>> I've re-watched the set of movies several times since New Year's Day, while knitting for charity, and each time I * try & to see an ethical Nick Fury doing his best to mitigate the World Council, the rising horde of mega-villains, et cetera, and deal with the tons of BS simply trying to stop "mundane" terrorists on a daily basis would cause. <<
I have seen a handful of fics that portray Fury in a positive light, sometimes rather well done; but it's like me trying to justify all the craptastic writing of how people mess with JARVIS. Lots of makework to shore up a very wobbly bit of entertainment.
But hey, that's all awesome practice. These are writing mistakes; these are the problems they cause; these are ways of fixing them. Take that and learn from it, so as to write original material that does not make people want to hit it with a fix-it wrench.
>> Each and every time, I'm left feeling like I'm TRYING to read into the character something which is NOT implied in canon. "Mistakes were made. Others will be blamed," is a perfect example: the actor's delivery is dry and COULD imply a subtle disapproval... BUT. <<
Yeah, Fury loves the passive exonerative. Compare that with how Steve, Phil, and even Tony own up to their mistakes. It's a key point of honor. How do you respond when you mess up? Do you try to skive out of it, or try to make up for it?
>> But. The problem I have repeatedly run into is the flat acting. EVERYTHING he does expresses machismo, arrogance, impatience with others... There IS no subtlety in facial expression for the voice to enhance or play against. <<
It's an issue, yes. The few times Fury puts real emotion into things, it's usually when he's tormenting someone, like mocking Loki in the cage. That's not only cruel, it's a waste of opportunity.
>> Compare the actor's work as "Mr. Glass" in Unbreakable; it's definitely NOT a lack of emotional depth or subtlety. <<
Yeah, that was one of the fucking creepiest villains ever. I love when people write villains who rise to power based on something other than sheer physical strength.
>> Take that same line, and change the situation slightly. Loki somehow KNOWS about the Council and the nuke, and uses the same words to mock Nick Fury... yet I can definitely imagine MORE layers beneath the mocking, including pity. From Loki. Conveyed by expression and voice within the same constraining words. <<
Well, Loki does show hints of care and compassion in the movie. Aside from suborning Clint's free will -- which Loki was obliged to do -- he actually handled Clint very well. Praise, asking him what he saw and what he needed, those are major considerations for Clint.
>> All of which leaves me wondering more about WHY Nick Fury is reduced to cardboard in the role which WILL largely define Jackson's career after his death. <<
Mmm ... likely a combination of things. Laziness. Lack of interest in that particular character, only using him as a plot device. A general tendency to mishandle characters of color. Possibly even a belief that might makes right.
>> My hypothesis: the director. Either their picture of Fury is little more than the embodiment of his name, or he's supposed to be some kind of mega-macho wish-fulfillment fantasy... I don't care which. <<
Also plausible. Fury as in rage, that would fit. Fury as in erinyes, that doesn't; but Tony does.
>> That's the worst part about the whole discussion: I cannot invest enough intellectual or emotional capital in Nick Fury as a character to be bothered to tease apart his reasoning or motivations UNLESS it is as a foil to the Avengers, or specifically as he relates to Phil, <<
He doesn't interest me as a character of his own, given the canon sample, but ...
>> Natasha and Clint as SHIELD agents. <<
... I need to account for him in the series, and I like hitting back. But it's a rough ride for Natasha, Clint, and Phil sometimes. They're invested in SHIELD, but Phil especially is friends with Nick, or was before Nick's moral fibre rotted away. Phil is still clinging to that, and it hurts him to see Nick do crazy immoral shit.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Re: Why I love Phil--
Date: 2014-03-31 06:15 am (UTC)I have seen a handful of fics that portray Fury in a positive light, sometimes rather well done; but it's like me trying to justify all the craptastic writing of how people mess with JARVIS. Lots of makework to shore up a very wobbly bit of entertainment.
But hey, that's all awesome practice. These are writing mistakes; these are the problems they cause; these are ways of fixing them. Take that and learn from it, so as to write original material that does not make people want to hit it with a fix-it wrench.
>> Each and every time, I'm left feeling like I'm TRYING to read into the character something which is NOT implied in canon. "Mistakes were made. Others will be blamed," is a perfect example: the actor's delivery is dry and COULD imply a subtle disapproval... BUT. <<
Yeah, Fury loves the passive exonerative. Compare that with how Steve, Phil, and even Tony own up to their mistakes. It's a key point of honor. How do you respond when you mess up? Do you try to skive out of it, or try to make up for it?
>> But. The problem I have repeatedly run into is the flat acting. EVERYTHING he does expresses machismo, arrogance, impatience with others... There IS no subtlety in facial expression for the voice to enhance or play against. <<
It's an issue, yes. The few times Fury puts real emotion into things, it's usually when he's tormenting someone, like mocking Loki in the cage. That's not only cruel, it's a waste of opportunity.
>> Compare the actor's work as "Mr. Glass" in Unbreakable; it's definitely NOT a lack of emotional depth or subtlety. <<
Yeah, that was one of the fucking creepiest villains ever. I love when people write villains who rise to power based on something other than sheer physical strength.
>> Take that same line, and change the situation slightly. Loki somehow KNOWS about the Council and the nuke, and uses the same words to mock Nick Fury... yet I can definitely imagine MORE layers beneath the mocking, including pity. From Loki. Conveyed by expression and voice within the same constraining words. <<
Well, Loki does show hints of care and compassion in the movie. Aside from suborning Clint's free will -- which Loki was obliged to do -- he actually handled Clint very well. Praise, asking him what he saw and what he needed, those are major considerations for Clint.
>> All of which leaves me wondering more about WHY Nick Fury is reduced to cardboard in the role which WILL largely define Jackson's career after his death. <<
Mmm ... likely a combination of things. Laziness. Lack of interest in that particular character, only using him as a plot device. A general tendency to mishandle characters of color. Possibly even a belief that might makes right.
>> My hypothesis: the director. Either their picture of Fury is little more than the embodiment of his name, or he's supposed to be some kind of mega-macho wish-fulfillment fantasy... I don't care which. <<
Also plausible. Fury as in rage, that would fit. Fury as in erinyes, that doesn't; but Tony does.
>> That's the worst part about the whole discussion: I cannot invest enough intellectual or emotional capital in Nick Fury as a character to be bothered to tease apart his reasoning or motivations UNLESS it is as a foil to the Avengers, or specifically as he relates to Phil, <<
He doesn't interest me as a character of his own, given the canon sample, but ...
>> Natasha and Clint as SHIELD agents. <<
... I need to account for him in the series, and I like hitting back. But it's a rough ride for Natasha, Clint, and Phil sometimes. They're invested in SHIELD, but Phil especially is friends with Nick, or was before Nick's moral fibre rotted away. Phil is still clinging to that, and it hurts him to see Nick do crazy immoral shit.
>> What a waste! <<
Agreed.