Chloé Zhao’s film attempts to explore zealotry and heresy but can only go so far.
The movie by Chloe Zhao makes an effort to examine zealotry and heresy, but it can only extend that far. The main dispute concerns God’s creation encountering their own maker’s will, as the ultimate battle happens between those thinking that their maker’s will has to be carried out at all costs, and the ones who choose to pursue their own free will. The movie also includes other topics about love, family, devotion and mankind civilization. This idea regarding the boundaries of religion is relevant to the Eternals storyline as well as to Marvel fans and the company itself. Everybody is put to the test by Eternals, and regrettably they all fail.
To those that want a quick recap of the action, Gemma Chan’s Sersi, who inherits the communication orb from Salma Hayek’s Ajak following her demise, finds out from the Celestial, Arishem, who is also their God, that they aren’t protecting humanity, but rather just looking after it to prevent it from being wiped out by Deviants. As Celestials seed planets with new beings of their kind, they have to grow on the human population, and the planet is destroyed when a new Celestial emerges, producing the energy able to form billions of new lives. That means Celestials wipe out tens of billions in order to create hundreds of billions, from a utilitarian perspective. Nonetheless, the majority of the Eternals choose to revolt and halt the creation of a fresh Celestial after discovering they are fabricated creations and do not reside in a world called Olympia as had been led to believe. They are now at odds with Richard Madden’s Ikaris, who was aware of the truth and was resolute to prevent his own kinds from progressing, even if it meant murdering them out of loyalty to Arishem. Ikaris’ resolve wavers when his passion for Sersi makes it impossible for him to do so. As the Eternals halt the ascent of the Earth’s Celestial, Ikaris, who cannot bear the consequences of his actions, flies straight into the sun and perishes.
Since Ikaris is motivated by his beliefs rather than a desire for power, he’s among Marvel‘s more intriguing antagonists. He made this choice since he has dedicated his whole life to be in the service of Arishem, rather than despising his fellow, humanity, or feeling individually wronged. The movie looks at the extent you will stretch to if your whole self is built on your devotion to God. It’s also important to realize that though Ajak, and later Sersi, interact in a direct way with this God, Ikaris doesn’t. This means that his beliefs are founded on his faith, instead of being in the service of a God who communicates with him straightly. Are you willing to murder your own kind in addition to turning your back on them? If your maker wanted all the residents on this globe to perish, would you allow it to happen? Well, how can you reject faith when it is the source of your whole life’s meaning?
Every single one of them is an intriguing issue, but Eternals never succeeds in addressing them satisfactorily since the protagonists must triumph and uphold their moral character throughout the process. This denotes that Ikaris can’t be murdered by any of his good fellows, and he can’t force himself to murder Sersi since he’s in love with her, a love that’s defined in the most extensive terms possible. Finally, Ikaris chooses that if he can neither obey Arishem’s orders nor spend the rest of his life with his kind (which, of course, is totally uncomfortable since he orchestrated Ajak’s death), he should just commit suicide by flying straight to the sun, to terminate all upcoming disputes and consideration of the restrictions of his beliefs. He had to commit suicide as his faith was subordinated to love, due to the fact that he killed Ajak and betrayed his own people, not because the movie invents a plausible justification for it. His passing has less to do with his religion than it does with the fundamental morality of a superhero film.
Since the movie is plainly overcrowded for the plot it is attempting to convey, Eternals does a mediocre job of serving every theme that exists. It’s not all that shocking when the movie received unfavorable reviews from critics. High anticipations for the most recent Marvel Cinematics Universe chapter were only reasonable considering the accomplishment of the franchise and the credentials for its Academy Award-winning filmmaker. However, as the whole film doesn’t hold together, critics have given it a harsher review than more recent Marvel films such as Black Widow and Shang-Chi. These films aren’t as ambitious as Eternals, yet they are also more at ease with the thing they’re trying to accomplish, something Eternals fails to achieve.
Nonetheless, a number of Marvel supporters have interpreted this as a strike to their beliefs since Rotten Tomatoes ratings are currently seen as some sort of objective assessment of quality instead of a flawed evaluation of critical viewpoints. They held the view that Marvel, already producing quality entertainment for more than a decade, will continue to do so. Fandom and identity are intertwined, so when “things are bad,” being a fan must also be bad, and vice versa. This conclusion cannot stand. As a result, some (not all of) Marvel fans, have doubted the validity of the Rotten Tomatoes ratings since it contradicts their beliefs. Because Eternals has to be excellent, critics have to be “wrong”.
Marvel, though, is not the Almighty. They are a studio and a division of The Walt Disney Company, and studios occasionally produce films that, for various factors, fail to appeal to certain target demographics. That’s not a hint that they’re biased against Marvel, undervalue diversity, set the bar higher than expected, more critical of the film since it’s made by a woman, or any other claim that implies that they have some sort of collective agenda as opposed to just a group of people having similar problems with the same film.
The bigger problem isn’t that Eternals got a “rotten” review; it’s that the film itself demonstrated the boundaries of the extent to which Marvel was ready to push its narrative. A Hollywood company won’t cross certain lines while producing a superhero film for a wide range of fans, even though this is a film in which the protagonists revolt against their God. The studio simply doesn’t want to stir up controversy; instead, Marvel wants to be well-liked since that means more merchandise sales, more revenue for Disney, and happier stockholders for themselves. Marvel was unable to produce a film in which the protagonists declare that it is the moment to destroy Arishem, their maker, and all of his followers. That isn’t a common metaphor, is it? Therefore, rather than being a vengeful God who penalizes his creations for straying from the faith, the Eternals’ hedges are a place in which Arishem survives for another period and has the opportunity to judge the Eternals for their heresy. The discussion comes to a conclusion when Ikaris, his most loyal follower, decides to commit suicide.
Since Marvel films are made to wow their viewers rather than to confront them, Eternals cannot be more intriguing than that. In good taste, too! Those kinds of films have a place in the landscape and are well-liked for a cause. However, Eternals demonstrates the upper bounds of what a Marvel film can offer its fans. Since these companies aren’t in the business of making inconvenient films for audiences, it can’t truly be an examination of faith, zealotry, or heresy. They trust their fans to remain seated as they tell a tale about magical extraterrestrials and stones that can kill half of all sentient life. They have less belief that the audience will be pleased to watch superheroes who struggle with what it means to have one’s faith challenged and try to go against the wishes of their maker. Although that is a fantastic story, no one should have confidence in a superhero studio to speak it out.
