that not only challenges his worldview but is intrinsically connected to his ghost (in this case a literal ghost in the form of his father.) In this movie and the aforementioned DCEU film, the main character's journey involves a wholesale destruction of their worldview and ideology. Not only are they introduced to a new world of possibility, they are introduced a new way of viewing reality. And it is this fundamental shift in perspective that underlies good character growth. It is also this shift that gives these kind of movies the necessary dimensions. And it is precisely this that is lacking in Aquaman.

The lack of dimension comes across in the main villain: The brother of Arthur Curry and a thinly-veiled metaphor for ultra-nationalistic heroes. This is a character who is crafted as the diametrical opposite of Arthur Curry. Arthur is rugged, rough, unshaven, and crude. The other guy is well-respected, polite, clean and kind-of boring. Their interactions are actually genuinely entertaining. The actors and the directing give the relationship a strong tension. And when the two guys are fighting each other, you are engaged and entertained. The rivalry isn't empty. But it does lack the kind of ideological difference that you see between T'challa and Killmonger. The conflict between Aquaman and the Ocean Master (I think that's what he calls himself I don't remember) is centered around the attitude towards the surface world. And while on the surface some could call that an ideological difference – it really does not qualify. You see, an ideology is not simply a single belief. It's a set of belief system and an entire worldview that needs to be established throughout the film. So Black Panther really endeavors to explore T'challa and Killmonger's ideologies. The best way to do this is have them interact with characters who challenge their beliefs. To show how the characters react and justify their beliefs. And eventually how the clashes between these two ideologies create a new synthesis.

Aquaman's belief is too shallow for this. He wants people to like the surface world too. And Ocean Master's argument is that the surface world is polluting the ocean. The conflict can't be taken too far with that foundation. Eventually the films finds a bit more depth in the fact that they share a mother. And that in it of itself doesn't go a long way. The interactions between Arthur Curry and his love interest Mera does not reveal a lot in ways of characters of neither. Even the side characters are more interesting for the charisma of their actors than the content of the characters.

So why is the films so enjoyable? Well, I've hinted at this before but the directing and acting really helps. The directing isn't perfect but James Wan is a competent choice for a movie like this. And you have to give him a lot of credit for making Aquaman work. There a scene when Arthur Curry is literally communicating with fishes, and it was made to look genuinely impressive and not silly. Mera's is not used all too often – from what I can gather she's a water-bender – but when she goes to town with it, it is really cool. The sense of tension, discovery, adventure and even a pinch of horror are all ingredients that Wan included to spice up the film. And it really works. The movie for the most part entertains me. Unlike in films like Justice League or Batman V Superman I was along for the ride – I was thoroughly engaged by the film. I whined earlier about the lack of character depths but I do care about most of these characters. When an action sequence is going down, I want to see them survive. When these characters are at the lowest low, I feel bad for them.

The world-building in this film is also pretty good. Although I'm still annoyed about how these movies are just content with showing us things but rarely exploring how the world actually works. The movie goes through a lot of locations, many of them well-designed and awe-inspiring. There's a bit of mythology which is intriguing enough for me. And because of that reason, I keep wanting to see more of this world. I wanted to learn more about the different kingdoms and people living under the sea. You almost wished the movie was a TV series where it could perhaps explore the different themes more.

I'll a drop a final good word for the performances which are serviceable for the most part. I don't think anyone was a stand-out. Okay, maybe Willem Dafoe but that goes without saying at this point. Jason Mamoa was okay. Way better than he was in Justice League. But that's not a high bar, is it...

Again, this a film that is written pretty mediocre but uplifted by the strong directing, performances and production designs. I will give it props for keeping the DCEU alive, I don't think that's an easy job. I can't say I'm hoping for more of this, but definitely use this film as a standard. So long as you are on the same level or higher than this film, you've got a pretty good franchise.

Grade: C